Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've missed you so much. FAUoFPaS (Ж) 22:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed you too. It's great to return and see all the old names are still going strong - Chris, yourself, Dieter, Folantin, Doug, Antandrus, Verbal - the crowd. Perhaps now I can accept my limitations a little more after a couple months of total wiki-detox - no email, no talkpage checks, no noticeboard checks, nothing. It helped, I think.

I see we've got ourselves another ARBMAC. Good heavens. Anything I can do? Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, I just clicked that link. Dear God. 1 week for him. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope that some of the other things that come up aren't as bad as that one. Good to have you back from me as well. John Carter (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could help keep a watch on the noise from the sidelines a bit. With all this "involved admin" talk, I've hardly been able to do any serious admin stuff in the Balkans for a while. I find myself reduced to warning people off counterpoint violations, can you imagine that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know where to find me. One can but hope ArbCom will deal with the ringleaders of the latest disturbances. But doubtless the usual random crap is still going on at a higher pitch and with less attention.

Oh, and can someone tell me what this is "Tang Dynasty" case is all about? I was trying to classify it in my Plague subpage and got stuck. It looked to be some kind of Turkic versus Chinese bash - is that right? Moreschi (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a question of reliable sources and insults, from what little I could see. And sorry about the vandalism. There's some psycho out there who has a sick obsession with "Yo to the Nympho" or however he puts it, particularly on trying to delete User talk:Ned Scott. I protected my talk page, so he came here because I'd just edited here. I guess. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome back. No kidding. A lot of people missed you. I hope you had a great break! All the best, Antandrus (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see you back. We've needed folks like you lately. I don't know if you saw that I've managed to get entangled in the Macedonia/"FYROM" mess this time (why is it that editors who would rather just listen to opera always have to deal with nationalists instead?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← What kept you occupied for 3 months? Was there an uninterrupted staging of the Nibelungen cycle? Or does that just seem like it would take 3 months? MastCell ^Talk 05:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, glad to see you back. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, great to see you back! You will probably not be surprised to learn that the ethnic bitchery on Wikipedia has been business as usual in your absence. In brighter news, the Agrippina article made it to FA. --Folantin (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echo the above - glad to see you back! Oooh and a namecheck! Better than a barnstar (which I've still never been given by anyone). And I'm part of a crowd :) Cheers, Verbal chat 10:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this (three guesses;). Welcome home, Jack Merridew 11:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. We missed you. Hmmm, doesn't sound to original, does it? But it's true :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back again! Nathan ^T 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected this page so that you know who will get bored. It will expire after not too long. Feel free to adjust or reverse this action. Chillum 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked slightly. Moreschi (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am reading correctly then I believe that User:Sephiroth BCR is advising that I notify the three mentors of this discussion. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 09:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article could probably use a couple more eyes. You may find some of the comments on Hiberniantears' talk page related to this subject interesting as well. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Outlaw Halo Award
		I saw this just now and thought of you. Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over a disruptive, self-proclaimed subject-matter expert in January. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] (about the award)

Amen to that. MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

could you take a look into User:PasswordUsername's edit history? There's a concern that it might be a sock of Jacob Peters, and I don't know anybody else with that level of experience in recognising Peters' socks. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This guy's in New Jersey, JP is always in California. Moreschi (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please look at User:Kupredu. Same pattern - Stalinist-like POV on Russia, Eastern Europe and related articles (and Allende, where his edits seem weird in the same way as JP's) combined with anti-Israel edits on pages related to Hamas and Hezbollah. He's also told me to "consult" some of the same sources (Mawdsley) as an IP on Lenin did some time ago, which you blocked for being JP's sock [1]. Pattern is similar here too - remove text and references of Western authors he considers objectionable and replace with Soviet based sources.radek (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example consider this statement by Jacob Peters: "The statement that "many countries" consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization is a factual error. Out of nearly 200 countries in the world, the only countries that slander Hezbollah as terrorist are America/Israel, England, Canada, Nederlands, and Australia.", from [2]. And this edit summary by Kupredu: "The opinion of a couple of regimes should not have more coverage than that of the other 190 states in the world.", [3]. Both on Hezbollah. Similar on Hamas (I don't know if JP was ever involved in that one).radek (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more evidence. This user: [4] that you blocked for being JP's sock - note the contrib list; aside from the pro-Soviet stuff, editing articles related to Sudan [5] and [6], (like Kupredu here: [7]), and articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan, IP's vandalisms [8] and [9] (and Kupredu here [10]). So very much the same pattern: pro-Soviet/Israel and Palestine/Armenia and Azerbaijan/Sudan + a few a bit more related ones.radek (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have Stalinist POV. In fact, I haven't made a single positive edit about Stalin and I don't edit 1930s Soviet political history, either: so much for that (my edits to the neo-Stalinism article discuss the term and its criteria). I have not made any edits on the Israel-Palestine conflict, except for adding a word or two here or there to one or two articles (like inserting "pro-Israel" once to describe the ADL's stance on "Naturei Karta").

And I do not slander people with very similar right-wing views as sock-puppets.

PasswordUsername (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, Kupredu.radek (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kupredu looks to have been blocked. Nice catch, people. Moreschi (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi,

I want an explanation as to why Aegean Macedonians are forced into the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, while Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians get to have their own article instead of being within the article Macedonia (Greece) and Blagoevgrad Province, respectfully?

Mactruth

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a merge of Beyond Belief (symposium) to The Science Network. Please go to either article for a link to the discussion if you are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi, why did you block this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luigi_28 without checkuser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Luigi_28 ? I'm sure User:Luigi 28 and User:PIO were different users. IPs from www.libero.it provider are all of 151.* range. PIO's IPs were 151.67.*. Luigi's IPs were 151.70.*.

