User talk:Favonian/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Thanks

Cheers for that. Prompted me to protect my user page anyway, something I should have done years ago. Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Having a protected user page saves a lot of other editors from making the mistake of editing it. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Bidford

Hi Favonian, I noticed you recently blocked user Bidford after their edits on Granada. Based on the first set of edits made by them, the IP edited Mumbai where they have stated that they are the same user as blocked user Aercus3. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup, and that makes him part of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Weathereditor sock farm. Already tagged. If more pop up, I'll deal with them – provided I'm awake. Favonian (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out and alert you. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for blocking this user. I have also tagged the account as sockpuppet because I noticed her vandalizing a page about my alma mater using other similar-named accounts. I don't know what her problem is, she has harassed me in real life in the past. NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Guess we just have to face the facts that this website attracts the scum of the earth. Favonian (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I have already dealt with her on Facebook and I can't believe she found me on Wiki! Probably because she saw my username when I put sock tags myself, hopefully she won't identify me further, as I did not post my real name on my Wiki page. You beat me to the sock tag this time, thanks for that! NHRHS2010 RIP M.H. (1994-2014) 15:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:PCFleming05

User:PCFleming05 is requesting an unblock due to blocking related to User:MGMParamountCaidinBluesCluesHTF who you blocked. Was there an SPI or was it just a duck test (the antics seem obviously wrong). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682 and PCFleming05: It was a WP:RBI, but the history leading up to it may be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Caidin-Johnson/Archive. I tried lifting the auto-block affecting PCFleming05 but got a message that seems to indicate somebody beating me to it. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

... or maybe it just expired. Favonian (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for lifting it, however it happened! PCFleming05 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

Hi Favonian, Firstly, thanks for the revdel just completed on a user talk page; greatly appreciated. Would you be able to advise where the best place to report this type of "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" is? I thought maybe WP:Oversight or WP:AIV, but am not sure if either is appropriate. Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ryk72: AIV would probably get the fastest response. Personal attacks of this nature are usually fast-tracked without the need for assorted warnings, but it's a good idea to mark it as such in the report. A request for revdel can be made at the same time. Favonian (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

For REVDELing edits on my user page. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! How did you discover one of my major weaknesses? :) Thank you! Favonian (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI

FavonianornoFavonian10, FavonianornoFavonian9, FavonianornoFavonian8, etc (on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports&action=history). —George8211 / T 19:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@George8211: Thanks for the heads-up! I'm familiar with this "family" – have in fact blocked a couple of them myself. Pretty monotonous, even by trollish standards. ;) Favonian (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but could you do something like a talkpage block for user talk:Deedeedee Weggby? Sock, attacks and offense, then I made the stupid decision to put a uw-attack2 on their talkpage. —George8211 / T 19:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Sent him off to join his ancestors. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to take a look at this? —George8211 / T 15:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! At least he changed the user name style this time. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

See Special:AbuseFilter/707, which is designed to catch this edit pattern. -- The Anome (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: That looks like a worthwhile addition. Incidentally, this miscreant is probably not a member of the usual sock drawer. His other filter log entries point to User:Weathereditor, a rather sad case. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also added a line to the username bot blacklist. Progressively increasing a vandal's cognitive workload from several angles at once is a well-tried strategy. -- The Anome (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Eloquently put! :) That one should cause a need for Tylenol in certain quarters. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Re Sexuality of Adolf Hitler page, you might want to add what Linge wrote

Hitler himself admitted he fathered a child, presumably Jean-Marie Loret. In his book With Hitler to the End: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Valet (1980), Heinz Linge states that Hitler had stated to a number of people "his belief that he had a son, born in 1918 as the result of a relationship Hitler had had with a French girl as a soldier in 1916-1917 in northern France and Belgium...." Linge further states that Hitler had Himmler find the French girl, and that Hitler sent her money. MadchenFurWulff (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Loret is mentioned in the article, though it says that the claim is dismissed by most scholars. If you wish to have this changed, you should open a discussion on the article's talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

2001

Why was that not notable? 98.249.71.56 (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Releases generally aren't considered notable. The relevant guideline may be found at WP:RYB. Favonian (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

OK sorry about that. 98.249.71.56 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopper removing sourced contents

Can you do something about this IP-hopper removing sourced contents on Soviet–Japanese War (1945)? Kiwifist (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kiwifist: Semi-protected for a week. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Is it allowable to copy an entire sentence word for word from a source and add it to an article on Wikipedia?Such as this. According to Elizium23, "this passage is not long enough to violate copyright.". --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it's not allowed, but I'm far from being an expert. You may have to ask the wise fathers and mothers at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, though they promise slow deliberation. Favonian (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion417

