User talk:Favonian/Archive 48

Euler's identity
Please see my comments at User talk:Joel B. Lewis concerning content you just restored to the article in (apparently) reverting an LTA. I still happen to agree with the IP in this particular case.  General Ization Talk  20:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome to reinstate the change over your own signature, but this ogre is heading for yet another range-block. Favonian (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Article protection request
Hello. Can you please Semi-Protect List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes for at least 2 weeks? There's an anon editor with IPs on multiple ranges who has repeatedly tried to establish their own preferred version of the article without reaching consensus. I have already tried engaging in a discussion with the IP on the article's talk page (with another user), but either the IP still refuses to reach a consensus or their English is not sufficient enough to allow for effective communication. At this point, their edits are becoming outright disruptive and violating established formatting styles for such articles. Can you please apply the Semi-Protection, and also revert to the pre-Edit War revision (if necessary)? (Last I checked, I reverted back to the pre-Edit War revision, prior to making some unrelated changes to the article.) Thank you. Light and Dark2000 🌀 (talk) 06:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses
There is an IP edit warring the Clodfelter source into the article. What was editor that was socking/using IPs to push the Clodfelter source? Possible Krajoyn sock? --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's him alright. Thanks for the report! Favonian (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh look, another one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My joy is complete! Favonian (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Chope
Hi Favonian. I wonder if you could protect Christopher Chope? Whilst he's one of my least favourite MPs the article is being vandalised by I/Ps. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! JRPG (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

F1 IP boy
Hello, I think this might be he. Could well be wrong but contains several edits characteristic of our old chum. Cheers, Eagleash (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like him, . His reappearance is probably related to the recent expiry of the block on his favorite range, Special:Contribs/79.78.96.0/19. Favonian (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely him then? I saw some of the IP edits (as did some other project members) but it didn't leap out at me. The account had a number of his typical errors so thought it might be him, but other edits are of a higher standard than previously. Anyways. Thanks. (12 mth block?). Eagleash (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked sock
Re, should the discussion they started be removed? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it should. Favonian (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

V(X)fC
, hope you're well! —— SerialNumber  54129  13:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy as a clam with both VXFC and BKFIP to keep me company. Favonian (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Clowns to the left of you, Jokers to the right..." :) Thanks for that though.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, me again—I wonder if you could role out some semi-protection here? I've called into RfPP but it's quite atm. Cheers! —— SerialNumber  54129
 * It's sorted, but thanks anyway. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Cedar Springs, Michigan
A different IP added the same content you rev del yesterday. FYI. I gave him an only warning for unsourced negative BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and I gave him three months for repeated block evasion. The critter has a name, btw: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DeepNikita/Archive. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why you rev del a fairly mundane bit. That explains it. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Was that a record?
Hello F. Thanks for the rev/del on that edit and summary on the VPT page. I think that might have been a record for the most editors attacked in a single edit summary :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I enjoy good company. Favonian (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "so good they named us twice" :D   ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

VXFC at Talk:Conquest of Mecca
If you have a chance, you might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/82.17.252.234 and block. I know you're quite familiar with VXFC's behavior. I also see that you blocked that IP address three times before for the same reason. The history of the talk page makes it pretty clear it's them, simply by comparing the behavior and location of the IP addresses. Many thanks, -- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This person gives new meaning to the phrase "many happy returns". Favonian (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Thanks for blocking. I do have that page on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out for them in the future.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 20:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Marinids
can you return to the article of Atlas?

