User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 11

Overdue barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Dear Moreschi, here is a long-overdue barnstar for the enormously beneficial effect you are consistently exerting on the project. I do not remember at which point I first became aware of you, probably only after you had become an admin, likely at the inauguration of WP:FTN last summer. Since then, I have watched you not only consistently showing excellent judgement, but - incredibly - also succeeding in fixing the problem most of the time. You are an truly an asset, man. dab (𒁳) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tskhinvali

Please can you unprotect the Battle of Tskhinvali page. The protection request [1] was made in the edit summary by an editor involved in an edit war (later blocked for that edit war) and was purportedly to prevent newly created accounts from editing (even though there wasn't a problem with new account edits) and immediately carried out [2] by an admin in order to stop "newbie problems". The semi protection policy is clear though

"Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes."

There is no reason for this page to be protected. 92.9.190.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Um, yes there is. I am quite confident that semi-protection has stopped significant amounts of disruption. Screw policy, I see no reason for that to change. Moreschi (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair commentMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Barlow

Did you see he's been blocked? He lost his rag and certainly breached WP:CIVIL -- once. See User talk:Paul Barlow. I don't know, but it seems one burst of anger isn't nearly as bad as the continual lower level abuse you see from some editors. Doug Weller (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. I can't agree this was a good one. Lord knows I'm usually liberal enough with the block button but that was too harsh for one comment. Paul is a valued contributor and a reasonable fellow. A simple "c'mon, that's a bit much, please retract" would almost certainly have been enough. Particularly since the editor Paul B made his comment towards has been making some pretty bad attacks himself, and has got away with it. Moreschi (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. Much appreciated. Paul B (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Talk:James Tramel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talk:James Tramel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. To be a bit more specific, you rightly speedied the talkpage when you deleted the article, but now that the article is not deleted, I'm asking for the talkpage to be undeleted too. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oops. Nevermind me. Someone must have forgot to comment the article's original AfD listing out. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting essay up for deletion

Check this out: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

point 44

I just wanted to ask you about point 44 of your general thoughts. It relates to Slavic dialects of Greece and Bulgarian dialects. Should passages like those be reworded/reworked or just left like that? BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 02:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

[3] --Koretek (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For the records

I don't groan and I don't do reviews. Incoherent? I don't know what you mean by "blarney". I speak the English most of the world is exposed to not the English of the sub-class. Thank you Omni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.252.118 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I think you have some experience in cultural/ethnic disputes, so I'm hoping you can help. The Carnatic music article has been subject to multiple edit wars with multiple users over multiple issues. Several allegations have flown up and down about being pro-Kannada or anti-Tamil, or pro-Tamil or anti-Kannada or so on.

User:Naadapriya, a single purpose civil POV pusher continues with his attempts to glorify Karnataka as the the be-all and end-all of the article, Carnatic music. He has been engaging in an edit war with myself on the article [4] - he's inserted material that is blatantly in violation of NPOV in terms of undue weight. Reliable sources (journal articles, including peer-reviewed ones), as well as books and online information have undisputedly and clearly identified Varnam and Kriti as the most common and significant forms used throughout Carnatic music. Forms such as Thillana, Javali etc. are more commonly associated with Indian classical dance, while forms such as Ughabhoga, Viruttam etc. are more commonly associated with Indian devotional music and are not integral in a Carnatic concert like the other 2 forms I identified. Naadapriya refuses to respect NPOV and continues to try to give undue weight by putting the same level of weight in terms of content on Ughabhoga, as with Varnam and Kriti. He's also insisting (through synthesis and the use of unreliable sources) that Purandaradasa founded Carnatic music as an art form - that is what he gathers through synthesis, and unreliable sources. Purandaradasar was called the father of Carnatic music because he formulated the method by which Carnatic music is currently taught, and that's precisely what reliable sources state. Several editors had expressed concern (between April and May this year) over his characterization, yet he's tendentiously arguing 'all languages are great', 'there was consent by many editors' 'stop stalling' etc. [5] [6] despite being repeatedly told that there's no consensus for his additions (See Talk:Carnatic_music#NPOV onwards).

This article has already been subject to edit-protection for several months and I don't want it to happen again, but he seems intent on these NPOV vios and refuses to actually engage in discussion that is helpful to resolve these issues. His contribution history speaks for itself, and auburnpilot has also seen him edit war on other articles too.

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An update

There has been an update to a summary you have endorsed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Majorly#View by Jennavecia. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

I was dismayed that you've decided to block Will for two months. What about your block isn't punitive? What's two months going to do that 12 hours hasn't? Aside from annoying Will--who will be forced to edit under the radar until the block expires--you're preventing him from continuing his constructive article building. Matthew (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just goes to show, you can't please everybody. I came here to congratulate Moreschi on his Solomonic wisdom. All this and another EE arb case? It must be his birthday and Crimbo rolled into one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. What a week it's been. Ah, well, thanks for the support :) Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of germane text

Please see my comments on John Michel (writer) discussion page re: important academic vetting of both the subject of metrology and of the author. It doesn't matter if you or I think the subject to be "guff" as you termed it. The paragraph contains solid verifiable facts and advances the article. I have asked you why you thought this paragraph was on anything to do with John Michell having a degree in metrology, which it does not. You haven't responded to my question. Why did you remove this block of text repeatedly? Please explain.SageMab (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC),

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You are repeatedly blanking pages rather than editing text on this article and inserting NPOV. You have not responded to my questions here or on the article talk page about your recent edits. SageMab (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a good thing to insert NPOV, this is confirmation that SageMab seriously misunderstands our NPOV policy. SageMab still hasn't responded to a more serious question of mine about why he thinks I've called him a liar. Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren ^(talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, another EE omnibus. I suppose I'd better start compiling some evidence to get the real trolls banned. Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I was informed about your statements which are now at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Statement_by_Moreschi. I find them hard to believe, and blantantly offensive. Do you expect to help Piotrus by attacking me?

1. You wrote "Matthead was Rex Germanus's old sparring partner. When Rex left he moved on to other edit wars." Well, User:Rex Germanus did not leave, he was community banned in December 2007, in a thread in which you wrote "Rex has entirely exhausted my patience, and I suspect the community's as well. Ask yourselves - is this really an editor we need? For me, that's a resounding "NO". Moreschi 16:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)". Thus, you should know very well that I was neither the first, not the last, nor the only "sparring partner" of Rex, who in the end had also exhausted the patience of fellow Dutchmen, as I understand, as I had tried to avoid him like the Plague. Besides, even though User:Ulritz seems to have left Wikipedia, you continue to list his name, rather than Rex'.
2. What's Rex got to do with Piotrus case anyway? Well, Rex followed me around, and in June 2007 added to the first RfAr on Piotrus by attacking me with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Rex_Germanus - according to reasoning described as The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Piotrus thanked him, and suggested wider publicity for User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale. This text is still online, and listed in the category Piotrus suggested. Do you approve of this?
3. In a Community sanction noticeboard thread on Space Cadet in September 2007, Poeticbent mistakenly called Rex Germanus a German editor after Rex once again had wikistalked me, even to Polish-related matters. Noticing this, Piotrus swiftly notified Rex, who promptly chimed in to support SC even though Spacecadet is pro-polish, and yes, a little less Polish POV wouldn't hurt,though.
4. Piotrus also asked Rex about email, and Rex set it active. I'm not in the mood now of looking up further public interaction and mutual endorsement between the two. How about you?
5. It's interesting what can be found in archives: In late September 2007, Rex found himself subject to a thread at Community sanction noticeboard [7] which was opened by noone else but Moreschi. Another evidence that you were well informed about Rex - at least you had been a year ago. But now you judge me the culprit in all Rex vs. Matthead sparrings?

-- Matthead  Discuß   03:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The race of the ancient Egyptians

Moreschi, you are being very partisan on this topic about the race of the ancient Egyptians. You have to accept contributions by people who know the suject and who do not necessarily agree with you. The way you are treating Big-dynamo is irrational and unfair. He is right when he says that the article the way it looks now deals only with afrocentrism while the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians is more wide. A careful reading of Martin Bernal's Black Athena could have informed you. Even Jean-François Champollion, the father of Egyptology, spoke about it in his book Précis du système hiéroglyphique des anciens Egyptiens. Please, unlock the article and the discussion page. More people need to get involved in the redaction of the article.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please, not another SPA on this topic. And if Martin Bernal is your idea of a reliable source, then we have more problems. He's a bloody Sinologist turned political scientist. Personally, I think you lot need to wake up and realise that Wikipedia is here to reflect academic consensus, not what you would want said consensus to be.

And no, I am not unprotecting the talk page and letting the Enriquecardova + Omniposcent socks swarm in, plus the peanut crowd from the Afrocentric forums. Not a chance. The autoconfirmed limit is hardly onerous anyway. Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about Jean-François Champollion? Let me not conclude that you know nothing about this topic! You need to read more in Egyptology to widen your mind.--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

John Lott

When you get a chance, could you please take a look at this article, specifically the section Women's suffrage and government growth and its discussion on the Talk Page (plus the recent history of me calling it OR and others reverting my edits)? Is it me or is it everybody else? :-) Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs)

Hi,

You're aware of the problems at satanic ritual abuse. Since settled down quite nicely due to the topic ban, thank you very much. There is another editor creating problems, but just for me this time. Criminologst1963 continually reverts to the version s/he drafted of the satanic ritual abuse allegations in the Netherlands. I brought it up at the AN, with no response whatsoever (now archived). I'm starting to lose my cool, C1963 has shown now interest in familiarizing him/herself with the policies and guidelines I keep pointing out to him/her, and persists in raising spurious objections and re-creating content forks. The discussion at Talk:List of satanic ritual abuse allegations#The Netherlands has not moved forward in weeks, and every so often s/he will pop back in to re-revert. Could you have a look at the talk page? The latest exchange is here. I have repeatedly [8] pointed out the problems with his/her edits, and have received nothing substantial in return. I've also asked several admins to look into it, and received no comments or attention whatsoever. The closest was Orange Mike's involvement, but he does not seem to be monitoring the page. Even if you are unwilling to do something, could you suggest a more helpful way of approaching this? I'm tapped out and frustrated. WLU (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia Editors Stalking US

Wikipedia editing "Spartaz" had my editing friend Marthaerin1812 put on protection without reason except "time-wasting" three weeks ago. How could Marthaerin1812 be wasting time while reasoning with people, not mentioning editors are popping out and crying "vandalism" when the reality indicates we will never vandalize anything related to Wikipedia. And they're harassing us through Please do not statement and marking it vandalizing-editing wikipedia is harder than people might even think! Please tell me.

And "time-wasting" accusings? Whatever constitutes to the wasting of time on Wikipedia? We would never waste anyone's time except when necessary!

Hrcnjennie2010 (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Altai Khan is baaaack (I think)

Guess what username appeared? Special:Contributions/NPOVfan6... I'm new to bonking sockpuppets on the head, what's the process here? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

To re-open Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Altai Khan. Moreschi (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth

Despite having already been blocked and topic-banned for disruptive behaviour, User:Mactruth seems to be continuing his ethnic warfare against Greeks, referring to the Macedonian Greeks as "Christian Turks" and then deliberately repeating the slur after being warned of its offensive nature. He tried to justify this by accusing me of calling him Bulgarian, which is plainly untrue. It should be noted that these weren't off-the-cuff remarks in the context of a heated discussion; his "Christian Turks" slur now appears on his very user page. Furthermore, his anti-Greek rhetoric has started to spread to other users' talk pages. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Albania

Thank's for protecting the page!! I did request to be protected [9] but no one did anything. Thank's again,--Taulant23 (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Fat Cigar

I'm reviewing this user's unblock request. Your block reason said that the connection was obvious, but I am not that familiar with Jagz, so I need some help understanding it. From reviewing Jagz's contributins, he seems to have been most involved with edits on the Boy Scouts, but Fat Cigar hasn't edited in that area at all. Also, the checkuser case came back inconclusive on Fat Cigar with a recommendation to block based on behavior. Has Fat Cigar's behavior been a problem in itself? Mangojuice^talk 13:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Jagz and Boy Scouts? Are you sure you were looking at the right user? Until he was topic-banned, Jagz was a SPA focussed purely on Race and intelligence and Human genetic variation. Elonka was heavily involved in that. Jagz was essentially pushing "racialist" theories that blacks are less intelligent that whites, AFAICR. He was up against a group of editors (Ramdrake, SLR) who tried to restrain his worst excesses (hence Fat Cigar's obsession with "tag-teaming" and "group incivility"). Inconclusive generally means similar geography but a different ISP...put it all together, for me this is conclusive. Moreschi (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Early in his Wikipedia career, Jagz worked on Boy Scouts articles, but Moreschi is correct that he devloved into a tendentious POV-pushing account on matters of race and intelligence. One of Jagz' ideés fixes was that he was being "tag-teamed" by a group of opposing editors. Jagz was mentored and, to a certain extent, defended by Elonka prior to his banning. Fat Cigar (talk · contribs) is an obviouly non-new user who immediately gravitated to a) Elonka's RfC (in defense of Elonka), b) race/genetics articles, and c) a controversial essay on "tag-teaming". There is technical evidence that suggests the two accounts are linked, but it is inconclusive. Personally, I agree with Moreschi that this is quacking pretty loudly - I would base the block not on behavior per se, but on a combination of technically suggestive evidence and contributions indicating that this is a ban-evading sock. That said, I am not reviewing the request myself and I am not an entirely neutral party, having blocked Jagz in the past for his tendentious editing and being the subject of his final contribution to the project. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A few corrections: I (Elonka) do not know who Fat Cigar is, though I agree that he's probably a sockpuppet of someone. I think it's a stretch to say that he's "definitely" Jagz. It's also pretty much false to say that I was "heavily involved" in the Race & intelligence articles, considering that I never edited those articles. My participation there was in archiving very long talkpages (as I do in many topic areas), and I made a couple "outside view" comments here and there, but I had no preference for either side. It is true that I attempted (unsuccessfully) to mentor Jagz.

In terms of the block, I think that the indef block of Fat Cigar was inappropriate, considering that the account was not being disruptive, and that there is no conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry. So I would recommend overturning the block. However, if the account does start to behave in a disruptive manner in the future, I would support keeping it on a short leash. --Elonka 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, that's ridiculous. When I asked you on gtalk whether you thought Fat Cigar was Jagz, you replied "not the point". Now, for you to say something else different in public is a complete joke.

Now look. FC is obviously a sock. What's more, he's a sock with an interest in you (Jagz's mentor and general "uninvolved admin" on R&I topics in the past), human genetics articles (Jagz's topic) tag-teaming, and "group incivility" (both things Jagz claimed he suffered from). Come on...this is so obviously him... if only for the reason there is no one else it could be. Moreschi (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone point me to the discussion that resulted in Jagz being fully banned? Mangojuice^talk 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This was his last contribution, (at that point he was under topic ban, civility parole and mentorship by Elonka. Following this, the indef-block was reinstated, and Jagz did say on his talk page he didn't want to be unblocked (along with a few more offensive remarks). However, his talk page has been deleted since, so I can't view it anymore as I'm not an admin, but you should find his final comment not to be unblocked there if you can view deleted pages (which I assume you can).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've undeleted Jagz's talk page, and collected some links about Jagz that could be helpful in a behavioral comparison of Jagz and Fat Cigar. I invite anyone interested to gather the corresponding information on Fat Cigar. FC's dialog in his block review is not very convincing so far. It is disappointing that the checkuser couldn't resolve anything. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride

Holy Jesus Fuck do I not want to undue any more administrative actions today. I'm perfectly content to leave him unblocked, and I said at ArbCom I was prefectly happy to see him unblocked to participate there. I didn't intend it to be punative, maybe a bit of message-sending. If you'll pardon me, I don't hand out a lot of blocks and am not overly familiar with the ettiquette of block length implications - for someone who knew better than to do what they did in the first place, what difference does it make? While a block for warring over protection might be unusual, I think it's only because warring over protection is unusual. It is about the only thing to hand out for warring of any kind, unless you're the ArbCom. In any event, I expect it'll be Grandpa ArbCom with spankings for all. WilyD 18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Shrugs...blocks aren't really to send messages either. We've had wheel wars before: Daniel Brandt (deletion) and the IRC page (protection). On neither occasion did we hand out wheel-warring blocks - but you're right, of course, he should have been unblocked for arbcom case anyway. Moreschi (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the very least, I don't see how the length of the block matters - if he'll resume wheel-warring over the protection, the length of the block shouldn't matter. I have no other sticks or carrots, and if the protection war doesn't flare up again, maybe I'll feel a little vindicated, but of course I can't know whether it would've stopped on its own anyhow. Maybe it was little more than a dinner-bell calling everyone to ArbCom :(

To prevent disruption. Re-re-unprotecting, after quality dialogue had begun, was disruptive. Seems like disruption has stopped. I can't swear it would've continued, but if MZMcBride was willing to undo once, I have to suspect he'd have done it multiple times. WilyD 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record blocks do prevent admins from protecting and unprotecting pages, the only admin tool they have left is unblocking. I think it is poor form to say his block "truly was punitive", as it was indeed preventing serious misbehavior. Assume good faith, while you think this block was wrong it surely can be explained without an assumption of bad faith. Chillum 18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, we don't need AGF waved around. I intended no such thing anyway. Moreschi (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. "truly was punitive" seemed to be to be an unnecessary assumption of bad faith, but if that is not what you intended to convey then I will take your word on that. Peace. Chillum 19:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, Wikipedia:Wheel war says "Sanctions for wheel warring have varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents.", so I don't think a block is even procedurally dicey. I must plead ignorance about the etiquette of length, though. WilyD 18:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• If an administrator is manically wheel-warring against consensus, go to an arbitrator, explain the emergency, and the arbitrator will go to a steward, and he will press the "desysop" button. Short blocks just inflame the situation and make him more likely to start wheel-warring again (because he's angry) when the brief block expires: at the least, a long one would have given him proper time to calm down and start acting rationally.

• Interesting point about the policy - I note that it's descriptive, though, not prescriptive. I was more familiar with the old version, which IMO made more sense. Incidentally, an annoying consequence of the protection is that I can't edit the article, because it comes across as very anti-Palin: in all the furore about BLP, the protected version is itself a BLP vio...Moreschi (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The policy's been changed by Chillum now, so it reads somewhat differently. Anyways, it seems things have at least turned to talk, although I have a sneaking suspicion that talk'll be a lot of whether I should be crucified upside down or upside right. WilyD 20:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely go with rightside up. That's a no-brainer. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The template:editprotected requests have been responsed to very fast, as far as I can tell. The protection was just enacted because Kelly and ~5 other active, policy aware editors simply couldn't deal with an edit every 5 or 10 seconds. I can certainly accept criticism of the block length, though I figured a long block would come off as punitive .. :( WilyD 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editorial Council

The poll on this has been refactored to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll. You may want to re-add your !vote. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I deleted your vote from Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council and added it to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll, prefixing it with the word "oppose." I hope you don't mind. Bwrs (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

You had no right to block me and leave the user users use ad hominem attacks against me! And my changes to the article were NOT disruptive. I was restoring referenced material and quotes that your vandal friends kept removing. Not to mention that your accusations against me of being some sort of sockpuppet were proven wrong [[10]]. I would be very embarassed to be in your shoes! If you ever do this again and take sides with your friends against a third party, I will report you to the Wikipedia administration and I will work on getting you removed as an administrator. --Lanternix (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin summary

In case you don't see my comment on the arb page, I strongly support your changes and commend you for being bold and correcting the horrendous list problem. There WAS strong consensus for a summary like yours and one existed before the wheel war, which allowed one user to thrust his own point of view of what the section should be without seeking consensus of any kind. This change was highly upsetting to myself and others who had worked toward a reasonable summary. I sincerely hope you don't get in trouble for this edit as it is a HUGE improvement. If I can lend my voice of support anywhere else, please let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose your hack job on the political positions section, which was done without talk page consensus. Please return it to its previous state. I sincerely hope you do get in trouble for this edit, and will monitor the situation accordingly. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at this discussion. As you know it, this is a difficult (but interesting :) situation and we'd better not make anything to make it more difficult. Thanks, Cenarium ^Talk 01:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with ThaddeusB, I think it was necessary. Sad to see other editors making this so personal. Doug Weller (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I too was under the impression that these edits were with consensus when made, though I wasn't keeping close track of talk page discussions regarding this at this time. "Palin is known for ... her endorsement for the minimal state and economic liberty of classical libertarianism" seems rather strange, can you talk about what was behind this addition? 86.44.21.70 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Good pickup, eh?

Who needs a checkuser, anyway? MastCell ^Talk 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note),

HI (sorry 'bout the spammy note), DYK updates have been a bit slow and there's a bit of a shortage of admins actively involved. We are asking folks who listed themselves on Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins to update details on this page - User:Olaf Davis/DYKadmins, so we can grade everyone's involvement (and who, knows, someone may want to get involved more :) ).Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COAT

Hi. Since it appears you started this essay, I have left a few comments on the talk page seeking clarification. Since this essay is being used extensively as an argument to delete edits and articles that have anything to do with Sarah Palin (particularly at Wasilla Assembly of God), and you seem to already be somewhat engaged in that debate, I wonder if you'd care to comment. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi - can you do a checkuser request for User talk:216.240.101.40 and User:SageMab? See Talk:John Michell (writer) for some discussion of this. The posting times are pretty similar, and this diff [User talk:216.240.101.40] looks like someone editing their own post. Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 35	25 August 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "George P. Burdell"	News and notes: Arbitrator resigns, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Interview with Mav
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 36	8 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimedia UK disbands, but may form again	WikiWorld: "Helicopter parent"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Featured topics	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, August
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Origins of WP:COATRACK

I've been noticing a tipping point in the use of WP:COATRACK in WP discussions - possibly because the term does such a great job in describing a type of behavior that we see in POV pushers but previously had no easy way to identify. I'm curious where you came up with the term. I've searched off-wiki references but can't find much. Did you coin the term yourself? Just curious. Ronnotel (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write this essay. I just copy/pasted it into mainspace from somebody - I think User:Weregerbil's - userspace. Moreschi (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's good, because I'd hate to think you were responsible for the phrase "bias subject". That really grates on me. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk, so you broke GFDL by copy-paste moving it? Off with your head. (Will do a history merge if I find the source.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Check your inbox. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Review of the unblock of Dark Tea

Hello. I have undone your block of Dark Tea (talk · contribs) and have explained why in the ANI thread linked to in this section's title. Regards,  Sandstein  22:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I support Sandstein's overturn, and the ANI thread confirms this. Moreschi, you must not use administrator tools in situations where you are involved. This includes protection and unprotection of pages, and blocking users with whom you are in a conflict. You made a massive change to an article, where you deleted many citations to what appear to be reliable sources.[11] An hour later, you were reverted, once, by longtime contributor Dark Tea (talk · contribs),[12] then a half-hour later you reverted,[13] and then one minute later, you blocked Dark Tea, for three months.[14] It was bad enough that you never posted a single warning to Dark Tea's talkpage ahead of time, but even worse, you should not have been issuing the block at all. If Dark Tea was as disruptive as you claim, provide diffs, either of actual policy violations, or of proof that Dark Tea was disregarding talkpage consensus or RfCs. Then other uninvolved administrators can make the call. In any case, it might be best if you were to acknowledge the community's concerns, and promise not to misuse administrator access this way in the future. Thanks, --Elonka 17:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, as you present it, there is/was no condemnation of this block. No consensus. Now, regarding your "it might be best if you were to acknowledge the community's concerns", objective observers might well think that's a bit rich coming from you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

One has to admit, the irony of Elonka's actions is overwhelming. What's next, warning everybody that their attention seems fixated on her? Shot info (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the word 'promise' ironic in itself coming from this editor, if I understand certain recent drama correctly? Doug Weller (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SageMab (talk · contribs)

Hi, as the blocking admin could you review SM's recent edits to his talk page, and if you feel it is necessary please block him from editing. His personal attacks are tiresome and I don't feel I need to put up with them from such a deceptive sockpuppeteer. If you could also blank his comments (or the page?) I'd be grateful. I don't wan to get into an edit war with an indef. blocked user - that'd be crazy! All the best, Verbal chat 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Merci, Verbal chat 16:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

• User_talk:Dark_Tea#Topic_ban
• User_talk:Elonka#User:Dark_Tea

and the ANI thread, of course....Enjoy! Black Kite 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians

I see that you have very promptly undone my suggested update, without any explanation! I added it because dbachman had turned the Zacharie Mayani into a redirect, without mentioning the fact at the target, as is recommended in the article on Redirects ("principle of least astonishment".) I would personally prefer to have the Zacharie Mayani article restored and updated - I don't feel his theories are any stranger than the Semitic hypothesis for Etruscan (which is given 2 paragraphs), and his book is quite well-known. How would you prefer to see this handled? Thanks. Jpaulm (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your question - I guess a lot of people who write books are not notable, even quite well-known books... Perhaps the best place for him would be in the Etruscan Language article, under Speculative Relationships. Maybe I will try adding this and see if it survives! Jpaulm (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan again

Hi Moreschi. User:Miyokan continue his activities. I asked another administrator to review the situation, but I think you should be aware of this as someone closely familiar with the case. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

And Russavia followed his steps. Pay attention to this: [15]. If this is not harassment, I don't know what it is. Colchicum (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion at ANI seems hijacked, and it is now clear that Miyokan is not the only troublemaker here so maybe an ArbCom is needed. Colchicum (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope not, because that would be a huge loss of time for everyone involved. At least, I am not going to initiate such case right now. If others start a case, I would comment of course. I asked Alex to comment at the ANI. Perhaps this will help.Biophys (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationalist soapbox

Georgia for Georgians. Colchicum (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully referenced notable subject more like. --Tovarishch Komissar ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Colchicum and commented at the article talk page. But this should be decided at AfD, not here. It seems that some of the users do not like me personally, unfortunately.Biophys (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the sourcing is inappropriate. If you have to use two tangential remarks in obscure articles published years later to confirm the main claim that the slogan was "popularised by Zviad Gamsakhurdia" (and we have no shortage of sources concerning what the Georgian president actually claimed), this is a textbook example of soapboxing. No, Biophys, this should be decided here first. An AfD would be hijacked inevitably. Moreover, I agree that the subject is notable, but the information provided on the subject is inappropriate. Colchicum (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear

I take Herodotus seriously. In parts, anyway. Do I need to resign my tools? --Dweller (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, maybe. Let me put it this way: there's a terrible tendency among our ethnic nationalists (particularly those of a pseudoscientific trend) to cite Herodotus as though he was gospel when it suits them. Without even a hint that it might all be bollocks anyway (if you go along with Detlev Fehling). Avoiding said tendency is what I was getting at at Doug's RFA.