151.67 should be from Apulia http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/151.67.84.100 , while 151.70 is from Veneto http://www.ip-adress.com/ip_tracer/151.70.71.169 .

I'm working with him on Italian Wiki where he is a great user: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/Presbite . I think we need his contribution also in English Wiki. Is it possible to ask for a readmission? He was blocked unfairly.--Grifter72 (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer?--Grifter72 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I mean Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs). Though technically within the limits of 3RR, most of his edits so far have been reverts, usually in support of his favorite users across a large number of articles, avoiding any meaningful discussion. This is disruptive. Could you please put him under the Eastern European parole and start a community discussion of his behavior or something? I can't do anything because any discussion would be immediately hijacked by a crowd of his pals, followed by their enemies, and so on. Well, just look at the situation when you have time, you know best what to do. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2008 you or someone else accused Roobit (talk · contribs) of operating sock puppets. The claim was that Poetcourt1 (talk · contribs) and Belarus2 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Roobit. At the time it was difficult to refute this claim as the real sockmaster was unknown. The issue was finally solved in March, it turned out that the accounts are in fact sockpuppets of Bloomfield (talk · contribs). The related discussion is here: User talk:Alex Bakharev/Archive23#Nazi crimes in Estonia. Could you remove the sockmaster template from his talk page and restore the banned user template. If you are not convinced, please propose some place to discuss the issue. I have started a thread at User talk:Roobit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would object to Roobit being unblocked. He has only made 276 edits in Wikipedia but has managed to be very disruptive, including gross incivility in violation of Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned as recently as December 2008:

10:47, 12 December 2008: "This is of course not how an encyclopedic entry should be structured or look like. It is ideologically so charged, so inflammatory, views expressed are so one-sided, that unless you a Baltic or Estonian ethno-Nazi or its close supporter, the entry is worthless"

10:47, 12 December 2008: "Modern Estonian ethno-Nazis fail to grasp the fact"

02:47, 18 June 2007: "modern day Estonian Nazis"

As well as soap boxing:

Open Letter Appeal on his User page and again in article space article space.

Note that Petri Krohn is subject to an ANI report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_by_User:Petri_Krohn --Martintg (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't sockpuppetry that Roobit was blocked for, and this was a decision upheld by the community, i.e. ban. For a taste of his more recent attitudes see [11], if you read Russian. Меня забанили в английской википедии - тамошние этнофашисты, русофобы и прибалтийские антисемиты не терпят критики их фантастической истории, и я решил не писать даже в русской Википедии. Зачем поддерживать чужой и чуждый идеологический проект? A battleground mentality in its clearest form. Colchicum (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has asked Roobit to be unblocked. What this is about is clearing this sockpuppet mixup. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Placename_guidelines, on the talk page of which I have inquired here, and set up voting on consensus here to get as wide a vote as possible over two months to nail a consensus for naming conventions for I/P as pursuant to remedy 13.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. Hopefully, once we have some naming conventions set in stone it will make the job of policing partly easier.

I have proposed a similar thing at the ARBMAC2 case to get the community to thrash this out now once and for all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi,

I want an explanation as to why the article Aegean Macedonians was forced into the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, while Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians get to have their own article instead of being within the article Macedonia (Greece) and Blagoevgrad Province respectfully?

Aegean Macedonian is a subgroup just like Greek Macedonian, or Bulgarian Macedonian is. I believe Aegean Macedonian should have their own article if the other two subgroups are allowed too. Mactruth (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I know it's been over two years, but since I only recently found the article, I just wanted to say that you did an awesome job with List of important operas. Keep up the good work! Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review this and comment or vote: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1 Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're still around, but I could benefit from your opinion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--I see that you were the admin that deleted this article as a PROD. Any chance we could get it restored or that I could get access to the original article text? I would like to work on an article for this (admittedly slightly obscure) guitar. Thanks! · rodii · 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ping · rodii · 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things have been very quiet for almost a year and even substantial changes have been dealt with calmly. I'd hate to see someone sanctioned for not realizing there are sanctions - I forgot myself til noticed top of page today. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the name without any discussion. They are engaged in a lot of POV activity, so this is especially problematic. I was told an admin will have to change it back. Could you? Or should I go elsewhere? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss Julie Memorial LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter: Special Pride 2009 Booty call edition

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

• The use of italics in article titles
• Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
• Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same material and would ask that you take time to see User:Buster7/Incivility. Your thoughts are welcome.--Buster7 (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Wayne Crookes, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Crookes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. لennavecia 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASFIK you can't topic ban [[12]] anyone without community consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello....don't block and run. Off2riorob (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure people are allowed to go to bed, go to dinner, do whatever after blocking a person, Off2riorob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off2riorob: Administrators can most certainly topic-ban people to prevent disruption, provided they have reasonable grounds for assuming admin community consensus for such a measure, just as they can block people (and just as they only should block on precisely the same reasonable assumption of consensus). A topic ban is essentially just a selective use of one's power to block, and milder than a block, so there's no reason to place higher thresholds on it than on blocking. In the present case, there is additionally the "discretionary sanctions" clause of WP:ARBMAC, which explicitly allows topic bans. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. As far as WP:ARBMAC is concerned, I can do whatever I like, whenever I like, to whomever I like. I've been doing so very successfully for what, a year? 2? In addition, I do most certainly reserve the right to ban flamers for a week and then go to sleep, particularly at 2 in the morning! Please. Moreschi (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, welcome back, Moreschi. We've missed you. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hetoum I? I believe I have enough evidence to link this user with massive disruption on AA articles. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome back! The nationalists have missed you! :-) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I understand that SPI takes time, but in the meantime 216.165.33.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) continues mass reverting the AA articles. Is there anything that could be done to stop this IP? Note that previously similar IPs 216.165.33.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.165.12.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from the same university were blocked for the same type of disruption. Grandmaster 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better check your boy grandmaster instead, rapid pro-azeri admin Quarters of Yerevan, lovely to see lack of your dedication to solving problem through mediation and blocking your buddy's edit warring. Way to go, what a responsible and unbiased administrator, if only others on Wiki could be like you. Don't forget to give him a medal too ;).

