Jump to content

User talk:Favonian/Archive 49

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

Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

18.212.82.152 ‎

user:18.212.82.152 is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

"Her"? Well, I'll abstain from pretending to be a gentleman. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Too late. Already throttled. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I thought you were a woman. CLCStudent (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock

Possibly this user User:Philipp Von Habsburg ? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitely possible, but the gun needs to emit more smoke. Favonian (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

WT:RFA revision delete

Just in case it wasn't obvious, I revision deleted the edit summary in your revert because it named the previous editor; I think scrubbing their name out is a valid application of WP:DENY. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I quite agree. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Anna Soubry page protection?

Hi Favonian. I'm sure you're aware that the UK European elections are taking place amid even more political chaos than usual. Could you consider protecting Anna Soubry as her page is suffering reinsertions of particularly egregious POV comments inserted as facts albeit sourced from the Daily Telegraph. Regards JRPG (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, that's a clear NPOV violation. I've protected the article for three months at the end of which all will of course be well with the UK and the EU. Favonian (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. JRPG (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Expand rangeblock?

Hi Favonian,

You recently blocked Special:Contributions/121.140.0.0/16, but today, I see that Special:Contributions/125.141.84.7 is doing the same sorts of edits (only 4 so far). I'm not sure if the range could be expanded, but it might seem appropriate in this case. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another range blocked. Favonian (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Explanation

The explanation is that they are an IP-hopping troll. CassiantoTalk 19:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I rather thought so, but I wonder which one. The IP range is a favorite of one of my "charges", but he tends to leave unpleasant and self-righteous edit-summaries in his wake. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Both TonyBallioni and Ritchie333 are aware of this specimen. I reported the IP at ANI not long ago for mocking people with learning difficulties, but the editors there seemed more concerned that I was being uncivil towards the IP rather than actually doing something constructive about it. You couldn't make it up! Other foul comments include what they would like to do to my wife and pretending to be the ghost of the late Kevin Gorman. Ritchie was mentioning filters to me the other day, but I'm afraid it was far too technical and he lost me after he'd said "hello". CassiantoTalk 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that one. Nasty piece of work. Sadly, our filter system is beyond my skills as well, so I have to make to with the old RBI. Favonian (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
They are indeed. I guess some would say that I put myself out there, what with my unacceptable views on certain infoboxes, so I should expect to receive the odd bit of trolling back. But when it comes to my loved ones, mocking the dead and taking the piss out of mental health, I'm afraid I afford no tolerance. It would be handy if we all had a block button that we could press to block interactions with one particular person, much like Twitter has. It would save good people like you a lot of time blocking IP-hopping trolls. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I've never used Twitter, so I don't know the answer to this: Do you have to register to post on Twitter? - BilCat (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Twitter has a feature that allows you to block a particular person. You are then unable to see their tweets by default, but can see them if you choose to by overriding it, but still keeping them blocked. If you are the one who is blocked, then you are unable to see that particular person's Twitter page or communicate them, but can see their comments on other Twitter pages. The only way you can see their own Twitter page is to log out and look at it anonymously. You cannot talk to them unless you sign up for another account (I don't know what their rules are with regards to socking). CassiantoTalk 08:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I shall block and revert with abandon. Favonian (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sigh... Looks like Cass isn't the only target for this individual. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy happy

Happy grundlovsdag! (Hmm, suddenly I get an inspiration for a movie where 5 June is repeated over and over. Grundlov Day. I'm sure it's an ancient joke, but I just came up with it.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Strangely, I have never heard that one, and now I'm mortified that I didn't come up with it myself. ;) Today is also election day. I'm sure there'll be plenty of déjà vu when they try to form a new government. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Best of luck with that... here, it took them half a year, but at least the far-rightists didn't get a seat in government. Hoping for a similar outcome for you. PS. I feel rather witty all of a sudden! ;-) --bonadea contributions talk 18:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel witty, oh so witty!. 🎵 Favonian (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) The two of you are the best. Thanks for bringing a big smile (though slightly numb as I got home from the dentist a few minutes ago) to my day!! MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you! You're a great audience! We'll be here all year. Banter aside: if this character gets into parliament, I'll need whatever drugs the dentist can provide. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: ow. Hope it gets better soon. Fav: ow ow ow. Hope it never gets that bad. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there is some cause for cheer today, though! No drugs for you. --bonadea contributions talk 07:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes! We still have to put up with these jolly people, but they at least refrain from book burning. Favonian (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hey F, I am requesting that you unblock User:Sarab1989, new editor who tried unsuccessfully several times to re-create Portal:Sikhism, probably not understanding that is required autoconfirmation. Probably better to autoconfim-protect the template instead. I think with talk page guidance and a teahouse invite (both of which I put there) that editor may contribute elsewhere; a block without warning may have come across as a bit BITE-y. Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: OK, done. Good luck with the mentoring. Favonian (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock of Krajoyn