here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marinid_dynasty&action=history?--41.141.32.39 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * State your case on the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * IP, i'm the one who asked for page protection, i can discuss the changes you're asking for on the article's talk page and edit it if your request is legit, but edit-warring like you guys did is clearly not an option. Cheers. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP editor returns after 3 months - only edit is to continue same behaviour
Hi there, in January you blocked from TP access on top of a 3 month block from  for disruptive editing. The block expired in January and the only edit they've made since was a message on my talk page yesterday that continues exactly the same behaviour for which he was banned in the first place: "State pageants for this year are over. Next year, your butt better not be deleting stuff that’s supposed to be there. Let it be! Don’t be rude to me or others on this website." Might be worth sending him back from whence he came since he's clearly WP:NOTHERE? Thanks '''... CJ [a Kiwi] in   Oz  ''' 00:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't have high hopes for the future career of this editor, but we'll need more of a smoking gun for the next (long!) block than just an ill-mannered talk page utterance. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback question
Hi Favonian- Longtime no "see". Saw your reverts of that ancestry silliness, and noticed the "rollback" edits all have the same time signature. Is that a tool that lets you roll a user's edits back across multiple articles in one action? When I first saw the term "rollback" years ago, I thought that's what it must mean. But I have rollback enabled in Twinkle, which just lets me revert all of a user's consecutive edits on one article. I've often thought the multi-article one would be useful for vandalism. For reference, here's a question I posed to another editor last year. Eric talk 19:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have these two miracles in my common.js file:

mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); mw.loader.load("/w/index.php?title=User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRevdel.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); Made my life a whole lot easier!. Favonian (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! So it appears that adding those two lines has provided for me a "revision deletion" dialog above a given user's contribs. Would that second field be a place to put an additional edit summary? Eric talk 20:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Never tried that variation on the theme, but I assume that leaving the rationale as "Other reason", rather than one of the pre-cooked RD choices, and filling out the box to the right would tag the revdel with your custom message. Beware that those who spend their time looking for signs of unorthodoxy in the admin sect will pounce upon revdels without properly dotted i's. Favonian (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, that second box is where you fill in a custom log summary for the revdel. If one of the canned revdel summaries from the dropdown is used, the text you type into that box will be appended to the canned summary; if not, your typed text will be the entire summary. HTH, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oracle Speaks! Thanks,, for your splendidly useful scripts! Favonian (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both! Eric talk 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter
Almost all my edits are being filtered for some reason. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B446:322A:B417:9B64:9CBF:F242 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of edit filters is scant, so I'll ping who authored this particular filter. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is more of his antics. IP blocked. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Another IP issue
Hi Favonian. As you deal with the Best Known for IP, I thought I might get your thoughts on another IP issue. There is an IP that adds Oxford commas to articles on a daily basis and repeatedly reverts their removal (they also revert other edits and never use edit summaries or the talk page). They change their IP almost every day (,  and  are some of the most recent ones) so it's impossible to discuss with them. They target a fairly narrow range of articles (almost all Israeli politics related), so pop up on my watchlist a lot. Cheers, Number   5  7  22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the range 178.115.128.0/22 for a bit in the hope that it will make'm willing to discuss their rather disruptive editing. Favonian (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent block
You recently blocked User:%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%83%83%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC, the latest of many User:McAusten socks. Here's another one User:Phoebe_Collins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly seems eager to become auto-confirmed, but that description fits a number of (usually dodgy) editors. What makes you believe that it's this particular miscreant? Favonian (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, whoever it was, the account is now blocked and gagged. Favonian (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The number edits to the sandbox give them away. See Special:Contributions/HüngDåck, Special:Contributions/Duckaroo, Special:Contributions/Melbourne_City_Mission, etc. I have duck blocked. Sro23 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, a sock with a tell. Highly useful. Thanks, ! Favonian (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's the next one User_talk:Austin_Barkersdale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked already, before we got a sample of their invaluable contributions. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Papers served on TR IS relevant
How can papers served on TR for defamation of the refugee NOT be relevant to the section on refugee boy???

