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


This IP user seems to be edit warring. [1] Could they be a blocked or banned user returning to cause trouble? Jehochman Talk 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gets very old very fast, doesn't it? I've blocked the IP user for 24 hours (the second block inside a week, I noticed). -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the 2nd block within a week? --nyc171 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems that they've been unblocked. For what it's worth, categorization disputes are generally kind of a silly thing to edit-war and better worked out on the talk page, but I think the unblock is fine as long as the IP is not edit-warring further. I'm considering semi-protecting the page temporarily given the volume of unconstructive IP editing over the past few days - any thoughts? MastCell Talk 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a winner. We've got a repeat socker on the loose, recently banned, who will probably be showing up. If we take the wind out of their sails, they might go home and rethink their life. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The unblock appears to be a mistake. Here are the diffs for edit warring: [2][3][4][5] When a user makes the same edit over and over and over again, that's edit warring. I like the way the user wikilawyers with ChrisO. It reminds me of Neutral Good (talk · contribs) and BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs). Jehochman Talk 21:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree he was edit-warring. Just not sure how useful replacing the block is going to be vs. semi'ing the target article, which I'm going to do now. MastCell Talk 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all the drama here. I was not trying to be disruptive and didn't know this was a "problem" article until I was told so on my talk page. I will try not to revert more than once on this article. The differences above are from 2 days ago before I was warned. Also, I was blocked awhile back when I first came here, not twice in one week. Thank you.-- (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Bold text

Macedonia Moldova[edit]

Due to growing risk of an edit war (three reverts by each of the two parties yesterday, and claims by one of which that such a risk is high), I have taken the preventative step of restricting Dpotop (talk · contribs) and Xasha (talk · contribs) to one revert per two days for two weeks on all related articles and zero-tolerance for incivility on the talk pages. I bring this measure to discussion before other uninvolved admins, whom I am asking to help enforce this. Note that I am forgoing the warning this time and thus am not logging it in the arbitration page — let this measure serve as a warning, and let's hope it resonates (if enough uninvolved admins feel that position is in error, the restrictions will be revoked). Thx. El_C 11:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you mixed up Moldova with Macedonia? (But no problem, we can easily extend the Balkans up there. :-) I know what you're going to say now: They both start with M, so I can't tell them apart.) Fut.Perf. 12:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! (you remembered the M, to boot: full credits for that!) I copied the wrong template and a comedy of errors ensued. All fixed. El_C 12:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

BereTuborg (talk · contribs) added to the restrictions. El_C 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]




Ren and Stimpy episode[edit]

User:Giano II[edit]




Request that he be added to Wikipedia:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. - Kittybrewster 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality? Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection. GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. - Kittybrewster 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Liftarn (talk · contribs)[edit]

Arbcom case:

Editor Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been making:

Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating Purpose of Wikipedia spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.

His latest edit [50], explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "promotional clutter" claim.

I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to get the points raised, follow WP:NPOV and editorial process.

Respectfully. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit this is less than impressive. The current dispute over Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.
p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.
p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


User:Traditional unionist[edit]

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)[edit]

Wikimachine (talk · contribs)[edit]


User:Grandy Grandy[edit]

PHG (talk · contribs) civility problems[edit]


A recap from Jaakobou's perspective[edit]

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)[edit]