My own views on Herodotus are much less extreme than Fehling's, though - you can usually find a truth buried in Herodotus, but it will be buried under layers of spin, peculiar dating, bias, inaccuracy. And more spin. It won't always be the truth you want to find, either. Herodotus did have his Alistair Campbell tendencies, but I'll give him his dues: he usually does not tell outright lies (unlike Thucydides, who tells several flagrant whoppers and is very boring anyway - the old hypocrite). There's just a lot of spin (for instance, he makes the Ionian revolt appear a six-month affair when it really lasted about 10 years and severely shook the Persians to their roots). Numbers in Herodotus, in particular, are a joke, and are usually tied up in numerical religious significance (as far as I can make out, anyway). HTH. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, numbers in ancient sources are rarely anything other than a rough guide. Ever read Josephus?! Caesar understood the value of PR too. Herodotus was just the pioneer of what became a rather noble tradition ;-) --Dweller (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your deletions

I really do not see why a very sensible advise I gave to Biophys had to be deleted but I don't want to make an issue out of this. Just please send him my original post in an email. You do not need to respond to this post. --Irpen 18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to delete your advice, but it's a technical thing. Turns out I couldn't delete the thread Russavia started without also deleting all the revisions that contained that thread. Sorry, but nothing I could do. Moreschi (talk) 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. I was able to read his advice. I prefer "wait and see" approach for the moment rather than to follow this advice. Thank you, Moreschi!Biophys (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Le Villi to Le villi

Could we possibly fix this one when you have a moment? It should be Le villi (small v). Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

All the literature (in Italian and English) says "Le Villi". --Al Pereira(talk) 11:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Obsborne writes "Le villi", but Schickling, Budden, Carner, all the Italian literature, "Studi Pucciniani", the XIX centuries newspapers write "Le Villi". --Al Pereira(talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained on the Opera Project page. --Kleinzach 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks very much for nominating me and your kind words. This has been an interesting experience, and I guess it isn't over, it's just begun. I need to figure out how I can use whatever skills I have in the most useful way for Wikipedia. Any guidance will be greatly appreciated! Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

Could you take a look at the addition Runningfridgesrules continues to edit. I find it to be distorting the reference given for that paragraph. Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have ended...please come back if problems re-occur, though. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Tea

I just discovered the mess concerning Dark Tea's blocking. I don't really have an opinion on whether or not the block was justified, or what, if any, administrative actions should be taken. I'm not an admin and never want to be. But I do feel compelled to say that I completely understand your frustration with her edits. I've "disagreed" with her on certain articles before, but that was I think at least a year ago. I don't think all of her edits are bad, but she has a tendency to stubbornly insist on including content from sources that fall squarely under the jurisdiction of WP:Undue weight. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey...

...I beat your edit by 14 minutes...do I get a prize?  Frank  |  talk  20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Moreschi (talk) 18

45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy

Hi Moreschi. The nomination for deletion of this article was cool, reasoned, and indeed pretty persuasive. It prompted a single delete vote: Delete per WP:COATRACK and b/c event is not noteworthy in its own right (my emphasis). Whereupon the debate ended. I quote you as its Terminator: The result was speedy delete, utter unencyclopedic crap (your emphasis).

Contrary to the single vote, the event does seem to be noteworthy. Or at least there is clear evidence of notability. Perhaps there was little sign of this outside Alaska then (I can't be bothered to look), but there is now. See for example this piece from the NYT.

I'll concede that sourcing was not made an issue, but For-What-It's-Relevant: While individual assertions within the article are not sourced and of course must be, the article does come with a long list of references at the end.

The article needs de-POVing and other work, true. But "utter unencyclopedic crap" does not seem an accurate (or dispassionate) way to describe it, and speedy deletion also strikes me as inappropriate. I therefore urge you to undelete and to restart the AfD, whereupon the article can be improved and its merits (if any) argued over in the normal way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The version I deleted was well, utter unencyclopedic crap. It cited no good sources that extended beyond singular events in the controversy. It was hopelessly POV-ridden and really useless. In retrospect, I guess I should have redirected it.

Given that the NYT has run a piece on this, though, the story does seem to have attracted more attention, so I have no problem with you - or indeed anyone else capable of writing neutrally - simply writing a new version and putting it into mainspace. I only deleted one version, not the possibility of an article for all time. Don't see the need for extra bureaucratic folderol. Generally speaking, though, this sort of stuff should be on wikinews. I don't see how we ever hope to establish wikinews as a serious project if we, with our infinitely superior google kick, have articles detailing ever single controversy that the media dig up on people like Obama and Palin. Realistically, in a year or so, a good 80 percent of these articles will be totally unread once the election's over, so where's the value to them? Moreschi (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with most of that. Time permitting, I'll try to create a new article, though probably with a slightly different title. (If I do create it, I'll let you know.)

A lot of articles are rightly deleted and their different successors wrongly deleted as "re-creation of deleted article". It often seems as if one person slaps such a speedy-deletion template onto an article and an admin see this, merely checks that an article with the same title had previously been deleted, and then deletes the new article. I'm glad you agree that new articles on "old" subjects aren't necessarily delete-worthy "re-creations".

(Digression: At least once I've removed the speedy-delete template from a ghastly article with the same subject as an earlier, different article whose deletion had mainly been my work, legalistically taken the article to AfD, posted a strong plea for deletion, and seen the article survive. Oh well, can't win them all.)

You're right: WP claims not to be a newspaper and yet obviously is a newspaper, complete with the latest (sourced!) gossip about the love-lives of slebs. What to do? I dunno.

A year from now Palin could be rapidly receding into a single paragraph in the history books (cf Lewinsky) or could be Prez. If it's closer to the latter, there could be some interest in this Matanuska palaver. If it's closer to the former, well, Wikipedia is not paper blah blah. -- Hoary (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility

Hi there. I recently quoted you at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Discussion of civility at recent Request for Arbitration. Would you have time to check that I haven't misrepresented what you said? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility#A Big Question: Does this page make sense?. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for this. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Much obliged. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi there! Just thought of bringing this edit to your notice. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That one edit won the IP a little vacation. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary :) Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A follow-up

I do not know if it helps but users MVEI and YNB29 had the following conversation on August 11: [16] Partial translation from Russian:

MVEI: "I am also Russian. One must be "neutral" here to survive. ... Do you know how many "westerners" edit here and will gladly block all Russians to transform WP to their propaganda place? You should not give them a reason to block you. ... Be quiet! No rush"

YMB29.: Yes, I know, but they will not block me "for silly".Biophys (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 37	15 September 2008	About the Signpost

Wikiquote checkuser found to be sockpuppeteer	WikiWorld: "Ubbi dubbi"
News and notes: Wikis Takes Manhattan, milestones	Dispatches: Interview with Ruhrfisch, master of Peer review
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I didn't get round to voting for Doug, but isn't it great to see him through. I might have more enemies. Also, I've resolved to get a grip on my wikipediholism once and for all. Perhaps when I've settled into a sensible amount of editing. Half an hour to an hour a day is what I'm aiming for. I don't know if I could do an admin job properly on that. Thanks very much anyway, and keep up all your good work. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Count of Nychlenborch

Dear Moreschi, I want to enquire about your reasoning when you deleted the abovementioned article. You see, someone requested me to create an article on the man, a request I denied because I know nothing about him, except what I found in some already existing WP articles. Could you please enlighten me? Cheers, Str1977 ^(talk) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was created by [17], and AFAICR we pretty much established that this was a hoax (he created quite a few). If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be delighted to hear it. Best, Moreschi (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

as seeing that your status is open and I'm looking for an admin to coach me, could you coach me ?

Alexnia (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 20:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Moreschi. You have new messages at User:Alexnia/Rfa_coaching.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Moreschi. You have new messages at User:Alexnia/Rfa_coaching.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An all-time low

I think that the level of clue on WP:AN/I is at an all-time low (which is saying something). Just yesterday, I saw this thread, where "the community" was all set to siteban an editor based on two diffs from 6 months ago. I mean, two seconds of clicking indicate that the guy has only made 5 edits in the last 3 months, none of which were too bad, but I seriously don't think anyone did that minimal level of due diligence before opining. And you saw the "involved admin" crap in the later thread. Maybe I'm oversensitive because I was having a flashback to this ridiculousness, but still.

That's why I can't believe that Everyking was sanctioned, way back when, for "commenting on AN/I without familiarizing himself with the situation". If that standard were applied today to ban commentators, AN/I would dry up and evaporate. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that final link is excellent. I particularly like the idea that if you disagree with someone, you can't therefore block them. Right...so I so disagree with the Holocaust deniers, the "race and intelligence" pushers, and the Afrocentrists. I also disagree with Grawp and Willy on Wheels - blimey, is there anyone left I can block? Oh dear :(

It is natural that the habitual ANI dweller is going to be rather lumpen. Truly intelligent people actually have, y'know, articles to write, and they tend to feature on other noticeboards if at all (reliable sources, fringe theories). Some have good motives, and some are competent, but there are too many on ANI that are simply there to boost their chances of getting through RFA. A depressing state of affairs. Having said that, I actually think RFA has marginally improved - the problem now is the minority of incompetents who got through back in the bad old days. Still, it's Wikipedia. It never works in theory, but always gets by in practice. Best, Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Sarikamis

It would appear Murat has decided to start removing multiple referenced material again.[18]. Are the SIX references given, not viable? Kansas Bear (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion re CreazySuit et al

Just a quick note to say that the RfC on CreazySuit, Ariobarza and Larno Man, to which you contributed, has been deleted as improperly certified (but don't worry, it's served its purpose). The issues with these three editors are currently being discussed at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza, User:CreazySuit and User:Larno Man - see the subsection at WP:AN/I#Disruption of Battle of Opis for the key diffs from the RfC. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I am concerned that you may have again reversed another admin's action, without discussion.[19] Please, don't wheel war. --Elonka 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not wheel war. One reversal of a bad administrative decision does not constitute wheel-warring. Particularly since Dragonfly stated he was ill, and therefore presumably not up for lengthy discussion. Moreschi (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"A bad administrative decision" is a fairly subjective assessment here. Per WP:WHEEL, "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." You may not have known if other administrators would oppose your action per se, but since your action conflicted with WP:PREFER (namely the last sentence in that part of the protection policy), I would have recommended that you obtain some sort of consensus before making such a decision. Just my thoughts on the matter... Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I quite explicitly did not then revert to the sourced version upon unprotection - how was unprotecting furthering my position at all? Particularly seeing as at the time neither Creazy, Larno, or the other one were blocked? The unprotection was simply a recognition that Dragonfly's decision to leave the article in such a poor state like that for another couple of weeks was a bad one. The unprotection was simply saying "please improve on this" (as has been done). Moreschi (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You know better than that   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom, get off of it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'm off for a couple of hours now, but that's put a smile on my face. Moreschi (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the template may not, the warning still stands. As an admin your suppose to show a bit more diplomacy rathor than parodying a situation with an PA   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever. I find it amusing that no one actually disputed the accuracy of the "IRC fanboy brigade" tag. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

People ganging up to disrupt an article

Hi,

I found you at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. If you can spare a few minutes of your time helping out at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil, I would be thankful.

I am developing an article on words borrowed by Tamil from Indo-Aryan languages. I am citing a standard authoritative lexicon from which I find the words that are borrowed before including them at Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil. There are a few people who seem to be intent in damaging the article by adding "cite" tags, "disputed" and "dubious" tags for the article and threatening to delete it within 24 hours.

Could you please help?

Thanks. ­ Kris (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from this talk page, I am nastily busy at the moment, but I did comment on the talkpage here. Let me know of further developments. 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Excessively rude AN post

this edit on the Steve Crossin thread was excessively and unnecessarily rude... You're right on the policy, and the discussion was getting repetitive and not useful, but there was no need to go abuse people like that. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Moreschi. Some time ago you advised everyone editing AA articles to voluntarily stick to 1rr. I agreed to do so, hoping that everyone else would too. [20] But right now I seem to be the only one sticking to 1RR, which I don't think is fair. See for example User:MarshallBagramyan, who repeatedly removed the map from an article [21] [22] What's the point in observing 1RR, when others feel free to revert the articles as many times as they like? --Grandmaster (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, considering your location in the oil rich Baku, I would strongly advice you not to light your pants on fire :D The links you provided are Marshal's first edit and then his first revert. Weren't you just recently complaining about frivolous reporting?

Moreschi, since I got your attention with my very funny joke skills, consider taking a look at this Looking forward to new report about GM's hurt "feelings". Good night. VartanM (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If you take the time to actually look at his first edit, you'll see that he removed the map previously added by me. Then he removed it second time. 2 rvs. Grandmaster (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit it, two reverts. Please lead to me cell…*sigh*, This sums up how you ignored what I have been writing when you claimed the map was removed without reason. I repeat what I wrote weeks ago, here are the maps I provided: [23], [24], [25]; the map you continue to defend is ahistorical and inaccurate as the following maps prove: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], etc. Nowhere in these maps does Albania correspond to Artsakh's location.

Moreschi, if you check the inaccurate map Grandmaster is attempting to reincorporate, you will see that the map matches the actual eastern border of Armenia excluding NK, pieces of Armenia and Media are missing and replaced. It is a political map produced by the Soviet School, it is impossible that Grandmaster cannot be aware that the map he try to enforce is inaccurate. In fact, all the authors he has ever quoted disagree with that obviously wrong map. I don't see why this need to remove or minimize Armenia from the region because of the current political situation can be excused so many times. Grandmaster has indeed a long history of doing just that. It was documented in AA2, but again, nothing was done about that. I fail to see how he changed his behavior.

Also is it possible that some action be taken to stop Grandmaster’s deliberate reporting of sperflous events to distract the attention from true disruption? See here but more importantly here, in regards to his answer to Fedayee . You certainly know that the user in question who caused Eupator’s block was indeed checkused. Eupator’s reverts were all reinserting the Armenian category and the information which were removed about Armenians. Everyone can check the edit history starting with April 25, 2008, admin Mikkalai engaged in reverting the same user. Eupator was blocked on May 3, which was a week after the first checkuser request was filed. The user was clearly engaging in vandalism AND sockpuppetry. Grandmaster could not have been unaware, he used this diff and the request made there was directly linked with the checkusers filed. Also observe how he attempt to fool readers about Meowy’s block, claiming he was the only one blocked.

Grandmaster did the same thing when the request for comment was filled on Atabek in the past, he tried to divert everyone’s attention and used the opportunity to accuse other users. This was obviously the reason a proposed principle was voted by arbitrators here, but again, no action was taken.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I commented many times on your maps, all of which are from before the 20th century and do not represent the present state of knowledge about Caucasian Albania. They cannot justify deletion of a map that comes from a third party source. And I don't think that edit warring by Eupator can be justified by CU on other accounts. There are ways to deal with real socks, which he is perfectly aware about. As regards to my reports to AE, I haven't been at that board for many months. Just a few days ago I reported Vacio (talk · contribs) for edit warring across multiple articles, after which he was initially placed on parole, but later the parole was replaced with a waring, as certain people gave the admin handling the case inaccurate info that Vacio was not previously warned, while in fact he was warned by another admin. It is interesting that Marshal does not want me to comment at AE board, while he has no problems with people like Eupator, Meowy or Fedayee commenting on reports about VartanM and Vacio. So it is Ok for some people to comment and report at AE, but not Ok for others to do the same, right? Why such a double standard, I wonder? --Grandmaster (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed a certain pattern in AA articles. It is all peaceful and quiet, until some new user joins editing the AA articles. As soon as he starts introducing his extreme POV views, the balance is upset, and the edit wars spread over multiple articles, as there are users who support that new user, and those who strongly disagree with him. At first the new user has an advantage of not being restricted by any parole, so he succeeds, and it leads to aggravation of the conflict. That's why I proposed to arbcom to place the entire AA area on 1RR, rather than applying it to individual users. The one disturbing the peace this time was Vacio, it was all quiet before he started editing. Grandmaster (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

His edits were restricted to one or two articles and he wasn't rehashing age olds disputes. In additon most AA involved people did not even participate in those disputes, myself included. It was Atabek that sparked and caused the recent havoc by reverting on articles that have been stable for over a year with absolutely ridiculous and absurd comments. 1RR isn't going to change anything, everyone at the very least is already sticking to 1RR per day for the most part. Topic bans (including commenting on talk pages) is the only way to ensure stability.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And of course Grandmaster's proposal can't work. Such was the ignorance and arrogance in the drafting and the application of AA2 that AA2 has been widely appled to subjects that have nothing to do with Armenia or Azerbaijan. Placing the "entire AA area on 1RR" will mean that anything to do with Turkey (including Cyprus), Iran, Georgia, and Russia will also have to be placed on 1RR. Meowy 16:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Dealt with at arbitration enforcement. I hope and pray. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometime ago we asked Thatcher to check 2 most authoritative sources on the subject and give us a third party opinion, which he kindly did. You can see it here: Talk:Sahl_Smbatean#Ethnicity. Basically, his recommendation was this: [36] I think your decision on AE only helps to maintain a certain POV in the article, which is why there's such a long running dispute there, but it does not resolve the problem. You simply banned the supporters of certain opinion from the article, so there's no way now for the alternative views to be reflected there, which is exactly what the people proposing the topic ban wanted. I don't think this helps to create really ethnic POV free encyclopedia. Grandmaster (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding removal of Armenian, please see the Sahl Smbatean talk page VartanM (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Molobo

I need advise and maybe action regarding Molobo. I turn to you because I know you are some kind of a Molobo expert, I know about your arrangement with him. The clashes I have with Molobo at the moment are not the first ones, and I frankly was not too sad when he got blocked. My "area of interest" is Pomerania-related history (that is the area between Rügen and Gdanzig), and while the interest of other wikipedians in this area is understandably low, you won't believe the high tide whenever Poland is involved. In this "subdivision" of my scope, Molobo is crossing my way quite some times. Now your arrangement with him works in so far, as he is much more careful with his edits then before the "final" block, and that he makes (rather excessive) use of the talk pages. I was engaged in several discussions with him before. In the last couple of days however, I got the impression that he went too far, as he repeats accusing me at various talk pages to misquote sources, something I regard much more offensive then the usual POV-stuff. This is one allegation of Sept 21. Here is an ongoing debate he initiated after mainly I and also another user expanded and sourced the article, if you look at the section "POV" you get an impression of the kind of debates I am having with him and at (7) you find a "nationalist-like and incorrect statement" allegation directed at me.

I recently also added some (sourced) stuff to the Congress of Gniezno article. This is an article normally noone cares for, in Gniezno a thousand years ago the Emperor and a Polish duke met, the only thing that got me there is that the first Pomeranian bishop was assigned at this meeting and I just had a good book at hand. Now guess what happened when I got there. Noone has really edited for a year except for minor edits, I add some stuff, boom an IP and Molobo appear at the site and Molobo changes some of my edits that they suddenly say something different then the source (edit history). Eg my sentence ...Otto's successor changed the empire's policies. Boleslaw expanded his realm to the South and West interflicting with the empire's interests. As a consequence, the excellent relations between the empire and the Polan duchy marked by the Congress of Gniezno turned into a state of hostility... was changed into ...Otto's successor changed the empire's policies which founded itself in conflict with Poland. The state of hostility... (after Molobo's edit). The reference note was left in place even if this sentence can not be sourced by that ref anymore. At the talk page, after he introduced a "Changes" section where he among other things wanted to push the point that Saint Cyril was a Slav, he made up a new section again accusing me of misquoting a source and removing info from a source.

These events took place very recently and now I am pretty fed up. I would like to see some kind of an action that shows him that he crossed a line. I know you get around much and see blood on the walls and may regard my quarrel here not to be that serious. For me however it is serious to be named at several talk pages as the "misquoter of sources". Please tell me your thoughts. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this. Will look at it. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Round and round in circles

Why do I get the feeling I'm chasing my tail on Talk:Battle of Opis...? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And here we go to mediation. No idea who that will involve. Such a massive merry-go-round over nothing :( Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

I'm wondering what the significance is of this Battle of Opis thing. Clearly there's got to be some relevance to modern sociopolitical issues (or it wouldn't have turned into such a disastrous edit war) but I can't for the life of me see what it is. I seem to remember someone saying something about how it's significant re: a historical basis for Jewish claims on Israel... or am I just confused? What's the deal with this? And if it's somehow a pivotal political issue, shouldn't there be something in the article about that? I know you have a lot on your plate right now, but if you have time for a brief explanation, that would be cool. I was clearly unprepared for the shitstorm I stepped into, and now I'm intrigued. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) I've been observing this from the sidelines for a while, so I hope Moreschi doesn't mind if I have a go. I think it's a sideshow to the main dispute on the Cyrus Cylinder page. As the far from neutral History of Iran puts it: "Cyrus the Great created the Cyrus Cylinder, considered to be the first declaration of human rights". That is not universally considered to be the case. The Battle of Opis dispute is an argument over Cyrus's reputation as a "humanitarian". Most translations of the account of the battle in the Bayblonian Chronicles describe Cyrus committing a massacre in its aftermath, which - as one historian puts it - "gives the lie to the idea of Cyrus as a benign liberator". A recent translation by Lambert disagrees with this interpretation and says there was no massacre. For obvious reasons, some of the Iranian editors involved favour Lambert's take on events.

As for Cyrus's relationship to Israel, as his article puts it: "The only known example of his religious policy is his treatment of the Jews in Babylon. The Bible records that a remnant of the Jewish population returned to the Promised Land from Babylon, following an edict from Cyrus to rebuild the temple. This edict is fully reproduced in the Book of Ezra. As a result of Cyrus' policies, the Jews honored him as a dignified and righteous king. He is the only Gentile to be designated as a messiah, a divinely-appointed king, in the Tanakh (Isaiah 45:1-6)."