I just wanted to let you know that Kinderda has just reintroduced in the France article the exact problematic edit that was added last year by Odoures, aka Krajoyn. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure is, M.Bitton. I've blocked the sock – fourth one today. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
At this rate, they'll soon warrant (assuming they haven't already) the creation of an edit filter to deal specifically with their disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And we have another - Hansamayt . Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Burning the midnight oil – snuffed by an admin. Favonian (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
To save your keyboard, unless you have anything to add I'll take a look in the next couple of hours. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, zzuuzz! I don't have any socks up my sleeve at the moment. Favonian (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

See contribs

51.7.23.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel B. Lewis (talk • contribs) 11:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Joy of recognition knows no bounds! Favonian (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 16:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Hey Favonian, Widr, JamesBWatson, I think y'all are familiar with this here. I dropped another one, and I don't like it since there's a lot of collateral damage--unless, of course, the good edits are made by the same a-hole who has a bone to pick with poor IanDBeacon, who is a fine contributor and doesn't deserve this infantile bullshit. I suppose this is an FYI more than anything else: I don't rightly know what to do with it, but in my log you can see that this person has it in for IanDBeacon; I don't think I'm familiar with this one. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, this is definitely related to the WP:LTA/DENVER perp, simply based on behavior. I might as well take the IP to m:SRG for global blocking. --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The Denver Dodo does use this range, at least once a day, but Drmies is right about the collateral damage. I usually allow account creation as a partial softening. Yes, I know we are supposed to express admiration for users who don't wish to create an account, but I'm unimpressed. Favonian (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Favonian, Widr, Drmies, Cyberpower678, Edgar181, JJMC89, Ponyo:
  • The amount of collateral damage is way beyond the amount which I normally allow, but on the other hand the vandal is so very active that doing nothing is not an attractive option either. When I looked at this IP range a couple of weeks ago I agonised over the problem, and eventually settled on a block for 36 hours, which was a compromise, and I was far from totally happy with it. On the one hand the vandal should be blocked for a very long time, but on the other hand even just a few days' block on the other editors is undesirable. Drmies decided on a block of 1 week, longer than my block, while Favonian has repeatedly blocked for 3 hours, far shorter, but it is a difficult decision, and any decision is wrong to some extent.
  • The above comment was intended to be all I would say about this, but, before saving the edit I had a look at the longer history of the blocks on the range, and what I saw led me to rethink the situation. I see that there have been 20 blocks over the course of about a month two months and a week, together with some changes of block conditions. Most of those blocks have been 3 hours, others ranging from 12 hours to 36 hours, plus the current block for one week. (There was also one block which was originally set at 2 weeks, but it was then considerably shortened, so the range was never actually blocked for that long.) Thinking about that history of multiple short blocks prompted further thoughts, which are radically different from my previous feelings about the matter. Repeatedly blocking an IP range for short periods creates just as much collateral damage as a single block for the same time as the sum of those individual block times. On the other hand repeated short blocks are much less likely to have any deterrent effect on the vandal than one longer block, for two reasons. Firstly, he or she will know that it's just another one of the many short blocks that keep coming, and, having previously waited for such short blocks to end, will be perfectly happy to wait for a few hours once more. Secondly, a block for 3 hours may well coincide partly or entirely with a period when he or she wouldn't have been editing anyway, in which case it will have no effect whatever on him or her. So, the effect of a lot of short blocks is to give the same amount of collateral damage as one longer block for the aggregated amount of time, while having little or no impact on the vandalism. The blocks that have been placed have added up to about 30 days, and on present showing it seems likely that they will continue, presumably eventually adding up to several months. In light of what I have said about the effects of such a series of short blocks, might it not be better to block for a couple of months? The amount of collateral damage would be way beyond anything that I have ever in the past even contemplated accepting, but we are causing that much collateral damage anyway, with much less likelihood of producing the effect we are trying to achieve.Any thoughts on that will be welcome.
  • Favonian suggests allowing account creation. Unfortunately most would-be constructive IP editors don't take this option to get round a block, so most of the collateral damage would remain, but at least it would give other editors a chance, and it might reduce the damage to some extent, so I support doing that. (I see that I didn't take that option when I blocked, but whether that was a mistake or a deliberate decision I can't say.)
