User talk:Favonian/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 30 ← Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 → Archive 40

Accept, accept, pleeezzee accept ....

I thought it might be easier to continue the discussion here rather than on the latest IP talk page. As Drmies mentioned this has been going on for a long time but seems to have escalated since (early?) December. The target is generally dog breed articles, making half dozen or so edits changing weights, heights, adding large/medium to the lead often with an edit summary using "accept" or some permutation of it. Graham87 may have more information as I noticed he blocked one of the IP addresses for 6 months and around the same time commented that an IP was vandalising Simple Wiki as well? I'm not technically minded enough to know how the constant changing and vast variation in IP addresses is done (I wouldn't be much use as a sock or a vandal!) so I don't know if blocking will eventually stop the disruption. I know that I should have diligently been putting warnings on the IP talk pages but it seemed pointless as the IP address just kept changing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil and Drmies: I think of such cases as war of attrition, using the simple fact that rever, block, ignore requires fewer resources than whatever is needed at their end. If this dog molester doesn't fill your time, you can always engage Ararat arev, who is the reason why an increasing number of articles on topics from Ancient Egypt, in particular pharaohs, are now semi-protected. :P Favonian (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Sagaciousphil, Drmies, and Favonian: Exactly. It's quite easy to change your IP address quickly, if you know how. Graham87 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well, whatever. Here I am, with no more than a half a dozen socks, and I get emailed and scrutinized by ArbCom. Also, Favonioni, I spent $15 on a (small!) bottle of Mikkeller and was disappointed. Finally, my sympathy to the kind-hearted and openminded Danes who are swallowing some bitter cookies these days: y'all hang tough. This dog molester is small fry in the scheme of things, and RBI (with some SP thrown in) is probably the easiest thing to do. Oh, tell you what, Favonski--I'll look at your Egyptian, if you'll look at User:OJOM and tell me why we don't just block immediately. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I suppose that if I lived in Richardson, Texas I might want to be a vandal too. I believe I had dealings with the other one mentioned in the LTA case. You know, you look at that kind of shite and you wonder if maybe we shouldn't go to mandatory registered editing, with UN-approved identification. And we'll send Kww door to to door to check IDs. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: Tempt me not! After too many years of vandal-slaying I'm not the staunchest supporter of IP editing, but I know this is not received wisdom around here.
Thanks for the thoughts regarding our current predicament. Didn't know we had that many cops in the country. 2015 is an election year in Denmark, and there's quite a bit of hay making in progress, though our leaders try their best to appear statesmanlike.
Could have warned you against Mikeller. Had an encounter with their Weasel (yes: weasel!) beer – vague recollection of superlative taste, clear memory (as retold by my colleagues) of showing up next morning pale-faced and with trembling hands.
And finally: block OJOM already! Obvious (add litany of Wiki-acronyms to taste), and anyone who carries overlinking to the extreme with "his" deserves the chair. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't wield the stick right now, considering my mood. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
As usual, Yngvadottir opened the more diplomatic avenue. If it wasn't for her my monthly check from the foundation would be a lot fatter. Last time I looked online the body count was one; now it's two, plus the alleged shooter. I guess that's a relief. And I see Finn Nørgaard has been written up. Favonian, you live in one of the nicest countries in the world and I hope you get to keep it that way. Tell you what, get me that job teaching English in Copenhagen and I'll be there for the fall semester. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately they used the rope for a purpose other than as a lifeline, and Harry Mitchell has given them a week off. I tried to explain. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
How you're able to maintain such a positive attitude is unfathomable to an old cynic like me. Keep it up as long as you can! Favonian (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Report

Hello me again, I would like to report users JimBob224444 (talk) and Rondo222 (talk) for possible sock puppetry on this article; John Abdinado. Seqqis (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Seqqis: No kidding! Meanwhile, JaneHorn67 (talk · contribs) has joined the club (plus 67.86.140.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), of course), and I'm watching with wry amusement as the AfD of the latest instance unfolds. Favonian (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
No more beating round the bush. Article has been speedied and all socks ironed. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I may be back if I notice anything else unusual. Seqqis (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen

The discussion at ANI mentioning a possible sock of Historian Student? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

He's not really denying sockery, is he? Favonian (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Even more fun

Looks like Ararat Arev at Amun, see [1] I can show you other pages, but that makes it pretty clear. I hope we aren't in for another round of thsi. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Lord(!) No cause for optimism. I'll nip this one in the bud. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That was fast! Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ararat arev

He's started on pharaoh, Khafra, and ankh now. A. Parrot (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