Hi there, Moreschi. Welcome back. Your presence has been sorely missed and I was hoping that you can help me out with something. Can you please take a look at this and this and make your own assessment of it?

I have noticed some bizarre relations with another account on Wikipedia and one on Commons. They all appear dubious; even from the color photos, we can seen from the colors and the slight tint that they all come from journals, magazines or books. The evidence, the timing, the contributions, etc. all suggest very strongly that it's editor Neftchi (formerly Baku87), and he is adding the copyrighted pictures for Neftchi. Check where he has contributed and check the pattern of Neftchi edits there.

Also, note that while you blocked Neftchi previously under AA2, he does not appear to be restricted. After his block expired after impersonating a real person, the first thing he did is to revert. Is he yes or is he not under restrictions? Please note that he was only blocked for a very short time for the most grave offense that any users from any parties have done previously: impersonating a real person and passing himself as him. He has yet to show any remorse for his actions and even went further to suggest that the individual who reported him was behind it. Thanks a lot.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly overwhelmed with request at this point, but I'll take a look. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Authenticism was deleted after policy; it has been re-instated by a sock of the original author of the article. Would you mind deleting it again? -- Evertype·✆ 22:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi, hate to be a nag, but have you had a chance to follow-up on my report on User:Imbris' yet? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next up the to-do list. That wil be around 2pm GMT. Hetoum will be after. Haven't got time for anything right now. Moreschi (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left a message, let's see if that has any effect. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know its silly! :) I imagine that's why he hasn't gotten blocked yet. People see how trivial these disputes of his are on all those obscure articles, and they just snicker and go about their business. But its spread to so many articles and has lasted so long I'm not laughing anymore. Its incredibly disruptive. The guy makes the most absurd edits and defends them to the death, unless the other guy gives in there's going to be edit-warring for months on end. He essentially goes around picking fights and "defends Croatia honor" by changing flags and such. Even in the face of being directly contradicted by sources there's no way he'll stop with edit-warring once he's made-up his mind. All he does is edit-war and pick fights, he's extremely detrimental to the quality of this group of fringe articles. I won't beat about the bush: imho he certainly deserved a block twenty times over by know. However, at this point, I'd settle for anything that will stop his disruption. (P.S. you can expect one of his standard... "responses" pretty soon...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I'm sorry this ugly business spread to your talkpage, it was not my intention. User:Imbris has not yet stopped any of his "campaigns", and continues to edit-war to push his edits, despite having been reverted and warned on numerous occasions by a large number of Users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More and more inventions by Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR is the only source of edit-war, I have reverted only in those cases where no sources were presented and where Mr. DIREKTOR continues his blatant POV. Do you know that there exist a direct wikilink from the beginings of Mr. DIREKTORs carrear on en.wiki where he insist that Croats and Serbs are one Serbo-Croat people which speak the Serbo-Croat language. -- Imbris (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not reply here again, for me the issue is EOD. Naturally Moreschi can contact me at my talk page. Nice to see that Mr. DIREKTOR goes around the procedure and behind fellow contributors back.. . -- Imbris (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the administrator warned Mr. DIREKTOR

The answer to that question is: No

If my edits are meaningless, then why does Mr. DIREKTOR insist on his revertion of those very same edits?

The answer is that nobody should be faced with such level of accusation and Mr. DIREKTOR is full of accusations, but have you looked at his record. No. Have you noticed that Mr. DIREKTOR picks up every chance of edit-warring even in those occasions where some agreement was achieved.

Also mentioning Eurovision was a nice way of telling (of knowing) that somebody doesn't do well in other fields, is that what happened.

Mr. DIREKTOR's only wish was to find an admin that will listen to his side of the story and act without questioning the motives of his desire to block somebody from editing. Mr. DIREKTOR is full of slandering of my character.

His methods of accusations goes like this: (1) He offends editors to the virge of reciprocation (2) When the editor doesn't reciprocate, he simply accuse he/she as a nationalist (3) He invents often that somebody called him a communist (4) He then insist on those inventions and paints a pretty picture as if a Yugoslav cannot be a nationalist Etc. Etc.

He has no sources for his blatant POV-pushing, like that United Nations fabulation, the Coat of arms of the Federal State of Croatia, and most recently his authorship of the Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and the lattest addition of the Coat of arms of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, which has no sources (nor the desing, nor for the colours), Etc. Etc.

