User talk:Favonian/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Favonian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Caught Jimbo pretty quick there, didn't we? Bishonen | talk 17:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

We rock! :) Favonian (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo's a pest, isn't he? Bishonen | talk 17:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

Wikipedia will have to get along without him. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Also anti-vandalism barnstar. Even though you're a sysop, I still have to give you a handful of credit for being on top of your game. Thanks for your hard work. It is greatly appreciated. JustBerry (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! As an admin, most of the response I get is in the form of abuse, so a star is much appreciated! Favonian (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. See you around! --JustBerry (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind ensuring that none of their contribs have affected the mainspace or user spaces? Also, thanks for your efforts - I had actually reported it on WP:AIV here prior: [1] --JustBerry (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In spite of his alter ego's efforts, all article space edits have been reverted. Oshwah will probably take care of the droppings on his talk page. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

SinusDrake seems like an obvious HarverCarter sock. Calidum 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Calidum: Though I have blocked two of his incarnations, who were haunting the Eisenhower article, I don't feels sufficiently confident to swing the ban hammer over this one. I recommend adding yet another entry to the SPI. Favonian (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do, chief. Calidum 03:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

... for reverting and blocking. Evlekis lost a whole drawer full of socks today, because of his own incompetence. Socks that he has been creating over several days, probably to be used this weekend, so he's a bit upset. Thomas.W ^talk 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

My heart bleeds for his loss! Favonian (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I see you've stolen my top spot in the edit filter 294 log. I'm annoyed. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC).

On the article Avar Khaganate there is currently one sourced language listed Slavic. However, on the Pannonian Avars language section there are 6 sourced languages listed.

• Oghur Turkic ~ 3 sources that link to unviewable books
• Tungusic ~ 3 sources non appear to be in English, but I had posted a legible source in the Avar Khaganate talk page months ago.
• Caucasian ~ 1 source unviewable book
• Mongolic ~ 1 source unviewable book
• Iranian ~ 1 source with quote
• Slavic ~ 1 source which appears to be the same one used on Avar Khaganate.
  

Should I add the other 5 languages despite Oghur Turkic, Caucasian and Mongolic being unverifiable? AND, in the book, "The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe, page 258, note 66, "The Avars seem to have spoken an Eastern Turkic language....". Should I add Eastern Turkic language instead of Oghur Turkic, since there is a source for it? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to ask if you could delete these obscene, anti-semitic vandalism edits [2] [3] [4] here?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mr Fink: Done. Favonian (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you recently removed my additions to the 'see also' section of the article on socialism of national socialism and right-wing socialism, with the explaination: "Revert to revision 680085460 dated 2015-09-08 16:38:23 by MusikAnimal using popups." Please forgive me, but I don't understand why they were removed. Do the popups refer to me, because if they do I don understand the concept. These edits had previously been reverted because I did not include an edit description, and so I then added such a description. I included them because I genuinely believe that they relate to the concept of socialism as covered in this article, but too far outside the scope of it to be included in the article proper. I eagerly await your response. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aardwolf A380: Terribly sorry about that! I really did go "a bridge too far" when I rolled back the combined vandalism of a bunch of pimple-squeezing dimwits, who were on one of their habitual rampages. Feel free to reinstate your edits and, hopefully, forgive a tempestuous and overworked admin. Favonian (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Favonian! Everyone makes mistakes. Keep up the good work ;)