All three + djed protected. Thanks for watching them! Favonian (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Now he's attacking articles on individual pharaohs (Sneferu, Djoser, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI, Amenhotep III, Thutmose IV) while IP-hopping. He usually edits each article only once, though he has reverted me on Sneferu. I don't know what to do about it, because we can't semi-protect every article on a pharaoh. At least 71.95.223.156 can be blocked, because he's been using it since November. If you want to block his throwaway IPs, they're
Thank you. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I blocked a couple of not-completely-ephemeral accounts – just to send a signal – and added a bunch of pharaohs to my watch list. IMO we'll just soldier on, doing what we've been doing. Only option, unless we can persuade the congregation that IP-editing is not such a great idea, and Hell will presumably freeze over before that happens. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Karnak is a current target. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yngvadottir is on top of things. At the end of the day, our mutual friend doesn't have a lot to show for his effort. I've identified some of his older contributions and eliminated them. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@A. Parrot and Dougweller: Seems to me that this saintly editor looks eerily familiar. Comments? Favonian (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get around to looking until just before the account was blocked. No comments needed, really. The conclusion was obvious. A. Parrot (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I got the ping. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

King of the English vs. King of England

Might I add according to said article all kings before john went by king of the English? so why aren't the kings up until john king of the English? Why is it that at cnut it just suddenly changes to king of England? I am simply trying to make it consistent by making it clear king of England and king of the English are one and the same and not separate titles. The king of England is the king of the English so why is there a war over this small trivial detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.127.78 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@108.31.127.78: Please present your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms#New user changing "King of the English" to "King of England". Favonian (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

why is this such a big deal?

according to the article styles of british monarchs it says that all kings until king john were king of the English so why aren't all kings up until john king of the English instead of England? I am simply trying to make it consistent because king of England and king of the English are one and the same and not separate titles as one might believe. Also why des it suddenly change at cnut to king of the English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.127.78 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the advice given above. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
And take a look at [2] - academic sources calling these kings "King of the English" as well as the article I pointed you to, Style of the British sovereign. It seems to be that only with the Danish conquest did the geographical word 'England' come into use, with Cnut probably the first king to call himself King of England. Lawson, M. K. (2004), Cnut – England's Viking King (2nd ed.) Lawson, Cnut, p. 97. "The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Canute was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England."" After all, he wasn't just king of the English. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I never liked that guy. Always thought he was a bit of a Cnut! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Which make Harthacnut a – what? :D Favonian (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How to delete an article

Would you be able to place an article for deletion template on the Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78) article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Literally, yes I can place an AfD template on said article, and so can you. Why would one want to do that? Favonian (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have never placed an AfD on an article and did not want to mess it up. As for why, there are no sources stating that there was a 20 year war between Mughals and Rajputs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Using Twinkle is strongly recommended; otherwise the process is indeed rather complicated. Regarding the subject matter, you're saying that you are less than convinced that the war actually took place? That would of course be a good reason to delete the article. It's way outside my area of expertise, so I'll just lean back and watch event unfurl. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
From what I have found, Akbar the Great conducted numerous campaigns some against Rajputs, others against Sur and the Delhi Sultanates. The so-called Mughal Rajput war which starts in 1558, has no battles listed in the template until the Siege of Chittorgarh which was in 1567. So this "war" which started in 1558 had no battles/sieges until 1567, nine years later? The other "battle", Battle of Haldighati which apparently happens in 1576, is easter egg linked to Maharana Pratap. So there were two battles, separated by 9 years, in this 20 year war?
This discussion for deletion will either, spur editors to find sources to support and properly write this so-called war, or result in the article's deletion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Excalibur

The Talk page is very precise. Why you blocked the page?--151.47.223.109 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What Cuchullain says. Favonian (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