I also expect there's some bad blood being imported from the totally unrelated Muhammad al-Durrah page, one of our disputed articles on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Check talk page for details.--Folantin (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Update The same dispute also affects a third page, Kaveh Farrokh, the bio of a historian proponent who supports the theory that the Cyrus Cylinder was a "charter of human rights". The issue is: how notable is he and thus how notable is his opinion on this matter? --Folantin (talk) 11:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's a key link. His article's AfD failed, no consensus. As for historian, his PhD and job history are in psychology/language stuff, after his PhD he worked as a college counselor, he's written an article on dyslexia, etc. And although we are talking about 'Iranian' nationalism, this is really Persian nationalism. Take a look at [37] for instance. This relates to a lot of web stuff which often has the word 'Persian' in it, and is based outside Iran. Look also at my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Academy of Arts, Literature, and Media. And Farrokh seems close to an American far right !"!"$) revisionist broadcaster (Mark Dankof also, which shows how complicated this is. Doug Weller (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have done more research into the Farrokh dispute (which is a big brouhaha). Thanks, Doug. --Folantin (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see what is has to do with the world today. Surely nobody is claiming that Iran is still a shining beacon in the field of civil rights? And I'm pretty sure Cyrus isn't a personal acquaintance of anyone here. So what difference does it make if he slaughtered a bunch of people 2500 years ago? Don't get me wrong - I'm all for scholarly accountability in our articles - but I just don't see why it's so urgent that editors are willing to risk losing their admin privileges over it. Seems like a lot of panic over a small issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Battle of Opis doesn't have much logical connection to the world today, but logic is not a strong force in discussions of this sort. As for why editors might feel "panic" over what's happening at this article, I think it's because it is far too easy for tendentious editors to have their way with Wikipedia articles. Taking the obvious step--ejecting tendentious editors from Wikipedia, or at least giving them a topic ban--tends to evoke hand-wringing about admin abuse, so our articles on ancient history end up being dominated by editors who have no idea how to do academic research and latch on to crank theories instead. In other words, what happens at Battle of Opis happens all over the place. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus is right. You'd be amazed at how often contemporary political disputes are projected backwards onto history on Wikipedia, frequently onto articles dealing with the remote past. Try spending some time round any pages related to ancient Macedon and Alexander the Great and you'll find plenty of edit wars between modern Greek and Macedonian editors. Many of the participants are virtual SPAs and their historical knowledge tends to be lacking. We really should be trying to crack down on this phenomenon and ensuring our coverage of history isn't skewed by soapboxers motivated by contemporary political concerns. Let's try to limit these modern feuds (e,g. Israel-Palestine) to articles immediately relevant to the topic as much as we can.--Folantin (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be amazed - I've been here for years, and I've seen the effects of modern disputes on articles from Sikhs to Goths and from Muslims to Mayans. The big difference is that with most of those disputes, the edit wars are between single-purpose accounts, anonymous IPs, obvious conflict-of-interest cases, and fairly new editors who just don't understand things like reliable sources and edit warring. I've rarely seen such animosity between admins, because they know how to use talk pages and dispute resolution. So what's the big emergency here that makes this the exception? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, I have to say I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Do you mean ChrisO's 3RR block, Khoikhoi's edits to Talk:Battle of Opis, or what? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, how 'bout somebody let Moreschi answer me, then? Seeing as how this is his talk page and all, and seeing as he's actually involved in editing the article and its talk page (which is why I asked him). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Folantin is basically right about the political backdrop. Nationalist obsessives suffering from puerile antiquity frenzy are two-a-penny, that is is nothing we normally don't see. The admin one? Elonka has a beef with ChrisO and myself due to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka and the surrounding events (Race and intelligence articles, Muhammad al-Durrah), and Jehochman has a beef with Elonka also due to that RFC and his later pressuring of Elonka to make good on her admin recall pledge. What Jayjg is doing here, I don't really know. I suspect it's because Elonka was rather generous to the Israeli nationalist crowd in the al-Durrah mess and this has - which I'm sure she didn't intend in the slightest - worked her way into their good books, which is why Jay is now at her back. An unfortunate consequence; Elonka did try to be honest on that one, and if this keeps going she'll be tarred with the same brush as Jay and the rest, something she doesn't deserve.

Khoikhoi and I usually get on pretty well. If it were only people like him on the other side of this dispute it would be settled perfectly amicably. I'm slightly irritated that he hasn't taken a firmer line with the grosser excesses of Creazy, Larno, and the other one, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It will all get sorted eventually. Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. "Antiquity frenzy". I like that.

When Elonka showed up I kind of figured it might have to do with her RFC and all that stuff about her non-recalls. I know you and Khoikhoi are both kick-ass editors so I knew I had to be missing something; I was just looking on the wrong side of the Wiki. Thanks for clearing it up, and sorry for the giant thread. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My own take on this is that in certain topic areas, once the dispute is resolved on one article, the editors just move the dispute to a different article. Sort of a travelling carnival atmosphere, or whatever is needed so that the conflict-junkies can get their minimum daily dose.  ;) I'm not super familiar with the content issues at the Opis or Cylinder articles, but I do see some of the same names battling there, as were battling at the Muhammad al-Durrah article. As for me being soft on the "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestine" side, to be honest, I still can't tell 'em apart! --Elonka 22:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread on abusive commentary

Look at the latest edits in this thread. [38]. Folantin might be interested also. I keep thinking, what have I gotten into? I just hope WP isn't on a downhill slide to the loony bin. Doug Weller (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always like this. If you only looked at ANI threads, you'd conclude that Wikipedia was finished. BUT, funnily enough, the articles usually do get fixed in the end. I'm sure 3 months from now Battle of Opis will be perfectly sane. The annoying thing is that more often than not administrative "assistance" is nothing of the sort: it simply impairs progress rather than aids it. Too many clueless people who just switch their brains off and refuse to look at the content. It's infuriating, but you and I and others will usually be there to pick up the pieces and scratch out some sort of acceptable solution.

I'm amazed anyone blocked Eleland indef. He's usually pretty rational. If he's going nuts, someone has got to be baiting him. Reading the thread, they clearly were. Again, people need to look more at context. Essentially, what we have here is the residue of the follies of RFA standards of a couple of years ago coming into play, where blandness and rote policy learning was favoured over clue. It's not permanent, though, and will be much better in a couple of years. What I really like, though, is the assertion that the use of "cunt" as profanity demonstrates that Eleland has extreme hatred of women! Love it! That's so hilarious I would have been in stitches if the context hadn't been so tragic :) Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Page bans

Moreschi, page bans don't address the issue of one contributor personally attacking another, neither they justify them. That is why the thread was opened in first place at AE, that's what the board is for. If some user is unable to come to terms with editing a topical page, he can nail things out on the talk page, which is what normally should be done and which is what VartanM is unable to do, resorting to attacks instead. Here are prior counts of warnings to VartanM [39], [40], and a number of other warnings made during and before ArbCom about incivility. Here is the list of his incivilities, NONE of which were ever addressed:

• [41]

• "Atabek, your accusation that I blind reverted this article is idiotic".

• [42]

• "You have to apply your non expert abilities on someone else."

• [43]

• "Your mud slinging and wiki-retaliation will leave no doubt in anyones eyes, including the arbitrators, that your presence on Wikipedia is not in good faith. That there is one option left to stop your disruptions"

• [44]

* "Thanks for sharing your views Atabek, but this is not the Atabekipedia, can't deny the well known fact"

• [45]

• accusing editor - "removal of Armenian source just because its Armenian is called nacism"

• [46]

• "learn to speak English and don't add nonsense to Wikipedia"

And you're page banning me for what? For adding a CJF Dowsett reference to a page? :) Your action in light of all of the above variety of fruitless warnings, proves one thing, that it's alright to attack someone, while it's not alright to add a legitimate third party reference from Oxford scholar and expert on a particular topical page. I hope you will further reconsider your decision, because I am fed up with listening to VartanM's incivil language and now I intend to pursue this further until civility is observed. Atabəy (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Atabekipedia" LOL. OK, maybe he is tiptoeing close to the edge by getting some laughs at your expense, but it is not as if he is constantly harrasing you - for example that Atabekipedia comment was said over a year ago. Meowy 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Meowy, but no more jokes. Too much drama for a couple of chuckles. VartanM (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Wikipedia is not for chuckles, it's for responsible editing. This is what some of your chuckles led to. Unfortunately, Moreschi's leniency in your case produced only one result: you trying to justify incivil language with "chuckles" or SOAP. I don't enjoy wasting time in Wikiboards or talk pages, but this time your chuckles must be addressed firmly to avoid repetitions and to inspire positive developments in editing etiquette. Atabəy (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, pay closer attention as to how Atabek is cherry picking. For example, his second quote was an answer to his own incivil reply which included: Also, I am not an expert on spiritual or moral matters, but what's your opinion on deliberate removal of evidence,..., for which he was banned for 4 days, by Chaser[47]. You will see here that Thatcher actually agreed with me.

Third quote, I don't take this back at all, and find nothing wrong given the situation, this was what Atabek was doing. See this edit, Atabek reinstated (material comming from tallarmeniantale) which was already shown in the talkpage to be misused, for example Auron which Atabek attribute the figure to, did not claim this. It was already explained back in March 2006. See here, last paragraph. See the entire talkpage preceding Atabek reinsertions. You can also read this section and see how many time Atabek has attempted to put words in the mouth of a scholar.

The fourth quote Atabek presented is ...., please open the link and see what happened, it will become obvious that my comment was way too light. See the context in this report about Atabek's conduct here while this usually will have been considered as a severe case of vandalism, he got away without even a block. For the rest, I'm sure you can go on and read the discussions and context. Every user has bad days and may occasionally resort to incivility, but it is quite obvious that Atabek disruptions go beyond this. I will not even bother replying to his claim about Dowsett, that he sustains what has been shown wrong by several users shows that the topic ban was more than appropriate. VartanM (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is also on ANI. I'll comment there. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Moreschi. FYI, your name was mentioned at ANI as being a banning arbitrator. If you have a chance, would you please provide some comment at the ANI to shead some light on the matter. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Count of Nychlenborch

you deleted it as dubious while he did excist and so i ask you: why did you delete the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it was created by a notorious creator of hoaxes. Also, the article was wholly unreferenced, and google gives virtually nothing outside of outdated Wikipedia mirrors. Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Murad Gumen

An anonymous user continues to remove reference material. Could you check on this[48]? Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Adityas

Why is it that there is a blanket delete with "this makes no sense"? The material is OR and from a PhD quantum scientist. Please respect other people's hard work with an NPOV attitude. I suggest you get the book listed in the reference section instead of thrusting your own personal ideology on Wikipedia without due diligence or OR. Take care! —Preceding unsigned comment added by VedicScience (talk • contribs) 21:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Insults

I've just received insults posted on my talk page[49] by 24.67.253.203. Could you take care of this issue? Thanks! Kansas Bear (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's a "theory"?

The Big Bang is a theory, then Steady State theory, String theory, and many other theories are just that. All theories also claim other all other theories are "impossible". Do you even have a degree to being with? Or any expertise on the subject matter whatsoever? To you this might seem laughable, especially if you don't have a decent education to read and understand. I did not ask if you are "an idiot" or if you can or want to "take it seriously", or not. That's not what Wikipedia is for as clearly stated in the "Talk" page of Adityas. If you are disputing the content of a particular section or sentence, please cite exact reasons along with published facts. Post them on the Talk page. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not the place for your personal opinions or arguments. VedicScience (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Altai Khan or another crank pan-turkists

This one sounds like an experienced user [50] (check his talkpage which was his first edit). Could also be related to this banned user: [51]. I note one of the quotes by this troublemake: "The Iranis have no culture in that case like the Turks. Even the Origin of the Iranis isn't really known just like the one of the gypsys in Bulgaria." and "In the last over 1000 years you took Turkish culture and Turkish history and try to make it your own instead of accepting that you have no history in that case with a few exceptations.". He also is bent on denying the Armenian, Pontic Greek and Assyrian Genocides [52]. Could also possibly be related to this editor [53] or this one [54], both of them spousing similar ideas.. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

Hi Moreschi. If you have a minute, could you look at the above page. I also posted a note on WP:COIN. As far as I can see the article subject is editing under 3 single-purpose accounts, reverting all deletions of resume-cruft, also accusing another editor of being someone the subject is engaged in a lawsuit with. I have incurred wrath of the SPAs. I'm stuck on how to deal with it quickly and effectively. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano block

Uhm. For who? I've been gone for a while, I don't have a standard of Giano behavior to compare against, I compared him against what I expect a typical editor to do.--Tznkai (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Even for a typical editor, this block is philosophically flawed. And especially for Giano. See his block log, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley. Essentially blocking Giano for civility vios doesn't work. He just becomes more intransigent. Not to mention that we can't really use blocks to force established users into civility in the absence of other disruptive behaviours. Moreschi (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted.--Tznkai (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide edit war

User:Philip Baird Shearer, who apparently is an admin recently engaged in pursuing Armenian Genocide denial by moving Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian genocide debate (note how G is not capitalized) without writing a single line, he just showed up and made the move along with additional controversial changes. When that move was promptly reverted, he reverted back, then again, and again... Since you are familiar with the subject i'm asking you to take a look, and place the 1RR template on this article as well. The page was subsequently protected by an uninformed admin.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this doesn't seem to be an isolated case: [55].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues, the page move by Philip Baird Shearer and the content edits by Philip Baird Shearer. Both edits are similar in that both were done without any prior discussion on the talk page, but the former certainly breaks wikipedia rules regarding making title changes for controversial articles or articles that have had many prior title move requests. Meowy 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the page was protected after Philip Baird Shearer asked for it to be protected, in essence protecting his own edit (after exhausting his 3RR limit). And under the cover of that protection he is now proposing to remove the entry entirely by merging it with another and has been indulging in a bit of RfC template-spamming. All this from an editor who had shown no interest in this article or any Armenian-related subject until 4 days ago. Meowy 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this Philip Baird Shearer has also been involved with the manipulating of both the Pontic Greek Genocide and Burundi Genocide. He has overstepped his bounds in his manipulating of Denial of the Armenian Genocide, considering he has done this without any type of consensus. Apparently he is now trying to move Recognition of the Armenian Genocide with the "Armenian genocide debate[56]"! Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since I haven't heard anything else about this...Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Vacio

Hi. Please see this: [57] Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Dealt with by others. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime reprise

Hi, I noticed that earlier this year you were involved in blocking some SPA accounts at Race and crime. Well, that article got redirected to Anthropological criminology this summer, but a few days ago was reverted by Zzmang (talk · contribs), who seems almost completely interested only in this article and it's AFD. I wonder if you could have a look at this person and see if they seem familiar (someone else with a history at that article has already said so). Thanks, NJGW (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Will look at this. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Carantania

Hi, Moreschi,

since you already intervened once in a similar fringe theories case before, I would kindly ask you to have a look at this notice I put on the FTN: [58]. Regards. --Jalen (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Moreschi: You reverted my edition in the article Carantania, but please read the discussion page. And I cited a reference for the information I edited, and the image of the coin is from Commons, a real coin not from a "Fringe Country", if the State officially honours the fact of the Installation of the Duke with a coin, why thinking that it was an Avar State or a State of an extict kind of Slavs? Thanks and Greetings from Argentina.--Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Will be dealt with elsewhere. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Verofied Carantania

The article on Carantania has been verofied previously. Here is its verofied version: [59]. Regards, Jalen (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation re Battle of Opis

A mediation has been opened on Battle of Opis, an article with which you have been involved recently. I have listed you as a party but please feel free to remove yourself if you do not want to participate in the mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis for the details. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to start paying attention. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Mordvins

Moreschi, pls visit Talk page. Left message for you. It is funny when people are discussing the subject not knowing the subject. I'm not mad too. Need your excellent judgement. -- Numulunj pilgae (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is going OK now. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeology of Israelites

You are right, but consider what it was. I had to start somewhere. It will get better--Meieimatai? 21:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your interest in the Israelites, are you in general interested in the subject? I have had to do an extensive rewrite of Hebrews because another editor, basing him/her self on misreading of a 1901 source, and decontextualisation of the Biblical verse, decided to link Abram's appellation of Ivri to another figure in the Bible, Eber! This would require extending boundaries of Abraham's travels to east of Euphrates of course--Meieimatai? 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not my speciality. Just watch {{essay-entry}} in the future, please. The fact that your material has now featured in two FTN threads is not a good sign. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

High ranking FYROM officials that admit they aren't ancient Macedonians

Moreschi, you just removed my comments from the talk page of the Macedonian naming dispute. You know how I feel about Futper (anti-Greek). I don't think this about you though (I've been though some of your diffs to assert this) However, I do think this is a case of responding to Futper/FYROM nationalist lobbying on a subject you know next to nothing about. Your suggestion to relate this to any other page will only lead to my facts being deleted from there too. The naming dispute article is exactly where these verifiable quotes on ethnic identity and acts of irredentism belong.

• On February 26, 1992: FYROM's first President Kiro Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated

"We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

• On January 22, 1999 FYROM's Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the Balkans, where she stated

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language"

• On February 24, 1999 FYROM.'s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the "Ottawa Citizen" said

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity."

At the very heart of why Greece isn't recognizing FYROM as Macedonia is precisely because FYROM nationals intermittently claim ancient heritage. This is leading to acts of irredentism (i.e. did you see the images of an Australian "human rights" parade where FYROM nationals waved a banner saying "Solun will be the capital of Macedonia" again) How about the FYROM PM knelling in front of a map showing Macedonian Greece as being part of FYROM? These are acts of war from the Greek perspective. IMO if these concerns continue to be ignored or dealt with in a patronizing manner eventually it will lead to closed borders and possibly violence between the two nations (ala Israelis/Palestinians). Greeks will not tolerate their ethnic identity or territory slowly being erased by people who treat their long history like the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues to match temporary political conveniences.

The US Congress introduced several bills over the last few years (a point deleted by Futper from the article I might add) condemning FYROM nationalists for propaganda against Greece. Here are some excerpts...

:"Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) should stop the utilization of materials that violate provisions of the United Nations-brokered Interim Agreement between FYROM and Greece regarding `hostile activities or propaganda' and should work with the United Nations and Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals of finding a mutually-acceptable official name for FYROM."

:"Whereas the aforementioned acts constitute a breach of FYROM's international obligations deriving from the spirit of the United Nations Interim Accord, which provide that FYROM should abstain from any form of `propaganda' against Greece's historical or cultural heritage;"

S. Res, 300 H. Res 521 H. Res. 356

These bills haven't passed yet (IMO mostly because Bush recognized FYROM as RoM due to their support in Iraq) but as verifiable evidence of irredentism grows (something that you won't find on Wikipedia because it keeps getting censored away) bipartisan Congress support has been increasing from an initial 77 representatives to over 120. In addition Senator Obama... most like the next US president.. is a vocal co-sponsor of one of the bills.

I'm not going to play the revert war game with you. Instead I'm going to request you voluntarily reinsert my comments on the talk page. You have a choice here. Ignore my concerns, stubbornly stick to your initial position, and don't risk offending a fellow admin (something extremely easy to do). Or consider you occasionally make mistakes and maybe you are the process of making a huge one. --Crossthets (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

btw- you also removed my distinction of Greek Macedonian from the Slavic languages page that Futper tried to also remove. The simultaneous updates against two of edits... that Futper recently disputed in both instances... are exactly why I suggested you are communicating with Futper behind the scenes. It was suggested by another admin Toddst1 that Futper not to threaten/block me again because of our history (i.e. a conflict-of-interest). I do not believe that suggestion was intended as a license for Futper to trick other contributers into reverting all my edits on his behalf. I'd appreciate it if you added back in the point there exists a Macedonian Greek dialect that is different than the FYROM dialect of the same name. (Phrase it as you wish).

I don't know if you are going to just following Futper's Greek "nationalist" narrative here or whether you are going to just focus on providing accurate/balanced data to Wikipedia. All I can hope is your loyalties lay with honest reporting not Futper (or myself for that matter). --Crossthets (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• tl:dr - and bollocks anyway. You're just talking yourself into a topic-ban. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what tl:dr means but as far as I understand it Bollocks is a a vulgar term meaning "testicles". From Wikipedia's own article for Bollocks as you've applied it.

"It dismisses a statement as nonsense, similar to "bullshit", but much stronger in its emphasis and implications."

And from the Wiktionary definition of bullocks

(UK, vulgar) Nonsense or information deliberately intended to mislead.

Is using vulgarities with contributers now part of Wikipedia's admin code of conduct? Is completely ignoring a contributers concerns and instead threatening them out of the blue part of those rules? Why was it another admin who I recently talked about with these exact same issues didn't find a need to respond nearly as nasty as you just did? Does your reaction match your own ideals of civility?

I tried to be diplomatic with you even though it was pretty obvious that you were coming to the aid of Futper (with your "coincidental" simultaneous removal of both of my recent edits that Futper and I disagree on). Nor did I revert your edits even though you don't appear to know this particular subject material well. My verifiable points aren't remotely "bullocks" as you suggest... especially the points I made above about FYROM propaganda/irredentism.

• Did I Photoshop the image of the banner held by FYROM nationals in a recent alleged "human rights" parade advocating Greece's second largest city will one day belong to FYROM?
• Did I force FYROM's PM to knell in front of a map showing the northern Greek province of Macedonia as belonging to FYROM?
• Did I suggest to some former FYROM politicians to admit they aren't related to ancient Macedonians (their first President was shortly thereafter a target of an assasination attempt I might add).
• Did I trick the FYROM government to design currency with landmarks of Greece in them?
• Am I responsible for the legions of FYROM nationalists constantly trying to rewrite articles related to ancient Macedonians?
• Is it my fault Yugoslavia imploded in a violent ethnic civil war and part of it is now causing similar ethnic troubles for Greeks?
• Did I force 120+ US congressmen to say FYROM nationalists are participating in hostile propaganda and irredentist acts against Greeks (including Obama)?

Like seriously how do you think someone Jewish would react if it was suddenly seriously discussed Moses was Arab and parts of Israel should belong to Lebanon? How about an American if a Quebec native started calling themselves "ethnic New Yorkers" and argued one day they would "take it back? Are Greeks somehow different? Is the language I speak and ethnic group I belong to (that can trace its roots over a four thousand year period...including to ancient Macedonia)... now my imagination?

While you might have it in your power to block/ban users (i.e. me), being a Wikipedia admin doesn't give you some special moral right to be rude with strangers over the Internet, nor special insight into the complex ethnic issues at hand. Now if you want to turn a blind eye to very serious concerns to satisfy your sense of dominance (or your relationship with Futper)... I can't do much about it. Go ahead. Use your admin authority like a immature bouncer just to prove to yourself you weren't just nasty to me and I'm the problem here. Out of principle I would rather be banned than tolerate a bully who thinks being one of countless admins on the Internet gives him some special right to stop behaving like a human being.

If by any remote chance you are actually interested in a sincere two-way dialog though, my suggestion is to stop directing your sundry angers at me and just deal with what whatever you specifically disagree with me about. I can't meet your epistemological standards if I am not provided specifics. I'm not a "nationalist" nor xenophobic nor all the other negative stereotypes being pumped out by haters that blame Greeks for FYROM's identity crisis. Greeks aren't to blame that they speak a Bulgarian dialect... nor that their forefathers called themselves Bulgarians... nor that they give their kids and cities Slavic names... nor that Yugoslavia imploded into ethnic civil war... not that ancient Macedonians viewed themselves as Greeks.

Like wtf... ancient Macedonians aren't Greek now? I suppose we aren't Athenians either? I suppose we aren't related to Byzantium either? I suppose we just magically jumped out the head of Zeus and we speak Greek because we came from Taiwan? I suppose we practice the Greek Orthodox religion because we are all Buddhists from Burma?

I have absolutely no ill will towards FYROM nationals but I, nor millions of other Greeks (including 2 million modern Macedonian ones), will NOT have our tiny ethnic group erased from history. You think I'm spending all this time replying to you for something to do? That I enjoy spending my time defending the existence of my ethnic identity?

So bro...some more rage safely behind your DSL connection? A block? A ban to quiet me? Or are you going to actually try and sincerely listen with a little sensitivity to an issue that if it continues to escalate unabated could very well one day expand into another ethnic war in the Balkans. --209.161.239.56 (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello,

I have taken your suggestion at the Holodomor talk page, and begun work on a separate section about the causes of the Holodomor here [[60]].