Looks like we block conflicted! I will not be happy if somebody takes Faversham off the GA pile and quickfails it due to stability problems :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even notice that. Our software doesn't shine when it comes to handling concurrency. :( I have never dabbled in GA administration, so I'll defer that one to a competent person. Sorry! Favonian (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: For what it's worth, I have semi-protected the article for three months. Not-Acroterion and 90.204.134.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are both socks of serial nuisance Weathereditor (talk · contribs), and he has a notoriously hard time letting go. Favonian (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That should hopefully quell things a bit. The specific bit of the GA criteria is in WP:GACR#5, and says a GA "does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". I think this might just be plain paranoia on my behalf; most people can see from common sense it's just one person against everyone else, and being disruptive about it, rather than a lack of direction in which to take the article (which is what I think the criteria is supposed to be catering for). For what it's worth, GA reviews are not too hard provided you have a couple of hours spare and are prepared to read an article top to bottom carefully with a critical eye, and have some idea of the subject matter to hand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to agree. Most policies have an escape clause for vandalism and abusive use of sockpuppetry. Though the editor in question hasn't been formally banned, he easily falls in the "de facto banned" category. Favonian (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean it's not required that I have set foot in the place? ;) Favonian (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Socking on Chitral

Hello. Proti Mou Fora~ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very loudly quacking sock of Najaf ali bhayo. Compare the edits of the new account with the edits of Saqraat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked as a sock of Najaf ali bhayo less than two months ago. Thomas.W ^talk 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Thanks – quite convincing. Latest sock blocked. Favonian (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sonny1998's sockpuppets

@Favonian, Bbb23, and DoRD: I'm pretty sure that banned user Sonny1998 returned once again, this time as Roman Windfeller (his contributions - [1]). Just for record, Favonian already banned his socks Favour1600 (his contributions - [2]) in March and Walknack in May (his contributions - [3]) (as well as few other socks)... IMHO, this is a clear DUCK. --Sundostund (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sundostund: Looks enough like him for a block-and-tag. Favonian (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian, Bbb23, and DoRD: And he is back, this time as Ladomring (his contributions - [4])... --Sundostund (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Processed. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Munich Massacre

I have not vandalised anything, I've been hijacked, not sure if from my computer or from elsewhere. Never edited anything, in fact I have removed the changes myself. So please don't block me from editing! I'm just about to start! Be welcoming to new users, please. 79.64.191.44 10:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't you find it a bit odd that the only edits from this IP (over a six-year period) have been vandalism to the Munich massacre article? Favonian (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dual signatures

The reason why I did that is because there are two ip addresses in my house, but I want to keep things simple, and only have users respond to one of them. Is that stil, prohibited? 2602:306:3357:BA0:5519:FC9:C812:ECA (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering the changing nature of IPs, it seems pointless. If you want a "fixed" identity, create an account. Favonian (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki hamze

Hi, I just want to report a guy, Ian.thomson, you violated 3-revert rule in this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abrahamic_religions&action=history

dates :

16:52, 16 July 2015
17:01, 16 July 2015‎
17:12, 16 July 2015‎ 

thanks Wiki hamze (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• A look at the article's page shows that Ian was reverting your edits because you were removing a lot of information from the article. It also looks like this material had previously been discussed and the consensus was to leave it on the page. It looks like there was a discussion about this back in 2013, where your assertions were contested. I don't know why you would think that this would change two years later. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tokyogirl79. This user and their sock/meat puppet has continued their edit-warring, so I have decided to block them both indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Article?

Hiya! I was just wondering why my article on Jordi v/d Bussche (kwebbelkop) was deleted before I could even add sources and notable information that would validate the importance of Kwebbelkop's article. Plus he wanted us to make the page :) Thanks for your time :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomedBro (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The repeated efforts by you and your fellow fans have not gone unnoticed. You have collectively failed to demonstrate any kind of notability, managing instead to make him (and by implication you) appear as complete wastes of time. I'm not surprised that he would like you to create an article about him, but that's no reason for us to accept it. Please find something else to do. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Favonian (talk)

 Done! Let me know if you have any questions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for your recent deletions regarding mass promotion of a Dutch person. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Quite a lot of manual labor, getting rid of that crap. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous users and their IP addresses

I am confused by what you have posted onto my talkpage. Would you be kind enough to expand on the information to what IP address it is? Adamdaley (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adamdaley: Can't blame you for being confused, but I'm not the one who put it there. A block-evading troll, holding a grudge against me, added it with this edit. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This person actually did this 360 times in one big dump. As you will be able to see by my talkpage history, while I only left one as evidence. At the moment is there anything that we can do about the 360 items he left on my talkpage? I mean complain to someone like Administrators? Adamdaley (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what he does. The IP in question was promptly blocked, but there's probably not much we can do beyond the old WP:Revert, block, ignore. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

27 cakes for you!

