User talk:Favonian/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Disruptive editor

Hi. Could you please have a word with this editor (that you warned in the past)? They keep removing properly sourced content under various pretexts (since June 2021) and blanking their talk page (such as here) to make it impossible for others to communicate with them. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Additional words probably won't make much of a difference and as things stand, I can't take more forceful steps. Moroccan's edits are probably POV-guided, but they do not constitute vandalism in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Furthermore, unlike the situation with the homosexuality article alluded to above, they are not edit-warring with several editors, only with you. This makes it a WP:content dispute and, well, you know the drill. Sorry I can't be of more help. Favonian (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Duck!

Seems WP:BKFIP has registered again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: No kidding – I mean: thanks! Favonian (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi LOck request

I ask that Adolf Eichmann is semi locked. Thanks, 216.186.17.122 (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC) idk

That would at least keep you from editing. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nadeem Sarwar protection

Hi! Thank you for looking into this unprotection request. So it's the same subject that's causing disruption again? Interesting.

Still, it will be easier to catch those repeated recreations if the page isn't protected (you've probably noticed how we end up playing whack-a-mole, not knowing at what bizarre title that will get recreated next). And even if you believe that protection is still a better idea, would you mind setting it to some normal level, like EC, and some reasonable period (different from perpetuity)? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The good news: I've eased the creation protection to EC. As for the rest, fixing a duration of protection against someone who's been at it for a decade amounts to "when Hell freezes over" or, in Wikipedia lingo, "indefinite". Regarding the "alternative naming"/"whack-a-mole" argument, I don't believe it makes much of a difference. If the relentless self-promoter comes up with an original variation, some reviewer, wise in the ways of Wikipedia's naming conventions, will try to rename the article, and the cover is blown. It's happened time and again with variations on the theme of "(actor)", "(YouTube personality)", "(humanitarian)". Oh, vanity of vanities! Favonian (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! As for the recreation, if that happens at an obvious title (say, one using a disambiguator), yeah, that wouldn't make much of a difference. But what I had in mind was titles that use alternative anglicisations (like aa for a, or i for ee), and these may not be obvious to most reviewers. – Uanfala (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

request

Hello, Favonian! I want delete this, this and this. Can you help me by deleting these. Thanks in advance. AwfulReader (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Favonian (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Reply

The discussion can't be closed in 20 minutes because some dude has decided so, if the matter is not settled. Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And now you're blocked. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the blockade and the lack of merits. You must be really happy with your life if your only point is to block people on the internet :) Atlantico 000 (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

64.126.141.208

Hello. You should review the behavior history of said IP, since he is whitewashing his talk page and making possible personal attacks. -Alabama- (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Patience expired; talk page access revoked. Favonian (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

CarlostheJackal01

Back again as 92.205.3.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Gone the way of its predecessors. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Block evader

This edit that you just reverted was made by an obvious block evader. Here they are making the same edit to the same page, just last month. Also, they both geo-locate to the same city. (fyi) - wolf 04:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thanks! Embarrassing that I didn't spot that, considering that I blocked 2601:681:5500:6600::/64 for the same reason back in January. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Lunatic update

Hi Fav. You and I both know this to be true, but I thought I would just follow up a discussion in your archives with this fact. I note Sro23's esteemed opinion in the archive, but on this occasion profoundly disagree. If you ever want to add anything, you now know where it is. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Loud applause from this timezone! Vermeilian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) chimes in with edits both revdel'ed and utterly deleted. Did you notice this nice try? Favonian (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for blocking Historcorretor indefinitely for not being here to build an encyclopedia. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 22:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. That user is actually a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PaullyMatthews. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

LTA/VXFC

Would I be right in guessing that this diff looks like his 'fist'? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Looks very much like it, enough so that I have blocked the IP. Will you do the honor of reverting? For rationale, you have the difficult choice between "unsourced", "original research" or "banned means banned". Favonian (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

Any long-term issues on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, where the new account might be a sockpuppet of an established disruptor? —C.Fred (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: The user in question certainly behaves like a sock, but I can't identify a master. The contested section was previously contested by an established (and well-behaved) editor – not puppeteer material. More iffy was the addition of it by an SPA. Muddy waters altogether. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Heavens! I missed this piece of brilliancy. This sock knows about sockpuppetry! Favonian (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And now you see the other reason I asked the question! WP:AGF says they're a new user who just disagrees with inclusion. I don't see anything obvious, and sockpuppet investigations aren't fishing expeditions. If you don't know anything about the article history, I'm going to go the AGF route on them. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Kung Hibbe

Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kung Hibbe: I helped to deal with similar behaviour from a few accounts last summer but they've not been active this year. The only name that springs to mind is RVE865Wiki, whom you blocked. Certes (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: Thanks! I'd forgotten about that one. Don't think they're the same, though. Different areas of interest. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

LTA/VXFC

Back again, on 88.108.58.213, with edit note: Following John's link led me to an SPI filed on Friday with no diffs or any kind of evidence which was closed "no action" by the clerks within half an hour after someone commented: "England is a big country. The idea that all of the edits from there come from one person is absurd." I concur with those sentiments.

Another IP to block if you have nothing better to do than play another game of whack-a-mole. No NPA vios so I haven't reported to AIV or ANI. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done – been doing it for years. Favonian (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done a WP:RfPP too as no doubt he will find another route. Maybe I'm wrong about who it is but it has his style and knows too much about the engine room of Wikipedia. "I'll be back", unfortunately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Like some H. P. Lovecraft monster, this one has been here since before time itself. Favonian (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long] (and confirms my suspicions). 91.125.11.2 this time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"Stuck in a groove" comes to mind. Favonian (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sock

250106Ningen is clearly a sock of Ningen2006 (similar username and interest, including the disruptive page moves). Best, M.Bitton (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, M.Bitton, I was not familiar with that sock drawer. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

About the edit request

(copied from here because I don't know if that shows up):

Thanks for moving it to the talk page, but it looks like you accidentally copied the version that was broken by the bot, and a part of the request template. Could you please fix that? Thanks. :) 91.129.102.205 (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

About being Blocked

I was blocked from making edits by you, may I please know on what grounds was I blocked. Thanks SukrantBhat13 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's difficult when I don't know the name of the original account. The one you're currently using is brand new. Do be aware of our rules for sock-puppetry. Favonian (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Correction: not so new; created August 4, 2021. I think I know where this is going. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrator activity policy update

Hello, Favonian. This message is to let you know about a change to the administrator policy:

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Request

Dear Favonian , I request you to fully protect my Userpage completely after creation because I want to display on all Wikimedia projects by creating a Userpage on meta, my home wiki Hindi Wikipedia my Userpage is completely fully protected after creation, can you please fully protect my Userpage the complete build upon request?. Regards Aviram7 (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aviram7: I could do that, but are you sure that's what you want? It would effectively bar you from creating a separate en-Wiki user page without admin assistance. Extended-confirmed protection should be almost as efficient against the undesirables. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, Yes, I want to fully protect your User page, please make sure that my member page is fully protected from creation.Regards Aviram7 (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't think our protection policy even allows the use of full protection for such cases, so I have made it extended-confirmed. Favonian (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Dear Favonian, that's great! Thanks for a lot for great Action.Regards Aviram7 (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday!

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding template

Hello, I came across an Ip User talk:72.212.187.218 where you have used a level 4 template. I think this is not the correct way to warn the user. We should not use a level 4 template directly. I may be wrong, correct me if I am. Thankyou and Happy Editing. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 14:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

They had received a level-2 warning less than an hour before, and their edit history shows they had it coming. Sure enough, they continued the next day and got blocked. Favonian (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Richard Toby Coke

Greetings Favonian, could you have a look at notability of RTC? I have the strongest suspicion that the purpose of the article is to promote his training courses. I wouldn't object if there wasn't a link to the courses. I've proposed deletion but its been reverted. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@JRPG: I would say his notability is marginal: local politician with limited media coverage, but it's been with us for almost a decase, and I wouldn't bet on it being deleted in an AfD.

I don't quite get what you say about "the purpose of the article", though. Are you implying that the creator of the article, who also declined your PROD, has a CoI? I find that hard to believe. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Favonian, I'm still somewhat non-plussed about the article purpose anyway hence though I'd overlooked that my PROD was reverted by the article creator. I'll accept your advice not to bang my head against a brick wall!