Imbris (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before making the OR of language shifting, it would have been better if you checked the sources more carefully. [13] especially Fleming you used as a ref is misquoted. Moreover the epithet Albanian Brigand for Ali is historically wrong in the context. Ali fought Souliotes while he was an Ottoman Pasha and that is the correct term, moreover Souliotes were brigands for themselves ransoming nearby villages. From my understanding first you rm well referenced material, than later based on the misuse of the refs you periphrased wrongly the lead completely going against previous NPOV version Aigest (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was rewrite the lede so the knotty ethnicity question was neatly sidestepped. If there was other inaccurate material in the lede before I started that is not my problem. Kindly {{sofixit}} and actually bother to check the diffs and read what I wrote. Assuming you can fix it without adding stupid numbers of cites, that is. Moreschi (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but if you could take the time to see in the talk page why there were so many refs you could understand the question in hand although Kreshnik tried to explain it to you [14] In the meantime your ref removals proposals leaded to the change of the lead for previous consensual version [15] (NPOV version their origin clear Albanian as all refs agree, their time of assimilation not specified majority after Greek revolution some during it, that's the reason of 15refs )to actually an OR. I appreciate your efforts in this topic but a further contribution by your part was expected, especially when your own version of consensual aim (I noticed it) contains wrong refs. Regards Aigest (talk) 12:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not read the talk page. I clearly stated I had NO objection to "albanian origin" going back in. And this "time of assimilation" nonsense has got absolutely nothing to do with any of my edits.

Also, please write in more comprehensible English. I appreciate it's not your first language but I don't really want to have read every one of your posts 5 times over just to figure out what the general point is. Moreschi (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you opposed it. A further participation in the article was expected after your version was opposed. Sorry about the language, kind of hurry;) Aigest (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After the below comment by Alex, would you consider to join the debate on Fleming on the talk page [16]? I think that there is a misuse of her work. Regards Aigest (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we are still discussing Fleming, I was forced to copy all the paragraph from her book because we are having a dispute regarding its interpretation. In my opinion she express herself an opinion, while Alex thinks that is Bearlein opinion could you participate there please the tex and link is this one

Fleming p. 66 note 36) link [17] Fleming words in Bold, Baerlein in Italics.

36) This point however can be overstated. Baerlein for example writes: "Now, since we find a Greek people largely talking Albanian and thorough Albanians writings in Greek, it is obvious that the languages which were used in the daily life of the two sandjaks (sic) gave little indication of the people's political sentiments. Yet there have not been publicists who were rashly based their arguments on the habitual language. How far astray this leads one we shall see when contemplating the heroic Souliotes, who in Albanian shouted their defiance of the threatening Greek letters sent by Ali Pasha" (Baerlein 1968, 22). The Albanian-speaking Orthodox Suliotes resisted domination of all sorts, Orthodox and Muslim, Albanian and greek speaking, and their alliance shifted depending on who offered them the greatest chance of ongoing freedom.

Regards Aigest (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your numerous contributions. I really believe that the version you edited on Souliotes was a good consensus at the time. However, in your recent warning I saw my name also, related to edit-waring, I do not see how am I involved in all that? —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were at 3RR yesterday at Albania and last week did a fair few on Albania nationalism. Everything's clearly got quite out of hand all round since I went on my break a while back, whereas before when I was around to actually enforce WP:ARBMAC we actually had some discipline and edit-warring was minimized. At the moment there's a just a big travelling circus going round fighting from article to article. Moreschi (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline is completely necessary, there is great POV pushing from editors. I am fairly new in WP, my primary interest was culture and art, but I must say that I got disappointed when WP:OR and WP:TE are apparent on so many articles (more in particular Albanian nationalism) and no-one seems to do anything about it. I have raised the question on Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#WP:Synth_on_Albanian_nationalism and the editor there seems to agree with me, also Third Opinion agreed with me. However, I never was subject of edit-waring in Albanian nationalism article. Check for yourself. There were two cases that I did rv, in Prizren and in Albania (in both cases was backed by an admin - though got warned once in Prizren). —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna,please try to keep the cases to their pages.The No_original_research/Noticeboard shows that you are the one who is wrong, not i.I would have found it more courtial if you informed me of the OR and if you did not try to do things like this PeterSymonds talk,Dbachmann talk.Megistias (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help in Souliotes. Unfortunately, User:Aigest still disagrees with this approach making several reverts in the lead (as well in history section-Greek War of Independence- but without giving there a single reason), and in similar pages (Markos Botsaris, insisting on the previous version. I asked him to read the sourced material carefully but it seems to be fruitless. (Insists on the 15 books, and misuses 'rs' books like Flemming)Alexikoua (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[18]. I reported Tadija, can you check my report?--Kreshnik25 (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have some collateral damage here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your only edit was a typo correction, and I did fix that. It wasn't a matter of being discourteous to you, just a mistake. Sorry I wasn't more careful. -- Noroton (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent involvement in Greece-Albania articles, I thought I should notify you of an SPI I have filed here [19]. This new user, Kreshnik, strongly reminds me of the dreadful User:Sarandioti, with which you may or may not be familiar with. --Athenean (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with that sock in such a decisive manner. Sarandioti was one of the most disruptive users I have ever encountered and he got what was coming to him. In such cases, can we go ahead and roll back all the contribs of the sock? Btw, he will almost certainly be back, if he isn't already (the Lceliku account), so I'll be on the lookout. --Athenean (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that wasn't completely worthless, go ahead. Nice report, by the way. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I learn from the best. --Athenean (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were the blocking admin on the "Travis Bickle" edit war, I'd like your opinion on Talk:Travis Bickle#Recent edit war and handling of this article.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andranikpasha. Grandmaster 10:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo there! Just want to inform you that I saw a message from a recently blocked User:I_Pakapshem, on my talk page: [[20]] (used his i.p. in order to be able to post it there), saying that he (I_Pakapshem) does not agree with my comments on the wp:spi case against Kreshnik25 [[21]].