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-facebook-sued-syrian-refugee-attack-school-huddersfield-defamation-jamal-a8805071.html?fbclid=IwAR3_Sq2MPRk8YtS-hmwIMvLdRvgFp15np9fMvJFaVHe7fTwFQ7mxWvH3FpM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdawn123 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not me you have to convince. Concentrate on the discussion you initiated at Talk:Tommy Robinson (activist). Favonian (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI
Hello F. I though you should know about this Administrators' noticeboard. It might be gone by the time you see this - fingers crossed. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 08:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good old dependable VXfC. Thanks for the heads-up, . Favonian (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Enjoy your week! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock...
You recently blocked 1gel 2gel 3gel 4gel. Not sure how to approach this but their editing smells like a sock. One possible candidate would be blocked user GDKartana, reasons being: I don't know that I have enough to file at WP:SPI but I am thinking WP:DUCK... Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1gel's very first edit was posting to WP:AIV sort of accusing GDKartana of being a sock
 * Both accounts mention Tegel, 1gel has edited that article as well.
 * Both accounts seem suspiciously familiar with WP-editing for being so new.
 * Blocked User GDKartana tripped LTA filters & was blocked for LTA.
 * If Favonian ever checks their email :p  I've already grassed up 1gel2gel  :D  I'll file for you, using your rationale above.  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the jury is back with a guilty verdict. It's probably the Whoever-on-Wheels critter, so I won't do them the honor of tagging the socks. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everybody. Heh, never knew that getting socks tagged was an honor...but yeah, makes sense. The quieter things are kept the more they will be starved of at least some of the attention they so crave... Shearonink (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverted discussion
Favonian, I'm wondering why you reverted my latest discussion on the Washington Talk page. Is there some sort of issue here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OFFS! Foiled by the all-too-accessible revert button. Terribly sorry about that! Favonian (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought it must of been something like that. Btw, nice to meet you! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Pleasure all mine! :) Favonian (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ken Jones (actor)
Hello, sorry to bother... If poss., could you take a look at this page. It's the subject of some, fairly low-level, disruption by an IP who keeps adding unsourced trivia / opinion. May be AGF (at least in the beginning) but messages have been ignored and removal of the unencyclopedic content silently reverted. Not certain if it warrants a block or filing at AIV, but maybe a short page protection? Thanks as ever! Eagleash (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely disruptive, so I have issued a level-5 warning. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Eagleash (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh dear; straight back after block. Same edit. Eagleash (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Guess it's level-6 this time. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again...the IP made the same edit twice today. Eagleash (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

ha!
!ah JarrahTree 10:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thanks! Just what I needed. Favonian (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Best known for IP
Hello there, from Portugal,

regarding your last message to me (which I duly thanked by clicking the button, I thank you now again), please see this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.132.221.211#Reply, obviously a new IP for the person). IP really trying their "bestest" to chase me away, I know my English is not that of a native, but very poor?! Fucking troll (I apologise for the language for it is written here, but not for the sentiment)!

Last (or one of the last) conversation I had with this individual went something like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.180.164.62&diff=820748178&oldid=820747575). See there, as in the thread above, as I never "raised my voice" but was met with increasingly more antagonistic behaviour; I ultimately chose to remove my entries in the latter talkpage, and left the person sort of "talking to themselves").

Please notify me if I engaged in any wrongdoing regarding this matter, attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's him, in a nut(!)shell. I can't find the link to the discussion, but there once was a proposal to give him a second chance. The supplicant screwed it up by commenting in the usual manner and everyone ended up hating him.
 * Spent a few days in Lisbon last year. Wonderful place! Favonian (talk) 14:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I know that my country's capital attracts more and more tourists each year, but I'm more of a country boy, big cities/crowds not my cup of tea no sir. I visit Lisbon maybe once a year, for a change of pace.

Cheers, continue the good work --Quite A Character (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this thread (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language&diff=887730117&oldid=887729593), I was going to reply (even I was a bit "lost" as to make of it, and thus what to write) but found out you have remove the entire text. Is there something I should be aware of, having been pinged and all? A (perhaps) related question would be "is that what I think it is"?

Thanks, keep it up (and also be sure of one thing - if indeed it is what I think it is! - the interaction buck stops here, I will never reply to another message from this person again, reverting the posting on sight) --Quite A Character (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for bothering again, but the taunting continues (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.132.221.211#Reply). I sent them a final but heated reply, telling them the interaction has ceased on my part (I was going to write a much stronger word than "up yours", but thought better).

