EdJohnston

Disruption by Ban kavalir

Hi Ed. It just came to my attention that recently you warned Ban kavalir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Based on that, I am asking for your assistance regarding Ban kavalir's recent edit-warring at Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where he has resumed the edit-warring s/he had started since last August. In short, s/he is trying to relocate Croatia to Central Europe and will not take no for an answer from multiple editors. Dr. K. 07:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have now blocked Ban kavalir for continued personal attacks, after my original warning at 17:25 on 13 March. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your action and your block rationale as you communicated it to that editor on his talkpage. It was excellent. Dr. K. 19:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Carnivourous123

• Carnivourous123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ed, User:Carnivourous123 who you recently blocked has come straight back off your 24 hour block to edit war Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991 regards Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Carnivourous123 is now blocked 72 hours for continuation of the war. Thanks for your note. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan

• Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think we should remove the extended confirmed protection and use semi-protection for Pakistan article now as it very difficult to make any edits to this article and none or not many edits originate from extended users for Pakistan article. It has been 7 months since you added extended confirmed protection. Do you think it is the time to now move to semi-protection. Thank you very much Karachi01 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, this article is a disruption magnet, you can still make edit requests. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:DSLOG/2018 I put Pakistan under indefinite EC protection on 22 August 2018. Due to the many conflicts between India and Pakistan, this still appears to me as a sensible precaution. As FlightTime says, you can still file WP:Edit requests. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with IP edit warrior at António de Oliveira Salazar

• 177.98.180.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

Thanks, Ed. Let's hope he mends his ways. Carlstak (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinion needed

• Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

More information about Wikiedro

• Wikiedro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• White Latin Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:AN3#User:Wikiedro reported by User:Pob3qu3 (Result: )

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)