Regards JRPG (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Severus Alexander

What was I thinking of? Maybe "he succeeded TO slain his . . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuskaloEdonon (talk • contribs) 16:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@AuskaloEdonon: My guess would be "Succeeded to the throne of ..." Favonian (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

IP 2601.601 etc & Western Michigan Cooley Law School

Last Fall, you blocked a whole series of IP addresses in the above-referenced range from editing at Western Michigan University Cooley Law School for a period of one year for disruptive editing. The IP editor is quite obviously user:Gameadvancr, who was warned for the same disruptive editing at the same article and for sockpuppetry last May. The block really hasn't worked, since the same IP editor has been persistently making the same disruptive, repetitive edits over the past 9 or 10 months, including through this week, with the precise IP address changing every few edits. Rather than playing Whac-A-Mole with the IP addresses, may I suggest partial page protection of the article, barring IP edits, for a non-trivial period - say 6 months to a year? Thanks. Banks Irk (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: It looks like the IPs just roamed a wider range than the one I blocked. There's now a block on the entire "/32" range for the next year. Favonian (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed, looking back at the edit history, that other IP address outside this range have been used, but this should catch 99 and 44/100% of them. Banks Irk (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Archiving issues

Hey! You seem to be having to manually archive all the posts put into WP:RFP /Edit. It doesnt seem you've brought this up with the bot operator yet - I'd recommend you let them know its sometimes going down (unless theres something behind it im unaware of). Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382: It's not the /Edit section that's the problem. The whole archiving of RfPP occasionally stalls for no discernible reason, and I can "unplug" it by just performing a single, manual archiving. I choose one of the small sections because they're easier to edit and have a very low probability of edit conflict. I really should notify Cyberpower678, but it's 10:40 pm in my timezone, so I'll put it off until tomorrow – again. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

User:BabatundeTissues

Hi Favonian. Apologies for the interruption. I think we might need to revisit the mass revert of edits by BabutundeTissues. The reverts have reintroduced some vandalism. E.g. [1], [2]. - Ryk72 ^talk 09:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Sheesh! Thanks!! If only those pests could be consistently disruptive. Favonian (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The pattern is 10 blind reverts of whatever the most recent changes are to get autoconfirmed. It just so happens that apparently most IP changes are vandalism/disruption, so some of the first 10 edits are accidentally good. Could a kind soul please semi all the pages on this and this list? CMD (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I've semi'ed those worst hit for a month and will (try to) monitor the Orania article. Favonian (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You know, BabatundeTissues I don't mind, but BellconGrass is one of the numerous accounts not blocked at SPI for whatever reason. CMD (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

One more down, Writehe to go. CMD (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's talk about Sushant Singh Rajput page

I would like to point out that the case is in investigation and hence the cause of death should be changed to under investigation Under Indian Law also this is proof of source for this edit that the case is still under CBI investigation and any wrong information should not be presented on wiki. I request u to change this to Under Investigation Anshul Srivastava.21 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's not. I have no personal interest in this article, having never heard of this person until I was made aware of the brouhaha surrounding the Wikipedia article. I did protect it as a way of damage control, but what goes into the article will be established through discussion on Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput, so that should be your next destination, not assorted personal talk pages. Favonian (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

can we just not PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Damn! You're fast. :) Favonian (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

List of wars involving Russia discussion

Hi, I just wanted to talk about list of wars including russia. As you know there is a war initiated by russia, that actually took place a lot earlier than 2022. Russia tries to erase our Ukrainian history by grabbing Kyivs'ka Rus' calling it's theirs. Kyivs'ka Rus' belongs to Ukraine, so that is a part of Ukrainian history, not russian. Leaving page in a current state you support russian attempts to erase Ukrainian culture, please, don't support it. Remove that part. You can check Ukrainian variant of current page, where Rus' doesn't belong to russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lysko2220 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I protected the article because you and others were edit-warring over the content. Other than that, I have no interest in the article, and at any rate, discussion should take place on Talk:List of wars involving Russia. Favonian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Niko Omilana

I think that Niko Omilana should get his page a back since it is notable cause he is really popular and has 5 million subscribers and also Praxidicae started the edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E4B:2010:5D0D:B5E3:8642:716 (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not gonna happen unless you can get consensus on the talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

World War II casualties of the Soviet Union

For World War II casualties of the Soviet Union page The Ip user is adding their pov and or to the page such as (That means, dear EnWiki readers, that you are also being deprived of true figures as those of the present Russian military losses in the Ukraine).[3].