hello there. I am a new user here. I appreciate the efforts you have put in so far to make Wikipedia a trusted place of information for everyone. I have done some minor editing which you have reverted back, I don't understand why. I just corrected the definition of the subject which was wrongly defined. I believe I haven't violated the terms and conditions, haven't made any hate speech or disruptive edition. Kindly review it and inform me if that can be updated or not. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhaantariq (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Farhaantariq: You have been making repeated attempts to inject your own, rather vehement, opinion about a religion. This violates Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. If you wish, you may open a discussion on the article talk page, but you probably won't have much success. Favonian (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thank you for the reply. let me tell you dear that I have made no REPEATED ATTEMPTS to inject my own opinion about a religion, that was my only SECOND post, not the repeated attempts. I have no wish to open a discussion on the article. I was just correcting the definition. Simply take it as a person who doesn't believe that Jesus was last prophet of Christians, you wont call him a Christian or relate it to Christianity. Exactly the same way Ahmadis are, they don't believe in Prophet Muhammad to be the last Prophet of Islam, hence how come you call them Islamic religious group? That definition is wrong about them and I was only correcting it, NOT INJECING MY OWN VEHEMENT OPINIONS, if you like you can do a research on them. anyways I don't want to argue on this thing because you simply don't know even the basics about them or that religion and sadly saying in this way Wikipedia does contain ambiguous information about many things.Never Give Up! 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Farhaantariq: Basically the reason is because they say they are. As editors, we can't make decisions as to who belongs to what religious group. It's the same with Mormons - they consider themselves Christian, even though most Christians would probably disagree, so we call them Christian. I understand your objection, it's just not how we deal with such issues. We don't suggest that most Muslims consider them to be Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dougweller: thanks for the input and explaination.Never Give Up! 17:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice concerning Ahmed747

What would you suggest as a course of action after Ahmed747's third[3][4][5] attempt to remove references and referenced information from the Marwanids article? After Ahmed747's first attempt, I revert them and posted a warning on their talk page,[6] which garnered no response. Since then, Ahmed747 has continued his Kurdish POV pushing, removing references and referenced information along the way.[7][8] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've warned him, so we shall see what we shall see. Favonian (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to request something.

This is about User:Reguyla/User:Kumioko. I'd like to ask that you remove the extension of the ban, as while it is a ban evasion, it seems quite obvious that the way he attempted to contribute when ban evading was in a constructive manner. Plus, resetting the ban length for a few simple constructive edits does seem a bit unnecessary.

Also, even if that can't be done, I'd like to bring up the nature of the first ANI discussion. It seems like a discussion created on the basis of hate. I actually agree with Reguyla, admins do become abusive with power at times, and this seems like no exception. (this referring to the how the admins seem to hate Reguyla, just so you don't think I'm referring to you resetting the block. I don't think you're like that.) I've seen it before with my own eyes. Simply questioning an admin can and has lead to blocks and bans for me, (Though not on ENWiki, but still) so I'd know first hand exactly what Reguyla was referring to.

My apologies for this quite long message, but I feel like all of this needs to be said. -LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

He knows the conditions: absolutely no socking, IP or otherwise. Nevertheless, he keep making these reappearance, claiming victimization, assuming that rules and decisions don't apply to him. I don't think "hate" is really the issue, but people (be they admins or not) tend to become exasperated when the same pattern is exhibited again and again. In conclusion: no, I absolutely will not unblock Kumioko, by that or any other name. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to ask where you got "assuming that rules and decisions don't apply to him" from. Just curious, that's all. -LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd also like the block extension to be removed, and the original unblock time reinstated. I'll not do it myself, but the block is now looking very firmly punitive rather than preventative, and no longer strictly in line with the blocking policy. Thanks in advance, Nick (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What you propose would effectively mean that "you are blocked and may not sock, but if you choose to do so anyway, we'll just ignore it". I don't agree with this, and therefore reset the clock. You may set the block back to its previous expiration date, if you see fit, and I won't trow a tantrum, but you must assume the responsibility yourself. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for intruding, and especially for such a late response, but what you just said is basically twisting Nick's words around. As Nick said, he believed it now looked punitive, while you on the other hand say that he's asking for what you see as a violation to be ignored. ...I'll repeat what I meant before. I see no problem with extending a block for socking (that's one thing I'll admit), but resetting the clock back to six months when they're this close? Yeah, it really does seem more like punishment rather than preventive measures, like Nick said. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 04:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Manhas Editing ?

Can you tell me the reason you reverted the Manhas topics edits to old ones ? Which part of the edits were wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Online.chatbox (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

"In antiquity of rule, which is generally considered a benchmark of royality, they are second to none, but the great Katoch Rajputs of Kangra." Not a good example of neutral point of view, a requirement for writing Wikipedia articles. There has been far too much disruption of this kind on articles related to these matters, so a protection was called for. If you think you have a case, please proceed to the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Minhas

Thanks for spotting the disruption at Minhas. I had just filed a request at RFPP and in that I was suggesting some sort of fairly long-term action because this problem just doesn't seem to go away, even though the last spell of protection was ages ago. I'll go cancel that request now and we'll see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. Wish there was a way to blanket-protect all articles about castes. :( Favonian (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So do I! You've done us a big favour by semi-protecting for a year but I'm afraid a lot of admins are reluctant to impose such a long term (aside from Blade, who is known to throw indefs at things that have been troublesome for quite a while). Admittedly, in this case the last semi was for six months and so I guess yours is a natural escalation. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