Regards, Aardwolf A380 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardwolf A380 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian. Could you have a look at identical but uncited edits by different I/Ps on Ben Gummer? Many thanks JRPG (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG: Same person and definitely up to no good. May not be worthwhile blocking based on so few and scattered edits, but a resumption of the campaign will change that. Favonian (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for protecting the article. Based on editing style, references used and the POV pushed I'm 99% certain that it's a sock of a fringepusher who was active in 2013 and 2014, but I don't have the time right now for digging for diffs and filing a report at SPI. Annika Dlb is probably also connected to it, based on both the user name (Swedish female given name), the very first edit (compare it to the very first edit of Åsa Gunilla) and the article edited. Thomas.W ^talk 10:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The two "females" certainly look similar, and an SPI may well be called for. I also looked at the old Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finnedi, but apart from a fascination with all things Kvenland, the similarity was not sufficient for me to swing the ban hammer. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Finnedi case is probably connected to this too, but the SPI only shows a small part of what has happened. The edits in 2013 and 2014 I'm thinking about were pushing fringe theories on multiple articles about Finns being the original population of most of Sweden, including all of Svealand, not Germanic Scandinavians, based on the theories of Kyösti Julku and original research/synth, i.e. the same POV, the same sources and the same OR/SYNTH that Åsa Gunilla is adding on Skellefteå now, but on a larger scale. Thomas.W ^talk 10:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I now have a firm connection between the edits I was talking about and the new users Åsa Gunilla and Annika Dlb, check the edits of Britaxxx. And in this edit Åsa Gunilla admit that they're also Annika Dlb, obviously after having checked my contributions and read this discussion. But there's a lot more digging to do, at least as far back as 2012 on multiple articles... Thomas.W ^talk 13:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have found a considerable number of obviously connected accounts going all the way back to 2011 (and there are obviously many more left to find), but I also found a very recent obviously connected user, Karin Andxxx, making the same tendentious edits using the same fringe sources, and making the same signature edit on their user page. A user account that was active as recently as yesterday morning, European time, i.e. after Åsa Gunilla was created, but on a different article, proving that the person behind all of this is using multiple throw-away accounts, one account per article, in a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny, which by itself is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Thomas.W ^talk 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Impressive sleuthing. ;) Considering the long-term nature of this, you really should put together an SPI with a request for CU. It will also make it much easier to deal with future incarnations that will no doubt pop up. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll file an SPI-report, but I want to find the really incriminating bits first, things I know are there since I've seen them a couple of years ago, but haven't found yet. Thomas.W ^talk 16:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Annika Dlb (talk · contribs · count), Karin Andxxx (talk · contribs · count), and Åsa Gunilla (talk · contribs · count) are  Confirmed. I've blocked all three without tags. Let me know when you file an SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Guess I can lift the protection from the article now. Favonian (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I had enough evidence of violations of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy to merit a CU so I thought I'd get that done first, and take care of the paperwork later, when I know for sure if it's a "free standing" case or if it should be added to an existing case. There's at least some connection to Finnedi, with interaction between Finnedi and an account used by this individual, but there could be a lot more since there are many more articles to check. Thomas.W ^talk 20:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you please delete this edit summary? Also, that edit itself is just trolling and racist attack. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. I was trying to move a page out of my userspace but some how it moved my talk page? I dunno... Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Given your block rationale of "account compromised or something", I've changed the block settings so that Rgloucester is not autoblocked and not prevented from creating another account: neither of those would be good for someone who's simply been the victim of a compromised account. Of course, if you meant to include autoblock and prevent account creation, feel free to restore your original block settings, but I'd ask that you use a rationale that explains why those settings are appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't clear. In other words, if he did something that warrants autoblock and block-account-creation, would you restore them with a rationale that says what he was doing? I don't know the case. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The case was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900#RGloucester, and there was a clear consensus for the second part of the block comment, "... or something". RGloucester went completely ballistic, and not for the first time, so for him to return would require a parlay, and creating a new account would amount to block evasion. At any rate, the current discussion on his talk page and Beeblebrox's reblocking without talk page access has made the point moot. Regards, Favonian (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for helping me understand. "Compromised or something" made me think that it was something akin to compromised, something that wasn't his fault. Had I understood you properly, I wouldn't have modified the block. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear on this, although I disagreed with Nyttend's reasoning for changing the block settings, my reblock was entirely based on Rgloucester's latest absurd comments regarding this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you have a look at User talk:2600:1006:B11B:719C:14E8:C473:9B00:7111? As far as I know you may have excellent reasons for the block, but I can't find any evidence other than the one edit mentioned in the unblock request, which is not on its own enough. Also, I have checked a number of the IP addresses known to have been used by the blocked editor, and all of them geolocate to the United Kingdom, whereas 2600:1006:B11B:719C:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 geolocates to the USA, and I can't find any evidence that it is a proxy. If you know of other evidence that I haven't seen, I'd be grateful if you would let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That was definitely a screw-up. I have unblocked and apologized to the IP. Favonian (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Oops, thanks! DBaK (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure! Happens to me all the time. Favonian (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that IP block via AIV just now. I absolutely do not understand what is going on here ... best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Understanding is probably impossible for sane people like you and me, but pattern recognition reveals that it was yet another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/New Order vandal. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian,