Actually, his comment is in full accordance with his unblock request explanation ignoring the reasons he was blocked [[22]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi, thanks for your fair minded intervention yesterday, I think it might be a good learning experience for me. I think I understand the condition, I can add anything I want (cited and correct) to any article if someone reverts my edit I can replace it once, one revert on a page per day, that could be 20 reverts on 20 pages, one per page, on any number of pages. I didn't really know this but if I go to a page and think .. the lede is excessively long and I trim it, that is a revert? Also .. I take care of a few articles from what is mostly ip comedy edits (they are technically not vandalism but perhaps uncited), if I revert those with an edit summary of.. reverting comedy uncited ip edit, would that be counted as a revert? I expect I will go very slowly with reduced editing for the time being. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I revert these edits from the ip? I would say they have been destructive, so they would not count as a revert? Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHaT CAn I DO tO PUsH MY own PoV, my SOURCED POV, bY the wAy? Guildenrich 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guildenrich (talk • contribs)

Um, found your own wiki? Have you actually bothered to read WP:NPOV? Moreschi (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I found my own wiki? Can you give me any advice? Guildenrich (talk)-- 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This individual[23], which is also this anon ip[24] and this anon ip[25], is removing referenced information concerning the figures for the Armenian Genocide and/or Hamidian massacres[26],[27]. This individual was previously involved in removing Kurd(s)/Kurdish from articles where upon I sent him a warning[28], which was summarily deleted and replaced by this response, Wikipedia is not your private site,you cen be an anti-turk but wikipedia is an objective platform.. Which is very similar to the nationalistic vandalism posted on my talk page later[29], wikipedia is not your armenian propaganda machine. Could you help with this problem? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now this person[30] and his/her sockpuppet[31] is changing pictures on the Kurdish people article, removing Saladin et.al., and trying to create "new" pictures for the Kurdish people article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 20:54, 19 June 2008 Moreschi protected Mingrelians ‎ (Laz vandal [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. Please see the discussion I started at talk:Mingrelians. --TS 04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you recall what this was about? I don't know what the reference to "PIO" in the message means. The semiprotection is still in operation.

• 14:41, 22 June 2008 Moreschi protected Istrian exodus ‎ (persistent PIO socking [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

--TS 17:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun a discussion of this semiprotection at talk:Istrian exodus. --TS 09:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I'm new to RCP, and got a bit trigger-happy with Twinkle. Saw the massive drop in bytes and assumed blind removal of content. Hit the button too fast to examine closer. Sorry!! BlazerKnight (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, isn't a year a bit harsh? I mean, Jingiby was discussing and he was not the most active reverter at Orpheus and Thracians. Can you explain why Jingiby ought to be banned and not User:Megistias or even me? Thanks :) Best, Todor→Bozhinov 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for outstanding WP:LAME. There's a reason why it's called myth, people. The origins are beyond rescue. Fighting over whether Orpheus is Thracian or Macedonian or Greek is just so ridiculous: and clearly this is something of a meme in Bulgarian nationalism, so if we can positively identify him as "Thracian", then the next logical step is to identify him as Bulgarian. Which is really cynical. Megistias at least appears to have been on the right side of this one, and, to his credit, tried to counter POV-pushing by writing about it, although I think his "Orpheus in nationalism" would do better slimmed-down slightly at Bulgarian nationalism. Jingiby has been skating on the edge for a very long time now, and this pushed him over it. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why the possible Thracian origin of Orpheus can lead to him being identified as Bulgarian. My personal opinion, not necessarily asked for, is that the section has a decidedly POV-pushing intent aimed at discrediting any links of Orpheus with Thracians and their mythology. I see Jingiby as merely trying to prevent that.

Indeed, the theory of Thracian origin of the modern Bulgarians has its place in Bulgarian nationalism, but it is by no means widespread and by no means supported by leading scholars. Megistias is known for citing texts out of context and using inappropriate quotes to push an opinion, I've caught him twice already; I believe he did the same with the "In Nationalism" section. "Bulgarian nationalism interprets anything Thracian as Bulgarian" is not a valid claim, and newspaper articles on a certain archaeologist's opinion cannot be equated with the opinion of Bulgarian scholarship.

But sure, Orpheus is very popular in Bulgaria and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "Land of Orpheus" slogan. He did spend some time in the Rhodopes, so why not? It's just advertising, and not that blatant actually. Todor→Bozhinov 11:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing texts out of context? Caught him? Todor right here you are practically denying the existence of a number of Neolithic cultures.my talk page.On this we dont know much on Thracians and their mythology.The Bulgarian state itself promotes and backs claims regarding Orpheus.Megistias (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that Menemberia,Nesebar was somehow founded in 2000 BC? diff,diff.How is that even possible? Or adding external links in that form as references/ diff in Parvomay? And this was a commercial link (after "A dam of the river Kajalijka between Iskra"), strange link that you baptized as a ref. Megistias (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possible explain to Todor what is Neolithic and what is not? diffMegistias (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this but its heavy and sometimes slows down my pc The-Odrysian-Kingdom-of-Thrace.Its a pdf of sorts from scrbd.Megistias (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi,

