User talk:Favonian

This is Favonian's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58: 31 days

Ararat arev

He's started on pharaoh, Khafra, and ankh now. A. Parrot (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three + djed protected. Thanks for watching them! Favonian (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's attacking articles on individual pharaohs (Sneferu, Djoser, Ramesses IV, Ramesses VI, Amenhotep III, Thutmose IV) while IP-hopping. He usually edits each article only once, though he has reverted me on Sneferu. I don't know what to do about it, because we can't semi-protect every article on a pharaoh. At least 71.95.223.156 can be blocked, because he's been using it since November. If you want to block his throwaway IPs, they're

Thank you. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a couple of not-completely-ephemeral accounts – just to send a signal – and added a bunch of pharaohs to my watch list. IMO we'll just soldier on, doing what we've been doing. Only option, unless we can persuade the congregation that IP-editing is not such a great idea, and Hell will presumably freeze over before that happens. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karnak is a current target. A. Parrot (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir is on top of things. At the end of the day, our mutual friend doesn't have a lot to show for his effort. I've identified some of his older contributions and eliminated them. Favonian (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot and Dougweller: Seems to me that this saintly editor looks eerily familiar. Comments? Favonian (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get around to looking until just before the account was blocked. No comments needed, really. The conclusion was obvious. A. Parrot (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I got the ping. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eleanor Dreadney

What can be done concerning the editing of user:Eleanor Dreadney? This person is clearly having problems editing in English and his/her additions to articles are at best made up of broken English(possibly with the use of google translator?). I believe that the IP 212.159.109.171 is also Eleanor editing logged out. Same broken English and poor sentence structure.[1] Perhaps you could look into this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Favonian and Kansas Bear. I can't tell what this person's native language may be. On the French Wikipedia, on the article which corresponds to our Bonne of Luxembourg most of her edits were reverted. Over here on enwiki that tends to happen as well whenever she edits any well-watched article, such as Philippa of Hainault. This may be a case of WP:Competence is required. If there were some way of getting her to limit herself to talk pages it could be OK. The IP 212.159.109.171 geolocates to Sheffield, UK. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor blocked for a day to get her attention, and a stern note left on her talk page to tell what the rules of engagement will he hereafter. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all- Some more info re "Eleanor": The user has made several edits on fr.wp as well in the last month, all of which have been reverted, I believe. I think the home wiki might be id.wp (Indonesia). Eric ^talk 20:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian, since your blocking of Eleanor Dreadney, said editor has continued to edit war on Bonne of Bohemia. On Eleanor of Lancaster, Dreadney posts in the edit summary what I am to assume is a threat??, "Note: Please don't delete this because it was important Warning: Someone Who delete this they are will be removed from this Wiki."[2] Would you be interested in addressing this issue? It is clear this editor is not fluent in English. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for a week, but then noticed Yngvadottir's warning to her and undid the block. This is probably the very, very last chance she gets. Favonian (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for interfering, but it occurs to me that she may not understand, so I laid it out. If she would only start using article talk pages, it would be a lot easier to deal with the situation; for example, she may actually have a source she's using. I note she's started editing on de. and is stuck in their universal use of flagged revisions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to apologize! Your sense of moderation is an example to us all. :) Favonian (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and FYI all- She's made related edits on Commons, fr.wp, de.wp, almost all of them problematic and reverted. Eric ^talk 19:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Favonian, @Yngvadottir, @Kansas_Bear, @EdJohnston, @BethNaught: Eleanor went on another campaign again today: Special:Contributions/Eleanor_Dreadney. I think it might be time for Eleanor to take a long break. Eric ^talk 14:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have remade the one-week block. She blew it. I will watchlist her talk page in case she asks for clarification. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this comment has so far been her only foray into the world of talk pages, we probably shouldn't be over-optimistic. Favonian (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant no disrespect

Editing Wikipedia was a homework assignment for my English class. It will not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicksm (talk • contribs) 03:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Clicksm: Then all is as it should be. Maybe your teacher should put Wikipedia's article on Comparison of American and British English on the syllabus. ;) Favonian (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Favonian!

