Contents
- 1 Problem with IP edit warrior at António de Oliveira Salazar
- 2 Opinion needed
- 3 More information about Wikiedro
- 4 Spanish Wikipedian Administrator´s Taichi
- 5 Personal Attacks
- 6 Using the talk page doesn't work
- 7 Dispute resolution
- 8 Congratulations from the Military History Project
- 9 Your approved disruptive editors
Problem with IP edit warrior at António de Oliveira Salazar
- 177.98.180.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Hi Ed, we're having problems with a stubborn IP editor who's ignoring consensus and continually edit-warring against editors who revert his unexplained and undiscussed addition to the article. He's already reverted 6 times today; I've reverted him 3 times,and 3 other editors have reverted him. And he's just reverted me again. Carlstak (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- IP is now blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Opinion needed
- Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Hello, Ed. I would appreciate your opinion regarding the issue raised here and here. --Sundostund (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would leave the user's talk page alone, even though they are indef blocked. So far as I know, User:Trust Is All You Need is not recently active. Between mid-2014 and mid-2018 they were not blocked, and there is still a chance they might return. They did flame out in rather spectacular fashion about one year ago. As User:Jpgordon stated, "Indefinite isn't infinite. TIAYN is a generally good editor who has some self-control issues..." You have now asked five administrators. If you seriously disagree with the advice that most people are giving, you might open a thread at WP:AN. Reopening old matters hardly seems worth it unless there is some reason for concern. Did anything happen recently to draw your attention to this? EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- My only thought about this issue is whether user pages of editors who are indef blocked should be left permanently open. It is not related to the particular case of TIAYN in any way, I have the same thought about any other editor in that situation. Of course, after consulting five administrators about this, I am satisfied and I see no reason for opening a thread at WP:AN. This issue certainly isn't so important to me that I make such a move... User:Jpgordon is right – "Indefinite isn't infinite". BUT, as far as I saw here since 2010, in most cases indefinite turns out to be infinite. I still remember the case of once well-respected User:Evlekis and its outcome. There are few indefinitely blocked editors who got unblocked and resumed a successful WP career afterwards. --Sundostund (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Evlekis and TIAYN are not the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- They are not, but their current status here is pretty much the same (with some variations)... I myself would like that to change – both of them seemed as valuable and important members of the community. But I truly doubt it would happen. --Sundostund (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Evlekis and TIAYN are not the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- My only thought about this issue is whether user pages of editors who are indef blocked should be left permanently open. It is not related to the particular case of TIAYN in any way, I have the same thought about any other editor in that situation. Of course, after consulting five administrators about this, I am satisfied and I see no reason for opening a thread at WP:AN. This issue certainly isn't so important to me that I make such a move... User:Jpgordon is right – "Indefinite isn't infinite". BUT, as far as I saw here since 2010, in most cases indefinite turns out to be infinite. I still remember the case of once well-respected User:Evlekis and its outcome. There are few indefinitely blocked editors who got unblocked and resumed a successful WP career afterwards. --Sundostund (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
More information about Wikiedro
- Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- White Latin Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: Blocked)
For this particular complaint, I won't be considering any evidence from the Spanish Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has its own administrators and its own rules. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, thanks for taking part in the issue I reported in the noticeboard. I write you here because as someone who have dealt with Wikiedro in the spanish wiki aswell I have additional knowledge regarding his uncivil practices, as those have been reported to noticeboards repeatedly by other users there [1] (this is a report for violating the 3R rule, it is important to note that Wikiedro used to go by the name of Açipni-Lovrij before he requested a name change not long ago [2], with his signature often appearing as A.L.), [3] (here he is called out for trying to imposse poor quality sources), [4] (here his uncivil practices such as reverting several editors aswell as unilaterally removing reliable data against concensus and claiming in the summaries to edit one thing while removing others expecting