I did ask for page protection to stop the pov pushing and or. [4]

Mordencarfan (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on Talk:World War II casualties of the Soviet Union, not on individual editors' talk pages. Currently, both parties engage in edit warring and have been warned accordingly. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure, you have received my reply on your warning. If not, I can repost it. If you have, kindly accept my apologies.

In any war there is a party to have started it and a party compelled to defend his contribution. Morden car fan has begun this edit war by arbitrary reverting three posts unchallenged by anyone for more than a month in the Talk page. He failed to produce any arguments, thus making it a vandalic censorship. Remember, any censorship is prohibited by the American Constitution, let alone vandalic ones?

What contribution of mine might be regarded pov (point of view, I guess) push.

I am a pro editor, but see no one.

Does EnWiki want to remain the only one that pushes a completely defrauded and show-offy "researches" by General Krivosheev? Thus EnWiki reproduces Russian generals' frauds of hiding the tremendous military losses in civilian casualties. Въ 109.252.78.57 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

VXFC again

is back again. Would you block 78.149.231.146 and 92.23.215.132 please. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Favonian (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Chronic Lyme Disease page

This entire page looks like it was edited by someone with a visible bias, who cherry picked quotes to support an agenda. Here is the full context of the opening quote: “Although ‘chronic Lyme disease’ clearly encompasses post-Lyme disease syndrome, it also includes a broad array of illnesses or symptom complexes for which there is no reproducible or convincing scientific evidence of any relationship to B. burgdorferi infection,” said Shapiro, who is professor of pediatrics, epidemiology and public and investigative medicine at Yale School of Medicine.

Cutting the opening clause, "Although ‘chronic Lyme disease’ clearly encompasses post-Lyme disease syndrome" effectively changes the meaning and intent of the original quote, while still using the "Yale" name as a source of reliability.

In general, almost every supporting citation is over 10 or 15 years old, while lyme disease is a very current topic. Moreover, the intent of the more legitimate scientific articles is twisted by the quote cherry-picking.

Rather than implying all people who use the term CLD are frauds, it seems more informative and educational to follow the NIH's lead to explain CLD is a term misused to address a variety of symptoms or illnesses, some of which are the result of infection caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and some of which are not. From 2018: The term “chronic Lyme disease” (CLD) has been used to describe people with different illnesses. While the term is sometimes used to describe illness in patients with Lyme disease, it has also been used to describe symptoms in people who have no clinical or diagnostic evidence of a current or past infection with B. burgdorferi . Because of the confusion in how the term CLD is employed, and the lack of a clearly defined clinical definition, many experts in this field do not support its use." JaniceCAV42 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I don't really know the wikipedia editing process, so I apologize if this is the incorrect action. I was researching lyme disease and when I came upon this page, it is just such an outlier (in terms of overt bias) to what I consider the normal quality of wikipedia articles, that it surprised me. JaniceCAV42 (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The case should be argued on Talk:Chronic Lyme disease, not here. I have no stake in the dispute, but deemed it necessary to protect the article because of the disruptive edit-warring. Favonian (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Stone RM

Hi! I was surprised by your close at Talk:Stone (disambiguation)#Requested move 23 June 2022. Would you mind sharing your thinking around it? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I did read your careful argument, but this was one of the cases where long-term significance had a very strong following, and I closed the request accordingly. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Long-term significance was presumed, but I think it was clear that those commenting on it hadn't bothered to look at the relevant topics. But yeah, probably no need to reopen a discussion given the baggage of a week's worth of votes (no matter how irrelevant they may be; a note to myself here to avoid commenting in discussions unless it's near their start date). I'll start a new one right away, at least as soon as I manage to fix the 500 or so incoming links (that's both complex and uninspiring, so probably gonna be months). – Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Pennatomys

I don't understand why the move was performed while the article is still linked from the Main page. Could it be reverted until tomorrow, or the Main page be changed to the present name? Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: If it were still TFA, sure, but it's only linked under "Recently featured" and the redirect will get the interested reader to the proper destination. Favonian (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I just know that even every article linked from a DYK hook - on top of the bolded subject - has absolutely be no redirect. (Not that I understand it, it's just an observation.) If tomorrow, someone wants to know how the article fared in views, they will needlessly have to add stats from two different pages. All this could have been avoided by doing it tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Editing about Durga

