Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dacy69[edit]


VartanM[edit]

User:Anyeverybody (AKA User:Anynobody) and Barbara Schwarz[edit]


Namescases (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Macedonia edit wars[edit]

Can somebody please have a good look at Ireland101 (talk · contribs) and Tsourkpk (talk · contribs) and apply Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Discretionary sanctions as seen fit? These guys have been fighting a bit too much for my taste recently. I'd do something myself, but I'm probably a bit too non-uninvolved by the Arbcom's current standards. Fut.Perf. 09:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A little more to go on? Which article(s) should we look at? Thatcher 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Basically every article Ireland101 has been editing lately has been in an edit-warring situation with either Tsourkpk, Megistias (talk · contribs), Kékrōps (talk · contribs) or other Greek users. See Vergina Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Bryges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Rosetta Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Macedonian dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hellenization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and so on. It's all over the place. Difficult to say who's picking these fights, whether it's Ireland editing tendentiously everywhere, or the others stalking him (as he evidently feels), or both. Also see the current complaint thread at WP:ANI#Ireland101 and Tsourkpk. Fut.Perf. 15:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out Future Perfect. In almost all of those situation those editors/meat puppets were reverting my edits with no explanation.Ireland101 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What would you think about a 1 revert per week per page limit for Ireland101 and Tsourkpk? Thatcher 15:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put Ireland101 on revert parole and logged it, holding off for now on other actions (which I believe are needed). Kékrōps (talk · contribs) is also coming up reverting in quite a few of those page histories listed above. Thoughts? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why I was put on revert parole considering that I always include edit summaries and have no history of edit warring. I have only reverted vandalism and thought that was the purpose of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Ireland101 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not what the CVU is for. Evidently your definition of vandalism is a little off. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to Moreshi's request for "thoughts", reverting is not an endorsed editing method anyway, so 1RR is probably the least restrictive sanction we can think of, certainly less so than page or topic bans, and I would think it could be liberally applied, although with either an expiration date or a promise to review (after 3-6 months perhaps). Thatcher 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think I'd agree with revert restrictions here. I'd like to see them applied on both sides though. Fut.Perf. 09:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha[edit]


User:Andranikpasha[edit]


Another Eastern European spat[edit]

Giovanni33[edit]


Gatoclass[edit]


TDC[edit]


User:Asgardian[edit]


Pocopocopocopoco[edit]


Free Republic[edit]


Friendly reminder requested[edit]


User:Tenebrae[edit]


User:ScienceApologist[edit]

Edit-warring under article probation[edit]