User talk:Favonian

Sonny1998's sockpuppets

Hello, Favonian. I want to inform you that, apparently, banned user Sonny1998 returned once again via another sock puppet. On 21 March 2015, you banned his sock Favour1600 (his contributions - [1]), and now he's back as Roy1960 (his contributions - [2])... Also, it seems he is using these IP addresses (or used them before, at least) - [3], [4], and [5]. IMHO, this is a clear DUCK, all accounts and IP addresses have almost the same style of editing. By the way, maybe users Bbb23 and DoRD would like to post their comments about this. --Sundostund (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I indeffed the named account. I agree that it seemed fairly obvious behaviorally. I took no action against the two IPs. One hasn't edited since March 23. The other has edited more recently (April 2), but they are dynamic IPs and I doubt much will be accomplished by blocking them. If, however, they recommence editing, please let me know. Finally, Sundostund, if you believe that any of the templates created by Roy1960 needs deletion per G5 because they are damaging to the project, please let me now. I'm not interested in deleting them if they are helpful. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Bbb23, thanks for your help! No, I don't consider any of his templates to be damaging, they're not products of vandalism... --Sundostund (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sundostund and Bbb23: Good to see that problems get solved while I sleep. ;) Sonny1998 isn't banned (yet) so mass deletion probably isn't warranted. Favonian (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Favonian, I don't really see why his templates (or any other edits) should be deleted if they are helpful to the project, even if Sonny1998 is banned (eventually)... IMO, only vandalism should be deleted, but you and other admins should do what you consider as appropriate. --Sundostund (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor doesn't have to be banned to justify page deletion per G5. They just have to be a sock puppet. That said, like Sundostund, deletion isn't required, and I agree generally with Sundostund that if the pages aren't harmful, they don't need to be deleted. I wouldn't say that the pages have to be the product of vandalism per se, though. This usually comes up with articles rather than templates. Thus, for example, you may have a sock who wants to create a particular article largely for promotional reasons, either about himself or about some company he's affiliated with. Those kinds of articles are only vandalism in the very broad sense of the term, but I always delete them, and so do many administrators. In the case of templates, unless they obviously were vandalism, I would still delete them if they served no useful purpose as it's a waste of resources to have useless pages lying around the project. @Favonian, you should sleep more often. I find that all sorts of things get done without me when I sleep or even when I'm just off-wiki. It's great.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Favonian, Bbb23, and DoRD: I'm pretty sure he's back again, this time as Worldoff1952 (his edits - [6])... --Sundostund (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Groan! The monotony of these sock edits. Blocked, just like the others. Favonian (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at this latest sock, and unfortunately, a rangeblock won't be possible, but at least I didn't see any unblocked socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

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

@Alessandro57: A person capable of this edit, in particular the summary, exhausts my ability to do the AGF. This may of course cloud my judgment, so I'll control my impulse to block the IP. Over to you! Favonian (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the account is not very edifying, but it is what the source says. About his comment, it is the first time that I read about someone accusing a Bot of (religious) trolling :-) . Anyway, it would be good if someone (the ip and/or the others) could finally join the talk page, instead of edit warring. Maybe is the source that is not so reliable...I will ask the opinion of an expert fellow. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Kostantinos settled the problem now. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Indeed! Gone is the "mob", and good riddance to that. Meanwhile, our friend has transferred his attention to Hillary with this contribution – rather in violation of WP:SCAREQUOTES. Wonder if he'd be upset at yet another revert. The problem with the encyclopedia everyone can edit is that they do it. :( Favonian (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Alles gut was endet gut :-) I totally agree with you, Favonian. I just spent sometime trying to explain to someone that the Romans are not Italians (unfortunately for the latter :-)). It is more or less the tenth time that this happens in the last five years, but none reads the archives... :-( Have a nice evening, Alex2006 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Alessandro57: Whad'Ya Know?! Our mutual friend got blocked for block evasion. Happy (temporary) ending indeed. You have a tranquil evening too – staying away from Balkan-related articles, if at all possible. Favonian (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Favonian! You are right, but sometimes I keep trying to bring peace among the two parties, often with little success :-( Alex2006 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Another sock

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

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

..208.108.115.80

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

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

Thanks Favonian :) JRPG (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The Earl, again

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

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

PA?