Can i have permission to edit goddess Durga page. Mili977 (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No! You and your opposite number have been edit-warring like crazy and should rightly be blocked for same. Changes should be proposed and discussed at Talk:Durga. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

User:1234567890Bobdob

Can you please revoke talk page access? See a gross personal attack here on their talk page. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done: and upgraded to indef. Favonian (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much! BilCat (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy Twelfth Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Favonian a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

AIV

Your help would be appreciated on the 3 IPsocks of Cricket Fan 7 reported at AIV, who have been harassing me and another editor for the last half hour. Thanks. General Ization ^Talk 05:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Favonian (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Unprotection

Hi, Hamlet the Dane. Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP has been semi'd for seven years. I have now unprotected it, experimentally, on request. Please feel free to reprotect if you like; you obviously have more experience of Mr Best Known For than me. If you think we should try leaving it open, could you help me watch it? Bishonen | tålk 07:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Unprotecting is fine by me, oh my not currently belligerent neighbor, if only because it's an excellent honey trap. I'll watch it like a hawk with reading glasses. Favonian (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Bo Burnham protection lower

Hey, just a quick follow up to this discussion, aren't all pages subject to some IP vandalism? It's not even averaging one edit a day, 175 edits this year so far, we are on day 221. It appears to be sporadic at best, no more than any other BLP or article would be subject to. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

If by "subject to" you mean "likely to be", then no. In my opinion, the frequency of disruption in this case is too high to be ignored, bearing in mind that it's a BLP, so I stand by my decision. Favonian (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Two IPs have together made 4 reverts

Two IPs of the same geolocation have together made 4 reverts on that article and are edit warring on several other articles. Can their combined 4 reverts counted as a 3RR breach? Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

4 or more reverts have been made there and there too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: Clear edit warring. Given the number of articles affected, protection was not an option, so I've taken the drastic step of blocking the entire 2a01:cb09::/32 range. Favonian (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, the massive edit warring was making my watchlist a mess. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ain't it fun...

manually updating on WP:RMC? 😂🤖 – robertsky (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@Robertsky: You just don't appreciate robots until they stop working – or point a blaster at you. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Bot's back. And I missed one entry somehow. Meh. Our silicon friend is certainly not missed. – robertsky (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for holding the fort on behalf of Humanity! Your sacrifice is appreciated. Favonian (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

And... it is down again I think. – robertsky (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

D'oh! Favonian (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to be a fake bot. Can't be arsed to keep spending hours to produce something which the script can do in 13 minutes (sans the automated notifications on the various talk pages. I took out the ability of the script to write anything to the wiki without me reviewing the output (to text files) first). – robertsky (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Impressive! Now you have a life-long obligation to maintain WP:RMC. :D Favonian (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Favonian,

I have a question for you. How did you do a mass revision delete after the latest vandal? I've also seen other admins do mass-page taggings and I can not figure out how they manage that. I know that Twinkle has a mode for batch delete but these edits weren't marked as Twinkle edits. Is there a script that I don't know about? I don't expect to do mass revision deletions in my future but when I see an admin do something that I've never seen before, I just have to ask...HOW? If this is sooper secret information, you can drop me an email. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Not secret at all. Credit goes to Writ Keeper, the justifiably proud creator of User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js. Favonian (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine mess, yes

Could you help move this so we don't have "one day"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorrry, SergeWoodzing, but I rather like the current title, so I'll leave the implementation of the two-person consensus to someone else. Whoever does so should also remember to move the talk page archive. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Just so I don't misunderstand you: you like "one day"? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but fear not, I won't actively oppose the move. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

These attacks on editors are getting ridiculous

Any ideas as to what to do? Has this been discussed at ANI? Doug Weller talk 18:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I assume you're talking about this creep and its several predecessors. To my knowledge, the infestation has not been discussed at ANI and I doubt that there's much to be done about it. Blocking all Lebanese IPs as an arbitration enforcement would probably meet with some resistance and contacting local law enforcement seems unrealistic given the magnitude of other problems they have to deal with. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AN#Repeated Harassment seems to be related. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you’re probably right. I don’t know if it’s one person with loads of access or a group. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Maths

Are you a maths major? — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.L.TDAE. (talk • contribs) 13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Favonian (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

review undo on topic "numbers" and reverse your undo if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V.L.TDAE. (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

a) No; b) Learn how to make proper talk page requests. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Shajar al-Durr