  • The one part of this that I really don't understand is Ponyo's removal of talk page access for "inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". I regard Ponyo as a very reliable administrator, so she may have good reasons that I haven't seen, and if so I hope she will come here and explain those reasons, but as I see it there is not a substantial history of abuse of talk page while blocked. The most recent talk page edit has been an unblock request with no reason given, from an IP address that has not otherwise been used, so it may be a good faith edit by an innocent editor, and even if it isn't, it is not enough to justify removing talk page access. Other than that the most recent edits which, as far as I can see, may have been abuse of talk page while blocked were 18 days ago. (I say "may have been" because the IP range under consideration was not blocked at that time, but some smaller range may have been, as far as I know.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    JamesBWatson, This range has been blocked more often than not. It's time to say enough and just keep it blocked, like we do TOR exit nodes, and defer those users to ACC. It's not my first choice, or my favorable one, but this range is more disruptive right now, than it is productive. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: The removal of talk page access was due to the vandal posting abusive unblock requests (e.g. this and this) across the blocked IP range. There is no way to revoke access for a lesser duration than the block itself, so my intent was (and continues to be) to revoke tpa access temporarily to stop the immediate disruption and then to restore it today and monitor it for any further disruption.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 15:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ponyo: Thanks for the answer. I did think you would have a reason, because you are not the kind of admin who acts without one. (I wish I could say that no administrators do.) However, if you check the two links you gave you will see that they don't actually link to the edits you have in mind, so I can't see those edits. (Incidentally, for a range block, unlike a block on an individual IP address or an account, there is a way of removing talk page access for a shorter time than the block, and very occasionally I have done it. On the whole range you place a long block without removing talk page access, and on each of the halves of the range you place shorter blocks with talk page access removed. In this case, where the whole range is 2600:1:8000:0:0:0:0:0/33, that would mean placing blocks without talk page access on 2600:1:8000:0:0:0:0:0/34 and 2600:1:C000:0:0:0:0:0/34. I don't claim copyright on that method, so you are free to use it if you like.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@JamesBWatson: Ah yes, the old "provide links that turn out to be completely unhelpful" trick! Sorry about that. These are the types of requests being made.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jezebel: That fully explains why you revoked talk page access, and also why I couldn't find the reason by looking in the editing history. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One more thought. Despite my comment above about most IP editors not going for account creation to avoid collateral damage from IP blocks, some do, including many years ago an IP editor who, for that very reason, created an account called "JamesBWatson". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • JamesBWatson, your thoughts align very closely with mine. I'm sure you understand that the collateral damage thing brought me here in the first place; yes, I decided on one week based on the arguments you brought up as well, about timing for instance, and only after I saw the extensive log: I agonized over this for a bit. There are quite a number of admins who don't shy away from longer rangeblocks, though the one that affects me downtown, and the one at the Shell station, don't have nearly as many positive contributions as this one. As for the IP editor who might sign up in the long run, I think this is always going to be problematic no matter how we slice it. As you said, "any decision is wrong to some extent"--but when personal harassment comes into play, I give less weight to collateral damage and more weight to protecting our editors. Anyway, thanks for your long and thoughtful post. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No good deed goes unrewarded. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I re-revoked talk page access and extended the block. This vandal is now engaged in cross-wiki harassment against me. Heh. --Yamla (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Well that's...unsurprising. They've been trying to troll me cross-wiki as well, but I don't bother to check pings to other wikis from socks and sooner or later some nice person comes and clears the page. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks to the above posts from Yamla and Ponyo it is now clear that revoking talk page access is necessary. I think it also strengthens the case for a significantly longer block. However, Yamla, you may like to read the block log for your block. It had me puzzled for a couple of minutes, before I realised what had happened. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I tweaked the block message to direct them to UTRS. Anyone else should feel free to tweak it further. :) --Yamla (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I too have now been subjected to cross-wiki messaging from this person, which has encouraged me to think again. I am moving towards the opinion expressed above by Cyberpower678: "It's time to say enough and just keep it blocked, like we do TOR exit nodes, and defer those users to ACC." He says "It's not my first choice", and I expect we all agree with that, but when an IP range is producing far more harm than benefit, there comes a point where we have to decide that the gain from stopping the damage outweighs the collateral damage. As I see it, we have the following options:

  1. Continue with short blocks of a few hours or a day or so at a time, as has been done for the most part until now.
  2. Continue with somewhat longer blocks, such as the blocks for one or two weeks which have occasionally been used, including the present one.
  3. Go for a longer block, say a few months.
  4. Longer still, one or more years.
  5. Indefinite, which is presumably what Cyberpower678 means by "just keep it blocked".
  6. A global block, as IanDBeacon suggests.