Please could you have a look at the last comment on my talk page? It isn't directed at me but another editor and I think it may constitute a personal attack? Sorry, you're the only Admin I can see online at the moment. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

And I put this back, bacause even if Phil deleted it, I do ask for some help here. I had several personal attacks from this editor lately (thread on my talk Badly Written Boy) and even previously like a monthsome weeks ago, - and somedody should at least warn, or something. The comment is still in the edit history. (yes, I meant "shouting"). Hafspajen (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• The issue is all about this conversation, plus a couple similar ones, on this topic, anyway. 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Hafspajen (talk)

Oh for crying out loud! How did this get so badly out of control? Hafspajen, please use your break to recuperate. The wonderful collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia evidently got to you, but all evidence to the contrary, the project needs contributors like you. Favonian (ta[lk) 19:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Favonian, for your kind words. I intended this to be my last komment, but then I rememberd that I had a couple of unfinished articles, so I posted the drafts at Sagaciousphil page, would be pity not to finish them. And just before logging out remembered this post too. I guess, it is not actual anymore or something like that. I feel for the moment that the project doesn't want editors like me at all. I feel badly hurt, and especially because I feel that I was unjustly accused for something I never really did. Or meant. And of course now everybody is typing "she". No way to get rid of that, and I think this thing has gone far enough. Hafspajen (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Consistent editing?

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

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

Thanks JRPG (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

last

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

Possible sockpuppet?

I noticed a similar pattern of editing on the Karim Khan and Zand dynasty articles.

• Caprimanali
• Jewiyeane
  

Both appear to have the same fascination with Karim Khan, Zand dynasty, and Luri language. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Caprimanali is already blocked as a sock, and there are similarities between them and Jewiyeane but not enough that I'm prepared to duck block. You should consider reopening WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bergman Gotland. Favonian (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Spammer on WP:AIV

Hello. I've left a comment at AIV but I thought I'd leave a message here too, to point out that the IP is misrepresenting the whole thing. Omniglott (www.omniglott.com) that the IP repeatedly links to is not a real encyclopaedia but a personal web site, a hobby page written and maintained by someone who is not an authority in the field, and thus not allowed per WP:ELNO. Which is why I reverted the edits and warned them for spamming. And it wouldn't surprise me the least if there's also a COI involved, considering how persistent the IP is. Thomas.W ^talk 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I construed your opponent's entry at AIV as an attempt to report you for vandalism, and that's what my comment referred to – witness the edit summary. I don't haven an opinion on the merits of the disputed external link. Favonian (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, my bad. Unfortunately other admins have probably seen it as my report having been turned down. Thomas.W ^talk 18:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Reguyla/Kumioko

Kumioko has socked again with the IP, 96.255.237.170. I am only reporting it here because this IP has been blocked for block evasion thus there is no benefit in opening an SPI. Would you increase the block length of the main account Reguyla? This was third time that he violated the standard offer. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone Beeblebrox just denied your request to do it. Are you going around asking every admin? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you reading actually? Beeblebrox never said that! Nick said that he is "not increasing the block length" and it is not same saying as "it is wrong to do". It can be done by any other admin who has little respect for standards and norms. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone you appear to be having trouble understanding, but as the blocking administrator of the sock/IP, I am not extending the block on his named account. Canvassing many administrators is problematic, disruptive, and block worthy itself. Nick (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You have said that once already. This is not canvassing because it was Favionian who had extended the block length. There is nothing wrong in asking him. We can also bring this to WP:ANI if you want to, where at least 95% of the editors will agree that the siteban should be re-enacted, and this time it would be forever, no more standard offers. Now that multiple editors have already commented over here, I am not even going to post this elsewhere, let us know what Favionian thinks, he knows that whatever I have asked is within the standards and norms. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone why would you want to pursue such a vindictive campaign to have Reguyla banned forever ? That's pretty sick and twisted. He has been 'caught' evading his block, he has been blocked for evasion, and I consider the matter closed. If you don't, you're welcome to take him, me or anybody you want to ANI. Nick (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What a cluster fuck! One editor goes somewhat bananas and gets blocked, and nobody seems inclined to take emphatic measures against the permapest. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)