Thanks for protecting the article. The sock seems to have moved on the her last husband, Aybak, though? Huldra (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sigh! The usual pattern. I'll try to monitor that article as well. Favonian (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Blatant sockpuppet of User:Stubes99

Hello. I chose to write this message to you because you are an online admin right now. Can you please block https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Investigator77 as an obvious sockpuppet? It is a new account and the very first edits were to restore reverted edits of a previous sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magyarization&action=history? 86.120.52.14 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on a decade of time wasting, I deduce that you're a sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi – the other half of the pathetic vaudeville act. Get stuffed! Favonian (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding (possible) sock

Hi,

I noticed your block. I suppose Special:Contributions/DenizensOfTheDeep was trying to clarify/inform/support me. I'm getting really interested in sock policies, might they be too strict, or misapplied? I don't have the evidence, not sure it's public (like IP address). Might this be a Wikipedia:Clean start or even just someone unrelated? Or possibly a coworker? I see there's Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. comp.arch (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering the barrage of edits from this person, which caused the Fine-structure constant article to be protected yesterday, I'm quite certain it's a sock of the author whose masterpiece was quoted. Their long track record has placed them firmly within WP:3X. Favonian (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

sukhoi su-34 "edit war"

My edit to the mentioned page was reverted which was followed by a "semi protection" of the page for "edit warring". No one had engaged in discussion about the edit, and I assume the semi protection was requested in order for the well established editor (who refused to discuss) to shape the page to his liking. My edit included a comprehensive explanation and is in compliance with the guidelines as far as I can see. please unlock the page or remove the misinformation yourself. 46.32.47.219 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is not a "Ukrainian propaganda site"--Mr Fink (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Edit-warring was in progress, and protection was the less drastic remedy available. Someone finally initiated a discussion on the article talk page, which is the proper venue – as opposed to my talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Your talk page was consulted because you protected the page, an action I found problematic since it was requested by someone actively reversing the edits without giving any reasoning or engaging in discussion. If a user restores a revert, which included proper reasoning, without giving any reasoning themselves, why is the restored version protected rather than the reverted version? Isn't a revert of a revert itself a revert? I admit it's most likely my ignorance of the customs and/or policies on Wikipedia editing, but the rules and guidelines are communicated quite poorly so I don't have much choice but to try and clear it up through discussion. 5.56.146.200 (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Jon C.

Question

Hello good evening. I noticed that the user ip Adress 2600:1003:B020:0:0:0:0:0/43 is blocked. I tried creating an account near that area. However I could not. To make it clear. It was not me that messaging inappropriately on talk pages. I also was not messing with Biographies of living Persons page. Was this block for someone else?.

Thanks Eooegogjogj123456012 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

a) Somehow you managed to create an account. b) You've already been blocked. Favonian (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hello sir! I noticed there was a page called "Bihar", contributed by a user called "January1995'. Tlyk, though he's not the page creator, he messed with the page but his contribs had been reverted and the admins blocked him. Could you protect the page Bihar please? Thanks. Locked Empire (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The amount of disruption isn't high enough to make protection necessary. Protection would also prevent you from editing the article, as you won't become auto-confirmed for another three days. Favonian (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please, if you may, review the article about Gelo Rivera

Hello, I would like to request a review on the article about Gelo Rivera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelo_Rivera One of the page reviewers says it needs a notability, I made some improvements on the page but I am unsure if that's enough to meet the requirements needed to remove the tag on the page.

NOTE: If in case that this concern is not necessarily here on your talk page, please ignore. Thank you Troy26Castillo (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My only involvement with this article was to close a move request. Locating reliable sources regarding the subject of the article is well beyond my competence. Favonian (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues with a blocked IP range

Hey! I had recently come across the 114.125.144.0/20 IP range during category cleaning, which you had blocked for 6 months not too long ago. It seems the IPs in the range have been making a lot of unconstructive copy-and-pasting on their talk pages, which I've since reverted. Is there any way this could be sorted (such as removing TP access), or should I just watch the range closely for new edits? Aidan9382 _(talk) 07:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

 Talk page access revoked – Favonian (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Ribe

Look, it's a town in Denmark! I'm hoping you can help out with proper sourcing for the modern period, for instance, much of which is probably in Danish. Let's give Ribe its star in the firmament! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it doesn't have much of a post-reformation history. Well, it is far from Copenhagen. Favonian (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"Far" in Denmark is 45 minutes on a bicycle? ;) Drmies (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