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Horlo (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am in the process of adding refs, and then I would like to post this article. Do you have any final suggestions? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sahl Smbatean

[61] any reason for the restoration of POV? Atabəy (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

reverted. Moreschi (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reasoning for the removal of the word "Armenian" - is there some discussion elswhere I have missed (is the "review" your personal reviewing of the discussion or some other thing)? In the talk page there are plenty of sources saying he was Armenian (see especially the Oct. 1 post by Vartan). It's not dubious if lots of sources say it. Meowy 01:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, edit warring, and I don't see any reasoning so far provided for the removal of legitimate reference saying that Sahl was Albanian prince. The balanced version would be citing references claiming both Albanian and Armenian, or none at all. Atabəy (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about his ethnicity (in as far as that can be determined from sources), not were he was from. By this period Albania is a region, not an ethnicity. Meowy 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And Meowy, what is this about? [62], [63]. Why so much intolerance of anything Azerbaijani? Atabəy (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A group of nations vs. a colloction of nations.

Sorry to get back to you on that one but some things would need to be sorted out so if you could answer this [64] it would be nice. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion here. I was recently part of an AE case and was subject to the remedies outline here a WP:1RR on all Troubles Articles, applyed to all Editors of those Articles. This was amended as you will have noticed by an additional amendment at AE here. Now since then I do not believe that I have breeched sanctions. I been extremely polite, civil, and have been in no way disruptive. With this is mind, could you possibly point to me:

Were is the edit war which prompted the page to be blocked. Please bear in mind the article is under WP:1RR.

Show me, by way of diff’s what and were I have done something which warrants a Page/Troubles ban?

On the talk page, could you show me were I may have been uncivil or disruptive in your opinion?

On the Article, could you show me by way of diff's were I may have breech sanctions or been disruptive in your opinion.

I think it only right and proper, and in the intrest fairness, that to defend myself I should first know what it is I’m supposed to have done, do you not agree? There is not much of a talk page to go through, and my edits were very limited. Thanks in advance, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Research Editor

You may be interested in this: User_talk:ResearchEditor#Keeping_to_your_ban.3F — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ResearchEditor

I have filed an appeal of your block to the RFAR page on behalf of that editor, who has emailed the clerks for assistance. You may want make a statement there. — Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 00:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian history

Wikipedia is seen by millions-upon-millions of viewers and the fact that our history, symbols, and culture is being degraded by "administrators", common people who are ill informed of the situation, is disgusting, and due to Greek intimidation and obsession, is pathetic.

iGENEA test results:

Albania: 30% Illyrians 15% Phoenician 14% Hellenen 18%Thraker 2% Vikings 20% slavs

Greece: 10% Germanic 10%illyrians 20% slavs 20% phoenician 5% macedonian (in north more than 18%) 35% Hellenen

Bulgaria: 49%Thraker 11%macedonian 15%slavs 15%hellenen 5% pheonician

Macedonia: 30%macedonian 10% illyrian 15% hellenen 5%phoenician 20% germanic 5% hunnen 15% slavs

All the Macedonian genes from Greece is due to the ethnic Macedonian minority within Greece, and modern Macedonians are related to the ancients, test upon genetic test proves it. The language and culture don't matter, Bulgarians are descendants of Thracians and they also have Slavic culture and language, same scenario for Macedonians. Stop misinforming the public who visits Wikipedia due to Greek pressure and complaints, Macedonian history is ours, and it belongs to us, for the Macedonian blood flows through our veins, not the Greeks. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally some definitive proof! Every DNA kit I buy from iGENEA keeps proving I am of the true ancient Macedonia haplogroup. I mean everyone knows these kits have been finally show to accurately reflect the 2500 year old ethnicity of every tiny region in the world equally well... so we plan to keep buying the exact same 260 Euro kits from iGENEA/FamilyTreeDNA that keep saying what we want to hear. Who cares the results are often based on a tiny sampling of ancient corpses with little known demographic history, spread over an expanse of history, missing a truckload of other potential nuances, and subject to political tampering. It's science because the letters D-N-A are being used and their results are even accurate to decimal places.

I'll just ignore the itsy-bitsy fine print IGenea disclaimer on the matter... the objections of virtually every reputable genetic researcher not involved with these DNA-kit companies... the DNA results published by reputable peer-reviewed Nature magazine that paint a picture of me as Slavic... asking the more profound question of what were the various haplogroups of the no doubt racial pure ancient Macedonians...consider if someone one day finds the grave of Alexander the Great and he turns out to personally have an ancient Babylonian haplotypes.... consider I have never taken a test to see how "much" Macedonian I personally am... consider that I personally may turn out to be far more genetically related to the lowly Greeks!

And if these Igenea kits I stick to stop giving me the results I want... I'll just have to switch to another company that gives me more favorable results. Besides everyone educated knows that ancient Hellene HLA gene studies final prove they were sub-Saharan.

And of course everyone knows ethnicity and culture is just about what percentage one's genes are so-and-so. So if I am 60% percent Palestinians from 900 AD and 40% Jewish... Happy Ramadan. If it turns out a mistake was made and it was the other way around and the year was actually 290 BC... Happy Hanukkah. So what if me, my family, my grandparents, my great grandparents, and-so-on... all spoke a Slavic dialect, gave our cities Slavic names, just hosted the world Slavic congress. Screw em all. I finally now know I'm not Slavic because according to Igenea Inc. I'm more ancient Macedonian... and so are the Serbians!

I2A – 39%, E1B1B – 26%, RIA - 20%, J2 – 15%, RIB – 10%

I2A – 28%, E1B1B – 20%,, RIA – 19%, J2 – 9%, RIB – 14%

Greeks, that speak Greek, that give their cities and children Greek names, preserve whats left of Byzantine and ancient Greek culture.... that have still welcomed hundreds of thousands of Albanians and other refugees over the last couple of decade despite limited resources... they are the real racists. The blood that runs through our veins is the true ancient Macedonian blood. It must be kept pure of corruption from the dirty Albanians and Greeks. Language and culture don't matter.

See I'm not a racist. --Crossthets (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? No one cares. Crossthets, there is no need to waste your time replying to loons like this IP. Please just ignore. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant for him. It's meant to highlight my claims of hostility, vitriol, and misinformation being directed against Greeks by FRYoM nationals is very real. Consider they are even coming to your user page to understand just how widespread and serious this hatred problem has become.

Or how about the recent vandalism to this Greek contributers user page (and check out his barnstar). Or check out how one the most popular FYRoM Internet news outlets describes Greeks every day of the year. (and you can choose anyone you like.. they all sound the same). Or compare Google's most popular FYRoM website's views on ancient Macedonian history... then compare it to Wikipedia. Or consider the handle Alex Makedon a FYRoM national below that claims persecution. Alexander of Macedon? Nope... no revisionist history being pushed there. Or how about ALexander of Macedon's recent statement on "neutral" FP's talkpage

The ironic thing is that modern Greeks not only try to appropriate the cultural heritage of the Ancient Hellens, with whom have nothing in common, they are claming exclusive "Greek only" right over it. And now exclusive right on Ancient Macedonia cultural heritage and the use of the term Macedonian.

Nothing in common? Now an entire fricken language doesn't count? Our religion? The names we give our cities and children? Like what the heck does FYRoM have in common that Greeks don't have tenfold? Most of ancient Macedon is already in Greece. I'm sick of listening to some variation of "Greeks aren't Greeks", "Ancient Macedonians weren't Greeks" "Greeks are Turks" "Greeks are an artificial creation of the Great Powers". The ethnic hatred needs to to stop already. There are a zillion articles on Greece and Byzantium to show Greeks aren't exactly a new development already. Do Italians have to put up such nonsense when Rome comes up? Chinese? Koreans? Israelis? Indians? etc... If someone wants to set an expiry date on ethnicity... fine.... but then make sure its official in writing and apply it across the board. Otherwise singling out only Greeks is by definition bigotry.

The 120 plus US Congressmen that accused FYRoM government of hostility and propaganda didn't just make it up for something to do (nor is Obama who co-sponsored a dummy... nor was the US Secretary of State in 1944 assisting in ethnic cleansing when he suggested there was no such thing as an "ethnic Macedonian"). There is no shortage of FYRoM trolls on Wikipedia (and the Internet) trying to suggest Alexander the Great wasn't Greek, that Greeks aren't Greeks, that Greeks are oppressing them because they refuse to give them exclusive ownership of the term "Macedonian". (even [| communists that were booted from Greece they call "persecuted"?]

I know you can't solve these problems singlehandedly nor are you to blame for them (and it must be very frustrating dealing with nationalist trolls from both sides). I don't expect you to go on my word alone. You wouldn't be doing your job as an admin nor as a human being if you immediately trusted what every Tom Dick or Harry with a political axe to grind had to say. All I am hoping from admins is an acknowledgment there is serious amounts of FRYoM hostility and misinformation being directed against Greece on Wikipedia... and to act stronger and in a co-ordinated official fashion against it rather than to continue to be largely silent on the issue. (or try to pawn the issue off to Greeks for refusing to give up their ethnic identity).

Me, my family, my relatives, Greek contributers to the this website... don't all deserve to be constantly attacked simply because some region in a formerly communist country that dissolved into ethnic wars....now blames Greeks for their ethnic identity crisis. Greeks are human beings too. --Crossthets (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Crossthets, how does it feel not to know whether you are a refugee or a native? Does you confusion force you into ancient Macedonian belief? Furthermore, how does it feel to know before the creation of Greece in 1821, the idea of Greece was an obsession of the ancient Hellenes, even though most people in Greece had no cultural or identifiable connection with Hellenes. Also, how does it feel to know most of the revolutionaries of Greece were of Albanian origin? Worse, instead of embracing it, you stole and then said it was always Greek. I can understand why you take up this "Greek Macedonian" identity. If you were Pontic Greek, you were kicked out of your homes in an embarrassing fashion, and forced to re-learn Greek in the Greek mainland. Your ancestors spit on the name "Macedonian", and now you embrace it because your government tells you too. Anyways, iGENEA is one of the most reliable genetic testing available, and most scientific researches are passed through iGENEA before being published. Embarce your origins. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't waste time addressing his quack references (time better spent cleaning up articles) but I'd like to review his DNA claims further to hopefully make it even clearer to you Moreschi why the motives are not reason.... but hatred of Greeks and ultra-nationalism. (and why I think WP admins need to take further organized action on the matter)

On the one side our friend above wholeheartedly accepts the off the cuff non-peer reviewed remarks by a single representative on a general forum of a for-profit DNA-testing company... listing no specific dates for the alleged ancient base profile Haplogroups... no reference to how modern distribution was established... no explanation how many samples were taken past and present, etc etc..

...all as ultimate proof of his true "Macedonian blood" . (completely negating the massive historical records and his own known modern day Slavic heritage). OK. Lets accept his results as definitive proof then :)

Didn't he just go yet on another racial purity rant against Greek ethnicity.... despite that his own forum link results say Greeks are more ancient Hellenes than FYRoM citizens are ancient Macedonian! (35% of the population versus 30%)

And on his own link again... the exact same Igenea rep says later on 18% of Greeks in "northern Greece" (as opposed to referencing it by its official name Macedonia Greece) are genetically related to ancient Macedonians. Well... there are 2.5 million Greek Macedonians.... versus 1.2 million FYRoM nationals...which would still mean there are more Greeks that contain the alleged haplogroups of Macedonian DNA in Greece... then there are in FYRoM! (and the rep seemed oblivious to the obvious question that how can 18% of northern Greeks be related and yet added up only 5% of the total population That would suggest northern Greeks had virtually no sex with southern Greeks for a 2500 year period up to and including today?)

And in an ironic twist, our buddy above has not been tested himself (or he would have mentioned it). He doesn't think to ask himself if only 30% of the population of FYRoM is related.... gasp... then chances are he most likely is NOT one of them!

This sort of blind hatred and racism by FYRoM nationals is what Greeks are dealing with day-in-day-out non-stop because the FYRoM government refuses to acknowledge that modern Macedonia is a "region" and that modern Greeks do have legitimate ethnic claims to call themselves Macedonians as well as Athenians, Spartans, and the rest of Greek culture ancient and present. (Which is no different then the rest of the ethnicities of the world)

I have a single friend from FYRoM. We talked about this issue once. What I suggested was a hypothetical situation where Greece and FYRoM decided to became a single nation.... this way every self-identifying Macedonian would still be free to call themselves Macedonian without issues.

He then launched into a tirade about Greek's are idiots and how they've oppressed "Macedonians" since ancient times. I was shocked at such bigoted comments coming from a longtime friend (who is generally not politically oriented type). We remain friends since that time (although we never talk about his issue)... but that answer.. and subsequent observations of open racism by their citizens, media and government directed against Greeks... has hardened my stance against them. All they are doing is impregnating their kids with the idea they are some sort of pure ancient Macedonian simply because they are part of the modern region. Ask any Bulgarian and they will be the first to tell you they belittle their own Bulgarian cultural heritage.

I'm not a racist or xenophobic or all the other nasty stereotypes Greeks are being accused of. There is no such thing as racial purity in any nation. Its common sense populations overlap and we are all made up of many things. I just want to preserve Greek culture and language no matter what proportion of my DNA turns out to be ancient Hellene, or Persian, or Slav, or Jewish, or Chinese, or German, or whatever. I do so because I fell in love with Greece and its wonderful history. (and would personally welcome anyone as an equally Greek that truly felt the same about it). So much has come out of that tiny piece of land. I do not believe it is remotely deserving of the endless stream of hate being currently heaped on it or the millions of Greeks that keep a part of that history and culture alive. --209.161.234.145 (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not hatred or racism, its simply to show you that no evidence is good enough for you. No matter what is shown to your people (the Greeks) you will always believe that you are "an ancient Macedonian" (i must lol a little) and we are "skopians" (not to be confused with the animal scorpion). Believe it or not, most things that go into highly acclaimed science journals like "Science" pass through iGENEA. Instead of speaking to representatives of iGENEA to find out the answers you have questions too, you use those questions as excuses to ride off the iGENEA DNA test as "invalid." You probably have little knowledge on science and yet you want to make a case against iGENEA about how their methods are inappropriate. It gives new meaning to the term "critic." Anyways, if you truly wanted to disprove iGENEA, you would email them and find out answers, but instead you continue to use excuses simply because Wikipedia is an oasis for you. In any case, you claim racism, yet your nation, an entire nation, has systemically tried to extinguish the Macedonian identity of the face of Macedonia which touches the Aegean Sea. You have no say because instead of investigating your government and trying to give human rights to people other then Greeks within your country, you go along with it. One word: hypocrite 98.243.158.123 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not racism.... says a troll that comes to Wikipedia proclaiming " for the Macedonian blood flows through our veins", and "The language and culture don't matter".

First off, it seems very arrogant of a 30-60 year old person to come on WP and use wording like "trolls" against other users, t says a lot about your personality. Genetic testing has proven, is being proven, and will continue to prove that the modern Macedonians from the region of Macedonia are descendants of the ancient Macedonians, whether you want to admit it or not. 2.5 million Greeks from the region of Macedonia state they are ancient Macedonian, yet only 18% of the region (around 200,000 people) actually have any ancient Macedonian blood, and I wouldn't be shocked it they were from the ethnic Macedonian minority. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not hate of Greeks.... says the troll that continued to undermine Greek ethnicity even though his own alleged foolproof evidence indicated Greeks are more Greek than FRYoM citizens are Macedonian.

I don't undermine Greek ethnicity, but this political campaign against Macedonians have got to stop. Your government has tried confusing everyone by falsely stating other nations revert recognition to FYROM, by falsely stating Greeks in Republic of Macedonia have no rights (even though the whole world knows ethnic Macedonians in Greece has no rights) and by falsely stating Macedonia has been Greek for 12343254435534534543 years. What a joke, what ever claim is made against Greece, Greece turns around and makes the same claim... there's a reason the world is recognizing Macedonia by its name. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Greeks trying to extinguish the Macedonian identity... says the troll that ignores the existence of 2.5 million modern Greek Macedonians... and 10 million plus total Greeks that identify with ancient Macedon.

I don't care that they call themselves Greek Macedonians, its an issue when they claim they are direct descendants of ancient Macedonians, which "2.5 million" Greeks are claiming when they say they are "Greek Macedonian." Everyone knows half the population of Macedonia (with the Aegean Sea) are composed of Pontic Greek refugees. Everyone also knows before 1913 the Macedonia region was predominantly Slavic and Greece forced Hellenism onto them. Considering all this, it is a comedy to think out of 2.6 million inhabitants of Macedonia (with the Aegean Sea), 2.5 million (99%) believe they are ancient Macedonians.

Men of Athens...Had I not greatly at heart the common welfare of Hellas I should not have come to tell you; but I am myself Hellene by descent, and I would not willingly see Hellas exchange freedom for slavery. (Alexander of Macedon competitor at the Olympics - Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45)

Alexander speaks: "The Macedonians are going to judge your case," he said. "Please state whether you will use your native language before them."

Philotas: "Besides the Macedonians, there are many present who, I think, will find what I am going to say easier to understand if I use the language you yourself have been using, your purpose, I believe, being only to enable more people to understand you."

Then the king said: "Do you see how offensive Philotas find even his native language? He alone feels an aversion to learning it. But let him speak as he pleases - only remember he as contemptuous of our way of life as he is of our language." (Quintus Curtius Rufus 138) 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This the same troll that ignores no census data from when the Ottomans occupied the region of Macedonia...ever recorded the existence of "ethnic Macedonians".

I thought the older people were, the more knowledgable they will be, but apparently this is not the case. Look at this census "Greek, Bulgarian, Muslim." Where are the Albanians? Where are the Serbians? Where are the Vlachs? It is clear the identity of the person is based on their religious orientations! Considering the majority of Vlach were with the Bulgarian or Greek Orthodox Church, they were classified as Greek or Bulgarian. While the majority of Albanians were Muslim, they were regarded as such. The same applies to the Macedonians. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The troll that implicately accuses the US government of participating in ethnic cleansing by trying to extinguish the Macedonian Identity... when in 1944 the US Secretary of State E.Stettinius suggested this of the former communist propagandists that murdered thousands of Greeks to spread their glorious freedom crushing system...

The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.

Blah blah blah, everyone knows it was Communism vs Capitalism. It didn't matter what the truth was in those days, if you were Communist you were an enemy. If you were Capitalist (Greek) you had the full support of the USA because you were an ally against USSR. You try to confused political motives with the truth, sad. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How many Macedonian identities does FYRoM exactly have? Are Greeks also to blame when Kiro Gligorov, their first President, stated..

'"We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians.'

No I wouldn't blame the Greeks for his statements. It is well known he is a Communist sadist, and believes fully in it. Stating they were Slavic gives Macedonia a larger region to be apart of Yugoslavia, it was methods to reunite Macedonia with there other Communist brothers in Yugoslavia. We all know the results of it though, there's a reason he lives in hiding today. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These legions of manipulative hateful trolls are not only engaged in an injustice towards Greeks... not only vastly oversimplify the issues to make fools of well meaning third parties unfamiliar with the finer details... but also have no qualms with making a travesty of all human history to match their own ultra-nationalist narrative. --Crossthets (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Truth is Macedonians were never regarded as Greek before the establishment of Greece, even by Greek historians themselves. The change in view was done to create unity in support of the "Great Idea", in which the Macedonians "united" the Greek states, even though before hand it was viewed that Macedonia ended Greek freedom. Information was twisted and selected, to support a political cause. But still, after 100 years, few believe Macedonians were Greek. You have forced us to read our history, and in the process expose your governments. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does any of that relate to the modern Slavic ethnic group? Even if the ancient Macedonians were not Greek, that doesn't make you their descendants. Talk about a logical fallacy. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 03:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Slavic ethnic" group, Slavic is simply a common language like Latin or Celtic. The Macedonians aren't Greek, your government has used your people as pawns in a game to keep there annexed Macedonia, forcing Slavs, Pontic Greeks, and Vlachs to convert to "Greek Macedonian." WE are the descendants because our people lived in the region of Macedonia for generations, and the interesting thing is we were concentrated in Greek Macedonia before the Greek government kicked us out from our homeland. Living in the land was bound to mix the natives (Macedonians) and the barbarians (Slavs), which DNA testing has and continues to confirm. You cannot comprehend a simple thing: descendants don't need to have the same language/culture as their ancestors. Thracians today are apart of the Bulgarian identity and speak Slavic and have Slavic culture, but that doesn't mean the Bulgarians aren't ancestors of the Thracians. Lebanese people today have Arabic language and Arabic culture, but they are still the descendants of the Phoenicians. This has happened many times throughout history, and Macedonians are just another example. This is completely different from Greek logic, which states you can be Greek and be descendants of the ancients if you take their culture and language. You can migrate from Turkey, you can be forcefully assimilated, or you can by choice become a descendant of the ancient Greeks in Greece. 98.243.158.123 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but there is. First you claim genetic continuity going back all the way to Paleolithic times, then you claim descent specifically from the ancient Macedonians, who established their kingdom much later. It makes your arguments seem decidedly specious. The notion that "language and culture don't matter" contradicts all serious scholarship on the nature of national identities. Even so, if genetics is all that matters, then by your own admission you are "only" 30% "Macedonian", right? In other words, you're mostly not. By the way, you do know what the language, culture, and self-identification of the native Macedonians was when the Slavs arrived, don't you? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Greeks claim genetic continuity... they are racists. If they claim cultural continuity... it doesn't count. Personally I think both are true but no amount of evidence will be enough for some. Even when their own politicians say it outright that they aren't related they don't pay attention.

The idea that Alexander the Great belongs to us was at the mind of some outsider groups only. These groups were insignificant in the first years of our independence. But the big problem is that the old Balkan nations have been learned to legitimate themselves through their history. In the Balkans to be recognized as a nation you need to have history of 2,000 to 3,000 years old. Since you (Greece) forced us to invent a history, we did invent it.” (Denko Maleski, Foreign Minister of FYROM from 1991 to 1993)

Macedonian Ban???

hi can you kindly sate what is the so called "recent disruptive editing" you banned me for all about? In the talk page I was the one that got offended with personal racial attacks, and i have asked for Admin assistance as you can see here Perfect at Sunrise Let me quote some of the offences i got:

• "That's rather rich coming from a Slav"
• "what is your "racial and ethnic appartenance", oh Great One"
• "I'm glad you've finally mastered the spelling "
• "your irrelevant personal opinion"
• "your ethnonationalism"

etc, as you can see i did all to keep the good faith WP:AGF and stick to WP:NPOV and WP:CIV, and I get the Disruptive editing ban and the person that used racial personal attacks like "That's rather rich coming from a Slav" nothing, ookk... Any way the ban is irrelevant since my editing work on the [Macedonian] aticle and the related talk page discussion for now is finished. Alex Makedon (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Long-term edit-warring (and very lame edit-warring), plus talkpage stirring. Moreschi (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well:

• The Atricle page edit warrning from 10:33, 19 October 2008 was closed after 1,5h with 11:42, 19 October 2008 the last edit of the page. the page has not been edited since, so whats the point of bannig me at 23:28, 21 October on "Long-term edit-warring" when it was a closed matter?
• "talkpage stirring" is your POV and if you want to ban people by "talkpage stirring" why dont you start from the "That's rather rich coming from a Slav" racist?

This matter is going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Alex Makedon (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_Moreschi_unresonable_ban instead of ANI. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A request

Hello, there has been one editor on the Holodomor talk page who continues to disrupt and make reverts without explanation. What makes this annoying is that the editor in question seems to have a very limited grasp on the English language. Sections of the talk page have been devoted to her/him, but unfortunately there seems to be no slowing - actually, said editor seems to want to just practice English. Would you please look into it? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

Hi Moreschi. Could you please take a look at the issue with the map at the article Nagorno-Karabakh? It was included in the article by User:Vacio without any prior discussion, and User:VartanM restores it to the article: [65] The map is taken from a website, the owner of which is not a published scholar. He never published any books or works on the subject and is not a reliable source. The issue was discussed at WP:RSN here: [66]. A third party user, Peregrine Fisher, who previously was not involved in the dispute over this map, said that the source is not acceptable. But Meowy and VartanM keep insisting that the map should remain. I would appreciate your attention to the issue. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster is being less than honest. He refused to address any of the points I raised in the discussions here and here. And Peregrine Fisher did not say that the source is unacceptable. He actually said that if the map was from a blog (which it is not) and contained contested borders (which it does not), then it is not accceptable. It's unfortunate that there were no new faces contibuting opinions in the reliable sources discussion - I would have liked some responses to my last point about the maps being images, not sources. Meowy 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

your vote

HI since you are rightfully concerned: [67] (see the talk page). Incidentally, the same issue came up with another template which had more implications for nationalistic sentiments rather than an Encyclopedia came up and I changed it to:[68] it. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

May I ask your opinion about the edit war at Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Colchicum (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow wikipedians...