Have 27 delicious cakes!

Thanks! You used the "rollback all" trick, right? I've got the script, but I've never managed to find the perfect opportunity to use it. Have some cakes! Bishonen | talk 18:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Thank you Bish! They'll kill me, but better to go out in a blaze of glory – or whatever it was Jeremy Clarkson said. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Lidia Vianu page automatically deleted

Dear Committee,

The page I created on the 18th was very quickly deleted. I have read here that a page with the same name was unsatisfactorily created in the past (by other people) and that led to the recent deletion. Please, could you take the time to see the page that I created (which I am certain does not copy the former attempts, comes with verified links to the evidence for the claims made) and give me a few hints regarding the necessary changes so that the page could be acceptable and no longer deleted? Lidia Vianu is a poet, a remarkable professor of contemporary literature at the University of Bucharest and probably one of the most outstanding cultural personalities in Romania today. Thank you in advance. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Contemporary Literature Press (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've given Contemporary Literature Press a hard block for their username (originally soft, but looking at the article's history this should be a hard block), considering that there is a pretty large conflict of interest here - Vianu launched this press. I've also salted the page. It looks like it was deleted at AfD back in 2005 (which is saying something) and again in 2011. It was userfied in 2011, but was ultimately deleted at MfD in 2014. If anything, I'd say that the most recently deleted version is actually worse than the 2011/2014 article, since it's rife with hotlinking to various locations (such as places that someone can purchase her work). I'm also not really seeing offhand where there's enough to where this would overturn the prior AfDs. If they want to create a new article in the draftspace I'm not opposed to that, but this is something that would need to go through WP:DRV in my opinion because there is such a strong COI here and because this has gone through multiple AfDs. AfC is an option, but they're insanely lenient at times and as such, would probably not take as close of a look at this as it'd would require. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tokyogirl79. Good call! Favonian (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Europefan help

You're familiar with the long-term abuse from Europefan, right? Can you help with the diff request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan? This guy has been the subject of several large rangeblocks across en and de wikipedia and wikidata. Is there some shorthand resource we can point to to identify him without having to go through this tedious collection of diffs to prove who he is? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Looking at it. Will reply on the SPI page shortly. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Return of FrozenFan2?

You might want to take a look at WikipediaGuy01543 who could be a block-evading FrozenFan2, just as the IP you blocked a couple of days ago (73.38.132.31) was. BMK (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This new editor TheSimpsons98 (talk · contribs) is also worth a look. They aren't adding unsourced info as yet. They are adding templates to infoboxes and then removing them. OTOH they are editing the same articles as FF did. Of course they could be someone different I guess time will tell. MarnetteD|Talk 00:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What are you guy's talking about?, I no no such thing of that user at all. You got the wrong user your looking at. I'm being honest. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I removed those templates, it's because I thought they looked a little weird when I added them there and it looked like it was messing up the article, that's why I undid it. Because I like it the way it was before, normal. But I'm just letting you guy's know, I'm not the user your looking for. Your making a mistake with the wrong user. Also WikipediaGuy just replied to my talk page and told me he's/she's not that user at all, and he/she wanted me to let you guy's know that. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Check out CharacterFan876 (talk · contribs) as well, same kind of overlap. Should I open an SPI? BMK (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that user too, you should ask him. If he is, then you can open an SPI. But I already confirmed that WikipediaGuy is not that user, and I'm not either. TheSimpsons98 (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and MarnetteD: Looks like there's a case to be made, but I'd prefer an SPI with CU rather than make the call myself. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If not sockpuppetry, at least meatpuppetry seems likely. But yes, an SPI would be useful at this point. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 23:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking that sockpuppeteer. While you're at it, it may also be a good idea to block the IP 108.173.94.44. It is very likely that that IP belongs to that same user, as it made the same disruptive edit on the main article that the user was vandalizing. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