If you think I'm worthy of a block/warning for my language, don't hesitate to do so (if I'm not mistaken, in the reference desk thread, they were posing as ME?!). --Quite A Character (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible need for revdel
Hi, I noticed you deleted a couple things from User:Eifelochse yesterday due to personal info, and it appears they may have done the same thing before being blocked on Davey2010s talk page. Figured I’d bring it to your attention just in case a revdel is needed. Have a good day! Koldcuts (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Might want to block talk page access....
for Dick McCock, who you just blocked and they removed the block notice. Can't believe the name didn't click until after I left the welcome message. :o S0091 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Goes to show that your imagination is cleaner than mine. Regarding the perp's talk page, he's actually allowed to remove block messages; so sayeth WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha! I think my imagination is just running slow at the moment.  I knew editors could remove warnings, etc. but for some reason thought block notices were a no-no.  Thanks for note. :) S0091 (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Multiple IP User
Sorry to bother you sir; this article keeps getting reverted without explanation. Despite messaging him/her for a discussion, the IP address said person uses keeps changing. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That won't do at all. Semi-protected for 3 months. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the edits on Bass Harbor! I was trying to manually revert them without success, and you came about and did it. Thank you!131.156.242.2 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One of the many perks available to registered user. Hint, hint! ;) Favonian (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you.
thank you I understand your point. Your last correction has been taken into consideration and will be considered appropriately.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meekyzy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Kamalkantdivya
Hi, I was just about to report this user re. the mass creation of user pages for non-existent users... can I assume (please?!) that you are going to nuke the pages saving me tagging them all? Thanks QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may safely assume that. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Super, thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ken Jones (actor)... again
Sorry but, IP 'voice' editor back again after block: same edits. Eagleash (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Such tenacity. Three months this time. Favonian (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Happy Summer solstice... Eagleash (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

blocked user 12.250.16.54
It's a sockpuppet, and not the only one. This guy is a hellraiser. I think we need a sockpuppet investigation, though whether we start with this IP or some other, it's going to be a loooooong haul. Sbalfour (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia attracts them like (insert metaphor of choice). Favonian (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

86.161.73.184
Hi,

He probably needs his TPA revoked. He keeps making personal attacks in his edit summaries. Adam9007 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Peasants' Revolt
Hey, you removed my mention of Johanna Ferrour from the wikipedia entry on the Peasants' Revolt. Can you please clarify why you did this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modifythevan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When, pray tell, did I do that? I checked my edits to the article in question but failed to find a removal of Ferrour's name. Favonian (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It was done with this edit by an anonymous user from Bath. Favonian (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably the Wife of Bath... :)   ——  SerialNumber  54129  14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

RevDel reason for "School shooting" article?
While I was browsing the revision history of the School shooting article, I noticed a revision deleted entry. (I like to check revisions sometimes) I tried to figure out why it was revision deleted, but the reason given was RD5. I reviewed the revision deletion policy for this criterion, but could not figure out why the revision was deleted. (Logs: )

The criterion additionally says that the underlying reason for deletion should be stated in the RevDel log under the entry. No offense is meant, I'm simply wondering why the revision was deleted. Thanks, EggRoll97 (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Guess I didn't read the RevDel small print. I reported the deleted edit to the Foundation and further action is in their hands. I could elaborate, but then I'd probably have to revdel my response. Favonian (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course. I appreciate the quick response. EggRoll97 (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet is back
I thought I'd let you know that a suspected sockpuppet Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino has returned. I don't know how to go through the process, but I noticed you reverted edits from the individual, so I figured I'd notify you. The sockpuppet is making similar edits as before. Here's an example: Again, I don't know how to deal with the person, other than reverting the edits, but I'll let you decide on how to open another case, if need be. TMF2020 (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a sock, but the IP was only active, briefly, 10 days ago, so blocking is most likely futile. Favonian (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Keeping Up Appearances needs protecting
Dopenguins is switching IPs rapidly and just will not stop. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It also looks like ths is a new sock of theirs . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Update. As you will see all the red pings this sock hit your talk page a bunch. Nettotax has been blocked. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 09:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I have reverted a bunch of edits by IP sock 143.202.160.214 which were masked by NettoTax. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks back atcha F. I had a suspicion that D was double teaming things. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Oof in chat
I don't know that this needs documenting as they both seem to be throwaway accounts but User:Stooooooopid fetus is clearly related in some way to the user you just blocked. I'd guess it's two school kids siting next to each other as they were active at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's save on the red tape. I wrapped it around 50.86.22.66 instead. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks,, and the same to you! Favonian (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible Krajoyn sock?
I noticed a disturbance at First Italo-Ethiopian War, with the Clodfelter source being added 25 January 2019. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A somewhat problematic editor, but IMO not one of Krajoyn's socks. Favonian (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Favonian, Admin Barnstar