You recently blocked UniversalFan as a sock. The autoblock is catching students working on a wikipedia assignment at Rollins College. Given that the master is (recently) active, it's probably not feasible to change the block settings, but I'd like to be able to figure out a way to allow the students to edit from the school. Would it be possible to exempt the students in the course for the duration of the term. The instructor, PCFleming05 can verify that they're his students. If not, do you know when the autoblock will stop triggering? You can reply here or contact me via email if you prefer (adamwikiedu.org). Thanks for your help. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@Adam (Wiki Ed): It's tedious and not uncontroversial to grant IP block exemption to a whole group. However, the auto-block probably isn't the biggest of deterrents, so I'll lift it and see what happens. If you should happen to identify the mind-numbingly repetitive vandal, please give him my regards and flunk him! Favonian (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're totally right about exempting a large group. Figured I'd ask all the same. :) If you need to re-apply the autoblock can you ping me so I can give PCFleming05 a heads up? Thanks for your help. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!! PCFleming05 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Favonian, not sure why your talk page is on my watchlist, but I clicked on this thread for some reason, and now I have a question (not disagreeing with your solution, just curious about it). I understand how it would be tedious to give IPBE to a whole class, but confused why it would be controversial. Because one of the students could be UniversalFan? Or just because a large number of them at one time raises eyebrows? Tedium aside, it seems like a tailor-made solution. But I've always kind of felt that our institutional reluctance to give out IPBE more liberally than we do was odd. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't expressing my own opinion, but deferring to "our institutional reluctance" (nice phrase – brings back memories of the old East Germany). Not much left of the rebellious attitude of my youth, I regret to say. :( Favonian (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. "tediousness" is probably the controlling factor anyway, if the class is very big. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reason to suspect that this IP user is a user that was blocked for edit warring, and has been sockpuppeting. He is going through all the edits made by User:Richard Harvey, and reverting them. New User Person (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@New User Person: Does indeed, and another admin has blocked him. This is an old, if not valued, customer: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Martial arts vandal. We block them as they come along. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Favonian. The problematic Worcester-based climate editor who you've blocked before (see here for a reminder) is active again (well, they're never really inactive...). See here for the latest battle zones... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Indeed he is – or was. Thanks for keeping watch! Favonian (talk) 06:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't suppose there is anything more pro-active (such as a rangeblock) that can be done with this editor, as they keep popping up on different IP addresses (here is another recent one)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks, Favonian. As well as multiple instances of abuse in previous edit summaries, this anon editor has now started to post on my Talk Page, presumably as some kind of taunt. The claim seems to ring a bell, however, as I'm sure I originally saw this pattern of editing geolocating to Oxford. I guess "Worcester" is just the location of the local Sky hub. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite and Martinevans123: All are manifestations of Weathereditor (talk · contribs), a rather persistent pest. Can't say what his precise location is, but Worcester is the name that pops up must often. Geolocation (certainly in the UK) is not something on which you should base a drone strike, tempting though it may be. On a related topic, range blocking is probably not an option, his IPs being rather scattered and his ISP much frequented by more competent editors. Whac-A-Mole is our parlor game of choice under these circumstances. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Moles I can deal with, but it's getting a bit like "hunt the hog"! Thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Favonian! I saw you reverted this IP at Invasion of England (1326) as block evasion. I've been trying to audit the extent of disruption, which for me began at 2004 French–Ivorian clashes, where they've added drastic unsourced claims about the number of casualties. On that page it has been going on for years. I've narrowed down the ranges to 83.113.0.0/17 and 86.208.0.0/12. Do you know if there is a documented LTA case? Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: There isn't, as far as I know, but it should probably be named after LeHappiste (talk · contribs), whom I blocked a while back. Both before and after that event, strikingly similar edits were made by IPs from the Toulon area, like the ranges you gave. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to put something together. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, DaveBronx is also very likely a sock of Azul411. As evidence, I'd submit:

• the limited but sole interest in Galileo affair - [5]
• use of the term "peacock" as justification for content removal, like past Azul socks - [6]
• the simple user page and talk page descriptions - perhaps not as creepy as some other Azul sock user and talk page descriptions, however.

best, -Darouet (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed he is. Blocked and tagged. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. How anyone could care so much and so strangely about some particular aspect of Galileo and his life is beyond me. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

These two editors appear to be edit warring over multiple articles.

• Racism
• Colored
• Slavery in contemporary Africa
• Oromo people‎
• History of slavery
• Sonni Ali
  

Just to list a few. Thought I would let you know. The topic of the edit warring disagreement is over a website http://www.arabslavetrade.com being used as a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Jeez! Both managed to break 3RR, so I've blocked them for three days. Favonian (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've noted at Rupert Loup's talk page that an early unblock for him would probably result in his reverting Inayity again and that the articles may been protection. We need to figure out a way of stopping this. Doug Weller (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: An IP has undertaken to explain the finer nuances of edit warring and 3RR to Rupert. Assuming the message sinks in, I'd be willing to lift the block concurrently with a full protection (one week?) of the articles listed above. Question is: what to do about Inayity? The response to the block has not exactly given the impression of contrition, but the discussion, which has unfortunately sprouted on both COIN and NPOVN, would become a bit one-sided without his comments. Favonian (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm not happy with the COIN one. And of course this isn't a new disagreement between the two. Unblock both. Doug Weller (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Loup's been unblocked. Doug Weller (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.220.96.248. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks! Favonian (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian. Could you have a look at the I/Ps currently giving their opinion on Jeremy Hunt Theres a party conference going on so this will get worse Regards JRPG (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Now, we can't have that, can we? Semi-protected for three days. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. JRPG (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you be able to take a look at the actions of user:Victar?Note messages to Andrew Dalby & Andrew Lancaster This editor has been canvassing to get a false consensus on John the Fearless.

Using the Medlands source to canvass support for his false consensus, Victar admitted that Medlands is an unreliable source, when asked directly by PBS. After Victar's attempt at being disingenuous(ie. lying):

• "If you actually read through the various discussion, there is no ruling decision that says Medlands should not be used as a source, particularly as a secondary source."[7]
• "Yes, that is one end of the argument, which PBS makes in his opening statement on the page linked above, but there are various rebuttals to it o the page are also valid. Again, my argument is that there is no one definiative decision on the inclusion of Medlands sources, and thus should not be removed outright. I don't see why you continue to deny this. "[8]
  

I presented what was clearly stated on the talk page of John the Fearless article:

• "I think that two points need to be raised. The first is Victar do you now accept that Cawley on his own does not meet the requirements of a Wikipedia reliable source? The second is that the section in Cawley used for a citation:~~carries next to no citations to reliable sources (ie Cawley is not saying "I got the information it from this source" but rather "trust me, I know I am correct")."~~PBS[9]
• "I've never not excepted that. What I objected to was Kansas Bear deleting the content without putting a warning first, then after I found new secondary sources, deleting the content once again regardless." ~~Victar[10]
  