'Cause of death' guy

You blocked 86.174.162.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months back in mid-January, but the guy is back at his old tricks, this time as 86.174.162.98. If someone else doesn't do it first, can you block this IP as well? Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding 86.174.162.64 to the mix, I've blocked their /24 range. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

Hi, rather than protecting Aam Aadmi Party, could you perhaps review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Redirect_and_disambiguation_muddle and impose a block or a topic ban? Bolterc (talk · contribs) is acting against consensus and in an obviously POV manner. They've also tried and failed with an AfD. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear! Didn't know there was that much of a prehistory. Serves me right for not being a diligent follower of ANI. I have never made use of discretionary sanctions, so I'll settle for an edit-warring block. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No probs. I'm not sure what to do about this, which was a clear CSD#G6 - do we even have a board for discussion of proposed disambig deletions or does it go to WP:MFD? Not that I'll be doing anything about it for a few days as I'm fed up of the admin incompetence (elsewhere, nothing related to you) and am taking a break. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It's fairly harmless, though superfluous. Under the circumstances, I'd let it pass. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
But then again: gone! Favonian (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Justthefacts2013

Any objections to unblocking this user based on this pledge? Obviously, a reblock would be in order if the user made any further edits resembling promotion of COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: Go right ahead!. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hej Favonian, I saw you blocked 180.87.192.123; see more of their handiwork at 180.87.192.228. Maybe that rangeblock needs a broader range? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

/24 should do it for the moment. Extending to 180.87.192.0/18 might be a bit too bloodthirsty, considering the widespread frowning at "trigger-happy admins". Favonian (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:MuhammedIn

After I removed an unsourced addition to a questionable article[9], MuhammedIn has started reverting my edits throughout numerous articles, giving no explanation in the edit summary. This appears to be a case of wiki-stalking.[10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Add another sock to the list of what I now believe is connected to Uniquark9.1SwordofGod1 --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Add this IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All blocked. You with this many accounts on the move you should probably open an SPI with a CU request for a sleeper sweep. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I already opened an SPI last night. Please feel free to modify it in any fashion. Dwpaul Talk 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! I was looking in the wrong place. I have requested a CU per the above. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Enterprise Car Rental

Please note that this the Enterprise Car Rentals IP address, so since people keep editing pages without citing and the like. It might be better to not let this IP edit posts but do allow them if they're logged in into their account, if its possible to do so. 65.197.19.241 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The only way to do this would be by blocking the IP and that may well happen if there's further vandalism, but at present there's no basis for a block. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems like 65.197.19.XXX is used by the company computers, if the IP is blocked people would still be able to log in correct and edit from there correct? 65.197.19.241 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, unless the IP is an open proxy, it will typically be blocked with the "anon only" option, allowing named accounts to edit from it. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Konglich = Kirglach

Favonian, can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kirglach

I think Konglich = Kirglach. 95.103.193.68 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave that to the merry folks at SPI. Meanwhile, since you're so obviously his perennial adversary, I've blocked you. You two are a fucking waste of time! Favonian (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lavash

After watching an edit war progress for nearly a week, would you be interested in protecting this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikinger IP troll