Why did you block my school (216.145.90.221) from editing their own talk page? why? 216.145.89.170 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of him to remind us that the block was due for renewal, don't you think? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wish that all our customers were like him. :D Favonian (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Belmeis

Many thanks for making the move for Richard de Belmeis II. I'm working on biographies of medieval people related to the West Midlands, particularly Staffordshire and Shropshire, and had been irritated by the illogical titles, not to speak of the lack of real content, of the Belmeis articles for some time. Sjwells53 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure – and thanks for putting meat on the articles! Favonian (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Geneology

On your first point on my talk page, under the same title: Nicholas II married his first cousin, Alix of Hesse. Nicholas was first cousin to George, and Wilhelm and George were first cousins on their mother's side.

In the context of WWI, which is where this information gets called out on the main page, it is a minor point that the Tsarina was a first cousin since she had little impact in the lead up and outcome of the war, but it is a major point that Nicholas, George, and Wilhelm were so closely related. "One aspect of the war upon which she remarks is the close connection among the three principal monarchs of the age, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany; King George V of England; and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. In fact, they were all cousins with each other: Wilhelm and George were first cousins, George and Nicholas were also first cousins, and Wilhelm and Nicholas were third cousins."^[1] Alliwalk (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction was to your first three edits to the article (1, 2, 3), in particular their edit summaries, all of which were factually wrong. You may well be right regarding the political implications of the various relationships, but that's sort of tangential to the article, which is merely what the title says it is – not Causes of World War I. Likewise, your addition of a Hohenzollern family tree is not really germane to the subject matter of the present article. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2013/12/family-relationships-that-couldnt-stop-world-war-one

Kauffner?

asked on Talk page and as previous socks suddenly stopped editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like him, but I'm not prepared to utter the WP:DUCK call – especially not at this late hour. Suggest SPI, clunky and backlog-ridden though it may be. Favonian (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, wasn't expecting you to, just noting: SPI. Have a good night's sleep. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account blocking

I have a question, if someone's account is blocked, does that make the users other accounts blocked also? I asked this because I've noticed that you've blocked User:FreddieFalcon1's account, but the users other account; User:FreddieFalcon2 remains unblocked. And the user is still posting the same vandalism on Wisconsin. Seqqis (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of our blocking policy, so I've blocked the new account as well. It was created a day after the previous one was blocked, and its sole edit didn't catch my eye. Favonian (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID YOU DELETE IT ?

why did you delete Edon Piperku ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edonp (talk • contribs) 18:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason given in the message on your talk page: User talk:Edonp#Speedy deletion nomination of Edon Piperku. Please stop using Wikipedia as a social website to promote yourself. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell

is he managing to use all these IP addresses? Dougweller (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to block another one. It's rather odd. Not simply a large pool of dynamic addresses, as many of them recur (and get blocked) after a while. Oh well, he's so unimaginative that I feel like a robot, doing what has to be done. Favonian (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, boring. And the address thing is frustrating. Dougweller (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a speedy deletion category

for Jonas Hammerik Høgedal? Yngvadottir (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone went with the one I believed inapplicable. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was the most applicable rationale, given that we don't have "blatant overcompensation". :) Favonian (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept, accept, pleeezzee accept ....