With any bit of luck, the IP will now be auto-blocked. Otherwise, you'll probably have to report it to AIV – again. It's after midnight in my time zone, so I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, Since you are a currently active admin I just thought I could ask you a question if that is alright? Starting in one hour (17:00 at UTC+2) is the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification draw. A major draw that will probably be followed by millions and during these draws there are both vandalism and good faith editors interested in adding their teams. This causes a lot of edit conflicts and stops those that usually updates the related articles (me included) from a quick and proper update of the draw with teams in the right places. It would just go faster without all conflicts and incorect edits. The reason I bring this up is to check if the pages can be semi-protected before any vandalism happens or if we have to wait before submitting a WP:RPP? Any answer would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Much as it irks me, I have to refer to the party line: "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred..." You will be proven right, of course, so if I'm not distracted I'll keep an eye on the article and protect it once the vandalism emerges from the crystal ball. Favonian (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just as I guessed. Hopefully it would work well anyway. Thanks. Qed237 (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Since an IP has been edit warring since 15 July on the Kingdom of Navarre article.[5] Would blocking said IP even be an option? Judging from the nonsense posted on the talk page by the IP, this is clearly a case of Just Don't Like It. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that the IP is now removing references and referenced information over multiple articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Help regarding Kashi Math

Some editors are constantly removing edits that i have made in this article.I have already provided links to justify the information on neutral point of view. But still they are removing those information including links. Pls help. Seldombite (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Kashi Math

Can you work out what is going on in this series of edits? Has the sock reappeared? Should the padlock be reinstated? - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see this might tie in with the comment in the section above. Sorry about that. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Seldombite and Sitush: Never mind the padlock, which is purely ornamental, but there's something going on that I can't readily sort out. Would somebody knowledgeable (I'm looking at you, Sitush) please escalate this to a bigger forum? Favonian (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll take it from where things stand now and maybe run it past the people at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

Humble the Bumble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have tried to give the impression that he is a sock of Evlekis, but it is an obvious Max Pumpkin sock (in case anyone even cares). Check the article you just deleted. Trying to put the blame on others is typical for Pumpkin, resulting in many of his earlier socks having been recorded as socks of David Beals. Thomas.W ^talk 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Does indeed look that way. Sock of this, sock of that, they all get blocked in the end – and I'm off to bed. Favonian (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dcoetzee/Willy on Wheels:A Case Study

Hello Favonian, I would like you to please unprotect this page so that I can nominate it for deletion. In my opinion it is unnecessary and we'd be better off without it as it showcases Willy's acts. David Ramsbotham (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the cut-and-paste move.

I didn't mean to violate a rule. I decided to follow the proper route instead. However, it's been a big debate for a while about moving it. Last time we had this debate was March, with the result being no consensus. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens this time. I have no opinion on the matter, long as you refrain from any more cut/paste moves. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DN-Boards issues

DN-Boards1 was disrupting another page and changing the content and i had to revert the page to its original a couple of times just wanred to let you know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, Wikiwriter82015 seems to insist that a "claim" by some random person on the discovery of a random, nameless moon of Saturn is noteworthy for the article. He has engaged in edit warring for the past several hours over this subject. --DN-boards1 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks rather like you're involved in an edit war. Would you like me to block both of you? Favonian (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. It's an edit war over something that clearly violates notability, and someone who has no authority to name the moon trying to name it Alaris is not worthy of mention on the moon's Wikipedia article. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I put a message ln his page to try to talk it out. I am sick of reverting his changes and want to try the approach on the edit wars page because clearly this is getting us nowhere. Anyway we shouldnt both be banned without a few warnings over an edit war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, you didn't just break the three-revert rule. You reverted the page four times. That alone is eligible for blocking. You are not allowed to revert a page three or more times in a dispute. That is against the rules of Wikipedia, and worthy of a block on its own. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And it is not The moon nor is it me who is trying to name it, i pulled the name from the claim, and also I wrote that it is not official and just a nickname also i wasnt awar i broke the rule i thought i just had dont my third — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwriter82015 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your messages by clicking the ~ in the box below the "Templates" section of the edit field. Secondly, you are not supposed to do three OR MORE reverts. You did three. The maximum number of reverts you are allowed is TWO. Any more is a violation. In addition, the claim does not meet notability. He has no authority to name it. Only the discoverer (the Cassini-Huygens team) has the right to name it, under the guidelines laid out by the International Astronomical Union. Some random person on Blogspot naming the moon is not worthy of mention in a Wikipedia article on the subject. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