I've sent you (and others) the following email:

Dear fellow wikipedians,

Hello, my name is Todd (tcob44) and I'd like to ask you for a moment of your time. Although I'm usually only a casual wikipedia user, lately I've been using more of your website as a sort of "research starting-point" if you will for my forth-coming book. Although I think the concept of wikipedia is phenomenal, I've recently developed somewhat of a love-hate relationship with it. I love the fact that everyone can edit the articles. However, I have also grown to hate this very same fact, if only because there isn't some sort of IQ requirement required beforehand. Anyway, I've been using wikipedia to point me in the right direction on a variety of topics and usually I don't take the time to edit anything unless I find something extremely biased or just simply incorrect. That brings me to the Knights Templar article. Elonka Dunin has done an excellent job in writing a fairly well-rounded article on the Templars. (Nice work, Elonka!) Clearly, she is a good writer and obviously fairly intelligent. However, I found one or two things on this article I thought should be either expanded upon or corrected. For example, on this sentence:

"On Friday, October 13, 1307 (a date sometimes incorrectly linked with the origin of the Friday the 13th superstition)[22][23][24] Philip ordered de Molay and scores of other French Templars to be simultaneously arrested."

I changed "incorrectly linked" to "frequently linked". In turn, this caused Elonka to revert it back and then myself to do the same. (Lather, rinse, repeat if necessary.) After a couple of reverts/undos, I noticed on the discussion page I had been warned about being blocked (never aware of this before, nor the "talk" page as I'm generally more of a casual user.) Anyway, I became increasingly frustrated and finally decided to ask Elonka the below question on her "talk" page:

"Why did you try to have me banned from wikipedia for (valiantly) attempting to make this article more accurate? Anyway, apparently I'm not well-connected enough to contest your strangle-hold on this article, but that doesn't change the fact that "incorrectly linked" is not in any way a proveable statement. (Neither snopes, urban legends, nor a single 1957 article disprove this.) Since my "frequently linked" is not up to you and your friends liking, perhaps you can reword it yourself with something that is actually honest and truthful. Thanks in advance. tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

To this, she replied:

"I would welcome efforts to make the Knights Templar or Friday the 13th articles more accurate. However, to do this, you would need to be able to provide reliable sources with which any new information can be verified. Instead, you seem to be deleting existing sources, and then stating what you "logically" believe, without providing any new sources. If you do locate any new sources, I and the other editors on those articles would be happy to review them, so that we can reach a consensus on how to to best present any new theories with the appropriate weight. --Elonka 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

Now, I have numerous books which "frequently link" these two topics, so I was willing to take the time and look them up in order to provide her with documented sources, but only if she wasn't going to revert it back. So I later asked:

"Are you actually going to change "incorrectly linked" to "frequently linked" on this article- excuse me, I mean *your* article? Otherwise, what is the point of me doing so (other than letting you waste even more of my time)? BTW- All three of your sources still do not disprove this connection, so why do you continue to say "incorrectly linked"? tcob44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcob44 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

Although my tone might be slightly on the abrasive side, I was extremely frustrated at this point (especially over the fact that I was being threatened with being blocked for simply having another point of view) and I think I did an excellent job of keeping things civil. If I upset her, I'm sorry. After this, however, she wasn't replying to any of the below points I made about why her wording was not accurate (perhaps they were too well-argued;). Not to mention, I was using her own references to make these points.

"According to the urbanlegends article you cited regarding the Templar origins for the Friday the 13th superstition, "Even more problematic, for this or any other theory positing premodern origins for Friday the 13th superstitions, is the fact that no one has been able to document the existence of such beliefs prior to the 19th century. If people who lived before the late 1800s perceived Friday the 13th as a day of special misfortune, no evidence has been found to prove it. As a result, some scholars are now convinced the stigma is a thoroughly modern phenomenon exacerbated by 20th-century media hype." Logically, if "some scholars are now convinced", this means that some scholars are also unconvinced. Therefore, your statement "incorrectly linked" is, quite simply, incorrect. Of course, I would love to change the word "incorrectly" to "frequently", but I think Elonka owes it to herself to make this change personally. And although a formal apology would be nice, I will not further provoke her wrath for daring to touch her article;) tcob44 28-10-2008 6:50am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.42.112 (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

Afterwards, I made another final appeal to her on her talk page, and this was the only reply I received:

"In order to sign a post, add four tildes to it, like this: 68.219.153.60 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC) --Elonka 21:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

I liked this comment, personally. She seems to have a sense of humor. (Again, I'm mostly a casual user, so I was typing my signatures the ol' fashioned way). Regardless, I assumed since she was no longer arguing me, that this was her way of conceding. (I'm a stubborn person, too, so I know how it is.) I truly assumed that she had understood my point(s). Not to mention, on the Templar discussion page, there were a couple of fellow wikipedians who also agreed with me.

"I don't see the problem with rewording "sometimes incorrectly" with "arguably". It is clearly arguable and there is no concrete evidence for or against the claim. Regardless, it is a matter of opinion and a neutral ground should be found. Fattimus (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

"I personally wouldn't be against tweaking the wording in some ways, but not to your preferred version... [Then Avruch warns me about "edit-warring"]... Avruch T 04:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)"

"I do hope we aren't considering snopes.com and about.com as 'academic works'. Everything that I have researched has not proved anything except that nothing was ever documented about a relationship between the two. This is why I agree with incorporating "arguable" into the sentence, as this topic is, and always will be, open to debate. It simply -cannot- be proven as fact or fiction. Fattimus (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

So I changed it to read "frequently connected" again. Afterwards, I also added another explanation to the so-called "Baphomet" theory. And I didn't even remove the (ludicrous) "Mahomet" theory. For this, I find myself blocked for:

• • fringe theory pushing both under this account and as two IPs on Templar articles**

Fringe-theory?!? For correctly stating that some scholars maintain that 'Baphomet' is an atbash cipher for 'Sophia'. (Hancock, Schonefeld, Prince, Picknett, Starbird, etc) Which makes more sense than a misspelling of Mahomet (Muhammad) considering the Order was named after the Temple of Solomon, the person credited with initiating the Wisdom (Sophia) tradition in Jewish literature! As for two IP's, I don't have two IP's. Although sometimes I've noticed that when I go to wikipedia I'm logged in and other times I'm not. Does this create two IP's? If so, why ban me for such a thing? Does it really matter if I fail to notice whether or not I'm signed in when I visit wikipedia?

Regardless, I think this is a terrible way to treat your fellow users and the wikipedia community. The whole point of wikipedia is to allow different points of view be expressed. This (re)action on the part of wikipedia runs completely against the very community spirit both fellow wikipedians and internet users love so much. I imagine Elonka feels very proud of her article, and she should be, but if she's not going to allow others to edit it, than perhaps wikipedia isn't the best place to post it! Not to mention, instead of counter-arguing any of my points, she stops responding to me. Even more over-the-top, she goes back to trying to getting me blocked. (This time, successfully.) Isn't this type of behaviour exactly the anti-thesis of the spirit of wikipedia? I am clearly not vandalizing. Personally, I'm becoming concerned that wikipedia is becoming anti-community instead of pro-community. If Elonka's simply still a little upset over some of my (slightly) abrasive comments, fine. But emotions should not get in the way of either fairness, accuracy, truth, and most importantly, the expression of other viewpoints. The entire history of the scientific community, of which wikipedia and the internet is a part, is built upon the foundation of innovation and thinking outside the box. Even if it is a "fringe theory" (and it most certainly is not), so what?!? Wikipedia is now stooping to the level of blocking someone for sharing another point of view? For simply adding more information to a community-built online encyclopedia? I have to ask: Is this normal, or is this some extenuating set of circumstances? I truly hope it is the latter. I honestly hope that Elonka is simply being stubborn and that her getting me blocked is only a knee-jerk emotional response. I'd truly hate to think that the community spirit of wikipedia has devolved to this level. Specifically, that the adminstrators would block users who try to present other points of view and share them with fellow wikipedians. Please tell me I'm wrong. Please tell me things haven't come down to this sort of childishness and pettiness!?!

Anyway, I thank you for taking the time to read this. If anyone happens think that should be unblocked, please do so, I'd appreciate it. It will truly help salvage my current opinion of this formerly phenomenal online community. If you have any questions of comments, please email me or do the "talk" page thingy. Thanks in advance.

Truthfully yours-

Todd (tcob44)

User:MacedonianBoy

Hi Moreschi, MacedonianBoy has been continuously violating his 4-month ban you have imposed on 14th of July [69]. Supposedly he was not to edit Balkan-related articles throughout the ban but practically he has never stopped doing so [70].--Avg (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Jat people

Hi Moreschi, please can you semi-protect the Jat people page like you did back in April:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jat_people&diff=203021699&oldid=203021639

But this time can you make it an indefinite period of semi-protection, as many ethnic group pages are semi-protected indefinitely e.g. Jewish people, this stops anon vandals vandalising the page.

This anon vandal has been vandalising the Jat people page for the last 4 months.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.185.128.31

So please can you give this ethnic group (Jat people) indefinite semi-protection like the Jewish people and many other ethnic groups have on wikipedia.

Best regards,

James.

--James smith2 (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rinaldo

Would this recording be any use to you? We cannot use the restored MP3, but I could restore the unedited .wav that the UCSB claims no copyright on. It's a translation, of course, but competently enough done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Prolep-Bitol dialect

Hi! I am one of those contributors who is involved in the edit war Prilep-Bitola dialect. I am not very glad that I am involved in this, but I am trying to express my oppinion just like the others - especially Future Perfect in Sunrise. I don't understand whar happened. Future Perfect deleted even my opinions in the talk page. Maybe he want to show me as a vandal? Or he presented me as a vandal somewhere and nobody gives me an opportunity to defend myself. I hope that somebody will help me without personal feelings and preferables.--JSimin (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I was wondering if you could help me copyright use this page. I do not want it deleted simply because I wrote the copyright wrong, please help. Mactruth (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ

What is this. Would you like to chek this. Thanks --Raso mk (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutralhomer and Twinkle

Hi Moreschi, in the past, you were one who removed User:Neutralhomer's access to Twinkle (see Special:Undelete/User:Neutralhomer/monobook.js) because of his abuse of the tool. I just wanted to let you know that his abuse is being discussed again at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Twinkle_abuse should you care to comment. Thank you, Metros (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Moreschi, I have been discussing the refugee children of the Greek civil war, stating my opinions and arguments while avoiding personal attacks. ΚΕΚΡΩΨ decided to break away from dialogue and express harsh personal attacks. I hope the appropriate actions will be taken. Regards, Mactruth (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hope the appropriate actions will be taken against your sickening attempt to trivialize the Pontian Genocide. I also suggest that your user page be examined for its inflammatory hate speech against Greece and Greeks, whom you pejoratively refer to as "Christian Turks". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not state the Pontic Greek genocide did not occur, nor did I say anything wrong about it. I simply used it as an example to show that both are well sourced, and because of that a double standard is occurring. As for the "hate speech", I simply posted articles showing the actions of the Greek government. How is that hate speech? I'm not the one stating "F YOU" to people when I don't comprehend their arguments. Mactruth (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI Mactruth is still under a 6-month revert parole on all articles, as imposed by Fut.Perf. [71], which he has violated many times by using his IP address, which was recently blocked twice in a few days [72]. Association of Mactruth and his IP (admitted by himself) here: [73] --Avg (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I will honesty state two things: 1) I forgot the parole was in affect 2) I'm not sure what "revert" means... I think it means I cannot change other peoples statements or change an article. If it also includes talk pages and etc, please notify me and I will correct the mistake. As for the recent changes using my IP address, a consideration should be used when addressing that argument: I am not the only one who uses the computer. That being stated, only when I'm logged in should the associated changes be regarded as made by me. Mactruth (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You even signed it "Mactruth". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a while ago and not accredited to the RECENT edit changes done under my IP address. A while ago I did not know my password, so I simply used my IP address. After I got my password back, I have not used the IP signature, but instead my screenname on WP. Mactruth (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

None of that alters the fact that you were edit warring throughout the duration of your revert parole, whether you were signed in or not. Logging out does not absolve you of any penalties that may have been imposed on you. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, back to the issue at hand, hopefully the personal attack will be taken care of. Mactruth (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, after being reminded of the revert parole you'd "forgotten" about, you're still edit warring. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a surprise, though, considering that's precisely what you were doing recently over at the ethnic template and on people's talk pages. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First off, I will wait for Moreschi's comments before I change what I am doing since a clear definition of the situation is still not presented. Second, "edit waring" is the wrong term, because these edits are the addition of new information, which is different then simply "flip flopping" the same edit back and fourth. Initially, all the maps were Bulgarian biased, I REMOVED a few Bulgarian and added some maps showing Macedonian ethnicity, but a member stated not to remove a maps so it was reverted. After, I simply added the same maps showing Macedonian ethnicity, but did NOT remove the Bulgarian biased maps, thus having an even ratio of "THERE IS MACEDONIAN ETHNICITY" vs "THEY ARE BULGARIAN" maps... creating a more NPOV article. What is the problem with that? Third, I already stated my comments before, as not being the only person in the household who edits Wikipedia, comments made while I am not signed in cannot be accredited directly to me. In any case, you are the one who is stating "F YOU" out of frustration, while I have been doing constructive edits to the articles (constructive meaning more NPOV) Mactruth (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, good job not commenting your statements, and purposely ignoring your words. Instead of stating why you do these actions, you try to make me look like the "bad guy." Childish games. Mactruth (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you also be behind this delightful homophobic outburst? Judging from the anonymous IPs' edit histories and their common association with Michigan, coupled with your apparent monologue here, that could well be the case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you not hear yourself? You have made conclusions based on invalid argument. That is a different IP address, but apparently all Wikipedia users that write anti-Greek statements are me? How foolish you have made yourself to be... Foolish argument, foolish conclusions, and gaping evidence. Again, you use threats as an argument and conclusions thought up in your mind. Yet, you continue to ignore a reply to your "F YOU" statements. I know the purpose of these actions are to frustrate me into an outburst, and get focus away from the main issue. But, please in the future reply to your actions before making accusations, and do not make conclusions simply out of speculation. Mactruth (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, different IP addresses with practically identical edit histories and summaries to yours. One of them was signed "Mactruth" and resolves to Dearborn Heights, Michigan, while the other is associated with Wayne State University. I've said what I had to say; I'll let the powers that be decide if my suspicions are correct. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

First, its kinda creepy that you obsess as far as getting locations of IP addresses, would you like to share your location or how to get your location. Whether its legal or not, I'm not sure and I will talk to my lawyer about the matter. Second, its obvious that you are trying to create a scare tactic, but like I stated everyone's views should be appropriated into Wikipedia. There's a large Macedonian population in Michigan, and its not surprising that many IP addresses are of close proximity. There is probably other IP addresses of similar location that you have not paid attention too. Mactruth (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, the issue at hand is whether "F YOU" should follow consequences, but instead of replying with your argument to it, you use possible illegal methods to find out locations of IP addresses, to shut me up. That is very noble of you Kekrops, but I'm not surprised. Mactruth (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You must be joking - anyone can check the location of an IP address on Wikipedia. What you can't do is make legal threats like you did in your previous post. What you also did is braking your revert-parole at least once today.--Laveol ^T 01:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, by the looks of it you have broken your 1RR on Template:Ethnic Macedonians on the 23rd Oct editing from your IP. Hmm, + you're either a sock- or a meatpuppeteer. Nice work. --Laveol ^T 01:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, you state I am racist for stating Greek Macedonians are a mix of native Hellenic, Pontic Greek, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach, yet you completely have ignored your statements in which you blatantly state ethnic Macedonians are an invention of Communism, even though evidence suggests otherwise. It isn't racist to state we are skopjans and try to lie about its us stating "I have a friend who lets me say it"? I didn't make legal threats, I stated I will check with my lawyer on the legality of its actions. For the 1RR issue, like I stated I need a definition on whether it includes talk pages. And ps: I wasn't even on Wikipedia that day. Mactruth (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Or how about where you constantly quote the Macedonian language and the ethnicity and even show your pre-disposed view that all statements from the diaspora is simply propaganda against Greece? And simply stating we are ethnic Macedonian is offensive? But you may think, "that was in 2006", welp even those days Kekpros quotes the Macedonian language and ethnicity, and even uses the derogatory term of Skopje for RoMacedonia. The provisional accord doesn't state Skopje, but that isn't racist is it Kekpros? Instead of creating dialogue to view each position, Kekpros often becomes frustrated with the issue because of his pre-determined views which have been present for over 2 years now, and relies on intimidating the person he is discussing with. Mactruth (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

In terms of Sock puppeting, Kekrops was [suspected] to being a sock puppet in the past. I have already stated my argument, I am not the only one who uses Wikipedia on this IP address, if there any way I can forcibly deny Wikipedial access to other uses on this IP? If there is, let me know and I will do it. Mactruth (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I stated Moreschi, this "second IP address" I have no control over, close proximity due to large Macedonian community in the region cannot be blamed on me. As for my IP address being used recently, it was not me who did it, it was another member who uses the same computer. If there is any possibility to forcefully block the other recipient from editing I will do it, but I don't know what else to say, I'll yell at the kid but other then that I can't really do much. Mactruth (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yo, everyone

Do you think you could find somewhere to take this that isn't debating on someone else's user talk page? If you haven't noticed, Moreschi hasn't edited in two days now, and I don't know if he'd want to come back to a debate like this on his talk page to catch up on. Think you can take it elsewhere? Metros (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, sorry... they were very creative in making up allegations against me and I had to reply against them. Mactruth (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean-Syriac people

It hasn't sorted itself out yet (I have rarely come across an admin more in need of your coaching program than Akradecki (talk · contribs)), but I am trying Afd now. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Peters and RJ CG: separate or connected sock puppet rings?

Hi,

a recent checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG) has found quite a number of sock puppets ran by RJ CG. One of them, Nierva, however, had been blocked some two weeks earlier as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters, instead. Avraham took a look at this overlap, and can't tell from technical evidence whether Nierva is RJ CG's or Jacob Peters' sock puppet.

You have experience with Jacob Peters, so you are familiar with his behaviour patterns. Can you, please, see whether they match those of RJ CG? It's not of high priority, as the disruption has already been contained, but I'm curious. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

<scratches head>

Frankly, I'm surprised the technical evidence isn't clearer. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jacob Peters contains a whopping great list of IPs Jakey has previously used. It's mostly Los Angeles, particularly those belonging to the University network and most notably Glendale Community College (California), which I've been forced to hardblock off entirely. I've not known JP deviate from outside this IP usage, and please bear in mind it is perfectly possible for two hardcore Russian nationalists to be living in California - you get lots of strange people there.

As regards behaviour pattern - I don't think so, but it's possible. I don't remember any of anti-Balt behaviour that we got with RJ CG coming from any known JP account. Obviously the POV in general is pretty much the same, as are the behaviours of edit-warring and incivility. My impression is that RJ CG's English was better, although having said that I think JP has got more fluent recently. What I suggest is for you to get Avi to send me the IPs used by the RJ CG sock ring and I'll see if there's a connection. I don't think there will be, but yes, it would be interesting. Moreschi (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG appears to reside in Canada, not California. His first known anonymous IP address is 206.186.8.130, which according to whois belongs to Toronto Transit Commission. Canada and California are so far apart that I'm satisfied these two are different people. Thus, the only question that remains is, which one is behind Nierva.

I've requested that Avraham discuss his findings with you. However, should this curious case remain unresolved, would it be appropriate to list User:Nierva as a sock puppet of two suspected masters? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

After further discussion, I have become convinced that User:Nierva is properly labelled as User:RJ CG's sock puppet. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested to learn that User:RJ_CG has been connected with User:Roobit in this checkuser. This may explain why Roobit disappeared when RJ CG became a regular, and why Roobit reappeared after more than a year of only two edits when RJ CG was banned. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw it and was somewhat surprised. RJCG seemed to be a more insidious Canadian account, whereas Roobit was, I think mostly US based and promoted Nazi-style racial slurs. This may warrant further investigation! ;-) --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC) What is sure, however, is that Poetcourt1 is a sock puppet of Roobit, since the latter account reappeared on his own talk page an hour after the former sock was blocked. I almost sense that we have more to come from the Red-Brown corner... --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the real person behind Roobit's account crosses the Atlantic regularly. The main reason RJ CG is considered Canadian is that he first edited using an IP address traceable to the Toronto Transit Commission. Beyond that, evidence for RJ CG's Canadianness is slim at best. Thus, it is entirely plausible that TTC is merely one of the locations Roobit visits regularly. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alex Makedon

Oh lord, I was hoping to never hear anything about this stupid garbage ever again, but since you seem to have the misfortune of being involved in all of this, I thought I wanted to let you know that this dude tried to recruit me for this AfD. I don't know if you care or not, but I figured you should know nonetheless. Good luck, man. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Excursion

[74] This change has been added by Nostradamus1. The reference added is written only in Bulgarian and apparently is not verifiable by an independent source. On the Big Excursion talk page, I have listed SEVEN different sources that state that it was ethnic Turks demonstrating. Thus the sentence referenced by Hupchick, "Beginning in May 1989, "amid organized, neo-fascist mass public demonstrations", is incorrect. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."[75]. Also, sources for English wikipedia need to be in English, do they not?

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

Also, Nostradamus1 is removing a reference, call it POV pushing! He's reverted my reference 3 times now[76]. Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be removing the Yalamov, I., The History of the Turkish Community in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian), 2002, ISBN 954 771 024 1 reference, in the Big Excursion article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? That sounds like a perfectly acceptable source. Sources don't need to be in English. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And we are to accept "certain" editors translations of said "source"? Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Answered on article talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Slow day on Wikipedia?

This reminded me of some of the things I've seen on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Compare Church of the Holy Sepulchre#Status quo. Evidently they lack somebody with proper ARBSEPULC discretionary powers over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Twice each day, a Joudeh family member brings the key to the door, which is locked and unlocked by a Nusseibeh." <boggle> I wasn't aware the dispute went back so far, though logically I suppose it has to have done. The ladder thing is funny as well. Well, I say 'funny' in an advised way, as none of this is at all really funny. Carcharoth (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

Could you please take care of the little trollfest on Talk:Kosovo? Both sides seem to have forgotten that the article is under probation. Colchicum (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming ArbCom elections

Hi,

I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements. Would you consider running? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Support I need my election fix.... Verbal chat 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Sounds an excellent idea. dougweller (talk) 06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a rather pathetic list, bar none. Please do run. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Run, Moreschi, run! (You'll have my vote!)
--NBahn (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry. No. I simply haven't got the time this time round (although circumstances could change, I guess) and it would be dishonest to run and then not be able to put in the necessary commitment. Besides, I'm not sure arbcom in its current form will survive next year or even deserves to, and have no wish to book my ticket aboard the Wikipedia equivalent of the Lusitania (no disrespect to Kirill and Brad intended, but I am not optimistic).

• But yes, it is a pretty dire list at the moment. If you were thinking of voting for me, I reckon your best bet is to go for Vassyana, who has a good sense of priorities, good judgment, and certainly the right sort of personality (probably better than mine, in all honesty). Carcharoth and Sam Korn are also definite possibilities, even the former and I don't always see eye-to-eye. But all the rest are either old names when new ones are needed, non-entities, joke nominations, or damaged goods. The odd one out is Rlevse, but I'm dubious about one guy having both +sysop, +crat, +checkuser, and +oversight and being on the arbcom. IMO that's too many hats to juggle all at once, unless the guy just lives online (which isn't healthy either).