Hi, i noticed that you reverted an edit by the IP 83.10.74.195 (talk · contribs) at User:Tirgil34. This IP along with the IP 83.22.130.239 (talk · contribs) has been trolling by talk page too. They are probably connected to Wikinger (talk · contribs). Could you block these IP's, possibly rangeblock?. Krakkos (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The former definitely looks like W and is blocked for a week. Not entirely sure about the other one, though it's also from Poland. Monitoring. Range block probably not an option. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Future Perfect at Sunrise has taken the necessary, forceful measures. Favonian (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's his home ISP. There was a time when we had the unprecedented measure that that whole, quite large, set of IPs was globally and indefinitely range-blocked across all Wikimedia sites; I've been resetting these rangeblocks every now and then for years now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That guy deserves everything that can be thrown at him. Favonian (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
On a side note. I've recieved requests by Zyma (talk · contribs) on my talk page to address the Tirgil34 issue to administrators. I've been doing quite some work dealing with this editor, but it's impossible to deal with him alone given lack of resources. He has been inserting turanist fringe theories to Wikipedia for years through more than fifty socks, and there is seemingly no end in sight. This is being done through tendentious misreprentation of sources, personal attacks and edit warring. He has also been pushing the same agenda on Wiktionary[11] and Commons.[12], so it seems like this problem extends beyond Wikipedia towards the entire Wikimedia Foundation. In all probability, Tirgil34 is the same as Kipchak Håkan at the The Apricity forum. See this post by Kipchak Håkan[13] where he cites material uploaded by Tirgil34 sock Agaceri (talk · contribs) at Huvishka just hours earlier.[14] I wouldn't be surprised if he is coordinating his activity with friends from that forum. As you seem to have experience dealing with disruptive editing behaviour and has the necessarry user access levels, i thought addressing you about this would be wise. I humbly request that you watch the articles i've added to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34, and make the necessarry actions if something suspicious appears. In addition, how would you recommend me to go forward in addressing this issue to the wider Wikimedia leadership? Krakkos (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Good heavens! And I thought Ararat arev was a nuisance. Though I have ample experience with disruptive editors and have been issued one standard model ban hammer, I have next to no knowledge of Turanism and I lack the X-ray vision needed to adequately handle complicated sockpuppet investigations. I shall however, try and keep an eye on the articles listed in the LTA. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently suggested a topic ban at WP:AN for an editor with appearantly close connections to Tirgil34. Discouragingly, this proposal has been moved to the archives without any administrator taking notice. Could you please take a look? Krakkos (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it "died in committee", in which case there isn't much one can do. It requires a rather strong consensus before an editor is run out of town on a rail, and that was not forthcoming, it seems. Favonian (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This is indeed discouraging. Ultra-nationalist vandals, Randies, obvious racists (from Stormfront or "The Apricity" and other HBD forums) and peddlers of pseudo-linguistics have been allowed to run wild on Wikipedia for years now, and still nothing has been done to address it. Even Doug Weller has ignored my pleas for help. Maybe bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics or WP:RD/L could garner more expert attention to this long-term problem. Admins usually lack the linguistic competence to understand the full extent of the problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Krakkos:, @Florian Blaschke:. Just look at this thread at The Apricity (archived link) (in Turkish, but Google Translator is enough). That forum is their main base to perform attacks on WP. Favonian, don't you think this case needs a serious attention by admins? --Zyma (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be and admin with more insight into the subject matter than I possess. Sorry. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

How to?

How to propose deletion of content in an article with the reason of unreliable information and no news on it ? Bolterc (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bolterc, you have opened this RfC. It most likely will not go the way that you want but there really is nothing more that anyone can do. The problem here is basically your inability to understand the very fundamentals of how Wikipedia works. And I repeat what I said in the ANI thread: I am not a BJP supporter, despite your continued allegations to that effect. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is your stupidity in supporting a namesake party. I am better living my life than understanding the WP:SHITSHIT terms. I was not talking about you as a bjp supporter, was talking about some guy raviC. Bolterc (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue has now been escalated to ANI during the last hour or so. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Christ, what a bloody mess! I have had to work almost the entire weekend, and under the present circumstances I had better refrain from using the powers vested, etc., etc. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for the reverts - and especially thanks for the revdel on the edit summary. I should have done that at the same time, but missed it. - Bilby (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Anytime! I considered protecting your talk page as well, but I guess you'll do so when/if needed. Favonian (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rainbow

Template:Rainbow has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Psychonaut (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: It's probably Discographer you should notifiy. I'm the only the nominal creator of the template because I renamed {{Rainbow (rock band)}}, thus creating a redirect which was then changed into the the current template. Favonian (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion's fine. I'm okay with it Favonian, they can do what they like with it. No hard feelings! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Fresh Sullivan

Hey Favonian, this editor you locked as a VOA ~15 months ago is asking for a second chance via UTRS (UTRS appeal #13320). Would you have an objection to an unblock per WP:ROPE? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't just a VOA, but a confirmed (by Callanecc) member of a well-stuffed drawer of socks, knitted by Fresh22222. I don't have UTRS access, but at the very least, the application should come from the master account. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Correction: according to this, it was actually Mark Arsten who confirmed the identity of the master. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I'd overlooked that bit of context. I've declined the appeal and told them they'll have to appeal from the maser and address he socking. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's a drink on me

A beer on me!
Thank you for your help with the clean up at Abigail Breslin. You arrived at a time I thought no admin was around to help. The page protection and blocks were timely. Now I can go to sleep, it's 5:45 AM where I live. Cheers! Optakeover(Talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers to you! I rarely get upset at the all the vandalism at this place, but this creep (or these creeps) were really quite revolting. Well, it will have to live out its fantasies elsewhere for a while. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Favonian. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kirglach.
Message added 18:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You blocked Konglich as a sockpuppet of Stubes99; do you think that Kirglach is also a sock? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Replied at the SPI. Favonian (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Paul Kevin Obama ‎

Does Paul Kevin Obama (talk · contribs) sound familiar? Lots of 'Obamas' editing Wikipedia apparently. See here. Just FYI. Already reported to wp:SPI. 220 of Borg 13:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's an old acquaintance sent to join its ancestors. Thanks for spotting it! Favonian (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Something odd...