First off, i know how to sign my name i just forgot. Secondly im pretty sure a 4th revert constitutes banning not a third. Ill check on that. But that doesnt matter because There are exemptions to the three revert rule-This is from your talk page, "Hello, You've edited two articles and gave a misleading sources for both. This could be considered as vandalism. The fact that a "new" user like you knows very well Wikipedia's rules is dubious and I suspect a sock-puppet from a ban user. Blaue Max (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)." This coreesponds with this exemption," 3. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users."Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Also it says on the page that it is only a nickname and that the official rights ARE given to them. Nowhere does it say that that is an official name.Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I was right, it is more than 3 reverts not more than two like you saidWikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Wikiwriter82015:and you are at 4 reverts now with 2 editors disagreeing with you. Doug Weller (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I was originally inclined to cut the newbie some slack, seeing as they had not been informed about 3RR, but the diatribe above makes me less tolerant. @Wikiwriter82015: If you want to accuse somebody of sock-puppetry, you'd better present the case at WP:SPI and make it more coherent. Otherwise you'll find yourself blocked for personal attacks! Favonian (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the newbie might in fact be the person who dubbed the moon "Alaris", actually. Seems rather odd for him to be pushing that if he wasn't. DN-boards1 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I didnt name it or claim it but I thought i do agree with the idea that people should be able to claim space. And even if i did it doesnt matter. There iz a source online that i took information from and presented with a neutral point of view. There is no reason that that should not be on there. And i didnt accuse DN-Boards1 of sockpuppetry, the user who posted the claim on his talk page is accusing him. I am just saying that if this is the fact, hen i am exempt and i reverted him under the impression that this could be the case. Just because you might not agree with the content personally, there is no reason to delete it as long as it is written neutrally and has a source. You might not think the content is significant enough nor may a lot of other people but that is not for you to decide. I think it is significant and im sure some more people do out there and they can decide upon reading it whether they agree or not but you are revoking that option from the public which is wrong. You habe no right to delete neutral content because of your opinion.Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone with this ip "2600:100d:b128:fbdf:1090:dce0:696:dd5d" or username or whatever just demonstrated the prefect example of what should be done on the moonlet page. If you look at their edit, instead of just deleting everything written, they made an edit or two to make what was written already more neutral. Whoever this is thank you and everyone who is criticising, look at their edit to figure out what you should be doing. I think that this is settled now. In 24 hrs if someone reverts it back, i will do the same bc i think i have thoroughly explained myself. Wikiwriter82015 (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Undeletion of 'Bhakt'

Thanks. It was a good learning experience. Hope the famed Wikipedia admins can be counted on as more attacks come on the page.--Journojp (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll try to keep an eye on the article but in case of repeated vandalism, WP:RFPP is open for business. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Protection regarding the creation of a page with the title "Kwebbelkop"

While I was attemtpting to create a wikipedia page with this title I realized you had blocked it. The reason you are getting flooded with requests for creating a page with this title is because of a famous YouTuber that goes by the name of "Kwebbelkop". This person has asked his fans to create a wikipedia page for him. The purpose of me sending this to you is that I would appreciate it if you would kindly withdrew this restriction so us fans can work on a page for the YouTuber. If you could make a page with the title "Kwebbelkop" and nothing else on it so fans can add on to it, that would help with the dillema greatly. Thanks for yor time, Moh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moh1601 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but we've all had it up to here with the countless attempts by assorted fans to create pages about this character. Let him enjoy his fame on YouTube, but his vanity will have to do without Wikipedia fanning it! Favonian (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

References

200.83.165.120

Your block on IP range is pure stupidity. Anyone who wants to act with ill intent can anonymise their IP. You are castigating 1.2 million internet users for the erros of 1 individual. That is idiocy. I want to be understanding and respectful but you are not being understanding or respectful of my rights as a wikipedia community member. I deserve access regardless of the fast that 1 users from 1.2 million users was blamed for something that I still have not been provided evidence for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.196.29.148 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy answered it better, and certainly more politely, than I could. Favonian (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected page

Protected "Schola Medica Salernitana": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content? what? This is an error, please check.--95.245.23.206 (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Assorted anonymous IP editors have been unable to comply with Wikipedia's rules for dispute resolution and this has caused the article to be semi-protected for the second time this month. Proceed to the article talk page and see if you can achieve consensus for the proposed changes. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, it's not an error. You have been repeatedly told, including on the talk page of the article, that your claim is fringe, and based on an extremely loose interpretation of what a university is, an interpretation that differs from the mainstream definition of university that we use on Wikipedia. Thomas.W ^talk 17:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• The IP is now adding the same crap on other articles too ([6], [7], [8]). Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Those two article protected as well. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

the discussion is here [9] (First university?) Sources are very accurate and reliable. This is an error--95.245.23.206 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind protecting Mediaeval university too, they're there now. Salerno was founded as a pure medical school and thus doesn't fit the mainstream definition of university (University#Definition) that is used here on en-WP, which is why the edits are being reverted. For the past couple of years, at least, a number of editors, me included, have tried to make the IP-hopper understand why the edits don't belong here, but they either can't understand it, because of lacking language skills, or don't want to understand it. Thomas.W ^talk 18:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Thomas.W ^talk 18:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The question is very clear and the sources are reliable . This is all very curious and strange [10] "The subversion of Australian universities, edited by John Biggs and Richard Davis, 2002; and Encyclopædia Britannica.