This is why Victar, after lying about the decision regarding Medlands and his own statement that it is unreliable is canvassing support to keep Medlands as a source on the John the Fearless article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I contacted PBS on his talk page, but have not received a response.[11] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian. Can you comment on this user? Regards JRPG (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you improve and correct the mistakes and to create another seasons : List of Real Madrid C.F. seasons. Thank you. The first seasons do not have correct information, I have on my computer, lists with all the official games played by Real Madrid, I can send it by e-mail to you. I wrote in Microsoft Word, but they are different format compared with the one from Wikipedia.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, Please protect this page for a month. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.15.77 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not without compelling reason. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian. You might want to look at this; I'm afraid the pattern looks rather familiar... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: It does, but I'd like to be certain, so you should open an SPI with CU request. Favonian (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the Noyon article, I found a copy & pasted sentence from an unreliable source. I clearly explained this issue on the talk page of the Noyon article.[12] IP 2.223.127.247, has chosen to edit war[13][14][15] said sentence into the article, blatantly ignoring the talk page and posting this rant:
"NO YOU'RE GOING TO REPORT ME TO ADMIN COZ YOUR FRUSTRATED THAT THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE SHOWS JOHN CALVIN WAS NOT BORN IN FRANCE AND HIS HOME TOWN WAS SOLD TO FRANCE IN 1559 HAS SET IN BOTH THE JOHN CALVIN WIKI, NOYON WIKI AND TREATY OF Treaty of (or Peace of) Cateau-Cambrésis WIKI, PLUS A GOOGLEBOOKS LINK CRAMMED WITH REFERENCES. GO AHEAD, IF YOU THINK HISTORIANS PULLED IT ALL OUT THEIR ARSES. BTW, PLEASE STOP WITH THE THREATS, WE KNOW YOUR GAME, UR JUST TRYING TO ENGINEER SOME PETTY BEEF SO YOU CAN GET ME CENSORED FROM COMMENTING ON WIKI PAGES. UNCLE SAM MUST BE PROUD"
Judging from the IP's nationalistic tone and unwillingness to discuss the issue on the talk page, I do not believe this IP is here to build an encyclopedia.(another example) & (another) --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Somewhat incoherent, but probably not here to contribute productively. On the other hand, it's been two weeks since the last edit, and the entire "career" only spanned two days, so a block would be pointless.

By the way, I'm not going to be around here that much in the foreseeable future, so you'll be better off reporting cases like this to the appropriate notice boards. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Favonian. Hope everything is alright where you are. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You recently accused me of edit-warring. For your information, I was reverting to the original version of the page. The edit had been made without discussion on the talk page.Zacksfenton (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It's still edit warring. Read the definition of that concept instead of just removing the note from your talk page. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

92.26.80.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NE Ent 16:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! Thought everybody knew him by now. It's Vote (X) for Change, a perennial, site banned troll. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. NE Ent 16:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Egregious racist politivandal placed improper template -- thanks! 50.174.200.16 (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to remove it yourself – admin privileges are not required. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:12.12.220.130 is vandalizing again. You placed a block notice on that users talk page on 20:57, 9 September 2013. Can the block be made permanent? Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: We don't block IPs permanently, but as this one saw fit to resume vandalism immediately after the expiration of the previous block, they have been sent off for three year. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Favonian, there are a large number of openings on Arbcom this year (I believe it's 9) and a number of us are hoping to get some no-nonsense people to run who can reform it to be less of a law court. You're one of the goodhearted and strongwilled admins on my personal list. Would you consider running? Or if not, who would you consider a good candidate who is not already running? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Yngvadottir, for those very kind and much appreciated words. I must, however, decline your gentle nudging for a variety of reason:

1. As may be divined from my sluggish response (and the banner at the top of this page), I'm not around as much as I used to. Real life has become somewhat interesting, and symptoms of Wikipedia battle fatigue are beginning to show.
2. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that I'm goodhearted and strongwilled, I have a couple of weaknesses that would be fatal in an ArbCom member. I'm not much of a "people person", and following bureaucratic procedures is really not my forte – just ask my bosses, past and present. As a days work for an Arb consists of pouring over endless statements from people with strong opinions and negotiating compromises that satisfy no one, my life would be miserable, and I'd make sure others got to share the pain.
3. If I ran, I wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in an age of global warming. I'm not a content producer. While some believe that should disqualify me even as an admin, I can sort of defend (to myself) holding that position. After all, I mostly just take out the trash. It's different for an Arb. I hold the real, content-producing editors in high esteem and, incidentally, applaud you (too little, too late) for your decision to unblock The Editor Formerly Known As Malleus, doing what you considered right even when having your sword broken was the inevitable outcome. Having thus nailed my flag rather feebly to the mast, I have probably also convinced a substantial number of editors that I shouldn't be placed within ten city blocks of ArbCom.

Once again, thank you ever so much and sorry that I can't be of much help. As for suggesting another candidate, it's probably symptomatic that I thought of Floquenbeam, who'd probably be disincline to rejoin the fray. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve". --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, somewhat less egotistically: there is no way would I get elected again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No coincidence that the same guy went on record for "War Is Hell!" Favonian (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As maglev technology is developing rapidly every day it is very difficult for me to update Wikipedia pages conventionally. I have found that current maglev information is freely available on Facebook and I believe users of Wikipedia that need current information will appreciate learning of that source under the "See Also" heading. ≈≈≈≈ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick.clennett.8920 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rick.clennett.8920: Among the many things that Wikipedia is not you'll find "newspaper". We do not strive to provide the latest bit of news, let alone discussions. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

At heliacal rising and winged sun. I know you've already blocked one of his IPs, but we'll probably need semiprotection for those articles. And no doubt for his other "Osiris-Orion" hangouts before long. A. Parrot (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed he is. I have protected the two articles for a year and will try to keep my eyes peeled for further activity. Favonian (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing in this section because I know we are talking about the same issue. I asked this to Doug Weller and he told me to ask to you. Khruner (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, could you look at the quality of these edits? Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG: I hope I have expressed my opinion clearly. Favonian (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian. JRPG (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

So he is still at it, currently attacking Ancient Egyptian architecture. Could you protect the page? Iry-Hor (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of by Doug. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Oshwah walks up to Favonian and gives him a hug.