On the Battle of Argentoratum, I noticed a massive addition and deletion of information. After user:Alexander Gellos moves the page, an undiscussed move I might add, within minutes an IP arrives and starts adding odd paragraphs of information which include bracketed numbers, as such [61]. Which led me to believe this information had been copy & pasted. A cursory search results in hits on theapricity.com site, servinghistory.com and liquisearch.com. Literally word-for-word. I reverted the information, but I doubt the IP, whom I suspect is user:Alexander Gellos, will start a discussion. Just thought I would let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted the latest IP contribution. Let's see if he gets the hint. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I would say you have received an answer. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Reverted, renamed, reprimanded. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dominicsix

Hey again. Thank you for your block on this person. Was originally going to enquire the block despite a lack of a final warning, but his edit history has shown for it. I wonder how you managed to find him, which makes it all the more satisfying that you got him. Cheers! Optakeover(Talk) 18:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No big secret: somehow your user page ended up on my watch list. Favonian (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Haha nice! XD Optakeover(Talk) 19:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg

Can the title of Battle of Strasbourg be changed to Battle of Argentoratum (Strasbourg) please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gellos (talk • contribs) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Only by following the process described in WP:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

RM for Hard disk drive

"Relisted"? Why not "no consensus for move"? Jeh (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has only been going on for a week, the !votes going back and forth with the most recent dated yesterday. In such situations I deem it most appropriate to give it another week; after all, we are not on a deadline. Favonian (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Thank you for the reply. Jeh (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Page protections

Edit filters tripping all over Tyler Perry's For Better or Worse as well. Might be worth slapping PP on this one as well. Amortias (T)(C) 23:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: Do you have a link to the filter? No actual vandalism today, and I get yelled at if I protect prematurely. I'll be going to bed pretty soon anyway. Favonian (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No actual vandalism as yet its all been disallowed. I'll keep an eye on it for a bit longer and throw a request to RPP if it crops up. Amortias (T)(C) 23:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The creature surfaced, so I protected the article same as the two others. Goodnight! Favonian (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed you are working on improving Tyler Perry's For Better or For Worse... Thanks for taking it on! Just FYI- I noticed there are a lot of unsourced, incorrect ratings for season five episodes. WillowFeldman (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Even though he once blocked me when I started Wikipedia, he wants to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

deleted page

hi, favonian pls why did you delete 20:59, 22 March 2015 Favonian (talk | contribs) deleted page Miroslav Srnka (A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)) before having chance to add something or edit more? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.186.152 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I assume you are Jakub Srnka (talk · contribs) editing while logged out. Please log back in to avoid confusion. Secondly, I deleted the article because it was a one-liner stating the person's name an profession, which is no indication to importance. Thirdly, you have repeatedly tried to create a different version of this article, which was a blatant copyright violation. That's emphatically not permitted! Now, do as you were told and try creating an article from scratch (no copyvio!) through WP:Articles for creation. Favonian (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
no, i'm not "jakub srnka" - he just called me for help - he's doing his first article and not so experienced in english. and you are guys to fast for him to react... well, when he tried to say it with his own words you deleted it again... is a translation of the german wiki version a violation of copyright?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Srnka
so reason A7 cannot apply i guess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.186.152 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Copy & Pasted new article

I have left a message on user:Librarian12345's talk page concerning their new article Farhad Beg, which was copied from here, virtually the entire 12th paragraph(search for 1614 and follow the sentences back from there). I am not sure of the time given on this sort of issue, so I thought I would let you know in case the article needs to be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Very borderline. Being no expert on copyright issues, I have tagged the article with {{close paraphrasing}}, hopefully attracting the attention of someone who understands this arcane subject. Favonian (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you sir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

June 24

Sorry about that, we were reviewing the same edit at the same time. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries! Happens all the time. Favonian (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Advice or award for I/P contribution?