I thought it might be easier to continue the discussion here rather than on the latest IP talk page. As Drmies mentioned this has been going on for a long time but seems to have escalated since (early?) December. The target is generally dog breed articles, making half dozen or so edits changing weights, heights, adding large/medium to the lead often with an edit summary using "accept" or some permutation of it. Graham87 may have more information as I noticed he blocked one of the IP addresses for 6 months and around the same time commented that an IP was vandalising Simple Wiki as well? I'm not technically minded enough to know how the constant changing and vast variation in IP addresses is done (I wouldn't be much use as a sock or a vandal!) so I don't know if blocking will eventually stop the disruption. I know that I should have diligently been putting warnings on the IP talk pages but it seemed pointless as the IP address just kept changing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil and Drmies: I think of such cases as war of attrition, using the simple fact that rever, block, ignore requires fewer resources than whatever is needed at their end. If this dog molester doesn't fill your time, you can always engage Ararat arev, who is the reason why an increasing number of articles on topics from Ancient Egypt, in particular pharaohs, are now semi-protected. :P Favonian (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagaciousphil, Drmies, and Favonian: Exactly. It's quite easy to change your IP address quickly, if you know how. Graham87 09:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, whatever. Here I am, with no more than a half a dozen socks, and I get emailed and scrutinized by ArbCom. Also, Favonioni, I spent $15 on a (small!) bottle of Mikkeller and was disappointed. Finally, my sympathy to the kind-hearted and openminded Danes who are swallowing some bitter cookies these days: y'all hang tough. This dog molester is small fry in the scheme of things, and RBI (with some SP thrown in) is probably the easiest thing to do. Oh, tell you what, Favonski--I'll look at your Egyptian, if you'll look at User:OJOM and tell me why we don't just block immediately. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I suppose that if I lived in Richardson, Texas I might want to be a vandal too. I believe I had dealings with the other one mentioned in the LTA case. You know, you look at that kind of shite and you wonder if maybe we shouldn't go to mandatory registered editing, with UN-approved identification. And we'll send Kww door to to door to check IDs. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Tempt me not! After too many years of vandal-slaying I'm not the staunchest supporter of IP editing, but I know this is not received wisdom around here.

Thanks for the thoughts regarding our current predicament. Didn't know we had that many cops in the country. 2015 is an election year in Denmark, and there's quite a bit of hay making in progress, though our leaders try their best to appear statesmanlike.

Could have warned you against Mikeller. Had an encounter with their Weasel (yes: weasel!) beer – vague recollection of superlative taste, clear memory (as retold by my colleagues) of showing up next morning pale-faced and with trembling hands.

And finally: block OJOM already! Obvious (add litany of Wiki-acronyms to taste), and anyone who carries overlinking to the extreme with "his" deserves the chair. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't wield the stick right now, considering my mood. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Yngvadottir opened the more diplomatic avenue. If it wasn't for her my monthly check from the foundation would be a lot fatter. Last time I looked online the body count was one; now it's two, plus the alleged shooter. I guess that's a relief. And I see Finn Nørgaard has been written up. Favonian, you live in one of the nicest countries in the world and I hope you get to keep it that way. Tell you what, get me that job teaching English in Copenhagen and I'll be there for the fall semester. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they used the rope for a purpose other than as a lifeline, and Harry Mitchell has given them a week off. I tried to explain. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How you're able to maintain such a positive attitude is unfathomable to an old cynic like me. Keep it up as long as you can! Favonian (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Fawcett

Our friend Jason is back with a different title as user Lordmancett (talk · contribs) and a grand coat of arms. I see that, via IP edits, he has been trying to revive H.S. Pledge & Sons Ltd and insert himself as owner. We need to keep up the occasional scan for him. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud! I actually do have a manual scanning procedure, but he resurfaces so infrequently that I become negligent. What a tawdry existence, imagining himself to be a (life) peer. Favonian (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet Report

Hello me again, I would like to report users JimBob224444 (talk) and Rondo222 (talk) for possible sock puppetry on this article; John Abdinado. Seqqis (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seqqis: No kidding! Meanwhile, JaneHorn67 (talk · contribs) has joined the club (plus 67.86.140.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), of course), and I'm watching with wry amusement as the AfD of the latest instance unfolds. Favonian (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No more beating round the bush. Article has been speedied and all socks ironed. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I may be back if I notice anything else unusual. Seqqis (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen

The discussion at ANI mentioning a possible sock of Historian Student? Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's not really denying sockery, is he? Favonian (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fun

Looks like Ararat Arev at Amun, see [3] I can show you other pages, but that makes it pretty clear. I hope we aren't in for another round of thsi. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord(!) No cause for optimism. I'll nip this one in the bud. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast! Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to delete an article

Would you be able to place an article for deletion template on the Mughal–Rajput War (1558–78) article? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand. Literally, yes I can place an AfD template on said article, and so can you. Why would one want to do that? Favonian (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never placed an AfD on an article and did not want to mess it up. As for why, there are no sources stating that there was a 20 year war between Mughals and Rajputs. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using Twinkle is strongly recommended; otherwise the process is indeed rather complicated. Regarding the subject matter, you're saying that you are less than convinced that the war actually took place? That would of course be a good reason to delete the article. It's way outside my area of expertise, so I'll just lean back and watch event unfurl. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have found, Akbar the Great conducted numerous campaigns some against Rajputs, others against Sur and the Delhi Sultanates. The so-called Mughal Rajput war which starts in 1558, has no battles listed in the template until the Siege of Chittorgarh which was in 1567. So this "war" which started in 1558 had no battles/sieges until 1567, nine years later? The other "battle", Battle of Haldighati which apparently happens in 1576, is easter egg linked to Maharana Pratap. So there were two battles, separated by 9 years, in this 20 year war?

This discussion for deletion will either, spur editors to find sources to support and properly write this so-called war, or result in the article's deletion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King of the English vs. King of England

Might I add according to said article all kings before john went by king of the English? so why aren't the kings up until john king of the English? Why is it that at cnut it just suddenly changes to king of England? I am simply trying to make it consistent by making it clear king of England and king of the English are one and the same and not separate titles. The king of England is the king of the English so why is there a war over this small trivial detail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.127.78 (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@108.31.127.78: Please present your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms#New user changing "King of the English" to "King of England". Favonian (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why is this such a big deal?

according to the article styles of british monarchs it says that all kings until king john were king of the English so why aren't all kings up until john king of the English instead of England? I am simply trying to make it consistent because king of England and king of the English are one and the same and not separate titles as one might believe. Also why des it suddenly change at cnut to king of the English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.127.78 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the advice given above. Favonian (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And take a look at [4] - academic sources calling these kings "King of the English" as well as the article I pointed you to, Style of the British sovereign. It seems to be that only with the Danish conquest did the geographical word 'England' come into use, with Cnut probably the first king to call himself King of England. Lawson, M. K. (2004), Cnut – England's Viking King (2nd ed.) Lawson, Cnut, p. 97. "The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Canute was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England."" After all, he wasn't just king of the English. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked that guy. Always thought he was a bit of a Cnut! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which make Harthacnut a – what? :D Favonian (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excalibur

The Talk page is very precise. Why you blocked the page?--151.47.223.109 (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Cuchullain says. Favonian (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya

hello there. I am a new user here. I appreciate the efforts you have put in so far to make Wikipedia a trusted place of information for everyone. I have done some minor editing which you have reverted back, I don't understand why. I just corrected the definition of the subject which was wrongly defined. I believe I haven't violated the terms and conditions, haven't made any hate speech or disruptive edition. Kindly review it and inform me if that can be updated or not. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhaantariq (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhaantariq: You have been making repeated attempts to inject your own, rather vehement, opinion about a religion. This violates Wikipedia's policy regarding neutral point of view. If you wish, you may open a discussion on the article talk page, but you probably won't have much success. Favonian (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the reply. let me tell you dear that I have made no REPEATED ATTEMPTS to inject my own opinion about a religion, that was my only SECOND post, not the repeated attempts. I have no wish to open a discussion on the article. I was just correcting the definition. Simply take it as a person who doesn't believe that Jesus was last prophet of Christians, you wont call him a Christian or relate it to Christianity. Exactly the same way Ahmadis are, they don't believe in Prophet Muhammad to be the last Prophet of Islam, hence how come you call them Islamic religious group? That definition is wrong about them and I was only correcting it, NOT INJECING MY OWN VEHEMENT OPINIONS, if you like you can do a research on them. anyways I don't want to argue on this thing because you simply don't know even the basics about them or that religion and sadly saying in this way Wikipedia does contain ambiguous information about many things.Never Give Up! 14:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Farhaantariq: Basically the reason is because they say they are. As editors, we can't make decisions as to who belongs to what religious group. It's the same with Mormons - they consider themselves Christian, even though most Christians would probably disagree, so we call them Christian. I understand your objection, it's just not how we deal with such issues. We don't suggest that most Muslims consider them to be Muslims. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: thanks for the input and explaination.Never Give Up! 17:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice concerning Ahmed747

What would you suggest as a course of action after Ahmed747's third[5][6][7] attempt to remove references and referenced information from the Marwanids article? After Ahmed747's first attempt, I revert them and posted a warning on their talk page,[8] which garnered no response. Since then, Ahmed747 has continued his Kurdish POV pushing, removing references and referenced information along the way.[9][10] --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him, so we shall see what we shall see. Favonian (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manhas Editing ?

Can you tell me the reason you reverted the Manhas topics edits to old ones ? Which part of the edits were wrong ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Online.chatbox (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

"In antiquity of rule, which is generally considered a benchmark of royality, they are second to none, but the great Katoch Rajputs of Kangra." Not a good example of neutral point of view, a requirement for writing Wikipedia articles. There has been far too much disruption of this kind on articles related to these matters, so a protection was called for. If you think you have a case, please proceed to the article talk page. Favonian (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minhas

Thanks for spotting the disruption at Minhas. I had just filed a request at RFPP and in that I was suggesting some sort of fairly long-term action because this problem just doesn't seem to go away, even though the last spell of protection was ages ago. I'll go cancel that request now and we'll see what happens next. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Wish there was a way to blanket-protect all articles about castes. :( Favonian (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So do I! You've done us a big favour by semi-protecting for a year but I'm afraid a lot of admins are reluctant to impose such a long term (aside from Blade, who is known to throw indefs at things that have been troublesome for quite a while). Admittedly, in this case the last semi was for six months and so I guess yours is a natural escalation. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause of death' guy

You blocked 86.174.162.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for three months back in mid-January, but the guy is back at his old tricks, this time as 86.174.162.98. If someone else doesn't do it first, can you block this IP as well? Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 86.174.162.64 to the mix, I've blocked their /24 range. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party

Hi, rather than protecting Aam Aadmi Party, could you perhaps review Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Redirect_and_disambiguation_muddle and impose a block or a topic ban? Bolterc (talk · contribs) is acting against consensus and in an obviously POV manner. They've also tried and failed with an AfD. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! Didn't know there was that much of a prehistory. Serves me right for not being a diligent follower of ANI. I have never made use of discretionary sanctions, so I'll settle for an edit-warring block. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. I'm not sure what to do about this, which was a clear CSD#G6 - do we even have a board for discussion of proposed disambig deletions or does it go to WP:MFD? Not that I'll be doing anything about it for a few days as I'm fed up of the admin incompetence (elsewhere, nothing related to you) and am taking a break. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly harmless, though superfluous. Under the circumstances, I'd let it pass. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then again: gone! Favonian (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Justthefacts2013

Any objections to unblocking this user based on this pledge? Obviously, a reblock would be in order if the user made any further edits resembling promotion of COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Go right ahead!. Favonian (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to request something.