Oh man, this guy just won't quit!!! It's almost hilarious. Anyway, thanks for going out of your way and for taking care of all of that talk page vandalism. I really should barnstar you, but I'm trying not to distract myself - I'm afraid to take my eyes of the RC list right now :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. This place seems to attract loonies. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks both of you! But if you don't mind, could I please request a much longer talk page semi-protect? The same sad kid has been targeting DeCausa as well [16], and Harrias protected that page until the end of December [17]. Could I ask for the same? As DeCausa can tell, this is not a temporary troll, this sad person has been going on for months and a three day SP of my talk page won't make any difference. Jeppiz (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Increased to a month. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have a nice day! Jeppiz (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way you could please remove talk page access? They keep re-adding the stupid ping with the personal attacks. Thanks very much, GAB^Hello! 15:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Way ahead of you – by a minute or so. :) Favonian (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! (Need to improve my response time.) GAB^Hello! 16:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You won Othmanebenjelloun (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I see you have already encountered this individual once last month. I was reviewing an article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Ludwig_Burckhardt and noticed someone had deleted most of it with no explanation or edit to the flow. His history and talk page shows he has done this many times before. Is there a way to put a block on him? I know this was done once before. I think he is rapidly inflicting damage on quality Wikipedia articles. I know it is not the spirit of Wikipedia but he has thousands of mostly unneccesary edits in just the last two months. I already reported him to [email protected] as well. Fax10 (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fax10: His previous block was for edit-warring. If you believe there's a more general pattern of disruption, you should a) confront him with it on his talk page, and if that fails b) take him to WP:ANI. Favonian (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did talk to him about it. We negotiated. I decided to write a completely new and sourced article. I went to source his opinion on it and it looks like he has been "Semi-Retired", whatever that means. I have the article written. It's in my sandbox if you care to take a look. Is it appropriate to upload a completely new article or should I source the opinion of an administrator? Thanks for your help. I'm still trying to figure out procedures with Wikipedia. Fax10 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Favonian. Could you determine whether the above I/P's references to other editors and also to Prof Jim Al-Khalili meet the courtesy and charm standards we all expect within Wikipedia?
For the avoidance of doubt, as a physics graduate I know that Newton was absolutely notorious for not acknowledging work by others. I did read the source and note that Al-Khalili says "..in the field of optics, Newton himself stood on the shoulders of a giant who lived 700 years earlier." The Alhazen article shows he was already known in Medieval Western Europe ..but I will discuss exactly what can and can't be reliably said on the talk page when hopefully everyone is a bit more friendly. Thanks for the courtesy you've always shown me. JRPG (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG: Courtesy (and editing) have been somewhat infrequent of late. Regarding the IP, he's indeed a bit rough around the edges, but by current Wikipedia standards, as they are fought over at Castle ArbCom, his antics can be shrugged off. Can't help thinking what would have happened if old Newton were to rise from the grave and start editing articles on physics (or worse: religion). There was a man who knew how to AGF etc. Favonian (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Always enjoy your replies -I should have shown more courage and tried simultaneously to persuade him to continue his useful editing and cease attacking the rest of the world. Wish me luck. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Requests for edits to a protected page. What I had done is that I had added a request on the Favonian article to be turned into a Wiktionary redirect, with full protection or semi protection added to prevent IPs from attacking you. Thanks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the word "Favonian" is an actual word. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Appears to have been handled to everyone's satisfaction. We shall see what happens. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. By the way, it appears that you seem satisfied with having an article on Favonian as a Wiktionary redirect. You may like to watchlist this if you wish. :) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it's been on my watch list at least since I deleted a couple of its predecessors four years ago. Favonian (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, is that definition "Favonian" your etymology for your name? Mine comes from joining words "qwerty", "Windows XP" and "Windows 2000". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The word doesn't exist in Danish, so I only know the Latin meaning. Favonian (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So you named yourself after western winds? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Or did you name yourself after being mild and gentle? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to User:Favonian has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add {{pp-semi}} 122.61.191.174 (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Sort of pointless. Those trying to edit it (and why would they want to?) will find out soon enough. Favonian (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bzuk, and the same to you and yours! Favonian (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Favonion as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 03:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. I noticed how cleverly the Santa-related image skirted round the issue of precisely where he wanted to settle. ;) Favonian (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having again dealt with Zarahus etc. Do you think is it possible to semi-protect Darius I's page in order to prevent his/her future edits? Khruner (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Will do it right away. Favonian (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Poepkop (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to hear your thoughts on UTRS ticket #13647 by LouisPhilippeCharles -- you don't have an UTRS account (yet?) so let me know if you'd rather request one so I can approve it, or maybe I can paste his appeal here? He calls you a moron and whatnot (surprise!) but the most recent abuse I could find at the SPI dates from July 2014 so I was wondering if there was any more recent abuse you might be aware of that I might add as a supplemental reason to decline. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Hi Salv. Well, LPC's feelings for me are most heartily reciprocated! Formal SPI filings have longe since given way to routine RBI, though one recent incident did at least cause some formal exchange between another admin and me: the antics of EverCriticised (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who manage to get an account by slightly understating the background. I also suspect that a good deal of the activity on Maria Teresa Felicitas'Este (one of his favorite hangouts) earlier this year was due to this person. He has been informed repeatedly about WP:OFFER, but the message has never really sunk in. Usually, I'm happy to the do the AGF while swinging the WP:ROPE, but for this particular nuisance I would really prefer if he stayed well and truly blocked, at least until a year of absolutely sock-free tranquility has passed. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! I'll respond to UTRS appeal #13647 accordingly. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this old thread (sorry if it irks you, but background matters IMO) because back then LPC asked me about the standard offer and I told him "no earlier than December", and now he's asking me about it again; to the best of my knowledge, there has not been anything on enwiki since last time from this user, which means I'm leaning to AGF him some ROPE, but I'd still prefer your input beforehand, especially w/r/t if you're aware of more recent disruption. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you reverted 92.25.206.187 in October on Maria Teresa Felicitas d'Este with a summary pointing to LPC but the IP wasn't blocked and continued to be used elsewhere until later in November, so I remain somewhat unconvinced that it was actual block evasion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case, even if a standard offer was granted, it would come with a strict pagemove ban. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Salvidrim!: Don't suppose I'm in any position to speak against the five mighty pillars and the hallowed consensus regarding the prodigal sons and their return to the congregation. Personally, I have zero faith in this persons intentions and abilities, so it's should be a relief to both him and me that I'm not around that much anymore. Favonian (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Charming. Thanks a lot for spotting it. I've probably broken half a dozen rules by throttling this person's talk page access and deleting the diatribe. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And it was all justified and well-deserved. This vandal has been nothing but persistent and a pain. Your response is temperate, IMHO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You didn't have to do what you did , But you did And I thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Gee, you found my picture! Favonian (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