that no one notices). it is also pointed out that this editor tends to reignite discussions that seemingly are solved (this is, if the result is unfavorable for him he waits a couple of weeks and then starts rmodifying data again), he has done this in the Spanish article for Demographics of Mexico [5], and I have been on the need to link in my edit summary the precisse diff on which he agreed to keep the sources [6], in fact, he did it again two days ago [7]. Perhaps this editor has managed to stay unsanctioned despite how conflictive he is because much of his 27,000 edits is reverting one-time vandals and performing tedious tasks such as linking, but there must be ways to stop it from being disruptive aside of blocking him definitely, such as impossing an 1-revert limit on him. Additionally, in his last reply in the talk page of White latin Americans he textually "warned" ("advertencia" means "warning") the editor Dhtwiki that as soon as the 24 hour limit passed he would revert the article until his version stays on top. [8]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Whatever would says Pob3qu3, in Spanish Wikipedia this user was signaled for prosiletism and dubious information (with polemical results) and no matter if Wikiedro acused Pob3qu3, the acusations where well-recibied by the Spanish Wikipedian administrators and also approve that. I will traduce the final resolution wrotted by the Spanish Wikipedian Administrator´s Taichi: I will close this case after the tablon´s request, user Pob3qu3 no longer edit anddo not take care in search a middle point, thats mean that theres not disposition for continue this issue. For these reason I give permission to Açipni-Lovrij fo make the necessariest corrections in the article, since the issue is not being ever mediated informally. I make mention to Geom (User) to be aware. Also, Pob3qu3 is warned to not make label defaults anymore, and he will be santioned if he does it again. Whitin the suckpoppet suspicius, the best way is make a cheksuer request. As the judment to what is Pob3que exposed, its clearly that the informal situation its abandoned, for that, my response gived hours ago is the only one to the resolution of this conflict. Also, I remember to the user Pobeque that he hasnt disposition to stand up in this administrative resolution or indicate waht we may do. Under penalty of breake this rule. I close this case. Taichi. 11/11/2018. In Spanish: Respuesta Voy a cerrar este hilo porque luego de esta solicitud en el tablón, el usuario Pob3qu3 no ha vuelto a editar ni se ha interesado en buscar un punto medio, lo que significa que no hay disposición de avanzar en el tema. Por ello doy permiso a Açipni-Lovrij que haga las correcciones necesarias en el artículo, ya que el asunto ni siquiera está siendo mediado informalmente. Hago mención a Geom para que esté enterado. También queda advertido a Pob3qu3 que no puede seguir cometiendo faltas a la etiqueta, por lo que se le sancionará si hay reincidencia. Sobre las sospechas de usuario títere, lo conveniente es solicitar vía checkuser que se despeje esa incógnita. Taichi 〒 00:04 11 nov 2018 (UTC) Como corolario a lo expuesto a Pob3qu3 queda claro que la mediación informal está abandonada, por lo que la respuesta emitida hace unas horas por mi persona es la única referencia de resolución a este conflicto. También reitero que el usuario Pob3que3 no está en posición de pasarse por encima de una resolución administrativa ni de indicar qué hay que hacer, so pena de romper esta norma. Cierro el hilo. Taichi 〒 08:07 11 nov 2018 (UTC) --186.151.62.200 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC) |
Spanish Wikipedian Administrator´s Taichi
I recomed talk to Taichi because he closed a resolution in favor to Wikiedro and not to Pob3eque. Obiously he would say you different versions of the real situtation in the Spanish Wikipedia case, because he lost it. Greetings. --186.151.62.200 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Personal Attacks
- White Latin Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- User talk:Wikiedro#Edit warring at White Latin Americans
- AN3 closure about Wikiedro
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive
Hello, it's me again, this time I write to you to inform you that the IP editor who participated in the White Latin Americans edit war and also in the Edit Warring Noticeboard case is leaving personal attacks on my talk page in the English Wikipedia [9] and also the Spanish Wikipedia [10] (in this one he insults you as well). This is not the first time he does this, as in early 2018 he wrote this in my talk page [11], I must point out that this IP is from the same location that the IP who left the attacks today is, and that I included it as a sockpuppet of Wikiedro on my SPI [12], to which I, as time passes, incorporate new evidence (for example, compare the writing style of the edit summaries and the content removed on this two diffs [13] & [14]. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Your concern is with the IP referring to you as a "mitomano acomplejado"? How would you translate that?
- In the SPI, you are listing Guatemalan IPs though Wikiedro claims to be from Chile. The named accounts in your SPI are not recently active.