Hi Favonian. I wonder whether you can give your always impartial views on 80.2.172.185's efforts to improve contents :) Regards JRPG (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@JRPG: Hope they have tender age as an excuse. Last edit was nearly a week ago, so if I hand down the well-deserved block now, PiTA (People for the Indulgent Treatment of Anons) will get on my case. Will see if I can catch the miscreant red-handed. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Two problem editors in India related articles

User:Ghatus and user:Xtremedood‎, have chosen to edit war over numerous articles(Siege of Sirhind, Battle of Sarsa, Battles involving the Maratha Empire, Battle of Sinhagad, Mughal–Maratha Wars, et.al.). I warned both of edit warring[15][16], both editors removed my warnings[17][18] Perhaps a notification of editing restrictions over India/Pakistan articles would be in order, since both Ghatus and Xtremedood have exchanged the typical vandalism accusations/personal attacks. Thought I would bring this to your attention, although if their edit warring persists, I will just report both of them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus had already received the standard warning, so I gave one to Xtremedood. Taking them to the relevant noticeboard is the right approach. Favonian (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Would it be more prudent to report Ghatus to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for battleground behavior in the India/Pakistan area? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Administrator, please do see that I have given sources in the War of 27 years , First Battle of Delhi, Batte of Delhi (1757) reverts. You can see my contributions in Mughal Empire , Maratha Empire , History of India Pages. I always used references for edits/reverts. I was just reverting the vandalism of "Xtremedood". I stopped editing in Siege of Sirhind and Battle of Sarsa after seeing the sources. And, in Battles involving the Maratha Empire , "Xtremedood" was totally blanking the pages, deleting the references and destroying the article. Hence, I reverted in that article. I am student of History. Why should I be involved in falsification of History? Thank you.

BTW, I slammed Kansas Bear in Khilji dynasty page with sources and references and he is still licking his wounds.(sorry for the phrase, but I have no other to describe).Ghatus (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Favonian, I believe Ghatus's statement gives a clear indication of his mind set. His "so-called" slamming was his way of covering up his plagiarism on Khilji dynasty article by trying to make it a personal issue. I do not believe anymore needs said, Ghatus has provided ample amount of rope.--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Please, do check the page in Khilji dynasty, Mr. Administrator. Language changed (even said many a times to change the language if one finds ANY copyright violation but do not delete the entire section), page number given, source was Oxford University Press and still arguing to remove it but failed. No need to be vindictive. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I have read the wiki guidelines and I followed WP:BOLD and WP:RS.Ghatus (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As an administrator, I'm supposed to maintain a detached attitude and enforce rules without being influenced by my perception of the editors' personalities. In your case, Ghatus, I find that impossible as you have managed to present yourself as utterly obnoxious. I therefore wash my hands of the case and leave it to the tender mercies of whatever higher powers end up having to deal with this mess. Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my Easter break! Favonian (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar is awarded to those who show great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Or should I say: Woof! Favonian (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Woof! 13:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

That one has already been euthanized. Favonian (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fresh Sullivan

Hi Favonian! I am proud to be back as an editor and I am now making positive contributions here on Wikipedia. I think you might remember blocking me last year for vandalism. But I have been unblocked and am now, as I said, making positive contributions. You are a great admin. I have a question about administrators. Do administrators work on Wikipedia as a 'job' in real life that they make money from? Thanks. Fresh Sullivan (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, bully for you. Except for the ones explicitly employed by the Wikimedia Foundation, admins are unpaid volunteers. Favonian (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Montana Fishburne

I was looking for the correct redirect tag. I missed that one. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

My OCD sense was tingling. ;) Favonian (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another sock

See here. I have blocked this one as a duck, but am not sure whether to revert everything he has done, and I am out of time. You seem to know the background - can I leave it to you? Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