• Probably next year then, if I think it would be worth it, if arbcom survives in an acceptable form and looks like continuing to be useful, and if by this time next year I don't think I could do more good elsewhere. Despite more limited time recently, Wikipedia has been going rather well as of late, although I need to get back to writing more. Various hotspots seem to be slowly settling down: catching the Enriquecardova and Omniposcent sock hordes has helped, and will do in future, with a gradual clean-up of Afrocentrism articles; Balkans is vaguely under some sort of ARBMACed control; the South Ossetia war caused far less chaos than might otherwise have been expected; SRA has calmed down...even India-Pakistan and Hindutva-pseudoscience isn't as bad as it otherwise could be. Obviously there are still major problems with Eastern European topics and pseudoscience ones, but I am hopeful that progress can be made here. I can do more here off the arbcom over the next year, which will be a key time if the deadlocks are to be broken, than I can on it. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg park avenue banned

As I've indicated on arbcom, I don't think he is disruptive enough for that. He got baited by Boodlesthecat into some uncivil remarks, and skirted BLP, but it was some time ago, and he doesn't exhibit any pattern of disruptive edits. A civility parole and BLP warning would be enough, I'd think? Or is there something in the evidence that makes you disagree? I might have missed it - so do tell me if you think I am wrong about him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Balkan nationalist edit-warrior (incl. move-warring)

Bože pravde (talk · contribs). Take care of him. Colchicum (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:ARBMAC

Hello,

I would kindly like to protest the above language. "Take care of him"? "Nationalist"? That, my friend, sounds like a threat and an insult to me and I would like an apology.

Secondly, if I have been disruptive in my editing, I apologize and will take a month off Kosovo-related articles. However, I'd like to know in which way I was disruptive on talk pages of Kosovo-related articles. I've done nothing but present firm arguments supported by many other Wikipedia editors, and I am working on a consensus concerning the Kosovo article. For example, is this (my last edit on the talk page before getting a warning) disruptive? I kindly ask to reconsider my ban on Kosovo-related talk pages, unless you still consider I've been disruptive in that aspect as well. Also, am I allowed to discuss Kosovo-related articles with administrator ChrisO who has requested me to write any wrongdoings that I notice in Kosovo-related articles? All the best, --GOD OF JUSTICE 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No apologies from me until hell freezes over. But you seem sincerely fail to comprehend the difference between neutral and pro-Serbian POVs. A neutral wording is a wording that implies neither that Kosovo is independent nor that it is part of Serbia. Kosovo is neutral, Republic of Kosovo and Kosovo, Serbia are not. Your changes from Kosovo to Kosovo, Serbia and moves from X, Kosovo to X, Serbia don't help, and so far that has been what you are focused on here (ok, not only Kosovo, you have had a feud with Montenegrins as well [77]). No, you are not working on a consensus. Here is a clear consuensus: Talk:Šar Mountains#Serbia and Kosovo. Here is your edit against the consensus: [78]. Moreschi is too kind, IMHO. But this is only the beginning. Stop your crusade or face consequences. Colchicum (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is your second ban from Kosovo: [79]. Colchicum (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked for Moreschi's opinion, can you at least have the courtesy to allow me to get an answer for him? I already know what you think, thank you. --GOD OF JUSTICE 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Right above you asked for my apologies. All in good time. Colchicum (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Moreschi. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. Thank you. Actually, you weren't involved in this incident, but seeing how this is the editor's 10th block and you have previously blocked him or her, I thought your perspective could be valuable. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have filed a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case at WP:RFAR. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

socks

Hi, I noticed that 59.93.35.68 (talk · contribs) was vandalizing the Sangh Parivar page, removing sourced criticism of the controversial movement. I was suspicious of the user, and I think it is a sock of Jobxavier (talk · contribs) or perhaps Kuntan (talk · contribs).Pectore^talk 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh, a ban for a month ha?

Um, kind sir, would you mind telling me where that "edit warring" occurred? --alchaemia (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_vacate_Matthew_Hoffman_case

I've been trying to avoid this, but enough time has passed that I can now look at the case calmly, even if I still want it vacated, so (as I am Vanished user, after all) I have asked the case be reopened, both there, and at WP:AN.

You were only tangentally involved, so I'll let you choose whether or not to add your name to the case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Old good M.V.E.i.

I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Colchicum (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Podcast on controversial articles

MastCell suggested that you might be a good person to include in a podcast that Scartol and I are planning about controversial articles. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

Does it make sense to extend Bože pravde (talk · contribs)'s ban from Kosovo to Montenegro-related topics as well? He seems to think that on that "front" he is entitled to go on the offensive: [80]. Ironically enough, the line immediately below reads: "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE LANGUAGES WITHOUT CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE!" Colchicum (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Molobo again

Molobo did not stop the behaviour I was complaining about above in late September. Some days later (Oct 18) he repeated to act like that, since you seemed busy I was looking for other administrators ad the administrators' board, where I repeated my concerns already posted on your talk and added the incidents that happened in the meantime. Response there was not overwhelming and I calmed down and forgot once again. Now he again removed sourced info to push "his" POV here (Nov 14). He replaced sourced text with text stating the opposite. While this time "his" info was at least sourced, he should know by now how to apply WP:NPOV if two sources state different things - surely the way is not blanking the source with the "wrong" POV. I reverted and dropped messages at his and the article's talk.

I cannot believe an editor known for his disruptive behavior can act like this while on parole, is there nobody watching or does nobody care? Please, tell me your thoughts. Am I in the wrong place here, am I overreacting and just have to tolerate such editorial behaviour, are you busy or not interested, am I the only one who has trouble with him, should I rather go to the current arbcom and make that case even more messy? In this arbcom, my name was brought up by Molobo anyway (here). There he wants to make me look like I want to push Nazi propaganda in wikipedia, because I once used a statistic from a book available online - unaware the author turned out to be a Nazi later (at least two later publications of him are listed somewhere). The cited statistic however was right, is now backed by other sources and did not in any way resemble Nazi propaganda (it was census data).

So, how am I to proceed now? Skäpperöd (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you are away, I took it to arbcom (Piotrus2), as Molobo is a party there already. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A formely blocked user

Moreschi,

Concerning my (first and only) block that occured yesterday and was imposed by you. In advance, I am informing you that I am now taking for granted that you were perfectly aware of the dispute, and that your actions took place while having perfect knowledge of the issue.

As mentioned by you at WP:ARBMAC, I was blocked 24 hours for revert-warring at Macedonia + disruption at the talkpage. To my defense, I alledgedly shown the first of the signs of disruptive editing mentioned here. Along with me, one more Greek editor was blocked for the same amount of time and for the same reasons; another Greek editor was "warned" for similar reasons. On the contrary, only one of the editors in the opposite side of the conflict was blocked 48 hours for 3RR on Macedonia(and this, of course, after a non-Greek user informed you about), and none was warned . Apparently, according to you, he (or anyone else from the opposite group of users) did not edgage in (lame) revert-warring and disruption at the talkpage (and/or the article itself). It seems like a balance of terror: "do not find yourself into conflict with other editors, because, if they break any rule (3RR in this case), you will also be punished". In this, new definition of the term, we ban a user from FYROM for 48 hours for breaking a rule, and at the same time, we ban 2 Greek users for "unclear reasons" and for 24 hours each (24x2=48), just to show we are "neutral". Since I have decided to cease editting for an undetermined period of time, I would like to offer an advice to you, next time you will anyhow be involved in a related article; at least, this way, you will avoid bitter comments like mine. --Hectorian (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Um, no. Makedon broke 3RR, you reverted multiple times in a totally lame and pointless revert-war while also flaming on the talkpage, and The Cat and the Owl reverted three times pointlessly and made just one use of the talkpage! Blocks for all three of you were perfectly reasonble. This was not a question of neutrality, as the content in question shouldn't even have been there. This was just the three of you being utterly thick, with a couple of others being unhelpful. Now wake up, and start acting like a rational adult rather than another one of the puerile nationalist brigade. Because I have a distinct feeling that you can do better. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say dude... I had no hope that you'd agree with me. I just said what I needed to say. I can rest my case now. --Hectorian (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Moreschi. Out of sheer interest not to repeat the same mistake with Hectorian and eventually get blocked myself, can you please point out the diffs that deserve the description "plus talkpage tendentiousness, provocative comments" that you mention in his block log? Thanks in advance. NikoSilver 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is me again just to pop up that yellow box on top in case you forgot. Thanks. NikoSilver 15:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• IMO "Google Scholar also gives 4,080 results for FYROM and about 7,000 for "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". Shall we rename the respective article? --Hectorian (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) " was off-topic and unhelpful, as was "Sorry FYROM... I know since long ago that in the back of your mind you have claims on history and territory, but they are never gonna be materialized... --Hectorian (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)". That's just provocation. Moreschi (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Eh, well, the first one was a response to the Google stats given by the other user with a parallel, so it's hardly "off topic and unhelpful", since all he did was point out the absurdity of the argument by utilizing the language of the recipient. And you can't exactly call it uncivil or provocative either. NikoSilver 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The second one is indeed provocative, but it is, however, a well known fact that these claims exist in the minds of some people. Sourced articles have been written on these claims (see United Macedonia, see Aegean Macedonia, see Macedonism, see Macedonia (terminology)#Ethnic Macedonian nationalism). Just to remind you that the recipient had a very interesting map, not to mention his very username, that are pretty conclusive as to if he fits the said category... NikoSilver 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Regardless, in the worst case we are not talking plural ("provocative comments"), but singular ("provocative comment"), which being only one -if it is- it hardly establishes the serious "talkpage tendentiousness" accusation. Indeed, as your "distinct feelings" point out, Hectorian is (or should I sadly say "was") a well respected, valuable and very productive contributor, and I think you might recognize that your descriptions in ARBMAC's log, his block log, and here ("utterly thick") are a little too hard for the case. I think he deserved at least a little milder wording, if not overall treatment. You might have saved what he considered "crossing the line" that way, as he put it, and we'd might not end up with one good editor less. NikoSilver 17:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Please see this: [81]. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Alchemia

Take a look at this diff

User:Alchaemia has broken his ban from all Kosovo-related pages. I request that action be taken. --JUSTICE 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

weekends

Have a great weekend you crazy son of a gun :)

Mactruth (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Alex Makedon, again

Do we really need any more of this, straight off a decidedly calm 48 hours? Haven't we seen enough already?[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 10:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

FPAS got to this one before I did. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

I see that you gave this user a 3RR block in August. I am not familiar with the details of whatever transpired then, but in case you have something to add, there is a thread regarding him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Krzyzowiec. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's blocked this chap for a year. No disagreement with that. Moreschi (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions on contentious nationalism subjects

Hey Moreschi, I have just started reading up on nationalism stuff, amusing reading and I have a couple of questions:

• did this ever get off the ground?

and

• I mused on this as a reply to Heimstern - have we considered fully protecting pages as described thusly somewhere?

Anyways...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. See WP:WORKINGGROUP. It didn't achieve anything much, though, and I wasn't involved - never learnt why, as I did wish to be so. User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5 (and the subpage of that) was arguably more useful.

Re page protection - it's not a bad idea. Full protection has to be used carefully, though (I'm a firm believer in applying semi-protection liberally until flaggedrevs arrive). Full-protection on a high-profile article just because of a couple of nationalist flamers looks bad and screws over any productive editors who want to improve the article in the meantime. Blocks, revert restrictions, and page bans (see WP:ARBMAC for liberal and inventive applications of all of the above). That said, with totally incorrigible disputes on less high-profile articles (What the Bleep rises to mind), the best idea often is lengthy spells of full-protection, while the parties can develop {{workpage}}s, either in userspace or as subpages of the article talk. It's then easier to see what the main differences are in how the article should be framed, and then to arrive at a compromise. Moreschi (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see someone else apart from me like semi-ing articles! My benchmark for big articles is one vandalism from > IPs a day, I have seen some real crap happen over time. Schizophrenia, lion and vampire are almost impossible to keep up with unless semi'ed indefinitely (what is it with lions FFS????), and even then it is like watching erosion at the beach. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: When you say lengthy, what ballpark do you mean? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vikings is the other one that random IPs, either just idiots or lunatics with agendas, get drawn to. Controversial BLPs, ditto. And banned users are the very devil. Ararat arev caused me to semiprotect an entire topic area (early Armenian history).

Re your PS - minimum a month? Anything less just gives too much of an incentive to wait and then go straight back to revert-warring. Maximum six months: anything more and arbitration is probably needed.

My PS...(does that acronym refer to semiprotection but wrong way round) 3 months is a good ballpark to start with, unless it is clear it is a long term problem and semi-prots have no worked in past, in which case I just do indef at that stage. Oh...(lightbulb above head goes on) regarding my proposal, yeah good point, 3 months is better, if it is this bad it will need a deal of time to settle. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion wanted

Hi Moreschi, I see you list yourself as an uninvolved admin at WP:IPCOLL. How over-sensitive do you think I'm being in this thread. User talk:Ashley kennedy3#Terrorism. Fyi the +s were originally $s. I think the material is appearing on the talk page because Ashley is currently edit-blocked.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyroluria

I noticed that you closed the AFd on this article very quickly. Could you please justify this decision?

I wasn't familiar with the article or the condtion, but quickly reviewing the references I found:
3.[[91]] a dead link to a Q+A on the NHS
7.[[92]] a letter to the editor
[[93]] a lab that sells testing for the condition.
13. Healing art press: fringe publisher
14.[[94]] A fringe site, and is marked as a phishing site by my firewall.
18.[[95]] a book published by a fringe publisher

Consider that 14 and 18 make the bulk of the positive claims in this article, I would have liked to weigh in on the Afd. Thanks! Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. See [96]. If you want to do the merge yourself now, be my guest. Otherwise I'll do it in a few days. Moreschi (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• You both might also be interested in the discussion here. Verbal chat 12:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material

You may be interested in commenting here. Verbal chat 12:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your recent note

[97] May be you've missed

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Also could you provide me a broader explantion about were consisting largely of violations of WP:TALK and WP:SOAPBOX. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you also note Wikipedia:What_adminship_is_not - in terms of your recent [98] [99] [100] [101]. Please no frozen meat of kulaks distributed by NKVD (Mace)or sunken barges full of Ukrainian by ethnicity children (Conquest) at WP. Thank you.

WP reliability is a must - it's my Confession.

Thank youJo0doe (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

He just violated the conditions above, and here: [102].Faustian (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if blogging at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army qualifies as violation of ban, but here we go again: [103]. Miacek (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed intresting nomination for consensus building but since you are only recently joined an edit-warring campain against my refrenced through RS fact - I kindly reccomend you to read a long talk page more carefully. Editor ask me about how IMT Judgment dealed with OUN-B/UPA - I simply provide an explanationJo0doe (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PeterBln

Dear Moreschi

I am having trouble with a user called User:PeterBln, and User:Piotrus recommended me to you should I feel I need further assistance beyond what Piotrus has offered. PeterBln, judging by his history of Wikipedia edits, and by the numerous warnings issued by several editors on his talk page, has a history of anti-NPOV edits concerning an attempt by him to re-shape what he perceives to be an anti-German bias on Wikipedia. The user was reported for admin intervention back in August; several recommendations were made for a block, but they were not acted upon because the discussion went inactive ([104]). The user has recently started up his NPOV violations again with edits like [105], and [106]. The edit summary of this edit-[107], is very revealing I believe. I believe that his responses to a warning I issued for his NPOV violations-[108], and [109] suggests that he will not adhere to NPOV guidelines anymore than he apparently did after previous warnings, especially when he said "Please note, that i do not accept "warnings" for posting reliable scientifically proven facts. I consider this abuse."[110] and ""I'm sorry that you feel like the warnings are abuse, but the warnings are justified." Well, they are not and i think you know that very well. Everything i have written is veryfiable, and unlike some authors, i do not interprete facts, but just state facts." [111]. I'm not sure how to proceed should he commit more anti-NPOV edits. As a result, I was hoping that you could look into this user, if that is ok? Thank you very much in advance if you do so. Terrakyte (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

I left the same mesage on one other admin's talk page. Now I am being accused of using sockpuppets and meatpuppets: [112]. This is a serious accusation and IMHO deserves a serious response.Faustian (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed a word "probably" - while history of articles edits - a self evident - IP and editors which comes only to revert my referenced through RS information. No intent to go to talk page firstJo0doe (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Step numero une-o

OK, how about this this to replace the current navbox for above all teh admin pages, just need to make the second box a standout colour (which I know nowt about) note cunning orange colour to mimic new mesage bar and instil interest in idle eyes hehehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material

May I suggest that you stop edit warring at Seth Material, and start instead to work constructively with myself and the other editors who have been trying to improve the article ? Or, if you truly believe that no part of the article is encyclopedic, then you should take it openly to AfD. As you can see from the article's talk page, there is no consensus for the "redirect with merge" that you implemented and have now twice reverted to. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources being presented to improve it with, you're arguing in a vacuum. I've now put the old "history" section over at Jane Roberts: this actually does have some secondary sources and is not total fringecruft. More are still needed, though. Moreschi (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation has been requested to get you to stop redirecting the article. Your certainly that you are right is meaningless, since there are people who disagree with you. Until the mediation is complete, please be respectful of the article.

You don't seem to understand that an article cannot be improved once it is deleted. All articles on Wikipedia are in a state of becoming, and deleting an article simply stops that process in its tracks. If every article that didn't meet all the rules were deleted, there would be precious little to read on Wikipedia. I asked you above to be respectful; now I am asking you to be sensible.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For deleting, via redirection, a worthy article simply because it has some flaws, I've decided to challenge your neutrality as an administrator. I'll be doing that sometime this week. Wikipedia shouldn't be letting the foxes into the hen house.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, eh? An aggressive editor who is basically an NPA and doesn't understand our NPOV policy threatening to challenge you. This should be fun. dougweller (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean SPA that ignores NPA. Verbal chat 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing here to which you may like to contribute. Verbal chat 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Tatars

Hi Moreschi. I was wondering if you could take a look at the current dispute over the first sentence of the Tatars article. The disagreement centers on whether the Tatars should be referred to as "Turkic" or Turkic-speaking" and appears to have been going on since mid-September, when the source added by Khoikhoi [113] was first removed [114] The edit-waring has been continuing ever since. I had hoped (feel free to laugh at my naivete) that adding the full text of the citation from the 2006 Encyclopædia Britannica might calm things down [115]. Instead, the citation has been falsified [116], removed outright multiple times [117], [118], [119], [120] (despite attempts at reasoned discussion on the talkpage Talk:Tatars#Turkic_vs._Turkic-speaking and continued at Talk:Tatars#Tatars_are_a_Turkic_people) and finally replaced with sources of questionable impartiality [121]. I don't want to be dragged into an edit war over something so trivial and would appreciate a fresh set of eyes to look things over. Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation re Seth Material

I just found this mediation request which I was unaware of - and I presume you are unaware too. Should we respond, wait, or ignore? It doesn't seem to be correctly filed anyway. Best, Verbal chat 15:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I decided to wait and see, and it's been closed. Verbal chat 11:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it until the closure notice on the Seth talk page. I guess I shouldn't be surprised we weren't told about it. dougweller (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I only noticed your name was on it after it was closed. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the version I last saw. Verbal chat 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seth Material mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Caleb Murdock (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Seth Material. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

ArbCom Talk page "policy"

Hi, I have made a comment at AN, relating to ArbCom practice if not policy. My comment is motivated by what happened during the Thatcher/lar/SV case - I cannot deny that - but I really see this as a matter that can arise in the future and we need an abstract principle for handling it. [122]

I do not want discussion of my comment to get bogged down in the past. I think ArbCom needs some kind of clear (transparent) principle to guide it in the future. Could you comment? Say wahtever you think - just please push the conversation in the direction the future, not the past. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can this be considered civil ?

Hello Moreschi, I have a question, while I was casting my own opinion regarding the usage of a map in the Caucasian Albania article (see [here]) User:MarshallBagramyan approached me and called me ignorant and said Im disqualify from further participation in the talks. When I told him that he cannot make such conclusions he went further by saying: Im not allowed to the grown-ups' table. I ask you is this civil? Does he have any right to draw these conclusions and be so? I would appreciate it if you had a look into this matter, as it disturbs me. Baku87 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, find me one RS that does not ascribe them "terrorist" status

Please see talk:Osama bin Laden#Plus, find me one RS that does not ascribe them "terrorist" status --PBS (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Bayrak continues...

He has decided to continue that same thread of disruption at Khomeini [123]. At this point it seems obvious that he is trolling. Can you perhaps put an end to this please? It is unfortunate that it has required as much effort as it already has, considering how obvious the case was from the start. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Dear Moreschi. I don't believe we have ever interacted directly with one another before, but I've long admired your approach to the nationalist problems beseiging Wikipedia. Though I don't feel that I am an editor that feeds those kinds of problems, I would not be surprised if you thought that I was. Nonetheless, I would like to take the chance of being brutally shot down, to ask you your opinion on what is going on at Hummus.

The talk page discussion is very long, very boring, and incredibly circular, so I would like to point out three sections on the page that are most pertinent to the main issue at hand. Beginning with Conclusions so far, "Prognosis and Aspirin", "Policy, please" and "Sources".

If you don't want to waste your time on this, I won't be offended. I wish I wasn't wasting my time with this, but the implications of the interpretation of NPOV that are being putting forward, would effectively stifle my attempts to produce articles related to "Palestine" on Wikipedia, since I would not even be able to use the word, without qualifications and/or pages of unbelievably stupid debate. Sorry for my frankness in that last bit, but there it is.

Have a good day and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 11:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• God, I've had a look at this. How unbelievably lame. Not surprised to see Tundrabuggy wasting time again. Admittedly, "Palestinian territories" isn't horrible, but there really isn't anything wrong with "Palestine": we have an article on it: like Kosovo or Nagorno-Karabakh it's a perfectly legit geographical term regardless of what your politics are. How a food article can cause so much grief is a horrible example of how obsessed some people can be by this bull. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is lame. I can't believe how much time I've spent on it myself, but like yourself, I think it's totally fine as a geographical term, and in an article on food, I don't see the need to use the politically correct political/administrative terms for things, particularly when their meaning may not be synonymous with that of the source. Anyway, I'm mulling over accepting region of Palestine right now, which though I find redundant and a little pointy, is much better than "Palestinian territories" or "Palestinians" (de-territorialization is a kind of sensitive issue for us ;). I may just have to come to accept the redundancy though, simply to put this thing to rest and regain the ability and motivation to spend more time writing article content. It just irks me that I can be accused of politicising something, by asking that the terms used in the source be reported by us in a striaghtforward, unqualified fashion. It's an article about food and culture, not the correct names for the different parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict per the CIA factbook. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Tiamut^talk 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people

thanks for showing up at the "Assyrian" article. This is a long-term babysitting project of mine, and it is now entering a critical phase. It appears the move to the new title has taken care of the tendency of editors creating counter-articles at variant titles. AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) is now trolling the main article instead, I think this one isn't amenable to discussion and should just go. HD86 (talk · contribs) is also losing it[124]. As for the others, I estimate there will be another two to three months of hysteria before a stable and readable article emerges. Note that the current "good" version is this. The TriZ (talk · contribs) is a rare case of a partisan editor (AramaeanSyriac's camp) who is actually contributing constructively and fairly. The article hardly ever gets attention from anyone not partisan (I can understand why, I wouldn't stick there myself it if wasn't for my sick fascination with what ethnic nationalism does to people).