"A university in its basic form is a degree-awarding educational institution with some official recognition. The English word university comes from the original Latin words unus, one, and vertere, to turn, or the totality of all things that exist, which then became in medieval Latin universites facultatum, or combination of all the faculties or branches of learning. The first university in the modern sense is believed by some to have been the medical school founded in the 9th century at Salerno, but the first with a precise founding date appears to have been the Alazhar University of Cairo in 970 A.D.[4], followed by those in Bologna, Paris, Oxford and Cambridge in the early 1000s. These early universities were allowed freedom to govern themselves providing they did not teach atheism or heresy and the European ones were granted the right to elect their own rectors and raise their own finances. Starting as religious educational bodies, what made them universities as distinct from seminaries was the admission of students from outside their own orders. The foundation dates of some other early universities were: Jagiellonian (Krakow) 1369, Barcelona 1450, Basel 1460, Uppsala 1477, Santo Domingo 1538, Pontifical Gregorian 1553, Harvard 1636, Toronto (as Kings College) 1754, Moscow 1755, Sydney 1850, Melbourne 1853, Tokyo 1877, Tasmania 1896 and Peking 1898." and

"University of Salerno, Italian Università Degli Studi Di Salerno, institution of higher learning in Salerno, Italy. Much of the historic interest of the university derives from an antecedent medical school in Salerno that was the earliest and one of the greatest medical schools of the Middle Ages. In fact, some scholars have called this school medieval Europe’s first university. The medical school was noted for its physicians as early as the 10th century, and by the 11th century it was attracting students from all over Europe, as well as Asia and Africa. In 1221 the Holy Roman emperor Frederick II decreed that no doctor in the kingdom could legally practice medicine until he had been examined and publicly approved by the school at Salerno." The present University of Salerno is a distinct institution founded in 1970. Its faculties include letters and philosophy, teacher training, mathematics and science, law, and economics." *Encyclopedia Brittanica.

"Early universities The modern Western university evolved from the medieval schools known as studia generalia; they were generally recognized places of study open to students from all parts of Europe. The earliest studia arose out of efforts to educate clerks and monks beyond the level of the cathedral and monastic schools. The inclusion of scholars from foreign countries constituted the primary difference between the studia and the schools from which they grew.

The earliest Western institution that can be called a university was a famous medical school that arose at Salerno, Italy, in the 9th century and drew students from all over Europe. It remained merely a medical school, however. The first true university in the West was founded at Bologna late in the 11th century. It became a widely respected school of canon and civil law. The first university to arise in northern Europe was the University of Paris, founded between 1150 and 1170. It became noted for its teaching of theology, and it served as a model for other universities in northern Europe such as the University of Oxford in England, which was well established by the end of the 12th century. The Universities of Paris and Oxford were composed of colleges, which were actually endowed residence halls for scholars." --95.245.23.206 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Schola Medica Salernitana § First university?

 – Favonian (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisting RMs

Hey. Just a heads up that when you relist RMs now, the relisting comment should go at the end of the rationale, after the nominator's signature. The change only happened about a week ago, there's a notice and a little bit of discussion at WT:RM. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I did notice that the relisting was ignored, but that bot is so fickle I just shrugged it off. Favonian (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cretins.

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You know why. Optakeover(Talk) 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have an inkling. ;) Thanks for the star! Favonian (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello F. Thanks for the cleanup of the edits and summaries on SmallJims talk page. I am wondering if the RD3 would also apply to the nonsense that happened on my talk page last night. If not no worries. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It does and they're gone. "All in a day's work..." Favonian (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The removal is much appreciated. I hope that you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 19:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

IPs in range 217.118.81.* disruptively editing articles related to Crimea

You just blocked 217.118.81.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours for WP:3RR. This IP, along with 217.118.81.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 217.118.81.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 217.118.81.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing of Crimea and related articles, e.g. Sevastopol, since January and more intensely since April. Please consider WP:RANGEBLOCK. General Ization ^Talk 20:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Right. I've blocked 217.118.81.16/28 for three months. Hope this fairly conservative range does the job. Favonian (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much. One that fell outside the range and has engaged in the same behavior is 217.118.81.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 20:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And 217.118.81.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). General Ization ^Talk 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, crap! Well, that one hasn't been active since January. Let's see what happens. The range can always be extended if need be. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange editing