 * Thanks, – some days I feel more like one of these old crates. ;) Favonian (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also that confirms what I've thought of your uncanny relationship with user talk pages: both in revoking vandal access, and having to semi your own talk page due to repeated targeting. Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 19:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Huggle
I have asked a question about Huggle at the Teahouse and the help desk. Although said I could ask, I figured you would be better person to ask since Shellwood hasn't been active since 11 April and I see you are very active on Wikipedia and also use Huggle. Are you able to help me please? Mstrojny (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I did use Huggle but, as it says on my user page, I'm capable of completely screwing up using that tool – witness this fiasco. I no longer use Huggle. Favonian (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you ask another active Wikipedia user who uses Huggle who might be able to answer my question? Mstrojny (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't usually pay attention to the tools used by other editors, so my only recommendation would be to trawl through Category:Wikipedians who use Huggle in search of a live one. Favonian (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

F1 IP chap
Hello, this is him I think. Geolocates to close to Newbury, one of his previous haunts. I think I've seen other edits from him recently too but not sure where. I'm not certain if there was a rangeblock in January / February. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Could well be him. The latest range-block expired in January. Are the latest set of car-related edits disruptive, in your opinion? Favonian (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have to say, not really, no. There's some old hobby-horses in there but nothing that problematical. But, is he supposed to be editing when blocked as 'Rowde' (and the other accounts he's created)? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, no, but the prevailing winds in the Halls of Jimbo whisper that we should do the AGF when juvenile delinquents show signs of maturing into constructive editors – or at least non-disruptive ones. Let's see what happens. Favonian (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. I definitely agree that the quality of the edits I've seen recently is improved; so yes give him some more leeway. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Mjahangir777 is back again?
–Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jeez! Can't this guy take a hint? Favonian (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've put Mjahangir777 on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Unping
You will have received a ping from an edit of mine at User talk:208.147.18.9. I have removed the message I posted there, because I now have doubts about one of the things I wrote there, and need to more checking, so for now ignore my message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . If you decide that there is plausible doubt, then you should definitely unblock the IP. Meanwhile, I have become sort of involved by reverting some of their edits – their sources are really terrible. At some point I need to take the advanced graduate-level admin course in proxy analysis. Favonian (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are interested, I and two more administrators have now made further comments there. Unfortunately, even with the advanced graduate-level course, it can sometimes be impossible to know, and it comes down to making a judgement. At the moment I am borderline between "we will have to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock" and "there has obviously been something fishy going on with that IP address, and there is enough evidence that it hasn't finished to mean that we shouldn't unblock until we know that it has". That being so I am reluctant to make a decision without waiting a little longer in the hope that something will make it a little clearer. However, there has to be a limit to how long we keep the editor waiting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops. I now see that when I posted my last message above you had already commented on the IP talk page after I posted there, making the above message redundant. Oh well... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Curse you, cross-page discussions! Judging by the size of Category:Requests for unblock, there is no upper limit on the length of time supplicants can be kept waiting. Favonian (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Tonsillectomy
Favonian. I have repeatedly found the material I put on Wikipedia about tonsillectomy is being altered or removed. I cite the largest ever studies following up children who had their tonsils out in order to describe long term effects on autoimmune conditions. This shows a clear increase in risk of certain autoimmune conditions. It was deleted and replaced with a statement assuring readers of long term safety supported by a reference to a review of measured immune parameters after tonsillectomy. Measuring an intervening parameter like immunoglobulin does not help refute the observation that there are more autoimmune conditions in the future.

Also the opening statements about tonsillectomy improving caregiver reported quality of life in OSA are misleading - the evidence only shows modest improvement in children aged 5-9 with polysomnography confirmed OSA. There is no evidence of benefit in younger children, unconfirmed OSA etc. Also there is no evidence of improvements in objective measures.

And the statement about tonsillectomy reducing frequency of sore throats is misleading. It makes a difference of about 1 sore throat in the next year.