Seems like the latest Sarandtioti sock: [32]. Brand new redlink account, performs exactly the same edits as Sarandioti: [33] [34] [35]. Best, --Athenean (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo! Since you have dealed before with the specific user, I inform you that I've initiated an wp:ani case against User:Guildenrich. Characteristically, the last version of his userpage is a propaganda concert, giving unreliable bibliography about attrocities against Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have upped the block on Rodgarton (talk · contribs) to one month, after 2 IPs (one of them identifying himself as Rodgarton) continued disruption. I'd like that you review the situation. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you're an admin, perhaps you could move the above back to [[Dido and Aeneas]], as we seem to have a consensus. I tried, but wasn't allowed to do it because of the redirect (or something technical like that). Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moreschi. It appears that the original revisions of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 4 have been deleted and only certain revisions were restored. Is there any issue with restoring the page creation and subsequent six edits? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past you have expressed a very level-headed approach to this article. There has been a lenghty discussion 9argument) just in the past few days, leading to page protection. I have participated in this discussion but not much, in the past few days, so I don't know what specifically led to the protection. Unimportant. What is important in my mind is the potential for you to review the last few day's talk and identify key issues in content or content politics that you either can clarify, or where you may ask a question that might help antagonistic parties clarify the issue and move towards some way of collaborating smoothly. In any event I think your assessment at this juncture would be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since you offered up a comment here [36], I have posted a reply arguing my case. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bit carried away with the rolling back there - sorry about that. I'm almost glad it will be deleted because the whole thing has become a bit of an embarrassment on me now. I've now told Ottava he's on his own. Frankly, I can see where a lot of people are coming from with this RfC. I sort of agree with its general gist, but I'm failing to see why this suddenly needs solving now. Going to leave for a bit now. Regards, Majorly talk 11:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should i develop those two sections here [37] ? As it adresses the history of nationalism.Or should i take this directly to later eras articles? Communist Bulgaria · Bulgaria since 1989.Megistias (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the result of my effort.[38],[39].Despite my crude writing this is something that occured during communism and has carried on to today in a form and should be somehow mentioned.Megistias (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Ptrustct (talk · contribs) is an obvious SPA, who just reverted your merge of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan and another article. It looks like this activity is coordinated off wiki. I asked for CU: [40], but in the meantime edit warring by SPAs needs to be stopped. Regards, Grandmaster 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to CU, Aptak (talk · contribs) is a sock of banned user Verjakette (talk · contribs). [41] Grandmaster 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support me in merging Albanian nationalism article with National Renaissance of Albania, and putting some of the current material to Greater Albania. —Anna Comnena (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna you ve already suggested merging and splitting the Albanian nationalism article in its talk page.And it cant happen for the reasons mentioned there.Megistias (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anna C., you insist on fictional minorities in Greece. Arvanites are not considered an Albanian minority, see (Albanian_communities_in_Greece). Moreover, I wonder were you found the 50,000 Chams in Greece today [[42]].Alexikoua (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexi, i think it would be better to discuss this issue on Talk:Albanians, or even my talk page User talk:Anna Comnena - I believe I did not put the 50,000 number of Chams, it should have been around 17,000. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. I certainly may understand if you are unwilling to be dragged into this, but I think you may have something to comment on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Community encouraged in particular, and possibly on some other developments. Colchicum (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again the Neolithic issue.History of Plovdiv & Plovdiv.User Avidius readds this diff History of Plovdiv, and this Plovdiv giving a tourist tone to the article sections and claiming that This source he used is also claiming unreal things as that the city is "contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople." see talk page on answer. He also used this abvg that claims that the city is older than the mentioned cities.The city had continual habitation but thats all ( Rodwell, Dennis (2007). Conservation and Sustainability in Historic cities. Blackwell Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 1405126566.) The claims on the other cities are irrelevant and the abvg "ref" has to go as well.Involved users seem to be unable to understand this that i have posted twice.[43]

A continuation of the edit-war at Orpheus is ongoing. Could you please check it out when you have time? Thanks, --Athenean (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have decided to erase an academic source I have no choice but to inform neutral administrators in the matter. The source is ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by F.G.Debets ) wherein he states that anthropological examinations show that Bulgarians and Thracians both belong to the Aegean anthropological type. This and other sources (including the sources describing similarities between Greeks and Thracians, Abanians and Thracians, etc) in the relevant article section of the Thracians article were originally provided by me as they were all part of a thesis paper on the topic. However of these academic sources, only one gets removed/vandalized (suspicious), which is about the Bulgarian-Thracian anthropological connection. As per the rules of Wikipedia, removing academic sources is vandalism and I am considering having a investigation conducted into your administrative privileges.--Monshuai (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. I tremble at the thought. Allow me a little scepticism here. This a source of dubious quality (phD thesis does not equal peer-reviewed anthropological literature), and when used to make such a striking claim (what, pray, is the Aegean anthropological type), I think I am on fairly safe grounds on removing it. See also WP:REDFLAG. Moreschi (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, put more concisely: telling me I am engaging in vandalism is a short way to a long block. Don't. Moreschi (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and in case you didn't know, PhD thesis are peer reviewed by the relevant university faculty professors. PhD thesis papers are also used as references in various articles published in peer reviewed journals.--Monshuai (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been concluded by other administrators that the source from Dr. Aris Poulianos, founder of the Greek Anthropological Association, meets Wikipedia standards and should be used in the article. Here's the book it was published in: The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. The book was published in Greece, the USSR and peer reviewed in the West.--Monshuai (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Now you are actually just lying. Nobody at ANI or RSN has said anything of the sort. What they have said is that what was a critical review of the thesis published in a journal qualifies are an RS, which of course I have no issue with. Trying to make your original assertion based on this source in the light of the review is doubly inappropriate. Moreschi (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monshuai is misrepresenting me here after a clear warning at 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC), please see WP:RS/N#fifelfoowarns. The source Monshuai brought to RS/N was an unpublished PhD thesis, and I located a work by the same author appearing to substantially cover similar grounds. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifelfoo, the study is one and the same. I have used his work in my first PhD thesis. Poulianos's PhD thesis is called "Origin of the Greeks". The study you reference is the very same "Origin of the Hellenes" used in the book you mentioned. I believe the work of a famous Greek anthropologist and founder of an anthropological association is important and reliable.--Monshuai (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They stated that the source is published and peer reviewed, which according to rules meets Wikipedia standards. Which part am I lying about? It was also stated that when using the source I should also state the criticisms (in regard to Poulianos's conclusions) made by other academicians. Also the source is written by Dr. Aris Poulianos the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association. I am not sure what about his expertise you deem unreliable.--Monshuai (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Poulianos1960Origin which was discovered by a google author search by me and noted at RS/N is identical to Poulianos1961Origin which you brought to RS/N. I haven't questioned Poulianos' expertise. I have stated that a PhD thesis is not wikipedia reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand your view in this matter. Moreschi also stated this about PhD thesis papers. However my question to you is related to the book you introduced in RS/N, "The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos". Is it in your opinion Wikipedia reliable? BTW, I just read your user page and your views on sources such as "tertiary textbooks" so I realize you are indeed quite familiar with the academic process and university/post graduate level work. This is why I value your opinion and I think you and I can have enlightening discussions on matters of interest.--Monshuai (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered, clearly, in plain English, at WP:RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. This has been most gratifying and productive. Glad to work with you and I hope we do so again in the future.--Monshuai (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moreschi. Megistias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  06:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moreschi. I have proposed an editing restiction to Megistias at User talk:Megistias#Would you consider using the article talk page? If he agrees to it, or something similar, are you OK if I unblock him? EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi, Moreschi. This total deletion is too preciptious. Articles like this should be stubbed to basic info + role table. Not completely deleted. Alternatively slap {{copyvio}} on it to give us some breathing space. Can you restore it please? Ditto with any others like that that you encounter. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, although your nationalist agenda is completely alien to me, and even more are your (accidental?) supporters, I completely agree with the basic premise of your message. In case you need a vote to override NPOV and "consensus" to get it through, I'm with it.