Requesting a global block is probably a good idea, but I have no idea how long a block it might lead to, if any, so I will comment on the possibilities, which we are able to implement here.

I think we all know what the disadvantages of the various options are, but I have a couple more observations. My comments above about short blocks were based on seeing the block log for the range 2600:1:8000:0:0:0:0:0/33. I now realise that there have also been blocks on smaller subranges and individual IP addresses, which means that there have been even more short blocks than I realised, making the points I made above even stronger. I doubt that an editor who has been blocked on and off for a large proportion of the time over the course of months without being deterred will be deterred by blocks of a few weeks, and if, as seems likely from comments above, we are dealing with a long-term disruptive editor who has been around for more than a decade, then even a block for a month or so will not have much effect. An indefinite block would be very likely to be subject to objection from some other editor, especially in the case of an IP range where the amount of collateral damage is large, as in this case. (As far as I am concerned, the issue is the proportion of innocent edits as opposed to disruptive edits, not the total number of innocent edits, but not all Wikipedia editors see things in terms of that logic.) I would not wish to have to defend an indefinite block at ANI. That encourages me to suggest that it comes down to a choice between options 3 and 4. I am sure none of us would be happy with that, but I am sure none of us would be happy with any other option either, and I think those are now the least bad options, with my view leaning towards a year. As I said above, I previously settled for a 36 hour bock as the least bad compromise, so what I am saying now represents a very considerable shift in my position, but I have become more aware of the extent of the problem, and also of the nature of the problem, with user-harassment as well as other disruptive editing.

I also have one other idea for possibly improving the collateral:benefit ratio. I will mention it here for beans related reasons, but I will email it to any administrator who asks me to.

Favonian, Drmies, Cyberpower678, Ponyo, Yamla, IanDBeacon any comments on my suggestions? (And apologies for pinging anyone who has had enough of this and doesn't want to spend any more time on it. I have left out editors who have previously been pinged but have not commented here.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support option 4, anon-only, directing legitimate users to ACC. I suggest a period of between 1 and 3 years. I hold the position that wide range anon-only blocks are appropriate when there's widespread abuse and harassment, and don't expect everyone else to agree with this position. Be aware, I have not dug deeply into the ratio of constructive vs destructive edits from this range. Note proxies and VPNs are typically blocked even for signed-in users (not just anon-only). --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Support option 4 and 6, this is an LTA IP and should be treated as such. No TPA either per WP:DENY. IanDBeacon (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm certainly with 4 as well, and given cross-wiki abuse, which is particularly useless and irritating, 6 is worth considering. Thank you, JamesBWatson, for your thoughts. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
JamesBWatson, I support option 4 and 6. I don't ever support indefinite blocks of IPs except for TOR exit nodes and static proxies. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is clearly strong consensus for a block of length running into years, so I have increased the block length. Most participants have not commented on how many years, but Yamla suggested 1 to 3 years, and I have gone gone for the half-way mark at 2 years. It obviously has to be anon-only. There is also support for requesting a global block, but I am not doing that, partly because I am not myself sure whether it's a good idea or not, and partly because if it is done it would probably be better done by someone with more knowledge of the relevant cross-wiki history than I have. IanDBeacon, you suggested that you "might as well take the IP to m:SRG for global blocking", so you may like to consider whether to do so now. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Reviving this conversation (sorry!)

