User talk:Favonian

Mea culpa, sort of

Technically I shouldn't have done this per WP:TPO. Hope you don't mind. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

You are forgiven, my son, and I shall trout myself for the typo. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

He's baaaaaack...

You've been doing a great job of identifying Kingshowman and swatting him down. Just so you know, he's been on a tear this weekend. I have blocked six seven IPv6's in the past 24 hours and not sure how many others he has up his sleeve. You and I are on different time zones so we can tag-team. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Good heavens! You have been busy, Melanie. I'll take it from here. Favonian (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Confused

This has got me scratching my head a bit. Am I missing something? –xeno^talk 18:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't blame you, xeno. Somebody should create an LTA, assuming a more civil name could be found than "The Neostrada Nuisance". For some months now, a highly disruptive IP from Poland has been trolling assorted math-related articles and most of the recent RfAs. It gets blocked routinely by assorted admins, including myself. Admittedly, the edits to the header page don't appear particularly disruptive, but the bigger picture is. Have a look at this listing. Several rather busy ranges from the same ISP are used, so range blocks probably aren't feasible. Favonian (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this the one with the CAPTCHA on RFA questions. Thanks for filling me in. –xeno^talk 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Abusive editor

Is there some sanction that can be applied against User:TenPoundHammer for his foul-mouthed outburst here? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can gauge current practice wrt. civility, throwing the F-bomb is not sufficient cause for a block if the user in question has contributed to FAs or GAs. Favonian (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Andymccoy

This user, whom you recently blocked, has now apparently resorted to a sockpuppet: Davideianari. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way. Both are now blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A second sockpuppet: Saracicchinelli. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Gone the way of its predecessor. Favonian (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Aus dynamic IP

Hi Favonian, looks like the Australian dynamic IP is at it again with 49.196.1.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) vandalising previous talk pages and AFL pages [1], [2], [3]. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked by esteemed colleague. Favonian (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it wrong by close discussion?

(223.182.109.123 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

I assume you are Kraker234 and that this closure is what we're talking about. Discussions should be closed by an experienced, uninvolved editor, and as this was your first edit, at least under that name, we have no way of ascertaining if you meet these criteria. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Hi Favonian. Since you recently blocked 81.152.40.198 for disruption at Ben Swann, perhaps you're willing to review their post-block behavior and decide whether it merits another block. Thanks in advance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Though the IP refrained from personal attacks this time, they certainly engaged in edit-warring, and that has earned them a one-week block. I would be unsurprised if 82.132.185.237 turns out to be the same editor, and quite intolerant if it provides further evidence. Favonian (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked editor

Hello, yesterday at 20.40 (UTC) you blocked the user 'Rowde' for "abusing multiple accounts". This is a user who has been a long term problem to the Wiki F1 project (and other motorsport projects), who usually edits whilst logged-out and has used approximately 250 IPs to date. He has been around since mid-2015 and has never really been constructive. Several other editors have spent considerable amounts of time cleaning up his 'work’ and he has never heeded warnings or advice, particularly in respect of copy-vio or WP:CWW. Although he has been reported a few times, he has not been blocked since three range blocks in 2015. My question is, none of the 'involved' editors are aware of any recent reports etc. so we were wondering how the block came about? Hope you can enlighten us. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Looks like I made a mistake. Rowde left this rather peculiar message on my talk page three minutes after I blocked WarningArmourKid and 191.116.125.190, both obvious socks of UnderArmourKid. This individual has, among other peculiarities, a rather misguided interest in race cars and their drivers, so I leaped to the conclusion that Rowde came from the same drawer. A more careful investigation reveals that the IPs of the two miscreants are from different parts of the world. On the other hand, Rowde looks to me like a perfect fit for the WP:NOTHERE category, and my suggestions is that I change the block to reflect this, leave a message to that effect on his talk page and restore his access to same. If he puts together a meaningful unblock request, another admin can review it and we'll take it from there. What do you thing of this proposal? Favonian (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I noticed his ‘post’ on your TP. He posted a fake warning on my TP a couple of days ago here and also a fake block notice at an F1 project colleague’s page here in the last day or so. The latter from one of his IPs. That’s actually pretty unusual, he rarely communicates at all (his command of English is poor) and typically only leaves abusive edit summaries.

I agree that he is WP:NOTHERE. He has no concept of any guidelines or policies as far as I can tell...or even what Wikipedia is. I doubt you have the time to go into his history too deeply, but the blanked versions of his TP might reveal part of the problem. If you need any more info. please let me know. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If he can put together a meaningful unblock request, I'll eat my keyboard. He's yet to construct a meaningful contribution anywhere as far as I can see. I can't fathom the length of time Eagleash and I (and others) have spent cleaning up this guy's "work"... Thank you, Favonian, for your input and I agree with your proposal as outlined above. Let's see how it progresses. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

This is rather remiss of me but I probably should have mentioned this page earlier. He has edited the page from IPs in the past. This is where the username is derived from and may explain why he cannot grasp Wiki's requirements. All his IPs until January 2017 geolocated to the area, but recently he's been editing from a different range geolocated to Newbury, Berks., UK...not all that far away. The involved editors were always of the opinion that he was very young, but only realised the other background when the school name began appearing in userspace 'drafts. Eagleash (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Eagleash, that's certainly consistent with his editorial behavior. Guess this is where WP:NOTTHERAPY gets invoked. Favonian (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)