- It is possible that the Guatemalan IP, 186.151.62.200 (talk · contribs), is just a person who supports the same view of Mexican demography as Wikiedro. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- "mitomano acomplejado" translates to something akin to "complexed liar", and while the IPs seemingly are from different locations, a subscription-based proxy service can be used to achieve that effect, which have been seen on SPIs before (back when I filled in my investigation I recall another case involved an spammer that used a proxy service for example). I doubt that they're not the same person because their behavior is way too similar, from edit summaries, changes they push aswell as the way they edit discussion pages (doing several edits at once instead of only a well redacted one), they also tend to be dormant. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would actually be somewhat logical if the Guatemalan IP 186.151.62.200 (talk · contribs) was ELreydeEspana (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive. They share an interest in German Guatemalan and irreligion. It would take a lot of study of that SPI before I'd sign on to that hypothesis, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could be, uncivil users that abuse multiple accounts are likely to share behavorial traits albeit similarities in this case (specially among registered accounts) are rather extreme. Though as you say, it would require much research as I don't know if that sockmaster ever shown an interest on Mexico. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, there is this edit by a sock of ELrey which makes reference to White Latin Americans. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pob3qu3: do you have some time to look at this list of Spanish socks made by User:Taichi? Especially look at the behavioral description of ELreydeEspana at the top of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- The IP editor fits the profile for yet another sockpuppet of that editor, not sure about the registered accounts, do you think I have to gather more evidence on the other ones and keep you posted on it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, if you have time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- But, if you decide to file at SPI again, remember that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiedro/Archive is not the way to do it. It has to be short and punchy and contain real evidence. Your posting there just looked like a continuation of a content dispute.EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, if you have time. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- The IP editor fits the profile for yet another sockpuppet of that editor, not sure about the registered accounts, do you think I have to gather more evidence on the other ones and keep you posted on it?. Pob3qu3 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pob3qu3: do you have some time to look at this list of Spanish socks made by User:Taichi? Especially look at the behavioral description of ELreydeEspana at the top of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, there is this edit by a sock of ELrey which makes reference to White Latin Americans. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Could be, uncivil users that abuse multiple accounts are likely to share behavorial traits albeit similarities in this case (specially among registered accounts) are rather extreme. Though as you say, it would require much research as I don't know if that sockmaster ever shown an interest on Mexico. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would actually be somewhat logical if the Guatemalan IP 186.151.62.200 (talk · contribs) was ELreydeEspana (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ELreydeEspana/Archive. They share an interest in German Guatemalan and irreligion. It would take a lot of study of that SPI before I'd sign on to that hypothesis, though. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- "mitomano acomplejado" translates to something akin to "complexed liar", and while the IPs seemingly are from different locations, a subscription-based proxy service can be used to achieve that effect, which have been seen on SPIs before (back when I filled in my investigation I recall another case involved an spammer that used a proxy service for example). I doubt that they're not the same person because their behavior is way too similar, from edit summaries, changes they push aswell as the way they edit discussion pages (doing several edits at once instead of only a well redacted one), they also tend to be dormant. Pob3qu3 (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Using the talk page doesn't work
- Avengers: Endgame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WP:AN3#User:Adamstom.97_reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: No action)
Well, I tried to take your advice, but as I suspected (it's pretty common with this editor) it hasn't been working. I really don't want to put up with trying to "discuss" a content dispute with an editor who refuses to actually read my comments and instead responds to bogus strawmen. When I asked him to please respond to what I actually wrote rather than what he claims I wrote, he comes back with a nonsense remark about how I'm "lollygagging" and "silly sidetracks or self-victimisation", in which every declarative sentence ends with an explanation mark. Where's there to go now? Should I just revert again (now that it's become clear that Adam is not willing to use the talk page) and if he reverts again file another ANEW report? I'm really struggling to decide how to resolve this at this point. (FWIW, I contacted Swarm (talk · contribs) separately about a loosely related incident that took place on Adam's talk page. I don't blame Swarm at all for not wanting to touch this with a ten-foot pole, but someone really should.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of people editing at Avengers: Endgame. Consider opening an WP:RfC. Or, if that seems like too much trouble, make a concrete proposal for the wording and ask people to say if they support or oppose it. The diff of the revert is this one. You could put that up for a vote. If a new AN3 is filed, admins should consider blocking both sides. On the bright side, nobody has actually reverted since the AN3 closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
So how can we do this the correct way as you put it? We already try to solve the dispute on the talk page but nobody else seem to not care. Why can't you just be happy with the ones already on there, they been there for a good while now and isn't causing any problems. It seem pretty stupid to get both of us blocked just because of a lack of consensus. Please, show me the correct way to solve this. --Vauxford (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- This discussion continued at User talk:Vauxford#AN3 dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project
Military history reviewers' award | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Your approved disruptive editors
Your approved disruptive editors, Amaury and IJBall , are at it again. Amuary revert my SOURCED edits on A Cinderella Story (film series) due to WP:NOTBROKEN, and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Since, that its a content issue, I just request that he make those edit and leave the source information alone. He then demands BRD and ONUS. The IJBall adds back some info that I added. I revert indicating BRD, etc. They will not discuss the content and just make GAMING the system type excuses (claiming I am POINTY for WP:3RRNO action) for their action or attack me instead of discussing the content. You block me and made it clear you would not act fairly. You are green lighting this. Spshu (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please work this out at Talk:A Cinderella Story (film series). At first sight you appear to be removing a reference which is usually not a good idea. Since you are an experienced editor, you should have already heard about WP:Dispute resolution. If you want to open a WP:Request for comment and need any assistance, let me know. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)