LTA on IP you blocked

Regarding this short term block, you might want to check out a probably related LTA here. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: Good heavens! Didn't know that one was still around. Quite a bit of disruption from the range, so we may get around to blocking it. Favonian (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent bugger. And not in the adorable Hallmark movie sort of way. More creepy stalker kind of way. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: Somebody's Watching over Me – or possibly my talk page. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean "Somebody's Watching Me"? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I considered it, but didn't want to get in trouble with Jackson Family lawyers. Favonian (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for your good work Andre🚐 20:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Keir Starmer

Greetings Favonian, I wonder if you could have a look at this as 2 IP's Riverheart248 and Knock97 are calling him "Keir Rodney Starmer" which isn't supported by his parliamentary page. I smell a rat. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@JRPG: not being mentioned in his parliamentary page or his party's website, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not true. A quick search reveals that the name "Rodney" appears in various sources (including these two books [5][6]). If you're still unsure, and seeing as this is WP:BLP issue, you could always shoot him an email. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute of the decidable variety. I won't even break out the popcorn. Favonian (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I will admit to deep suspicion of IP's. JRPG (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Copy-paste of your block notice?

The user Kfjisee (talk · contribs) has copied a block notice you sent to พนรนร (talk · contribs) on their talk page. It's way past odd, and I don't know what to do. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: Good catch! This account does indeed look like พนรนร. It has already been blocked by one of my colleagues, but as there may be more socks lurking in the grass, I'm going to create an SPI case. Favonian (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Paperwork filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kfjisee. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello sir

Hello sir I agree to do forcefully for the protection but one edit is done wrong and I can't see it so could you please again unprotected the page please. Sumancranebuddy21q00 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Use an WP:Edit request#Making requests to propose changes. Favonian (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Power Hacks

I notice you just added that user to the LTA of Ararat arev . You might want to add User:Powervision2011 to that list, he confirmed on both accounts that they were the same person. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarl N. Duly noted and recorded. Favonian (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

User talk:John

Hi there Favonian. Thank you for protecting my user talk page during my retirement. As I have returned, this maybe isn't necessary any more. Would you like to unprotect it? John (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

With pleasure, John. Welcome back! Favonian (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! John (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

reversal of an edit on page for 727

Hello there. i just wanted to ask if the reversal of an edit on page for 727 was a mistake or not. if not can you explain why you reversed the change 216.172.232.128 (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No reliable source was supplied to support the claim. At any rate, memes are a dime a dozen and not usually notable. Favonian (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

literally 1984 216.172.232.128 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Be wise

Hi. You reverted and warned me as though I was being destructive. No, I'm actually only honest with my edits. For example, you can find him in numerous lists of the biggest draft busts in NHL history. 94.191.152.89 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Disambig

Hi, thanks for your your edit on List of WWII Maybach engines a few weeks ago. Glancing at your talk page archive I can see you are often busy with loads of other much more important stuff, so I really appreciate even minor improvements to the well-being of WP. I don't do barnstars, but here's some pix of a barn near where I used to live. MinorProphet (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Great Coxwell Barn

Harvey Manger-Weil

Hi User:Favonian, you blocked user:Hrstcms a while ago for persistently vandalising this page and trying to mess it up. Now, he has come back through this user:Foxtrot620 who also tried to mess up the page all at the same period. Pls take a look into this. Thanks.Padibso (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Favonian, Padibso is suggesting that nominating a page for speedy deletion is somehow messing it up. Considering that the person is in no way notable, adding a legitimate speedy deletion nomination is hardly messing a page up. My account isn't a front for anyone, and my edit history and account standing (for over a decade) support this. Besides all of this, Padibso is violating the principals of good faith. A speedy deletion nomination doesn't hurt anyone, and is a part of the Wikipedia process. Thank you in advance for respecting that. Foxtrot620 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about a single-purpose account, edit-warring like crazy. First their PROD request was denied, then they tried repeatedly to get the article speedied, when an AfD would have been the proper venue. Meanwhile, another admin decided in his wisdom that it was eligible for speedy deletion. I wash my hands. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