Hello. I happened to come across a new user account (Florencerose) making a large number of totally pointless edits on multiple articles to increase their edit count, and since the only reason for doing that I can think of is trying to get over the 30/500 threshold on Gamergate articles I took a look at the page histories of those articles, to see who among the multitude of admins here who was last active there. And found you. So would you mind memorising the user name or keeping an eye on Florencerose? Thomas.W ^talk 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I edited a Gamergate-related article?! Must check whether the rules and regulations regarding revdel allow me to eradicate any signs of such misguided activity. I prefer to stay well clear of that snake pit and have seemingly succeeded so well that I don't know what the "30/500" refers to. That being said, the editor in question is probably up to no good, and if I catch'm in the act, retribution will be swift, but I can't promise a 24/7 stakeout – in fact, I'm off to an early bed. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I posted a level-2 for test edits on their talk page, so that they'd know they've been noticed. (PS. 30/500 = account 30 days old + 500 edits in article space) Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dog articles

This is very probably the usual dog-vandal. Hafspajen (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Request to reconsider

I noticed that you protected Levant today because of 2 IP edits today, which you called vandalism. First of all, those were the only edits for the whole last week. I really think that 2 IP edits per week is by far not enough grounds for semi-protection. Secondly, those were POV edits, which is absolutely not the same as vandalism. Please consider unprotecting this article. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On its own, it wouldn't have been, but it's part of a campaign from a very persistent IP-jumper from Australia. Take for instance 58.168.146.213 and look at the edit history of one of their other targets Template:Palestinians, you'll see what they are capable of and why I put my admin foot down so heavily. Favonian (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. You see the bigger picture. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mujhideen101's sockpuppets

Hello, Favonian. I hope you can help with this issue: As far as I can see, banned editor Mujhideen101 (his edits - [11]) has returned once again, this time as Solomon1001 (his edits - [12]). Since his indef block in 2012, he used many different socks, like More1001 (his edits - [13])... Edit pattern of all this accounts looks very similar, so IMHO this is a DUCK. --Sundostund (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sundostund: The edit history combined with the existence of a previously blocked sock, Solaymon1001 (talk · contribs), I'd say there's basis for a block. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 14 is not an "archive". It is an ongoing discussion of templates which were nominated for discussion on 14 August, in a process which lasts for at least one week, an sometimes, much longer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Jewish and Israeli holidays

Thank you. Minor tweak request, if it's possible? (Maybe it's not, I don't know.) Perhaps extend that month-long block one day, to 20 September. I ask this because several of the people who otherwise watch that template are Sabbath-observant Jews; 19 September is a Saturday, and we're offline that day. So it would be useful if the protection didn't expire while we're offline. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Quelle surprise"

Oh look: [14]. Kinda familiar, from an anon ip, in Worcester, on Sky Broadband?? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed. IP blocked and handiwork deleted. Thanks for watching the skies! Favonian (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Then felt I like some watcher of the skies,

When a new planet swims into his ken." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Once more, Wikipedia elevates even the menial task of vandal slaying. :) Favonian (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

... well ok, tell Ken if you like, But don't tell Barbie! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Guess who. Spotted here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! The pride of Worcester strikes again – and gets blocked. Favonian (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's all a terrible geographic mistake, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (that was yesterday's ip address...)

And our latest (?) visitation: [15]. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

But not sure what's to be done about this: [16]. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked by User:Tide rolls. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

MAJOR hoogersvoot

Hello. I noticed that someone has posted on my talk page while I was gone, a user account with a name that smells more like Evlekis than a Pashtun or whatever (Evlekis likes to invent fancy "foreign" usernames, even though he doesn't seem to be particularly good at foreign langages, "hoogers voot" would be a cross between Swedish "höger fot" and Dutch "rechts voet"...), the timing also smells like Evlekis (just like posting on both my talk page and Bbb23's talk page) since he seems to get bored every Friday night and posts hoaxes on WP to cheer himself up. Part of his fun is also to post hints on my talk page to articles that he has vandalised, but since I can't see deleted contributions could you tell me if any contributions "Major right foot" made during his very short career on en-WP have been deleted? I would also be interetsed in knowing what he posted on his talk page before it got deleted. /Tom Thomas.W ^talk 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Just run-of-the-mill abuse directed at you and Bbb23. Yes, probably Evlekis – kind of the "default option" for moronic socks around this place. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Pest control

