Vanessa Redgrave

I'm currently handing out rollback randomly to people who I think might find it useful - if you don't want the tool, just leave a note here and I'll remove you from the rollbacker user rights group again.

If you want a Veropedia account, just ask. Along with your request, please supply your email address (you can email this to me if you don't want to disclose it publicly), and before you ask, make sure you're not a troll (most people aren't, so you should be fine), and that you can string a coherent sentence together (most people can do this as well). Great article writers are very, very welcome but you don't have to be one, as a lot of the work is copyediting wikignome-style.

Thoughts on User:Moreschi/The Plague and subpages (1 and 2)? All comments welcome.

Admin philosophy is here, general thoughts are here. Work currently in progress: User:Moreschi/Workspace 1.

• • /Archive No.1
  • /Archive No.2
  • /Archive No.3
  • /Archive No.4
  • /Archive No.5
  • /Archive No.6
  • /Archive No.7
  • /Archive No.8
  • /Archive No.9
  • /Archive No.10

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Vacio

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)