Hey folks, including Drmies, Cyberpower678, Ponyo, Yamla, IanDBeacon, JamesBWatson. I sometimes edit as an IP because my phone aka authentication tool isn't with me and ran into this block early this morning. Given the discussion above, was it intentional that account creation was blocked as well? I got to stare at a giant block notice that doesn't give any options except appealing at the acronym "UTRS." As a random person, I wouldn't understand nor want to read about nor attempt ... :-) There were no options or instructions on creating an account. I have a screenshot and can upload it if you'd like. Thanks all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Given the high level of abuse, I'm going to say yes as the intention is to defer those affected users to ACC and have them review the request to establish legitimacy.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
ACC can't see IPv6 addresses, so unless the corresponding IPv4 range is also blocked, ACC (after a likely very long delay) will just create the accounts (unless there are non-block related issues, e.g. UPOL, with the request). — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678 and JJMC89: A problem here is that the giant block notice doesn't actually tell anyone that ACC exists. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 - 11:30 UTC is 7:30am EDT

Please remove the padlock for the article stated above. It is 1316 UTC, and it's way behind 1130 UTC. Thanks Tornadosurvivor2011 13:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornadosurvivor2011 (talk • contribs)

The padlock becomes invisible once the block expires and will be removed by a bot in due course. If it still appeared at the top of the page after the block expired, it was most likely due to server-side caching. Favonian (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Favonian, Just a quick note to thank you for helping with IP 79.40.142.189, my talk page and everything else you do for WP. Cheers! - Samf4u (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't mention it! That's one very persistent (and venomous) troll. Favonian (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hello F. This person ABillMurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that you've been reverting at the Roderick Strong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the latest iteration of DragoDominkovicfan34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This person has been using numerous IPs and usernames over the last few days so I don't know if Drago was even the first one but I do know the name was used in this block. I hope this is of some use to you. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 21:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Now they've created AColmMeaney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've filed a RFPP so that may help. MarnetteD|Talk 21:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: Dlohcierekim has kindly applied blocks and protections. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange

Two new accounts (Moor25 and Ossamamoorish) with more or less similar names (the term moor appearing in both) have been created on the same day to "edit" the same articles (here and in the Arabic wikipedia) within a very short period of time (2 hours at best). I could be wrong, but this seems like too much of a coincidence to ignore. Your thoughts would be highly appreciated. Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks possible, but not "beyond a shadow of a doubt". I recommend opening a sockpuppet investigation. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 Confirmed, blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, oh Guardian Angel! :) Favonian (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for all your help. M.Bitton (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

IP mentions Favonian

IP mentions Favonian. Possibly a threat. I'm now considering a one-month block of this Singapore-based IP. If you're being called out by name then possibly you have previous experience with the editor. I came across this while reviewing the contributions from Special:Contributions/183.90.36.0/24 which was the source of long-term POV pushing at Edzard Ernst. See an AN3 complaint just closed by User:Bbb23 with semiprotection of the Ernst article for six months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I've CU-blocked the IP for two weeks. The relevant edits go back only about a week, but I tacked on an extra week anyway. If you haven't already done so, you might want to look at the abuse filter log.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
After finishing up my paperwork, I realized that the IP hadn't edited at all since June 22, making my block unusual and probably unnecessary. I can reverse it...or leave it in place. I don't much care either way. Any thoughts from the two of you?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the IP threatened Favonian by name, a two-week block doesn't seem excessive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston and Bbb23: Always embarrassing to meet someone who claims to know you, and you rummage around your memory, drawing a complete blank. Let him simmer in the sin bin for a bit. Favonian (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Article "Passover"

Greetings. I am RPSM. The following is from article "Passover" third paragraph second sentence. 

In Judaism, a day commences at dusk and lasts until the following dusk, thus the first day of Passover begins after dusk of the 14th of Nisan and ends at dusk of the 15th day of the month of Nisan.

I don't think that's quite right. If it's a question of havdallah, it is nightfall, surely.

The first day of Passover does not begin after dusk. It begins at sunset, and observance is set 18 minutes before sunset (40 minutes before sunset in Jerusalem) - from googling.

Are you the right person to contact about this? RPSM (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@RPSM: You're probably better off bringing up the problem on Talk:Passover or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. I have never edited the Passover article, and if you've seen me hanging around calendar-related articles, it's because they are being haunted by a community-banned nuisance and I help chasing it off. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

IP

Heads-up that IP 37.152.231.66 has the same characteristic editing style like IP 51.7.229.252 that you blocked a few days ago. Same way of contacting the Noticeboard and all editors that reverts his edits. Might be wrong but thought I let you know.BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Yep, that's WP:LTA/BKFIP. Well spotted! I have blocked the range 37.152.192.0/18 for 3 months. Favonian (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I find it interesting that user Parsecboy comes to the IPs defense at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eclipses. And uses the exact same editing pattern and rethorics as the IP. I will leave it at that.BabbaQ (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting theory, but I don't think it'll stand up in court. :) Favonian (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, one out of two convictions. Not too bad. :) I just knew the IP was up to no good.BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