Put this together and you can see someone is systematically trying to overplay the benefits and ignore long term harms of tonsillectomy. The size of the financial incentives may help explain this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TTM314 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not the person to whom you should explain your conspiracy theories. Your edits to the article on tonsillectomy and related topics have been reverted by several editors, objecting in particular to the quality of your sources. You must argue your case on Talk:Tonsillectomy rather than edit-war over the article. Your present course of action will get you blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:TTM314 This "" is a primary source
 * We also write in easier to understand language as we are writing for a general audience. Thus "long term immune function" is much better "measurements of humoral (antibody mediated) or cell mediated"
 * This is also a primary source.
 * As explained on your talk page you must stick with high quality secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

126.108.79.51
Per, is an open VPN proxy, so it can be blocked for longer than 72 hours. Home Lander (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Right you are, . I have multiplied the length of the block by a factor of 122. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Something's up
Hello F. The ip you just blocked has returned as. They seem to have a bee in the bonnet about something and the page may need protection. I'll file a RFPP if it keeps up. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A bee of venerable seniority. It's User:PavelStaykov demonstrating his people skills. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same to you. Big family gathering for Easter. :) Favonian (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm glad it is going to be a big family gathering rather than a big bunny falling on the family :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The return
Hello again. is making the same edits as that you recently reverted. This one just wont let up. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 08:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. Materialscientist has applied the block. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Tax page
Hi Favonian. I note that Tax is being vandalised quite a lot at the moment. Does it justify protection? Regards JRPG (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It does – 2 weeks plus an IP block. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again Favonian. JRPG (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: 2001:8003:a8d1:a500:3436:f57c:629e:47e6
That IP you just blocked is one of a glocked LTA [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Hello!_I%27m_Nyami! here]. Kb03 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's been quite a bit of vandalism from the range 2001:8003:a8d1:a500::/64. There won't be for the next 3 months. Favonian (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. Kb03 (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocking Tyt0791
Hello Favonian,

You recently blocked the aforementioned user on a case of a Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr sockpuppet. I am writing to inform you that the user in question was trained only a few weeks ago and has no connection with the subject. He was trained by me in an editathon and I can confirm his identity as not being the aforementioned sockpuppet. I don't know why this keeps hitting people from Ghana because we have had two of such cases already and helped rectify the problem. I will appreciate if you can revisit this block and confirm all that I have said. I can also forward the usernames of members who faced a similar challenge and was reverted if required.--Flixtey (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll need to ponder this for a bit. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Summoning who was the clerk on the SPI in question. Didn't notice until now that the case was filed by, subsequently CheckUser blocked by . Rather looks like the case should be thrown out of court. Favonian (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Also notifying who deleted some articles created by Tyt0791. Favonian (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Two comments. First, I know nothing about Tyt0791. Second, you should not infer from my block of the IP that the filing lacked merit.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Favonian (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It hard to believe when all the evidence in case tie them to previous socks of that sockmaster, apart from that they are also technically indistinguishable from and  account, which means that these two accounts are also operated by Tyt0791. Or is there any other story behind those two accounts I mentioned? &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The two accounts yu mentioned have nothing to do with the user in question. For example, the account fortunately has a photo of the user and its a completely different person as I have photos of the user in question and can send that for clarification. Secondly the other account, in our local language is the name of a female. Just to reiterate, the user just started editing only in April after I trained him at an editathon in Kumasi which I led. I am vouching here because I know this user and know when he started working on the Wikis and this has gotten nothing to do with these names who are not new. I must comment your attitude to be considerate and I am happy you all took the time to relook into this issue, this is really what we ask for to give a fair chance to everybody who wishes to join our movement --Flixtey (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , What's your view regarding those technically indistinguishable accounts? &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What a co-incidence, I was just thinking off pinging Tony! Tony, do you remember the case from Nigeria (or was it some other African country?) wherein we encountered a very-similar situation? AFAIR, I had some role as a filer and you were the one to block the account. There were clinching evidences of puppetry despite the puppets self-identifying themselves as involved with local user-groups (and outreach roles) and other people from the user-groups vouching for their identities. Can't recall the specifics or the sock-farm :-( &#x222F; WBG converse 12:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that Ivanvector has noted previously:-the user shows up at sanctioned editathons and innocent users get wrongly matched. Mess. Extremely similar topic-areas vide User:Tyt0791/sandbox and to an extent over Nikoletta Samonas. Greater mess. &#x222F; WBG converse 12:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * in this case ✅ means that they showed up on the same IP at the same time with the same device. For the other two accounts, this is consistent with being at an edit-a-thon, and there are other accounts that are outreach oriented there with different technical data. Unfortunately, data in Africa is very difficult to sort through, which is why I said the case needed behavioural evaluation. The Ghanan entertainment industry is something this sock farm has focused on in the past, so I don't blame 1997kB for coming to that result, especially since for some reason they also show up at outreach events. I'm going to go ahead and unblock the account now.Flixtey, as a suggestion, it may be good to advise outreach people in this area to stay away from Musicians, entertainment figures, etc. For us, we can only see limited technical data and the behaviour, so it's going to be a bit confusing for clerks and admins when people who go to editathons are editing in the same area as a sockfarm both technically and by behaviour. That's not saying this is there fault, but trying to explain why it's something we may look at. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the advice and I have noticed also that newcomers who often try to edit in the entertainment industry get tagged with these problems. There has been 3 other cases from Ghana connected to this sockpuppet and I have been thinking about how to eliminate this problem in the future. The internet situation here doesn't also help but we will try our best to avoid similar issues in the future. Thanks to all of you for your consideration and for assuming good faith in your judgement. --Flixtey (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony and everyone else involved. Looks like the concrete instance of the more general problem has been solved. Favonian (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