His initial edits merely constitute water-treading in order to become auto-confirmed, so I guess the can be left in place. Beyond those, I revert and delete everything he does. Routine job, like watering plants – there are other similarities, but I'd probably be censured if I detailed them. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hallo Favonian
I have a question: why did you revert the edit of an ip at Gregory V of Constantinople? i think that he is trying to restore what the source says. I am asking since you are the third or fourth user who is doing that, and I am starting to think that maybe I am overseeing something. BTW, some days ago I opened a thread about that on the talk page. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: A person capable of this edit, in particular the summary, exhausts my ability to do the AGF. This may of course cloud my judgment, so I'll control my impulse to block the IP. Over to you! Favonian (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the account is not very edifying, but it is what the source says. About his comment, it is the first time that I read about someone accusing a Bot of (religious) trolling :-) . Anyway, it would be good if someone (the ip and/or the others) could finally join the talk page, instead of edit warring. Maybe is the source that is not so reliable...I will ask the opinion of an expert fellow. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that Kostantinos settled the problem now. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: Indeed! Gone is the "mob", and good riddance to that. Meanwhile, our friend has transferred his attention to Hillary with this contribution – rather in violation of WP:SCAREQUOTES. Wonder if he'd be upset at yet another revert. The problem with the encyclopedia everyone can edit is that they do it. :( Favonian (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Alles gut was endet gut :-) I totally agree with you, Favonian. I just spent sometime trying to explain to someone that the Romans are not Italians (unfortunately for the latter :-)). It is more or less the tenth time that this happens in the last five years, but none reads the archives... :-( Have a nice evening, Alex2006 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@Alessandro57: Whad'Ya Know?! Our mutual friend got blocked for block evasion. Happy (temporary) ending indeed. You have a tranquil evening too – staying away from Balkan-related articles, if at all possible. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Favonian! You are right, but sometimes I keep trying to bring peace among the two parties, often with little success :-( Alex2006 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

..208.108.115.80

Hi Favonian. Could you have a look at what this character has done for File talk:Blacksquirrelrev.jpg & a few others as well? Regards JRPG (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It'll be a year before they bother us again. Favonian (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Favonian :) JRPG (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Earl, again

See here, if you want a smile. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I needed that. At some point His Lordship should be blocked, but it's such a pleasant evening. Why sully it with "aristocratic" blood? Favonian (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sonny1998's sockpuppets

Hello, Favonian. I want to inform you that, apparently, banned user Sonny1998 returned once again via another sock puppet. On 21 March 2015, you banned his sock Favour1600 (his contributions - [19]), and now he's back as Roy1960 (his contributions - [20])... Also, it seems he is using these IP addresses (or used them before, at least) - [21], [22], and [23]. IMHO, this is a clear DUCK, all accounts and IP addresses have almost the same style of editing. By the way, maybe users Bbb23 and DoRD would like to post their comments about this. --Sundostund (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I indeffed the named account. I agree that it seemed fairly obvious behaviorally. I took no action against the two IPs. One hasn't edited since March 23. The other has edited more recently (April 2), but they are dynamic IPs and I doubt much will be accomplished by blocking them. If, however, they recommence editing, please let me know. Finally, Sundostund, if you believe that any of the templates created by Roy1960 needs deletion per G5 because they are damaging to the project, please let me now. I'm not interested in deleting them if they are helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, thanks for your help! No, I don't consider any of his templates to be damaging, they're not products of vandalism... --Sundostund (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sundostund and Bbb23: Good to see that problems get solved while I sleep. ;) Sonny1998 isn't banned (yet) so mass deletion probably isn't warranted. Favonian (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Favonian, I don't really see why his templates (or any other edits) should be deleted if they are helpful to the project, even if Sonny1998 is banned (eventually)... IMO, only vandalism should be deleted, but you and other admins should do what you consider as appropriate. --Sundostund (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor doesn't have to be banned to justify page deletion per G5. They just have to be a sock puppet. That said, like Sundostund, deletion isn't required, and I agree generally with Sundostund that if the pages aren't harmful, they don't need to be deleted. I wouldn't say that the pages have to be the product of vandalism per se, though. This usually comes up with articles rather than templates. Thus, for example, you may have a sock who wants to create a particular article largely for promotional reasons, either about himself or about some company he's affiliated with. Those kinds of articles are only vandalism in the very broad sense of the term, but I always delete them, and so do many administrators. In the case of templates, unless they obviously were vandalism, I would still delete them if they served no useful purpose as it's a waste of resources to have useless pages lying around the project. @Favonian, you should sleep more often. I find that all sorts of things get done without me when I sleep or even when I'm just off-wiki. It's great.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Favonian, Bbb23, and DoRD: I'm pretty sure he's back again, this time as Worldoff1952 (his edits - [24])... --Sundostund (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Groan! The monotony of these sock edits. Blocked, just like the others. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a look at this latest sock, and unfortunately, a rangeblock won't be possible, but at least I didn't see any unblocked socks. —DoRD (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Consistent editing?

Hi Favonian. Editor -142.30.108.66- has a consistent record and I'm sure could improve any articles on profanities if pointed in the right direction :) JRPG (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Kids these days! Favonian (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks JRPG (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

last

In case you are the one - as you suggested to Yngvadottir - remember, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_34&oldid=1221627608"