I think you will make the best impact by twirling the "uninvolved admin" baton for a bit and keep the worst offenders in check. If you are still into "coaching" people, you may also create 'value added' by talking to Xavexgoem (talk · contribs), who is presently giving a textbook show of the naive approach to "mediation" that ends in a frustrating waste of time for everyone with no benefit. You know, the mentality positing that it is possible to "run" an encyclopedia project by simply smiling and nodding at everyone present without ever having to decide on what you mean by "encyclopedic". Cheers, --dab (𒁳) 12:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. All duly noted, and HD86 is blocked 31 hours for the "raving" comment. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Moreschi, As i have told you already, the User:ArameanSyriac has "contributed" alot to the Assyrian/Chldean/Syriac page. His "contributions" have made the page soely on the Syriac population ignoring the Assyrians and the Chaldeans. If you were to read the page now you would see that It has a clear bias for the Syriac identity. I have attempted to change/fix the page to become more neutral and User:The TriZ deleted all my contributions. He has defended User:ArameanSyriac's "contributions" while he deleted all mine. Is it possible if you help out in this situation and delete ArameanSyriac's "contributions" and turn it back to what it was before. Malik Danno (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Uncivility, Hate speech

First and foremost I would like to sincerely ask you for your help. Your input and patience is appreciated. I want to bring to your attention this. HD86 has made numerous comments such as "The Assyrians are EXTINCT people of ancient Mesopotamia whose name was stolen by some modern politicians and used in reference to the modern Syriacs. To label the modern Syriacs by "Assyrians" and to claim that "The Assyrian people trace their origins to the population of the pre-Islamic Levant" is indeed stupidity in its purest form." These comments are inflammatory, racist, unhistprical and outrageous. This user continues to deny that a whole race even exists. He needs to be wiki disciplined. This is unacceptable inflammtory denialist behavior. The equivalent of his statments would be that jews or arabs do not exist. Do you not see the point. His languge is very hateful and dimeaning to those of us involved in the project. If you take a look at his history he has similar incompetent statemetns regarding other controverisal topics. I ask for assistance in order to remove this hateful user from this discussion. He has denied the existence of an entire race that through ample ancient and modern evidence has existed for thousands of years. I will be waiting for your response. I must stress this is only one of many disturbing comments this user has made. Thanks for your input my friend. Ninevite (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

75.28.100.179

75.28.100.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is edit warring on Khojaly Massacre. Makes massive rewrites, citing no sources whatsoever. Could you please explain him the rules? He would not listen to me, ignored my post at talk of the article. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion

The above-linked ban review has been closed and a motion passed. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is unblocked, conditional to the restrictions and mentorship arrangement set out in the motion, available in full at this link. The three mentors assigned are Casliber (talk · contribs), Jayvdb (talk · contribs) and yourself.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More trouble from Jo0doe

He's left the Holodomor article alone but is starting up on other ones, such as the talk page here: [125]. Please see his comments and my reply. He has already been warned and threatened with a block for just this specific behavior: [126]. Although this was a "last warning", it was never followed up, thus emboldening. Would a stern warning, or even more, help? Thanks,Faustian (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

let's we return to how actually mentioned source named, what actually appeared at Armstrong pages 170-175 (specifically p.170 last 3 lines of text). So I still wait about were I've breached WP"Talk and WP:SOAPBOX - so now editors freely spoil the WP:reliability by blanking statistical data and inventing a Gleaning in USSR.Jo0doe (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There you go, back to talking about the Holodomor despite having been warned not to do so.Faustian (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gleaning and Holodomor - a relation please - or may be I was misunderstood what Gleaning mean? Could you translate into Ukrainian or Russian?Jo0doe (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at the report at WP:AE here: [127] Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Help, please. =

Could you please do something about this: [128]. JoODoe's behavior is taking time away that could be spent more productively. Thanks!Faustian (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• So it's easy to "take me away" - to use text of scholar works instead of notes to it and do not try to cite selectively and hide OR through not WP:V source. Also do not forget to cite appropriately name of sourcesJo0doe (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User banned from writing about Holodomor is writing about it again

See this discussion: [129].Faustian (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• May be better we return to that issue [130] - editor know that the scholar stated and concluded in the text - but deliberately misuse it to create a kind of "unique democratic SS" - and it's a long lasting habit - from Makivka and Black forest times. Such edits greatly downgrade the relibility of WP. If someone would like to use WP as SOAPBOX [131] to promote own vision - it's in generally wrong placeJo0doe (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Roobit (talk · contribs)

It seemed to be rather peaceful in the Baltic sphere of the 'Eastern Europe conflict,' so an 'old acquaintance', numerous times reported [132] for ugliest soapbxing and hate-speech before (to no avail :( ), has decided to return in order to 'flame it up' again with a talk page entry about 'Estonian Ethno-Nazis' etc. Obviously a disruption only account that might be restricted per Digwuren RfArb, or even better: sent to eternal holiday. --Miacek (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, terrible soapboxer, blogging on talk pages and occasionally making unsourced POV edits in the mainspace. such a country never existed before Bolsheviks (and is now a temporary fluke of history), phony statelet of Estonia, wastelands of civilization like the awful United States with their artificial smiles and other assorted horrors, terrible England, pathetic Scandinavia or most of post-USSR space, In the Czech Republic language is easy to understand (for a Russian speaker at least) and beer is excellent but the country is dreary, food is bad, and most inhabitants are sullen zombies., If they killed your Nazi grandmother, then obviously that cannot be considered particularly cruel or atrocious - it was a fair deed, an act of mild retribution for millions murdered by Nazis and their Baltic henchmen.. Ban him outright. Colchicum (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I declined his unblock request. I am aware this comes under the ArbCom case, but is an indef block really the first step we have to take here? Or are you just waiting on him to eat some humble pie? Just asking since obviously I don't know the whole history. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are some pretty spectacular ethnic slurs! He definitely fits with the 'hate-speech' meme that will earn multi pages of discussion at ANI. I won't comment on the indef, just note that his admitted IP traces to Estonia, and he has an account on the Russian Wiki. He does not seem to have been blocked there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian Wiki is peculiar, and he has only 33 edits there. Colchicum (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not exactly the first violation. User:Roobit showed up already when the Bronze Nights were news, and did pretty much what he has been doing now. Unfortunately, back then, the dramu generated by certain regular users made it impossible to deal with such trolling -- another violator, User:Petri Krohn could only be dealt with by ArbCom some five months later --, so he was allowed to keep going, and he went to an extended wikibreak when the news went cold without any formal action.

Kudos to Moreschi for swift action. I'd hand out a barnstar, but considering this request, it might be misinterpreted as anticipatory bribery. :-) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

Recently a number of Bundesarchive pictures from the 1939 German expedition to Tibet have been uploaded, but the related articles on English Wikipedia are currently occultist crap. Maybe you have some ideas as to what should be done about this. Colchicum (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is confusing to such extent that this article seems to deal with another expedition. Colchicum (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AcademicSharp

Hi. Could you please have another look at the same report at WP:AE: [133]? AcademicSharp (talk · contribs) is back from his block and resumed edit warring on Khojaly Massacre. He made another 2 rvs: [134] [135]. Plus, CU has proven that he used socks to edit war: CU: AcademicSharp. Your urgent attention to this issue will be appreciated. Grandmaster 19:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Moreschi, I present to you the original barnstar in recognition of all the work you have done in defending our cause. Your passion, resiliance, and integrity in helping to make this site a better place is commendable. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How long will this abuse be tolerated?

See: [136]

"no effort traced to fix the awfully historically idiotic content in the article itself " by Jo0doe.Faustian (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed

• How long will be Makivka and Black (OR hided by non WP:V source ref) forest way of editing and "Despite of stateted (misuse and misrepresent text the scholar work) and June 30 1944 posed as April 1943.

As regards idiotic - see all rest waffen SS articles - ALL of them are belonging to Waffen-SS - but only "unique" SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" composed from “valuable and desirable citizens” and “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers” appeared as Whermacht formation - thanks to effort of editors cooperative. This fact is awfull - but no effort traced to fix it - only spam in talk page and refusal to provide a tiny page numbers for text inserted -

The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences itself concluded that ""the SS-Galizien Division...had nothing in common with the elite SS divisions formed with fanatic Nazi doctrine and which stained themselves with war crimes..". All statements about democrats joining the Division, the Church supporting it, are referenced to reliable sources in the article. I'm not pushing any POV, I'm just following what the sources say. You should too, rather than label it "idiotic."Faustian (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just another glaring examples of hoax at talk page. Editor again switch the topic and refuse to fix hoaxes inserted. Editor was at least triple time informed [137] [138] that The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and Ukrainian_State_Commission_on_OUN/UPA_activitiess not the same thing - critics of this politicaly charged commision appeared at p.474 of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences work itself. All OR and twist of what the sources said clearly appeared at talk page. Jo0doe (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And btw, if a reliable source states something negative against Ukrainians or anyone else, of course I include it: [139] because I'm not like Jo0doe (talk), who sorts through info picking out someting that supports a POV.Faustian (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean you twist and distort text by OR and pesent a scholar conclusion in section called "Alleged" and apocypha of the not scholar Orest presened as final judgement. And again you inserted the text which actually does not appeared in source - [140]Jo0doe (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And again In article recently added

• The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences concluded that the Division's 4th and 5th regiments did indeed kill the civilians within the village, but added that the grisly reports by alleged eyewitnesses in the Polish accounts were "difficult to believe." [19] (Follow the link above for more details.)

Which actually cannot be called otherwise than hoaxing the WP – so awful the twist and distort about text appeared at p.284.

Jo0doe (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano unblock

Ohhh this should be fun. Good luck Viridae^Talk 20:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. Moreschi, perhaps you'd like to explain why you think you know better than seven arbitrators? And why you have chosen provocative wording in the block log, a permanent record? Also, I think you should explain in terms why you have ignored the provision in WP:UNBLOCK, requiring you to consult with the blocking admin before unblocking. Choose your words carefully. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Because all the others disagreed with you: "no consensus" obviously defaults to "do not block". And yes, I do know better than most of you, who lost touch with reality a long time ago. Yourself particularly, judging by the Slr II RFC. The community extensively commented on your block and found it risible. I find it contemptible: a final cheap shot as the revolving door removes you from the scene after too many years. Moreschi (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Choose your words carefully"? Have you any idea how risible that sounds? Black Kite 21:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles, if you still had any authority to lose, you have lost it this minute. You, personally, have no further role to play here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So it's OK for a fool like FT2 to run to Arbcom about SlimVirgin's actions without contacting her first, but it's not OK to undo his idiocy? Wow. But I forgot, the FT2-SlimVirgin case was of course not a case, just a motion, so unfortunately FT2 could not be discussed there. And he was so unbiased that he nearly acted as prosecutor and judge simultaneously. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Btw, "fool" is not good language. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see how you would object to this word. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take that as a personal attack from your side? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, Moreschi, this was not the way to help the situation. Being a martyr for Giano does not help write an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Christ's sake, man, how about being a martyr for the culture of sanity? Have I ever done anything else? Admins like Dieter and myself strive tooth and nail to keep insanity out of articles like this one - only to find that the insanity has crept around the back and infected the very people who should be supporting us. The plague is truly here! Moreschi (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • How about letting ArbCom unblock themselves, as they were already discussing. Did you know that? Then the mess could have stopped there. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good unblock. I didn't actually think the current ArbCom could make themselves look any more ridiculous, but they're obviously giving it a good try. Black Kite 20:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good call. You've just got more balls than the rest of us. :-) Full support. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, I just added it all up. And given that Wikipedia needs me a good deal more than it needs them (with the exceptions of Kirill, Brad, and Flo), even at the (temporary) limited amount I contribute these days, they have neither moral authority to do anything about this nor practical power. Matthews et al can either accept this with good grace or rage impotently - either way it matters not. I can warn them now not to think about pulling any silly stunts as far as I am concerned. The community will not tolerate it. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Very good unblock, nice to see some common sense being used. Don't let the Arbclowns who enacted this block intimidate you, some of them will be gone soon enough. RMHED (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that unblocking was a sensible thing to do at all. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It was exactly the right thing to do. If I was an admin I would have done the same; the problem is, not being power hungry I didn't even try to become one. Now that I know why it's necessary I am planning my RfA. And I will be open about my motivation. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly did you determine consensus for unblocking Moreschi? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 72 hours, for the rather unthinking unblock of Giano II (talk · contribs).

Giano has had blocks and unblocks this year, causing disruption. Without any need to remind you at all, you are very well aware of the recent remedy related to Arbitration Enforcement and Giano himself, to rectify these.

Until further notice, no enforcement action relating to Giano's civility parole shall be taken without the explicit written agreement of the Committee.

Moreschi, I am at a loss what you were thinking of. You knew the following:

• There had been frequent admin tool disputes in the past
• When a situation gets heated, measures may become stricter
• Situations involving Giano's conduct tend to be one of the more complex/heated situations around
• Another admin was only a couple of weeks ago desysopped for breaching Arbitration Enforcement decisions without good grounds
• The ruling above stated that Giano's blocks, unblocks, and any "enforcement action" (and a decision to reverse one is most surely an enforcement action) may be undertaken without agreement
• You know why that's so
• You know that Bishonen's concern was already in discussion, because I posted so immediately above.

I have blocked you for breach of this ruling, for 72 hours. I wish it hadn't been that way, since it was a pointless action anyhow. But no, we have had 2.5 or more years of "Giano block drama" and patience ran out with admins who reintroduce it, whichever way that may happen. If an action is needed on Giano's account, ask. That's what you well knew was required. Not "go ahead and ignore anyway". On this one, the community is too divided, and consensus has repeatedly failed. That is not a sign that "Nothing is needed", but a sign of a divide that the community is too divided to handle.

Perhaps it will not be so in future. It is at this point, and your action is exactly one example why its become that way, perpetuating it -- because as much as you feel strongly your way, others do their way too.

I am blocking at this point to enforce the recent decision, for what was a calculated decision to override everything and all other decisions by other users, and in effect to return Gaino's block handling back to the pattern of the last 2.5 years. I'm sure you felt it was justified, and some others will too. It was also arrogant in the extreme and perpetuated a problem that the wiki can well do without.

A few others on the Committee feel that there should be a discussion whether the bit is at risk. I cannot speak for whether that will happen or not, at this point. It may.

If any arbitrator wishes to overturn or alter this block, or feels there are grounds to do so, then they need not ask my permission.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is possibly the most foolish thing I've seen an arbitrator do. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You and your committee are completely ridiculous. You guys need a new hobby. Friday (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The first priority of a morally bankrupt regime is to protect it's power. 96.15.199.34 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't block people for misuse of tools. Please, everyone, do not execute any further sysop actions until the ArbCom clarifies matters. Certain of their members have acted imprudently, but that should be fixed by them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Priceless, FT2 you really are hilarious, Grimaldi had nothing on you. RMHED (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• Surely there must have been extensive discussions among Arbcom in which it was decided that the member who has contributed most to the committees complete loss of dignity and credibility was to do this. It's obviously such a sensible decision. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• This is nothing more than the obvious. FT2 is correct. M knew what to expect William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course, knowing what to expect does not mean we should refrain from acting properly. I find FT2's argument "unblocking is an enforcement action" to be extremely thin. I also consider "If any arbitrator wishes to overturn or alter this block..." to be a very stupid comment. We do not grant ArbCom member special individual rights - or if we do, that is unwelcome news for me. ArbCom as a collective is empowered to, well, arbitrate. No opinion on the propriety of the original block or unblock, just on the behavior of FT2 here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• That unblock of Giano was a very bad idea. I disagree with the block extension, but yet an other admin putting his own opinion over everything else is exactly what we don't need now. I find it very hard to see it as anything else by an intentional attempt to make ArbCom look bad by forcing them to reblock Giano while they are in the middle of discussing an unblock. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Arbcom do a perfectly good job of making themselves look bad, they need no help in that respect. RMHED (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• If this had been a RFAR on Giano, how many of those Arbs that voted to re-block him would've had to recuse? Yeah, exactly. Black Kite 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• So if you moon the jury you get away free? Hey, I disagree with the block extension, but actions like Moreshis are exactly the base problem with much of the drama we have. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• This could perhaps be one of the most ludicrous thing I've ever seen an arb do. Completely beyond the pale, but it's come to be what I rather expect from FT2. I am SO glad I didn't vote for him last year. My only regret is that I pulled my oppose. Is there any system in place whereby arbitrators may be recalled? Or do they just have to stand for reelection and be roundly rejected? (BTW, I'm glad to see Apoc contributing his usually towering intellectual aphorisms to the discussion.) SDJ 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Easy does it. Rhetoric is not helping at this point. The Committee will sort this out. Moreschi and Giano need to be unblocked by them, and then everybody needs to refrain from further provocations, at least until the new members are seated. :-) Jehochman ^Talk 21:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Committee will sort this out. Why doesn't that fill me with confidence?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding me. The original "nobody touches Giano but ArbCom" was poorly though out, but compounding the problem by enforce something clearly unsupported by the community in this manner is beyond the pale. Shell ^babelfish 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. The original 72h block was legitimate, the arbs decided it on the basis of an ongoing discussion on wiki, everybody had the facts, and it was a reasonable thing to do. The problem with the re-block was that it was cooked up in private entirely (when it didn't have to be), the arbs did it without (a) having all the facts to begin with, and (b) without giving themselves the chance of taking in a sanity check from the community. When that sanity check came, after the fact, it was roundly against them. Moreschi was acting on the basis of a very clear, unanimous community consensus that the re-block was a bad idea, clearly documented on Giano's talk page. The block at this point serves no purpose than intimidation and protection of the committee's dwindling authority for its own sake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe FT2 can hold a secret trial to get to The Truth? Oh that happened already. Verbal chat 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• The block extension was technically perfectly correct. I still hope that ArbCom will soon decide to unblock. The "sanity check" you talk about is a group of people who think ArbCom are satans spawn and always show up to complain with complete disregard for the specific situation. A community consensus can never, ever be determined on a talk page. 1) The people who comment there are a highly biased sample. 2) Giano may and actually do remove comments there he doesn't like. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, your enduring ability to bring shame and disgrace to the arbitration committee continues to astound. HiDrNick! 22:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We really need to put an end to the "Giano wars" right now, wipe the slate clean, issue amnesties and start afresh in 2009. If people want "drama" they can try dealing with some of the POV wars which affect our encyclopaedic content. Moreschi is one of the very few admins who actually bothers to try and sort such issues out. Most of the rest are nowhere to be seen. But as soon as there's a "Giano incident" (which has no bearing on mainspace), ANI is buzzing for days. Just look at this very page and you can see the variety of Wiki-conflicts Moreschi is trying to sort out: Assyrian/Chaldaen/Syriac, Ukrainian, Iranian, Armenia-Azerbaijan, pseudo-science... I assume the people in favour of blocking him are going to be stepping in and handling these situations while Moreschi is forcibly absent for the next three days. --Folantin (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is the Moreschi block sanctioned by ArbCom? If not, he should be unblocked, because it is against policy to block an admin for a perceived misuse of tools. This possibility is specifically excluded by WP:BLOCK and WP:WHEEL, last I looked. There is a clear consensus here that the block of Moreschi is wrong. What do you say, FT2? Did you act for ArbCom, or as an individual administrator? Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The whole thing is ridiculous and embarassing and Moresechi should be unblocked now. I hope there is an Arbitrator sensible enough to unblock him without more ado. dougweller (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a specific arbcomm judgement forbidding unblocks of G. You (or in this case, M) break arbcomm judgements, you (or M) can expect to be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait. We do not block admins for misuse of tools. The ArbCom does not have the right to abrogate established policy. This block of Moreschi is novel. Is he about to vandalize the encyclopedia? If he is wheel warring, the ArbCom can perform a temporary desysop. The block is provocation and risks some other fool unblocking without further discussion. It is most unwise. Let me repeat: Don't do anything until we hear back from FT2 or another arbitrator. Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To avoid an expanding wheel war, I would advise against any ordinary administrator reversing these blocks, however incorrect they might appear. I have requested the assistance of Jimbo Wales in this matter at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#The_Giano_II_wheel_war. John254 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's your plan for avoiding drama, John, I fear it will backfire. — CharlotteWebb 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And admins don't go against arbcomm rulings. Except in this case. The block seems preferrable to de-sysopping, and seems to have made the required point. Hopefully no-one else will jump in to escalate this further William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are Arbs exempt from WHEEL? rootology (C)(T) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

They invented the WHEEL, so don't start me lying. — CharlotteWebb 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If an action is against policy, being "sanctioned by arbcom" cannot change that fact. This block should be reversed at once. — CharlotteWebb 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lol, this is highly amusing. It's totally ridiculous. I'm quite sure it won't last. Tempting as it is to unblock myself, I won't do so: surely someone with sanity is left to sort this out. It is, however, finally clear that the functioning of the arbitration committtee has totally broken down. An arena in which a 7-6 majority in favour of a (clearly wrong) block can be taken as actionable consensus is one deprived of sanity. An arena in which someone else can be blocked for reversing such a wrong and anti arbcom-consensus block is not just deprived of sanity: it is lunatic. You chaps clearly cannot keep your own house in order. You can hardly complain, let alone block, when someone else does it for you.

• In the meantime, the areas of the encyclopedia which I labour and sweat to keep clean for you all of nationalist lunacy and ethnic POV-pushing will doubtless deteriorate. This is regrettable. But, as I say, I'm sure Kirill or Brad will sort this all out before too long. If the issue is not addressed within the next 24 hours I call on my fellow admins to hand in their sysop bits en masse in protest. That should get attention.

• Once this is all over we can work out a way to reform the system so that a 7-6 majority of arbitrators, half of whom with their feet already out the door, never an actionable voting majority in reality, does not override clear community consensus. Moreschi (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Lol. Having re-read the Giano special restriction, I see that the violator of this restriction was Charles Matthews, and not myself. He had clearly failed to obtain "agreement" before blocking Giano, as six arbitrators opposed the motion to extend the block privately and several of those have stated so publically. Now, by arbcom's own terms it surely cannot be against the restriction to reverse blocks taken before getting agreement from the AC? So why is Matthews not blocked? Rhetorical question, yes, but you see my point? Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And now FT2 has wheel-warred by reblocking Giano? Good heavens, I really am NOT the one violating policy here. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To impose a block on an admin in retaliation for an unblock performed by that is admin is senseless, as blocks are intended to prevent editing, not to prevent the performance of admin actions. As I recall, and I suppose this may have changed, admin tools can still be used by a blocked admin. Therefore this action is purely punitive and unjustified. Furthermore, it is baseless and absurd to punish an admin for unblocking a user when that unblock appears to have broad support. Everyking (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a sad day when a 7-5 majority of arbitrators (so narrow!) means that non-partisan community discussion can be totally ignored. I don't think I'm the arrogant one here, either. Moreschi (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite our numerous disagreements, this is one of the most stupid blocks I've seen in a while. Unbelievably petty and childish, and clear violation of the block policy. I have supported FT2 in the past, but I'll be frank: I'd be happy to see FT2 off the committee now. I'm fed up with their uselessness and utterly baffling behavior. Majorly ^talk 23:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Well, I guess this isn't a surprise. I have raised a complaint at arbcom asking for your desysopping.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can hardly respond to that while blocked. Moreschi (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be happy to paste any statement you wish to make prior to the block ending.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there's plenty of us watching the page to copy something over. I'm going to try and find an arbitrator to unblock so you can participate yourself. Just give me a little time to see what I can do. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've managed to get in contact with FT2, who's now away from the keyboard (luckily he had his blackberry with him) and he's agreed to an unblock, but you may only participate in the request for arbitration that Scott filed regarding your unblock of Giano for the length of the original block. Please don't edit any pages other than your talk page or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• A few minutes more and LHVU would have unblocked Moreschi anyways. FT2 didn't want that, the shit would really have hit the fan then. RMHED (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think FT2 was even aware of LHVU's comment - this is just standard practice for users when they participate in RfArbs. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You're either very naive Ryan or a fool, I'll AGF and opt for naive. RMHED (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Moreschi, edit wherever you want, please. Your block is a completely childish retaliation and should not be stood for. Majorly ^talk 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think Moreschi should take this opportunity to edit an article and show everyone what really matters here. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Ditto. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That is exactly the attitude that caused this whole mess. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Exactly, showing everybody "what really matters" by editing articles and intervening in Wiki-disputes which have some bearing on the real world and our readership is just a trivial distraction from the really vital issue: the endless continuation of the Giano Wars. Moreschi must be punished if he forgets this. Nothing must get in the way of Wikipedia's own Trumpton riots. --Folantin (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Stop spinning it. I mean defying restrictions for the sake of defying. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, we need more jobsworth admins. --Folantin (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly disappointed by "FT2, who's now away from the keyboard". It has long been understood that potentially controversial admin actions should only be taken if the admin in question is available to discuss them. Especially a sitting Arbiter should be aware of this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny how FT2 is away from his keyboard when the going gets tough. He's probably busy now composing a 5,000 word essay for the RFAR case. That should make riveting reading for all insomniacs or masochists. RMHED (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been posting a lot of these unsubstantiated attacks recently. Please stop. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah that's the answer label criticism as an attack, how very original of you. RMHED (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If the FT2's block was to prevent the "disruption caused by unblocking Giano" it might be prudent to ask not to perform any more unblocking of Giano or even not to do any administrative actions at all untill the case is heard by Arbcom. The requirement to not edit edit any pages other than his own talk page or Arbcom is absolutely undeserved and out of proportion. I fail to see any logic in it Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Until the ArbCom speaks as a body, none of these sanctions on Moreschi have any legitimacy. They are opposed by the community. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not overturning another admins action completely. In this case it might be good to ask arbcom to quickly allow the full unblock, or speak to FT2 as the blocking admin to do it. I'm sure a response will be forthcoming. This is just what happens when blocked editors have an RfArb filed against them - they get unblocked to participate in the proceedings, but they must not edit anywhere else. That was the uncontroversial action I took - I'm not planning on wheel warring with an arbitrator. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So an arbitrator is more important than an ordinary admin? Don't make me laugh. Majorly ^talk 23:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not more important, just more dangerous because they are able to open asymmetric cases (a.k.a. "motions") against anyone who wheelwars with them, and are not even obliged to recuse themselves. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ryan was talking about his own decision about not wheel warring, not general importance of various editors. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• FT2's block has no more weight than anyone else's. In fact, based on his recent behavior regarding PD and other issues, I'd say his blocks have LESS legitimacy than any other administrator on the project. SDJ 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was away for about 2 hours total, and this was after I saw the matter was passed to RFAR. I'm fine with an unblock, since there is now no risk of further admin actions of that kind, and it's moved to a regular dispute resolution channel. As I stated, the action was interim only, with open willingness for any arbitrator to use judgement, and the intent was for protection and prevention, obviously at this point it's less likely or very unlikely to be repeated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as long as you're fine with it, I guess it's all good. Your wheelwarring on the Giano block is in perfect form, right? SDJ 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Ryan already unblocked, but with restrictions imposed. Can you confirm that Moreschi is completely unblocked with no restrictions? Just so we don't get an other wheel war about that. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I confirm this. (Oh, wait, you were talking to FT2? My bad.) SDJ 00:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I totally ignored such joke restrictions and wasn't reblocked for it, we can assume no restrictions are in force. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Moreschi's block is now unconditional, meaning that he has no editing restrictions. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for confirming this, Flo, but I think most of us here already knew it. SDJ 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and I'm sure that if it wasn't, there would be much uproar. Majorly ^talk 01:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Good. I assumed so. Even with just a tiny loose end, some troll will come along and pull it until something breaks. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, irony... SDJ 02:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, I don't think this is the right place to proceed with the "discussion". This is not Giano's talk page. Very few Wikipedians appreciate the drama surrounding Giano and ArbCom, please keep it as contained as possible. Colchicum (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Just wanted to say that I'm sorry I didn't find out about this until it was over, so that I couldn't support you in a more concrete way. Props for doing the right thing. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• I know you and I have disagreed on a few occasions, and I regard as friends some of the people involved, but I honestly do not see how this whole thing could have been justified. If ArbCom wished to find ways to rebuild their trust with the community, this was most definitely not it. Orderinchaos 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom?