VPD7102001

Hello, Favonian,

I was looking at a recent incident of sockpuppetry with Varun the powerlifter and noticed that a few pages with his name have been protected but not Draft:Varun Pradip Dave which he seems to use most frequently. Do you think this is a conscious choice, to catch his next sockpuppets early or just an oversight and the page should be protected? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Liz. There are (at least) two schools of thought in this area: WP:DENY and WP:CATCH. Traditionally, I have adhered to the former, but as article titles can be modified ad infinitum, e.g. using spurious disambiguations, I seem to be shifting towards the latter. It probably doesn't matter much. They will continue to waste our time. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks for offering me your opinion. I have been going on a protection streak this year and I think I need to back off because, as you say, a determined sockpuppet will just find another variation on a page title to come up with. I don't think the page protection hurts because no one wants to write these articles except for the sockpuppets, but it can give an illusion that you have cut off all avenues for them to work when they can just come up with a new occupational noun or add a dash and bingo! there's a new draft. Thank you and I hope you are doing well this autumn! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Talk:15.ai

Hey, I saw that you've semi-protected Talk:15.ai back in early September in order to end a series of violations of WP:NOTAFORUM (namely, people used the talkpage simply to say "hi" to each other) on that talkpage that lasted one or two days. After nearly three months, I'd like to hereby request un-protection.

Namely, I'd like to use the talkpage to point out that the case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. is falsely represented in the article. --2003:EF:170A:9236:1D9C:54DD:8260:7B2F (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Revisiting the edit history of that page, I'm not tempted to lift the protection. When the previous protection expired, the morons converged upon the page instantly. You have two options: 1) Create an account and prove yourself (4 days, 10 edits); 2) Propose your changes at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Favonian (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sock IP

Hi Favonian, hope you're doing well. Recently you've protected this page and blocked IP sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beyoglou, per this request. Currently, they're using another IP from the same range and are stalking me [7]. Could you please take a look? I think a range block might be needed. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@ZaniGiovanni: Blocked and reverted. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Protection of Love Today (2022 film)

Hello @Favonian: Hope so you are doing well. Unfortunately I requested a protection for the page Love Today (2022 film) through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase and still there are so many disruptive edits on that page (despite after request the page is still not protected) and I’m tired of reverting those IP user’s disruptive edits. Could you please do something to protect the page as soon as possible so as to prevent further disruptive edits? Theoder2055 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Favonian (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Well please stop.

I believe you have wrote about the wrong person I have not ever edited the Brazil wikipidea page. Kind regards, H2Perkins. H2Perkins (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, you did. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I just ask one thing, how do you find out? H2Perkins (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I see everything, so stop lying! Favonian (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to jab in, but an indef block seems a bit too much in my judgement. Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Django Unchained article doesn't need protection

Dear Favonian,

Why did you protect the Django Unchained article because it really doesn't need protection. Most of the disruptive edits were made by an administrator called Sjones23 not me. I was just trying to improve the article.2.26.1.245 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In the eyes of the beholder. Favonian (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Oh what a surprise: the IP has now been blocked for socking. Will they. never learn? BilCat (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that

That was... weird. I know it would be annoying to have all your contribs reverted, but they really had turned that article into a sort of unsourced Fandom page. I was trying to avoid being too bitey... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Trouble on the wrestling article

There's this guy called WWE Lover Fan Forever who is being an ass on the professional wrestling article. Could you sort this out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Professional_wrestling#Theater_or_sport?

Kurzon (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that the whole purpose of professional wrestling? Snide comment aside, they haven't misbehaved since they received a warning, so what remains is a content dispute. You know the drill. Favonian (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please unban me

I edited my own post from another IP. Pls unban me. It's me. Also Copenhagen ip. I have made an account now to prevent these issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlin1 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jatlin1: You're neither banned nor blocked, and I have reverted myself on the talk page. God bedring! Favonian (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Favonian, there was a huge amount of logged-out editing. I hope Jatlin1 does not "forget" to log in anymore. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Drmies, thanks for the feedback.

The editions happened over one comment just. Later the comment was copied, removed, pasted, posted on my new account after I had discovered my terrible wrongdoing, sir. Jatlin1 (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Tak skal du have, hehe Jatlin1 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

HarveyCarter?

The brand new user JacksonT1's comment on Talk:Attack on Pearl Harbor is a classic HC trope. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: In an age of incessant change it's good to have people like Mr. Carter around. Favonian (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the eternal verities. Best to you this holiday season. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)