Could you have a look at 5.81.112.157's editing record? He seems very brave. Thanks JRPG (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Brave" was not the first word that came to my mind, but this person's obsession with Iain Duncan Smith deserved a second, longer block. As for the genre stuff, I simply don't understand what the different terms mean and I prefer not pass judgement. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking & I should have said I'd only looked at the BLPs i.e Duncan-Smith. I prefer not to say too much about a complaint as it's then your unbiased decision. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

This article has an on-going edit war, with neither editor using the talk page. Would you be interested in protecting this article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the warriors went to bed before I got up, so I'll bide my time. Favonian (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Shared IP page messages

Now you know I'm not abusing multiple accounts, are you ok with me replacing stale messages on shared ip pages with the Shared IP template? Mr. Smith-Jones (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are slightly over-interpreting the unblocking of your account. Be that as it may, I would very much prefer if you used the opportunity to actually help build an encyclopedia rather than pursue a "cause". Favonian (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

User page

Dear, Favonian, it looks like your user page was copied at User:3B54r445en4t_D4i5f34544f4on...I'm not sure if that is grounds for deletion but I thought you should at least know about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz! Looks like plagiarizing user pages was only one of several issues with this former editor. Favonian (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingshowman redux

Just an FYI: more of the same synth and undue weight edits, though I'm not as familiar with the back history related to the first few blocks. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How is this undue weight? I wrote the etymology of the term which is in the article. Leads summarize the material in the article. Maybe you should study up on your own policies, because there's no violation of them here. My past blocks for getting in fights with other editors have nothing to do with current writing, so you need not be familiar with them. And one would have thought that you'd be quite familiar, considering you rejected my unblock requests.Kingshowman (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The material is not synthesis, since the citations are given in the article. This is merely a summary of material in the article in the lead. I don't have any idea what you find problematic about stating the well-known fact that the term 'landlord' derives from feudalism, as stated elsewhere in the article. It is not civil or nice to try to be a thorn in someone's side and revert their edits for no reason and providing completely spurious reasons in your edit summary.Kingshowman (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Jamie's assessment. In view of my previous involvement with you, I'll let others do what needs doing. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, just saying "I agree" doesn't amount to providing a reason. You both have obvious grudges against me and are being uncivil since the two of you blocked me numerous times on the flimsiest of pretenses. Other editors who do not bare a personal grudge have thanked me for my edits as they plainly add referenced material to an article in desperate need of expansion and balancing of its point of view, from the current non-neutral pro-landlord propaganda piece that it is. Why, pray tell, do either of you think that the term landlord being derived from feudalism, or the fact that "many municipalities have legislated laws to protect tenants from landlords" is possibly not relevant to a landlord article? The material is in the article and obviously deserves inclusion. I'd love to hear an argument or reason, other than "I don't think so" or "I disagree" which do not constitute arguments, but are mere asssertions. Kingshowman (talk)

One More Favor

Thank you again for blocking the troll. Would it be possible if I could ask you to hide the contents of his attack from my timeline, too? Thank you again.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the page protection, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like some people are incapable understanding simple messages – like "get lost!" Favonian (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Fovonion

Thought to let you know someone is impersonating you with a different account.--Cahk (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cahk: Not any more, he isn't. :) Thanks for informing me! Favonian (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seeking your input

Greetings sir,

I'm seeking your input regarding the sources collected for the Parwez article here [17], in order to build consensus on the content before I edit the main page.

It looks like most of the sources are being accepted, just two questions remain:

1. Can I insert the sourced comment that Parwez rejected "some" hadith to clarify (not remove) his "Quranist" title?
2. How many primary sources can I use to suppliment the 3rd party sources on which there is consensus?

Your opinion will be highly appreciated. Thank you. Code16 ^{... Logic Bomb !} 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

oz, trolls, and I

I recently started policing the Dr. Oz WP page. It seems to be under constant vandalism for at least the past 2 years.. The bots and wikipedian's that try to correct this (including youerself) have missed certain information that the trolls were successful for removing for nearly 2 years. I recently restored this info and will keep a close eye on it. If you are an admin would you please consider a permanent protection block? a temporary block isn't working, the vandalism hasn't stopped. I will watch your talk page in the hope that you reply to my request.Void burn (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Void burn: Were it up to me, all BLPs would be indefinitely semi-protected, but strong forces wish to preserve the right of IPs and other transients to edit freely. All that can be done is to escalate the length of protection every time it becomes apparent that leaving this article unprotected has undesirable consequences. Favonian (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)