The complaint against you is absurd. I am not sure there would be any point right now to my commenting, but if you want me to I will. Otherwise, just know - while I have no position on Giano and can't say whether I agree or disagree with your unblock, you were certainly within your rights, have not violated any policy, and these continued attempts to bully admins who exercise their own judgment is a disgrace. I am sorry to see people trying to waste your time, it is a disgrace. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing the right thing for the project, no matter the personal consequences. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Second to this. Moreschi is a user who is firmly committed to creating here an encyclopedia. He is also an admin who is determined to keep different nationalist trolls away from history topics. In fact, by taking one bold move he hinders much damage a disruptive account can create, whereas many other sysops might just avoid responsibility and let chaos rule. Pan Miacek (t) 10:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is work Mirroring Russian Nationalist Web-sites acceptable?

I see that you're busy with other efforts; I hope you'll take the time to look into this issue. A little while ago you banned (Jo0doe (talk) from writing on the Holodomor. Since that time he has simply redoubled his "efforts" on other Ukraine-related articles. This appeared on the talk page [141] of one of them: "I hope you also able to posess a Dr. V.Maslovskyy 1999 work which partially related to the Division - indeed intresting analysys of sources. Jo0doe (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)" I did some research into Maslovsky, which I described in this discussion: [142]. Basically he was a communist-era historian who became unemployed after the fall of communism but maintained an unoffocial career as a Russian nationalist writer. He was murdered, allegedly (and probably, but the case was unsolved) by Ukrainian nationalist thugs. Here is a taste of what Maslovsky's writing: [143]: "Нинішні "національно свідомі" від націонал-демократів до націонал-фашистів в Галичині (і не тільки в цьому краї) прагнуть не лише створити націоналістичну еліту, яка б запанувала над усім життям України, але й націоналістичну диктатуру типу Муссоліні й Гітлера, яку б очолила ця націоналістична еліта. Про таку диктатуру над власним народом вони сьогодні заявляють відкрито. Все це відбувається при всебічному потуранні місцевих, так званих "демократичних", властей." Translation: "Today's 'nationally conscious', whether they be national democrats or national fascists in Galicia (a region in Western Ukraine), want not only to create a national elite which would rule over all of Ukraine, but would also establish a nationalist dictatorship in the manner of Mussolini or Hitler, which would be led by this nationalistic elite. They openly discuss this dictatorship over the nation. Everything takes place within the local so-called "democratic" government."

A quick read of Maslovsky's arguments regarding history show that they basically parrallel Jo0doe's efforts on wikipedia. It's almost like a blueprint of what JoOdoe works on. Wikipedia ought not be a forum for Maslovsky's viewpoint. If you are unwilling to get involved with sanctioning this editor again, could you suggest someone else who would take on this case? Any help would be greatly appreciated.Faustian (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Faustian, you wouldn't be attempting to game the system at all would you by block shopping? I can only hope that Moreschi will direct you to discuss issues on the talk page, instead of asking for sanctions because an editor would like to introduce materials which present a particular POV. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am drawing attention to ongoing abuse of wikipedia by a POV-pusher. I understand that Moreschi may be busy, and am asking if he knows of someone else who could get involved if he does not want to. Moreschi has not replied either postively or negatively to my earlier posts to him, if he's not willing to get involved I'd like to turn to someone else who might. If Moreschi were to say that Joe shouldn't get sanctions, I wouldn't hunt for other admins. That would indeed be block shopping. But I'd like a response from someone, hopefully familiar with this sort of thing. BTW have you seen what is going on in the 14th Waffen SS page [144]. Do you consider it to be acceptable? It goes well beyond presentation of a particular POV (I have no problem with that). Faustian (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't abuse if there aren't ongoing problems on the article, which looking at it does not seem to be the same. I would suggest reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc and if conditions of those policies are met, then there is no reason that it can't be included in the article. One can't use the opinions of one person to exclude the opinions of another (as seems to be happening on the talk page by referencing different historians), as this will ultimately lead to POV within the article. Attribute statements accordingly, keep NPOV and let readers make up their own minds. Also note, just because he was a Soviet historian is not reason to exclude that opinion from the article, and it needn't be included in a moralising way either. There's too much head f**ks with such articles as there is POV pushing from all sides and its the exact type of shit that has to stop from all sides. I would suggest discussing the problems on the talk page, and reach compromise on what is and isn't included. If Maslovsky's view is not a fringe view, then it would be possible to find other sources which hold similar opinions; most importantly they need to come from reliable sources. If you guys want to try and discuss it civilly on the talk page, and if you want me to help to come to a compromise, then leave me a message on my talk page and if I can help I will. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I just would like to point out - I never used any of Maslovsky work at any of WP artilcles - and noted his work only becouse it has an analysys of all Diaspora SS Galicia source . As regards claim maintained an unoffocial career as a Russian nationalist writer - it's false. So adding an SS staff member Y.Krochmalyuk with "Jews Elements"- it's good. Ph.D on history - it's wrong? Nice - so the defeated SS divisions now in safe213.159.244.137 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe it

I can't believe what I'm seeing. And what of the motion to do the same thing to FT2? This ceased to be a joke some time ago. How like arbcom to stick up for each other and their friends. Majorly ^talk 16:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly, I can beleive what I'm seeing. Thank you Moreschi for doing what you thought was right. I always believe, so long as one does what one truly believes to be right one can sleep at night and at the end of the day, one spends longer living with oneself than others. The storm provoked has been both amazing and disgusting; there is at least one editor posting and calling for both our heads who I suspect does not sleep at night, and that person is currently testing even my code of honour. The Arbcom and its owner, need to realise who the encyclopedia's friends are and perhaps more importantly still, learn to identify its enemies because they are often those smiling at them most warmly. I'm sorry you are in this mess and I hope common sense prevails - I suspect, before Jan 1st, it won't. There are worse things in life than not being a fully functioning Admin, quite a few in fact. Giano (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is it not being a fully functioning oversighter? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In tribute

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Leadership is the ability to stand up for what you believe in and to stand by those you believe in. Thank you for bringing leadership to this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A matter for your attention

Hi Moreschi, I left this post about a particular user's conduct earlier on user:Hersfold's talk page and asked for help. However, I realized a little later that Hersfold doesn't seem to have edited Wikipedia lately.

Since you were the other admin involved the last time I seemed to have locked horns with this user, I thought I'd leave a post for you. Could you please resolve the matter in some fashion? Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to respond. I think this is more or less resolved. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For freeing me to continue making edits and building articles, rather than engaging in endless circular arguments, on topics I'm interested in, through doing what an admin should do. Much appreciated! Faustian (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• So hoax [145] with page 284 of the Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, will be safety redistributed over WP.Nice. Jo0doe 213.159.244.137 (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You were warned not to keep posting after having been blocked: [146] but did so anyways.Faustian (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User Aramaean Syriac is creating another FORK

Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_people

This user has been warned several times regarding this situacion and he is still defiant. I have left a similar to User Dab Ninevite (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi Moreschi, could you please provide a third opinion on Talk:Kosovo#Organized crime. I know Dab is usually considered a member of the anti-nationalist team, but I am afraid that there he takes sides way too easily and sends terribly wrong signals. Colchicum (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just as I thought, soapboxers now feel encouraged. Colchicum (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roobit

Hi, I'm a bit worried about your block of roobit (talk · contribs) without any further community discussion, so I've asked for some more input at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#block_of_User:Roobit. --fvw* 09:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I noticed fvw's concerns on the Admin noticeboards and wholeheartedly agree with her. Personally, I felt the ban had no merit and have made my reasons clear on the Admin noticeboards. Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAr in re. Moreschi

The request for arbitration named above has been declined as superseded by motion: Based upon the events of December 16, 2008, Moreschi (talk · contribs) is admonished:

(A) Not to reverse blocks imposed by another administrator without the consent of the blocking administrator or on-wiki consensus;

(B) Not to reverse actions taken by or on behalf of the Arbitration Committee acting as a committee, and to consult with an arbitrator if he finds the status of an action unclear; and

(C) Not to make disparaging comments about other administrators in log entries of his administrator actions.

— Coren ^(talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 15:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For getting it right. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Azad chai

Hi. Could you please have a look at the thread at WP:ANI: [147] Thanks. Grandmaster 11:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This has re-occured and I have listed it at WP:AE#De-azerbaboonifier --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

So, is it policy that if one believes that an admin is not capable of acting impartially, one must keep one's mouth tightly shut?[148] Not sure I agree that's helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He's wrong. There are more diplomatic ways of phrasing, too. Particularly when he's on civility restriction. Moreschi (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I didn't see it as being uncivil, just a view of the situation at hand. And it's especially grating because Elonka has characterized others in much more extreme terms than were used there. It gives something of an "I can criticize others, but others can't criticize me" vibe. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Luigi 28

I have received, as checkuser and admin in italian wikipedia, it:Discussioni_utente:Lusum#Appello about Luigi 28. Simply speacking, an user friend of Luigi 28 tell me that Luigi 28 is not PIO and a simply CU could demostrate this. We had a similar problem with the same cluster of users and errors could be possible. Write me, possibly on it.wiki if you want some clarifications Lusum (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, we have a different policy on meatpuppet than en. Differents policies, different decisions. Happy new year Lusum (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 11:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't understand why stating that one doesn't believe an another editor is neutral should be considered offensive or incivil. Is criticism not allowed per above case and if so in which way. I'm sorry but I just don't understand why I was blocked. I note that other editors have complained about this as well. Could you explain what was wrong with my text ?--Molobo (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

POVN

Happy holidays. You are welcome to comment here. Brandспойт 13:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tomb of the Unknown Rapist

Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park), we have an IP editor (SPA by the looks of it), and two established users, editing against what appears to be some type of consensus and reinserting Tomb of the Unknown Rapist into the article. It is a WP:FRINGE term for the memorial, and has to be dealt with as per WP:UNDUE, and we have comments such as "common sense won out" being used when it is re-inserted. The result shows 1 scholar result, 4 book results and 2 news results. If that is not WP:FRINGE, then what is? I'd like you to deal with this as per the arbcom dealing with Eastern European issues. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Another candidate is availble

User: Itsmejudith will accept a nomination! I suggested you nominate her as you suggested it first, and I could 2nd it if that's appropriate. dougweller (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, and thanks for the nom and the nice things you said. I'm thinking about what admin tasks I would get involved in. I think probably more of the same, responding on the noticeboards and sometimes following up cases of historical, ethnic, fringey articles and BLPs. A bit of wikifying. Of course as an admin I could be more of a policewoman, which would feel odd at first. Anything else you think I could/should be doing if I get through? Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi, just to say that I haven't forgotten about filling in the RfA form, just a bit busy at work at the moment. Cheers! Itsmejudith (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done a draft now. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Take it live, thanks. Help! I'm going away till late Tuesday evening on a chase for research funding (yawn) (no, actually interesting, but hard work). Speak to you then. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on my RfA page. This really is my last contribution till Tues pm UTC. All the best. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bayrak?

Since i note you took on this issue, this diff might be of interest. I can't be bothered jumping through CU/ANI hoops yet. Seems like a time sink. Anywho, [[149]]Bali ultimate (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

User talk:Roobit

Hi, could you please put an end to this continuing soap-boxing? He has added unblock notices at least 3 times already, despite the clear community consensus that this account deserved indef blocking. I have asked numerous times at relevant noticeaboards to protect Roobit pages, but no-one found anything wrong with the soapboxer (ab)using Wikipedia as a propaganda tool.
Now, some other 'controversial' users seem to have caught the sight and one of them is having an emboldening correspondance with the supposedly permabanned troll. I think that only indef protecting Roobit's user pages and also blocking him from using Wikipedia e-mail feature would hinder further disruption (he has already sent me some garbage via Wikipedia e-mail ;-)). Note that Roobit has also been confirmed as a sock puppeteer. And a happy new year too, btw! --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Miacek 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Moreschi,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your report

You have recently reported La poet (talk · contribs) as a possible sock. I believe he is actually a sock of another user: [150]. Thanks a lot for your support!Biophys (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Putinism

We have User:Muscovite99 and User:Biophys on Putinism insisting on usage of a single photo as opposed to a neutral one such as this. Look at the reasons for usage of the first photo, such as "What Muscovite inserted was a propaganda image widely circulated and debated in Russian press." (The photo is from Kremlin.ru, of which we have thousands of on commons:Category:Kremlin.ru], and there is not a single source which states that this is a propaganda photo, or which infers a link of the photo to Putinism); "The photo was chosen because it is both officially sourced AND the most grotesque" (the operative word here is grotesque - if that is not POV what the hell is?!?). This also goes with boh users are also removing Template:POV from the article, because as explained the lead is entirely negative, and as as per [this], there is a whole lot of WP:SYN going on. These two editors are gaming the system by claiming consensus, when there evidently is none, and when there is obviously a valid reason to dispute the neutrality of the article. It is impossible to discuss normal article issues with editors who are absolutely intent on mocking and disparaging the subject, and have, by evidence on the talk page, no interest in achieving a shred of NPOV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This, this, this, and a lot of other articles tell about photo inserted by Muscovite99.Biophys (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One of those is a blog, so not relevant. Additionally, I don't see the word Putinism mentioned in a single source, and I fail to see how the photo helps to describe in a visual manner "the political system of a Russia under President (2000-2008) and, subsequently, Prime-Minister Vladimir Putin, where much of political and financial powers are controlled by siloviki". Why not use any of these photos which chronicle the entire trip to Tuva? Because in Muscovite's own words, it is the "most grotesque" (if that isn't POV-pushing, what the hell is?). This photo is also from the Kremlin.ru website, so in your and Muscovite's words, it is also propaganda, but as per Stalinism and Leninism these use neutral photos, but that is an absolute no-no with this article. You are also poisoning NPOV at the very outset by refusing to even acknowledge that other editors have a problem with this article, and actively remove POV dispute tags from the article, which is a sign of ownership. Frankly, this has to stop, you know that this occurs on all too many articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Debating naked torso of Putin - what can be more ridiculous? If you do not have anything better to do with your time, others do.Biophys (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What is more ridiculous? Your and Muscovite's absolute intent to present as POV (and most grotesque) article as possible. You obviously don't care about NPOV, it's all about how much dirt one can place in articles with absolute scant regard for any sort of policies. There are those of us who do care about NPOV, and wish to have balanced articles, but it is absolutely impossible when editors assume ownership of article, and even do such tendentious edits such as removing dispute tags, when it is absolutely clear there are disputes occurring. It is these types of things that create WP:BATTLE conditions and drags editors with good intentions such as myself into the bullshit. And it has to bloody stop. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you can look at this Moreschi? Muscovite is now claiming on talk that no-one (him) doesn't have to answer my "frivolous" questions, yet they are not frivolous, as they go to the very heart of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. He has continually removed these templates from the top of the page claiming consensus, yet 3 editors for the NPOV article against multiple editors over time against an NPOV article is not consensus. As it is obvious that Muscovite99 is treating this article (and others) as a battleground, I am now requesting again that you take action on this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• WP:LAME, people. Why not just use both photos? The Putin "beefcake" one is a bit cheeky but arguably fair play, as reliable sources have discussed this one and similar pics as a manifestation of the "cult of Putin" (and no, they don't actually need to use the word Putinism). Otherwise, I am not dispute resolution. If, Russavia, you have genuine complaints over article neutrality try an RFC or get medcab in. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian Festival Section

Hello Moreschi, you previously put

on the festival section after User:ArameanSyriac made it. I have recently helped fix the section. I was wondering if the section is now good enough for you to remove the verify section thing on top of the section. Thank-you. Malik Danno (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct wikilinks

You mentioned "correct wikilinks". I would suggest you look at what the wikilink for romantic says. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent mail

You may have "urgent" mail. --Folantin (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

R & R (or should that be r & r? ;)). --Folantin (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

R & R and roger and out. --Folantin (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

Hello. I would strongly recommend undoing your edit here. It makes your nominated candidate look bad and it makes it more difficult to read her actual responses to the questions. I am not speaking of the content or relativity-to-adminship that the questions may or may not be, as I am completely apathetic to that. Useight (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the sentiment but I submit it is too late. You should strike the comments and apologize to her in the discussion section. When I see stuff like this, I think "someone's being immature." When I see such things from the nominator, it makes me wonder if the nominator was wearing his "mature adult" hat or his "silly games" hat when he was preparing the nomination. This means I'll have to do the same level of homework I would do if I were co-nominating rather than the somewhat lesser amount I do when I support. If I don't have the time to do that this week, the candidate will suffer.

There are places for humor throughout the project, including asking obviously-joking questions at RFA. For example, if Aitias had asked "Is there any circumstance in which you would delete a page despite a Hangon tag? Maybe if it consisted of PENIS GRAWP HAGGER?" that would obviously be a joke question and it would not hurt the RFA. Ammending Aitias's question borders on - or possibly crosses the border of - vandalism.

Unfortunately, the best thing this candidate can do if she wants to admin is to immediately withdraw and wait until she gets two co-noms, neither of which is you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with davidwr, those comments are definitely hurting the outcome of the RfA. LittleMountain5 00:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No. The only thing that's hurting the outcome are the opposers. You have email btw Moreschi. Majorly talk 00:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for piling on, Moreschi, but I disagree with Majorly, or, rather, I think the opposers are something that can't really be changed, and certainly not by derision. Nominators, on the other hand, can control their own input to a discussion. I think it has become a truism that criticizing opposers, especially when done by a nominator, can kill an RFA. There may even be an essay on this. Look, in 95% percent of the occasions, I have sympathy for cutting-through-the-crap type of communication, but RFA is one of those places where diplomacy and restraint are more valuable. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A big thanks for your confidence in me and your (x3) nom. Going to thank everyone and take a shortish break, then considering being adopted. Stay cool. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility/unconstructive editing of User:Jack Merridew

Hello! You are listed as one of three mentors to this editor and I am therefore notifying the three of you. I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User talk:Jack Merridew#Less than civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see [151], for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that we are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi. Could you please have a look at this report at WP:AE: [152] Thank you. Grandmaster 06:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question. Some time ago you asked everyone editing AA topics to voluntarily stick to 1RR per week. [153] Is this request still valid, or it is Ok to disregard it? Some people are ignoring it and rv the articles as many times as they like, removing reliable sources contradicting their POV along the way. In the report above I provided info, how despite the official warning to refrain from edit warring MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs) made 4 rvs within the last week. [154] [155] [156] [157] I just want to know if 1rv per week request is still valid or we are back to usual 3RR rule? Please clarify. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

What are the rules on blind reverting and false accusations? Grandmaster and Atabek, have already been banned (4weeks) for not reading what they were reverting[158]. This time, they started a revert war and are accusing MarshalBagramyan of removing the Griboyedov source, when in fact he never removed it. This is simply unacceptable. VartanM (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so. Marshal replaced the words of the Russian envoy to Persia in 1828 with the words of modern Armenian historian. Then he deleted 2 secondary modern sources that I provided, replacing them with the same Armenian historian, presenting his words as fact, while in fact it is a personal opinion of that particular scholar, which should be attributed to him, and other points of view should also be presented, and not suppressed. However Marshal made 4 rvs of edits of other users to maintain the pro-Armenain POV in the article in violation of WP:NPOV. This is not the first instance of such POV push by this user, unfortunately, and repeated incivility is no good either. This all is described in my report. I just don't see why this user should be allowed to make more rvs than others, since you requested everyone to voluntarily stick to 1RR. Grandmaster 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also note that in his latest post Marshal calls my edits vandalism and threatens me that he and his friends will be edit warring to suppress any alternative points of view, if I try to include them. These are his words: You vandalize the article, and I and other users will revert you; we're well within our limits and it's as simple as that. Is this sort of battleground approach acceptable? Grandmaster 05:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Grandmaster_and_Atabek:_Blind_reverting_or_Abusing_AE_board_with_frivolous_report. Lying to get your opponent blocked is unacceptable. This is the lowest you have ever gotten Grandmaster. Apologizing to Marshall for the frivolous report is the least you can do. VartanM (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded there. Why should I apologize? Do you deny that he made 4 rvs during the last week? Please do not distort my words, I never said anything that you are trying to ascribe to me, I just reported edit warring by Marshal, and edit warring has no excuses. Grandmaster 07:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

Hi, I really respect your opinion as an editor, and so would very much appreciate your thoughts about the reliability of this sort of source if you have the time. Thanks. Alun (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Any Romanian Admins

Do you know any Romanian Admins who can attach a proper license to this image of King Michael I: [159] As an aside, do you have have any idea if this image is genuine and can be moved to Commons...if the license is fixed? There is a clear description but I am not 100% sure if the image was taken by the uploader. The only good Commons image of king Michael is from 1948 in his WP article here: [160] Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Or early April

I think early April would very likely work for Judith's next RFA, although I'll get back with her on that; minimum time between these kinds of RFAs is still something that gets debated often.

You might not appreciate my comment in Judith's support; feel free to tell me about that. I have a high opinion of you, and I especially have a high opinion of Judith, and I've told her that many times. I'm sorry the RFA didn't fly; it was razor-close.

I left some comments on User_talk:Folantin's page about what I was attempting to do. Sorry if it came across as "badgering the consoler"; there's something that needs to be done after bruising RFAs, I just haven't figured out yet what it is. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

April is too soon, you'll get morons saying "too soon since last one". Best to give it 4-5 full months. Moreschi (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've made it through the first 43 of your wikithoughts. Thanks for the DefendEachOther link, I had lost that one. Not only do I agree with all 43 (except I don't know what a Preterman is), I may be the only Wikipedian besides yourself (maybe not even yourself) who does, considering you wander from hyphens to RFA to high philosophy :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Too soon? I was under the impression that a number of successful RfAs too place 3 months after a failed one, probably a bad reading of the ones I read some time ago. dougweller (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)