[18] Thank you for your help! It's hard to deal with a sock farm. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. This one isn't trying to be subtle. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Glaedlig jul from wherever the heck I am!!! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.21.106.63 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Favonian, I reverted and blocked the last one of these messages by a different IP. Do you have any idea who this is? I'm semi-protecting your page for 24 hours. Feel free to lift. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23! I apppreciate a quiet spell on my talk page. The category of "usual suspects" is pretty large, but the timing (as well as the questionable approach to Scandinavian languages) points to the sock drawer containing BarkingFish (talk · contribs), Jurgen Hurgenflurgen III (talk · contribs) and 192.121.112.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Favonian (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Favonian. What happened here and then on my Talk page makes sense. I was hoping it would also help me with something else I'm working on, but, unfortunately, it's not likely. BTW, to the extent anyone doubts it, all the accounts blocked by non-CUs are  Confirmed. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hypothesis strengthened by the arrival of BarkingFishPart3 (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I blocked like 4 more of them, BarkingFishPart4 (talk · contribs) BarkingFishPart5 (talk · contribs) BarkingFushPart6 (talk · contribs) BarkingFushPart8 (talk · contribs) and an IP 192.121.112.106 (talk · contribs) if your keeping track. Monty₈₄₅ 18:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I noticed. Cat-like reflexes! Probably not worth an SPI with all the trimmings. RBI is all this animal deserves. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr/Ms Favonian. What is the problem with my contribution as an Appendix ? The results are original and brand new. Happy New Year:White Tiger (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tigris35711: That is the problem. As was explained to you at the teahouse, we do not permit original research. Only results that have been reported in reliable sources are admissible. I would strongly advise you to self-revert, before you get slapped with warnings regarding edit-warring. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok now I understand. HNY. White Tiger (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Favonian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Thanks, Poepkop, and the same to you! Favonian (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for grabbing the block evading IP - I know AIV probably isn't the best place for it so thanks again. Happy new years -- samtar ^whisper 13:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Strictly speaking, AIV isn't the right venues since we are dealing with ban evasion rather than vandalism, but that's a minor issue in comparison. Favonian (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

86.147.210.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) < another one should you have the time -- samtar ^whisper 15:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

125.24.72.6 is currently very active restoring edits by socks of WorldCreaterFighter.[19][20] Could you bock it? Krakkos (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disposed of by Doug. Favonian (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, could or should the edit summary of this edit [21] be removed? The edit itself has already been undone. Is there a place where one can bring nasty but remaining edit summaries to, perhaps ANI next time? In this case, the IP is not very active so far, so no AIV report. Cheers, Poepkop (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Done, together with its twin from December 16. ANI is an appropriate venue for such requests. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, tx. :-). Poepkop (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Thank you for your timely action regarding the disruptive editor posting on users' talk pages. I greatly appreciate the work you do! 68.35.140.198 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)