There is, however, a danger of disjointed development, when judgements enforced over different conflicts contradict each other. One admin, say, supervising Kosovo, aligns with the American POV, backs it up with academic evidence and enforces "Muslims Are Cool" approach. Another, on the Israel-Palestine matters, uses the same pool of sources and the same reasoning and enforces "Muslims Not Wanted Here". The radicals flock into the only open channel left to them, everything looks so far so good, encyclopedicity goes down the drain.

Oversimplification indeed, but I don't find it improbable. Where are the safeguards against guru admins tearing down the house, all in good faith? Where are the safeguards against, say, pro-Chinese expert admins silencing Dalai Lama and Falun Gong once and for all? And, as you notices, where are the superhero experts to bear the burden of content decisions?

In my opinion, the only solution is top-bottom formulation and enforcement of content policies for the whole "community" (down to "Write Republican") but I doubt that the Foundation will dare to pronounce it in public. NVO (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this user: [[44]] Also per violation of WP:harrassment, can the user be banned? He has done no significant contribution except attack other users. Here he attacks me [45] and then violates my old user page (having my name I consider it WP:harrassment)) [46] and here he attacks my current page [47]. He also seems to be oblivious to the sources on the mainpage and just violates WP:Forum. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) --Nepaheshgar (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have raised the issue of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar's disruptive editing at WP:AN/I#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. As an involved party, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you claim that this book is propaganda. Therefore, you deleted it from the article. Could you please elaborate? Thank you. Regards. Tajik (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I claimed nothing of the sort. Without bothering to look at the book in question, academic consensus is pretty clear that the Cyrus cylinder is pure propaganda, and that the claims for it being some kind of human rights charter are simply an Iranian nationalist meme started off by the Shah. This does not in any way detract from Cyrus's status as benevolent dictator and a humane ruler for his time, if you wish to argue that at the appropriate articles, where I would have a good deal more sympathy. Moreschi (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action on the Swanson puppets. (Of course, Swanson's wheeling and dealing contributed to my leaving the Opera Project.) No doubt you have read the account of his blocking in April. Back in the spring I was also warning about the extent of the copyright mess, see FYI: Copyright violation on La falena. I'm wondering whether there are still some uncaught puppets out there in the wild — is there any way to get checks done quietly without it becoming a big drama? Thanks. Best. --Kleinzach 01:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Cosmos is back with a sock User:Diamond912. I've opened an SPI here [48]. Regards, --Athenean (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, I read your essay on the plague of nationalism. (I assume you are the author?) Interesting stuff. As Albert Camus put it: "I love my country too much to be a nationalist". Irvine22 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However you want to publicly justify what you did is your prerogative. But I am sick and tired of dealing with an editor who insults and demeans with nearly every edit he makes, all while refusing to address legitimate content issues.

And another thing, when you claimed that “the only other commentator on the talk page has been largely hostile to your positions”, the other editor, Marshall46, was commenting on only one of the many changes I was making. And it was based on his input that I was seeking WP:DR on that particular section and did not reintroduce it into the article in any of my subsequent edits.

If you want to contribute to a discussion make sure you are up to date on the facts. WVBluefield (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish I had blocked both of you. Seriously, stop badgering me and try to sort out your problems. I've given you the breathing space to do so rather than blocking the pair of you, for which you should be grateful. Instead it seems you simply don't care, you're that eager to see WMC blocked. It's rather unseemly. Now please shoo and please post on some noticeboard somewhere to garner some other views. Moreschi (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not eager to see anyone blocked, when given another avenue I quickly take it. I just want to be treated fairly and with a degree of respect like is demanded of nearly everyone else here and I don’t want the subject misrepresented as you have done. Is that so difficult to understand? WVBluefield (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful for an admin warning per digwuren sanctions about an abusive Polsh editor, Paweł5586 .