This is about User:Reguyla/User:Kumioko. I'd like to ask that you remove the extension of the ban, as while it is a ban evasion, it seems quite obvious that the way he attempted to contribute when ban evading was in a constructive manner. Plus, resetting the ban length for a few simple constructive edits does seem a bit unnecessary.

Also, even if that can't be done, I'd like to bring up the nature of the first ANI discussion. It seems like a discussion created on the basis of hate. I actually agree with Reguyla, admins do become abusive with power at times, and this seems like no exception. (this referring to the how the admins seem to hate Reguyla, just so you don't think I'm referring to you resetting the block. I don't think you're like that.) I've seen it before with my own eyes. Simply questioning an admin can and has lead to blocks and bans for me, (Though not on ENWiki, but still) so I'd know first hand exactly what Reguyla was referring to.

My apologies for this quite long message, but I feel like all of this needs to be said. -LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He knows the conditions: absolutely no socking, IP or otherwise. Nevertheless, he keep making these reappearance, claiming victimization, assuming that rules and decisions don't apply to him. I don't think "hate" is really the issue, but people (be they admins or not) tend to become exasperated when the same pattern is exhibited again and again. In conclusion: no, I absolutely will not unblock Kumioko, by that or any other name. Favonian (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask where you got "assuming that rules and decisions don't apply to him" from. Just curious, that's all. -LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like the block extension to be removed, and the original unblock time reinstated. I'll not do it myself, but the block is now looking very firmly punitive rather than preventative, and no longer strictly in line with the blocking policy. Thanks in advance, Nick (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you propose would effectively mean that "you are blocked and may not sock, but if you choose to do so anyway, we'll just ignore it". I don't agree with this, and therefore reset the clock. You may set the block back to its previous expiration date, if you see fit, and I won't trow a tantrum, but you must assume the responsibility yourself. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

Hej Favonian, I saw you blocked 180.87.192.123; see more of their handiwork at 180.87.192.228. Maybe that rangeblock needs a broader range? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

/24 should do it for the moment. Extending to 180.87.192.0/18 might be a bit too bloodthirsty, considering the widespread frowning at "trigger-happy admins". Favonian (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MuhammedIn

After I removed an unsourced addition to a questionable article[11], MuhammedIn has started reverting my edits throughout numerous articles, giving no explanation in the edit summary. This appears to be a case of wiki-stalking.[12] --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add another sock to the list of what I now believe is connected to Uniquark9.1SwordofGod1 --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add this IP. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All blocked. You with this many accounts on the move you should probably open an SPI with a CU request for a sleeper sweep. Favonian (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already opened an SPI last night. Please feel free to modify it in any fashion. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I was looking in the wrong place. I have requested a CU per the above. Favonian (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Car Rental

Please note that this the Enterprise Car Rentals IP address, so since people keep editing pages without citing and the like. It might be better to not let this IP edit posts but do allow them if they're logged in into their account, if its possible to do so. 65.197.19.241 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to do this would be by blocking the IP and that may well happen if there's further vandalism, but at present there's no basis for a block. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like 65.197.19.XXX is used by the company computers, if the IP is blocked people would still be able to log in correct and edit from there correct? 65.197.19.241 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless the IP is an open proxy, it will typically be blocked with the "anon only" option, allowing named accounts to edit from it. Favonian (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinger IP troll

Hi, i noticed that you reverted an edit by the IP 83.10.74.195 (talk · contribs) at User:Tirgil34. This IP along with the IP 83.22.130.239 (talk · contribs) has been trolling by talk page too. They are probably connected to Wikinger (talk · contribs). Could you block these IP's, possibly rangeblock?. Krakkos (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former definitely looks like W and is blocked for a week. Not entirely sure about the other one, though it's also from Poland. Monitoring. Range block probably not an option. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are well known old friend of Iaaasi, you even acted as his meat puppet in many times. Now he sent you a message and you activated yourself...

[1] ttp://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2013/12/family-relationships-that-couldnt-stop-world-war-one

[1]