89.214.107.174
Hello. I see that you have blocked socks of User:G.-M. Cupertino. I don't know the case well but this IP may be worth a look. — Certes (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Cupertino we have grown to love and admire. Blocked and reverted. Thanks for your vigilance! Favonian (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Farm-Fresh rubber duck.png . – Certes (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

You've been patiently reverting the edits made by 46.50.74.211 but he's now reverting back. Could you block the pest, please? Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked and bulk-reverted. Favonian (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Now quacking at. Certes (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Plucked. Favonian (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Your block of 204.40.194.134
Just giving you heads-up that they've removed your block notice from their talk page. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, they are allowed to do that. The few things they are not allowed to remove are listed in WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit to Orhan Murad Osmanoglu
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Specifically, the change was made to return the REDIRECT to its initial target. Looking at page history, it seems to me that this was the intent as it was only changed by a bot when the initial target was a redirect. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! StudiesWorld (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your vigilance! The user whose edits I was reverting is an incredibly persistent and disruptive nuisance, who can do hundreds of rapid-fire changes in a day, many of which are ill-sourced/copyright violations/you name it. That is why I (and others) resort to rather drastic measures such as bulk reverts. The change you refer to is, though it looks innocuous, not entirely unproblematic. The target of the redirect was converted into a redirect to the family article as a consequence of Articles for deletion/Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu back in 2011, but that was undone by an IP sock of ... guess who! Be that as it may; there is a limit to the amount of time I am willing to spend cleaning up after him. Favonian (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't dig deep enough to figure that out. Given the situation, I think it would be appropriate to redirect the articles again. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP dragging me into a quagmire
Hello. I wish I came here under less stressful circumstances, but this isn't the case this time. I've recently been involved in reverting numerous unwarranted content deletions by a rather disruptive IP editor (2602:306:8B8C:29A0:0:0:0:0/64). They were removing sourced material repeatedly without providing a good explanation, or instead, leaving a cryptic, deceptive reason. After some reverts today, I noticed that this IP started reverting earlier edits that I had made to other, completely unrelated articles, possibly as a form of revenge or trolling. I don't know if they're doing this intentionally or merely doing this to vent on me. They've called my edits "unverified" or "gibberish" (though it's not the name-calling that's ticking me off), even though the prose of my edits are easily understandable by native English speakers and they're already sourced (or sourced elsewhere in the article). I don't know whether they are feigning ignorance or really suffer from some WP:COMPETENCE issues - it they are, they really shouldn't be editing here either, but the edits that they have made before this mess began suggests that they are probably not so clueless after all (which would mean that they're doing this deliberately to set me off). They have been making these kinds of disruptive edits for nearly 3 months now, with breaks in between, and today was the first time that this editor personally decided to get into a revert war with me. I tried taking the issue to AVI, but my request was turned down by another admin, who said that the issue was not for that board. The problem is, I don't know anywhere else to take this (and ANI is much, much too slow for my taste).