User:81.159.82.125 . Someone filed an SPI, but there's really no need for one, this is obviously HC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So it is, BMK, and not for the first time. Blocked for a year. Favonian (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Thanks for blocking that WP:NOTHERE. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a steady job. ;) Favonian (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

Thanks for reverting Ruth Bader Ginsburg back to my edit. The person that did the, er, other one... 🙄🙄... wasn't good... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSmithNP (talk • contribs) 14:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Several choice words describing the qualities of this editor come to mind, but are best left untyped. Favonian (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies

I didn't mean to be disruptive. Any tips on editing productively?Justin's a mega hustler (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Krajoyn (again)

I just thought you might want to know that Hvidtelly restored the same edit that was added by Golanette and Intenst (a confirmed SP of Krajoyn). Best regards. M.Bitton (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: That is indeed Krajoyn and blocked he is, again. Favonian (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I see Frothen has also been blocked ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
A benevolent version the The All-seeing Eye :D Favonian (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Your talk page is always more interesting than mine. Want to redirect it? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
How about we both redirect? Should give some poor bot a headache. Favonian (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Again? That's just sad. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Since it/they seem to be persistent...

at User:Jimbo Wales, maybe someone could create a special filter just for Wales' user page for the words "Thicc" and "Pricasso".... Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a filter maven, but I'm sure it's been considered. Unfortunately, like other low lifeforms these trolls mutate rapidly. Favonian (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft edits

You reverted some IP's edits. While the edit summaries were a bit odd, the actual edits themselves do not appear vandalistic (they look like mostly removal of extra spaces between words/sentences). I'm reverting your reversions unless you think there's a reason they should stand. MartinezMD (talk)

That's up to you, but for the record the IPs are socks of Hoggardhigh – sometimes referred to as the "serial comma warrior". Favonian (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Got it. I'm familiar with the trolls often doing a mix of both helpful and vandalistic edits. I'll let his stand for now since they did actually help. MartinezMD (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

My edit to May 2 was reverted for being "Not notable". Can you tell me what that means and why it isn't notable? Thanks. PlaneCal (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Premieres, product releases etc. are not usually considered to meet the inclusion criterion of "standing the test of time". There are exceptions, such as Gone with the Wind, where the opening on December 15, 1939 itself generated massive and enduring coverage. The Loud House is not quite of that caliber. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Rossi Firearms protection

Do you think it's time to unprotect the Rossi Firearms redirect? You made it in 2013 and then immediately protected it presumably because of the spam at the time. Anarchyte (talk | work)

It's the Pillar-compliant thing to do, I suppose, so it's done. The page log tells the tale. Favonian (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing facts

Just because you delete fax doesn't mean you can delete history. You're obviously not into fax. That's why Wikipedia is trash Michy160 (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't actually revert your edit, but I did hide the revision as it was clearly a copyright violation. If you don't like Wikipedia, find another website. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Fax"? I'm not into fax either, all I get through the damned thing nowadays are free cruise offers and other scams. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Woohoo

Happy Adminship from the Birthday Committee

Wishing Favonian a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!

-- Mjs1991 (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Good heavens, round one next year. Thanks for the reminder! ;) Favonian (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

YBGOIUBUO

Blocked user:YBGOIUBUO is abusing her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Not anymore, they aren't. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC).

Better than all the barn stars in the world! Favonian (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Leavepuckgackle1998

Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk · contribs) seems to have been affected by a block you recently made. I have experience of this user's edits, and accept their explanation that this block appears not to be aimed at them. Accordingly, I have given them IP block exemption. If you suspect otherwise, I suggest you ask for a sockpuppet investigation, or reply to me and I'll reverse my action.-gadfium 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, gadfium. The user and Justin's a mega hustler (talk · contribs), whose demise seems to be the cause of the problem, have only one thing in common that makes my spider sense tingle: their user pages have some peculiar (and obviously phony) references to their private lives. I'll ponder it for a bit. Favonian (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I do see the similarity, and it might be a case of good hand/bad hand accounts. If so, it might be that the experience of being blocked is sufficient to deter future malfeasance.-gadfium 09:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The Wikipedian rope trick. Favonian (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you two. Favonian, I would just like to let you know I have no hard feelings. You saw something wrong and you acted, which I think shows you are more than worthy of being an administrator. I have only just visited Justin’s a mega hustler’s page, and I see, like you said, that it bears similarity to the ridiculous stuff about my private life my friend and I made when we first started my account (back when all we wanted to do was make a User Page). I certainly do not want to be associated with this user, and therefore I am willing to remove it. I can see it has no place on Wikipedia and makes me seem like I am not committed. >Leavepuckgackle1998 09:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC).
@Gadfium and Favonian: Many administrators reckon one should always consult a CheckUser before granting IP block exemption, and I am inclined to think that is a wise view to take, because surprisingly often there is something behind the scenes in apparently innocent cases. At the very least, I think one should always consult a CheckUser if one has any doubt whatever, no matter how small. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, before anyone follows James' excellent advice, I'm sorry to say that I'm already following this up, and I think the IPBE, at least, is only going to go one way. I'll pop back later with some info. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Do what you think is necessary, and I am learning from this experience.-gadfium 18:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
as am I. Favonian (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I've wanted to make sure of the CU results (which are not actually that ambiguous) but I had to consider that they are claiming to edit from a library. I've found that the following accounts are confirmed to each other: Leavepuckgackle1998, Wallace-it-up, Torlock Mnuchin, GreekDuke2, Justin's a mega hustler. I can't really believe anything else is plausible. So, to match Justin to Wallace, compare [1] to [2]. To compare Wallace to Leavepuck, see [3] and [4] (9 minutes apart). There's some other stuff, and the technical evidence is clear that they're at least in the same place, often. I'm minded to block them all and let them sort out which account to appeal from. I know everyone here is fair and just and merciful, so in respect of that I haven't done anything so far. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I support blocking the job lot of them. Involving five accounts, it's a conspiracy, not a coincidence, and applying a liberal dose of sycophancy only makes it worse. Favonian (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gadfium, Favonian, and Zzuuzz: It was that "liberal dose of sycophancy" more than anything else that made me a little suspicious. Why? Nothing I can clearly define, but just a feeling, based on years of experience, that it is a kind of thing that genuinely innocent editors don't say, but lying sockpuppeteers do. Like a lot of other little things, such as a new account saying things like "I'm a new editor" repeatedly in their first few talk page posts: genuine new editors just don't do that, but fake "new" editors often do. There are a few other things about both "Justin's a mega hustler" and "Leavepuckgackle1998" that don't look like new editors too, and even Torlock Mnuchin with only two edits looks dubious. Perhaps most interesting is the edit summary here, in view of the fact that the image was added in this edit. A mistake, thinking one had done something to cause the problem which had actually been caused by someone else? No, because there is no way that anyone could go to that page and edit it without noticing the glaringly obvious problem, and if one had never edited the page before one would have no earthly reason to think it was one's own fault.
Well, I wrote "Perhaps most interesting" there, but I have now found something even more interesting here.
Favonian is in favour of "blocking the job lot of them", and zzuuzz is "minded" to do the same. If I add myself to that, I think we have consensus for blocking. I'll see how quickly I can click the "Publish changes" button for this page and four "block" buttons. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Aye, agreed. I also wanted to be sure because SilkTork did an arbcom appeal for Wallace-it-up two weeks ago. Courtesy ping therefore. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for following up. My assumption of good faith was clearly naiive.-gadfium 21:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. Sorry for delay, I was away on holiday. Looking at the situation, particularly what Wallace-it-up says on his talkpage - [5], it is clear that this user should be reblocked. SilkTork (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

maybe its Harvey carter

Hi @Favonian: Some edits were made today and it seems like it may be him and its in the UK

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Operation_Barbarossa&diff=909486944&oldid=909478005

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Operation_Barbarossa

A victor's justice imposed five years after the invasion is irrelevant. Nazi Germany had not signed any of these agreements and was under no obligation to adhere to them. The Royal Navy's blockade of Germany violated Article X of the 1907 Hague Convention.) that is what I the IP said

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Commissar_Order&diff=909498381&oldid=909200204

https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a00:23c7:cf07:c300:f577:a551:7e06:296

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. Blocked the 2a00:23c7:cf07:c300::/64 range for a week. Favonian (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

OK we got him! Jack90s15 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent Block

You recent block to 147.3.0.131.240 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It appears they are now using User:L1234567890. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - you're much quicker than me!! Denisarona (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A beer for a Danish Wikipedian – how apt. Thank you! 🍻 Favonian (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You're more than welcome (Maybe I should have sent some Æbleflæsk as well!!! Have a good day. Denisarona (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot

@Favonian: I came across another page were it was worded like that kind of and thanks For explaining that. And don't worry I am still patrolling to make sure Harvey carter doesn't strike!Jack90s15 (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

That's highly appreciated, Jack90s15! Favonian (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Favonian: Is there any wiki archive something like that? that explains why he was permanently banned forever? I was just was wondering.Jack90s15 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, it's at AN, and there's WP:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Badly reputed IP user

Dear, further to your earlier actions, kindly take another look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports ; there are new "contributions" from IP 51.7.17.134 and I cannot help wondering if this wouldn't be a new impersonation of a contributor who was previously blocked under several guises. Thanks in advance! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Jan olieslagers: Complaints about "incorrect bold face", English spelling of "encyclopaedia" (but without taking the trouble to use an æ like he bloody well should), geolocates to Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire... yep, that would recognizably be BKFIP, even if he hadn't admitted it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course. Blocked. Favonian (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Evan Pettiwhisker Tildrum

We've certainly had enough with this LTA for a long time now. Iggy (Swan) 14:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been sorely tempted to block every IP from that ISP, but that would be against the official creed. Favonian (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A problem returns

Hello F. Two months ago you blocked 178.208.162.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Today this IP 192.71.27.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making the same edits to many of the same articles. I think it is another Dopenguins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) though it could be a copycat I guess. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It definitely is, and so is 194.68.44.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Blocked two ranges for a substantial period of time. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks F. MarnetteD|Talk 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Louis XVII of France

I filed at WP:RPP, but could you just semi protect Louis XVII of France? The vandalism by that IP resumed within hours after the previous semi expired. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do. The culprit is a recurring phenomenon, code name: Louisville Loser. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Lol, alright! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvey carter

@Favonian: Harvey carter trying to still do edits on that page,

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Commissar_Order&curid=615989&action=history https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a00:23c7:cf07:c300:3d9e:394f:cc70:17b6

I've /64 blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Phoolan

I think you should read and compare the two versions and judge for yourself. The other version seems to have an agenda to simply damn India, its society, its family culture, and above all, its religion. It is a page of apologetics for a bandit who murdered many people and looted many others. Poverty is pervasive in India and we all live in the same "dirty" country; how many of us become bandits? It surely cannot be right to blame all and sundry for crimes committed by one very damaged personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.63.20.116 (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

What Diannaa said. Favonian (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

User talk:202.40.137.201

You may wish revoke talk page access. User has been abusing it while blocked. Regards. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Favonian (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Might have to keep an eye on Sdg hJHe

This account appears to belong to the same user as 202.40.137.201. Similar remarks about Hong Kong independence and cockroaches (example, example), as well as user harassment with this edit and this edit and this edit as well. Best, →ᴇmɑdıxTC 09:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Same fascination with cockroaches, certainly. Favonian (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Too blatant to ignore. Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

New IP same old edits

Hello again. The editor I reported here User talk:Favonian/Archive 49#A problem returns is now using 47.30.217.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like DP, and the editing is certainly disruptive enough to deserve a block. Favonian (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

These IPs:

  • 2.186.132.238
  • 5.235.22.104
  • 5.235.133.16
  • 213.109.241.71
  • 213.109.241.181

which started with their disruptive nonsense on Talk:Sasanian Empire, have now expanded their disruption to other articles. Is there anything that can be done about this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Have renewed the block of the most recently active range. If the others resume activity, I'll deal with them incrementally. Favonian (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Harvey carter

Harvey carter is still trying do edits on that page still @Favonian: Same range and location Jack90s15 (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by one of my colleagues. Favonian (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Evan Pettiwhisker Tildrum

I see this has happened again. Iggy (Swan) 08:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I wonder which subcultural reference I'm missing out on. Favonian (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
However, I have researched this name on the search engine and turns out this is a fictional character which I thought this is a made-up name in it's entirety. Iggy (Swan) 10:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Any idea who that lovely IP was who left us the hate messages?

--Doug Weller talk 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

None whatsoever. The subculture subscribing to ideas such as those expressed so eloquently by the IP is depressingly large. Favonian (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Fully agree - it's an increasing problem and I'm not sure how easy it's going to be to cope with it. IPs and drive-by editors are increasing. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Favonian/Archive_49&oldid=1221628049"