This user's email is checked every 4 months unless notified on this page.

Hello..[edit]

Hello, I was thinking of being added to the verified users list. I believe I can reliably check IPs for open proxies and I think I've been around on WP:OP for awhile. If you believe I can do this, can you please add me to the list? Thanks either way, regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This certainly seems reasonable. Traditionally I apply a little test, comprising a few personally selected IP addresses. I hope that's OK. Let me dig around... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure! Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

OK UY Scuti, here's a selection. In each case supply some background information. If a block is appropriate, estimate a suitable duration. Take your time :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Block, or no block?

• 80.90.56.171 (talk · contribs · block log), 85.158.138.19 (talk · contribs · block log), 165.225.80.120 (talk · contribs · block log), 45.40.143.57 (talk · contribs · block log)

Unblock?

• 184.89.89.195 (talk · contribs · block log), 70.248.232.125 (talk · contribs · block log), 59.37.163.176 (talk · contribs · block log), 46.39.192.48 (talk · contribs · block log)

• 80.90.56.171 - Tor node (port 19001 via SSL), I see this IP is also static and has been assigned a hostname. Block for 3 years—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Up for 7 days and not an exit server[1] :p though yeah, it's probably relatively stable. No one said this would be easy :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 85.158.138.19 - This I believe is a proxy server with limited access (port 80 and 3128), allowing only certain and (or) ones having authentication info. Hard blocking this may involve high collateral. I also don't see particularly vandal/disruptive edits, no block is what I'd suggest—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Y MessageLabs, owned by Symantec the anti-virus people, corporate 'filter' proxy. Not 'open' by any reasonable standard. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 165.225.80.120 - This is similar to the one above, belonging to Zscaler (providing SECaaS) with limited access, requiring authentication. Not an open proxy, no block—UY Scuti ^Talk 20:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Y -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 45.40.143.57 - That went well... Allocation belongs to GoDaddy LLC, IP seems to be static. Open proxy operating on port 80 redirecting both SSL and non-SSL requests. Could be blocked for an year.45.40.143.57 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Extra points for the comedy surprise entrance. Not much to argue with there. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 184.89.89.195 - This is not an open proxy, block log suggests this is due to socking concerns. Harblocked to prevent further disruption. No unblocks without first contacting the blocking admin or a checkuser. —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Interesting one, this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 70.248.232.125 - This I believe is a dynamic IP, there is nothing on it right now, could be unblocked.—UY Scuti ^Talk 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  Done -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 59.37.163.176 - This is very likely an open proxy on port 1080 and indeed has been for a long time. The server allowed connections very recently, but not the time I checked. This needs to be further examined (on hold)> But I would say, no unblocking for now.—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  [2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• 46.39.192.48 - This is only an entry node on 8080, the exit node is 46.39.202.32 (and the one that should be blocked). Hence can be unblocked. Fun it was--46.39.202.32 (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  OK, thanks for your time. Give me some time to parse the results. Maybe have a think about 59.37.163.176? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  It had to do with SOCKS version I had in my browser (v5).. The proxy only supports SOCKS v4. I would've made an edit here, but horribly poor speed it was.—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

  There!—UY Scuti ^Talk 03:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, should I also include a duration of the block (if applicable) while doing proxy checks? —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

For existing blocks, this probably isn't necessary. For IPs which need to be blocked, this might be useful information. For example, some are obviously only short term proxies, while others have been and will be around for years. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to it ;-)[edit]

I've been watching the new user creation log like a hawk and I was juuust about to report This account will be blocked immediately and Infinity to AIV, but you caught it first. Thanks for being on top of it :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

blocked Infinity? Quite right too.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar

Zzuuzz, I owe you many thanks, fist bumps, and pints of beer for your efforts at watching the AIV reports page, and for your agility with blocking the sock puppet accounts that have been repeatedly (attempting) to troll Wikipedia. Your dedication and attentiveness is something that many should look up to when it comes to becoming a skilled and intelligent editor and Administrator. I might run for RFA again this August; I hope that I become as good of an Administrator as you. Major props, dude. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Thanks for blocking the 4th troll. Winterysteppe (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)