Given their past editing patterns, they will probably return within a month and continue disrupting the site again, and if this person decides to continue escalating their campaign, the disruption is bound to spread to many other articles that were previously unaffected. If this continues, the problem may grow into a mess like this one (though maybe not quite as bad). I really don't know what else to do. I could try reporting them again at AVI the next time they return, but my request could get denied again. I could, just sit there and revert all the disruptive edits they make, but without someone actually blocking them, it's going to become a time sink for me, and it could get very messy in the process (lot of articles will probably become collateral). I really don't want to take the "wait and see" approach, or take my chances and let them continue their disruption unhindered. If they continue their disruptive behavior, I don't think that anything less than a multi-month block will deter them, and given the fact that my past two requests have failed, I'm not sure if my next one will be granted if this guy returns. I don't know what I should do. Can you please give me some advice here? Sorry for the really long post, but I didn't know where I should take this problem. Thanks. Light and Dark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a tricky case. The intermittent editing combined with not-exclusively-disruptive edits makes it difficult to defend a lengthy range block. I can try to keep an eye on the range but can't guarantee that it'll be fruitful. Favonian (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My real fear is that they will continue their disruption in the future and drag me into a protracted war of attrition. In the event that they do return and resume their disruptive behavior, I'm hoping that someone will finally block them; considering any potential collateral, after I examined the range contributions, most, if not all, of the edits belong to the same person (I can only envision maybe 2 or 3 other people on the range, and they aren't nearly as active if this is the case). Their edits were a mix of positive contributions, content disputes, and a few personal attacks, before becoming increasingly contentious/disruptive in the last 3 months. So, if they resume their problematic behavior, at that point, their presence on this site will become more of a disruptive influence than a positive one. My hope is that they will decide to stop, and maybe just edit without trying to delete more (sourced) article content or pick a bone with other editors who revert him. I would appreciate it, though, if you would help me monitor the range for a while. If he decides to mass-revert me again, I'll probably find out very quickly, but I would appreciate the extra help. Thanks anyway, for the response. Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 01:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just today, it looks like this person just noosed himself. It appears that he lost his temper for whatever reason, and decided to flat out vandalize an article he frequented in the past. He ended up getting a block. Very ironic. I really hope he learns his lesson this time. Light and Dark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

BKIFP
Hi Favonian, Special:Contributions/146.198.193.103 was blocked in the past as a sock of BKFIP. I'm currently having difficulty with the IP on Project Habakkuk, including editing warring, and talk page "pronouncements". I don't have any idea if this is BKFIP, as I'm not at all familiar with the user. Could you take a look? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Now the user is accusing me of acting in bad faith. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked, this time for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Blocked vandal back with... wait for it... more vandalism
Is it time to block this account again? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * . Yes; 3 months. Favonian (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Cupertino lookalike
Are such reports useful, or do they come up on your radar anyway? Certes (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely userful, . Please keep them coming. Favonian (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like another one. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So it does. Upped the ante with a couple of range blocks. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

More disruption at Rachel Boston. Could semi-protection be helpful too? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've given it a month, coincidentally the length of yet another range block. Favonian (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, again. :) - BilCat (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible new sock from Krajoyn or Rajmaan
Hello, I see that you detected several sockpuppets from Krajoyn or Rajmaan  here  and I'm pretty sure 6ullga is one of them too, looking at his post history, edits (china etc.). Or a sock from an other user. Can you try to look at this? I'm a bit noob on wikipedia so dont know what to do. Can you deal with this "6ullga" case? Thanks.

LuzLuz31 (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've certainly dispatched Krajoyn socks by the tumbrel load, but I don't recall ever having dealt with Rajmaan or his clones. As for 6ullga, I'm not sufficiently confident to take action at this point. You could file a report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations, but they may point out that 6ullga has not edited since the expiration of the 24-hour block for edit-warring more than three weeks ago, and that it may not be worthwhile to pursue the matter unless the account resumes editing. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Again
Talk:Case_Closed hey ho. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)