Paweł5586 (talk) has a long history of abusive posts and has been warned multiple times by me and by other editors, on both sides of various issues, not to engage in abuse. A typical exchange: he describes information he doesn't like as "lies" here: "These are Ukrainian lies, Huta self-defence units defend village against UIA. Its nationalistic POV and excuse for crime in Huta", is warned by me here ("Please stop being abusive just because you don't like certain information") and by a Polish editor here ("Yes Paweł5586, please avoid abusive words such as lies etc., these are not lies, just different or Ukrainian nationalistic POV") not to be abusive, but escalates here by then calling what I wrote "This is lie - A lot of innocent Ukrainians were murdered by Polish self-defence bands based in places such Huta Pieniacka prior to that village's destruction.

This just goes on across several article talk pages. Here, for example "This claim proves you are not interested in the true but for excuse ukrainian nationalists for their crimes. You are biased.". To which I responded here " in no way excused or condoned the murder of innocent civilians. This is your third personal attack against me."

Here he admits to using wikipedia as a battleground, stating "Thanks to you, will be more articles about SS-Galizien massacres, I will make them for you. First is Pidkamin massacre next, today will be Palikrowy massacre. You will see more truth about your "heroes"." (in a discussion about my objection to his basing an article on work published by notorious Polish right-wing private publisher Nortom).

Here he is quoting a Russian nationalist blog: [49] and here he is] slapping a "POV" tag onto an article about a notorious anti-semitic Polish publishing house, Nortom, whose works he has been promoting on wikipedia. I finally did on RFC on Nortom, which expires in a few days - consensus of course is that works published by Nortom are unacceptable but thanks to Pawel this obvious fact needs an RFC to get Nortom works off wikipedia. His tactic now seems to be to demand that all sourced infromation showing the Nortom authors' antisemtism be removed, otherwise he will continue slapping the POV tag onto the article. See this thread please. Incredibly disruptive.

Etc. etc.

After another Polish editor, Loosmark, was topic banned for engaging in similar behavior (Loosmark was arguing together with Pawel5586 actually), Pawel5586 finally settled down but after a couple weeks but was back at it, as seen here where he states "you are trying to deny UPA and Galizien crimes, using Holocaust-denying arguments against Nortom." I had hoped that after the other editor had been topic banned Pawel5586 would stop engaging in such behavior but it seems that this hasn't been the case.

The most recent personal attack is here and the full thread is here.

Could you give him a strict warning and place him on the list of editors placed on notice so that if he continues in such behavior further steps can be taken?Faustian (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!Faustian (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argggg. Mental lapse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. You are absolutely right to sanction in this case: dispute resolution is intended for parties who are intelligent, honest, and rational. Someone who writes that sort of stuff is none of those. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this back awhiles and knew they needed a serious intervention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi I am familiar with your positions about nationalistic issues in WP and your reputation “in dealing” with it, having follow you for sometime now in many reactions and discussions about. I understand them and although possibly sounds strange to your ears I agree, but it will take time to explain and that's not related to the reason I am writing you (with two words my opinion is that nationalism creates nationalism with an almost magic way but anyway). From your part you must understand that the Souliotes' issue unlike what you think and the page statistics shows, is a key issue in the period's history because of the simple reason of the significant role they played in the Greek revolution of 1821, hence the discussion about their origin. Not to bother you for long, can you find some time to deal with it by yourself to end up the issue? In your last rv you told “back to the last sane version until to manage to come up with something vaguely in accordance with policy” but because of your somewhat steep manner you expressed yourself I bet that possibly no old user would try to do it not knowing your reaction, but Ι am afraid that that would not last (too many IPs and single used accounts involved etc.). As I already explained, my position is to give the three different views about, and get over with it and since you prefer, using only modern and academic refs about them. But anyway if you are thinking different, do your best according to the policies. I believe that a balanced text from your hand dealing with their origin will end the issue and speaking for myself I will actively support it against any seed of disruption. I hope to understand it and to have the time to do it. If not, please give a more specific view on what you are thinking as a something vaguely in accordance with policy. But I strongly believe that a text with your sign is the best solution. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put this on the ANI dispute page but it's probably more appropriate here. After some interaction with him recently and watching some fairly experienced editors interact with him I would obviously look pretty foolish arguing that he can't be disruptive at times. However in this case, banning him on the grounds of not being tempermentally suited for collaborative editing, I honestly believe that in the single instance of that article in question and the editor who initiated the ANI, Ludikus got set up, and while his reactions toward the end of the thread were rather childish I'm not sure many people would have acted differently. (note I'm not going to argue at all that you reconsider this decision but consider what he was up against that you probably did not notice)

Complaint generated by users User:Loremaster and User:Arthur Rubin which call for a banning of User:Ludvikus on this stated basis- but the history of his talk page makes it clear that, even after the last ANI link referred to above, he believes he can do anything unless there's consensus against his actions, which he defines as a majority opposing his actions, including himself as approving his actions.

Arthur Rubin first makes the case he isn't calling for a ban, just "something must be done" yet in the next paragraph says-Normally, I would think a topic ban might be sufficient, but it seems to me that, considering his edit history, the problems would likely occur anywhere he edited a controversial article.

What the two editors describe as Ludvikus attempting to edit outside a concensus is from my experience with them, and I do not make this charge lightly, the most aggressively "owned" article I have seen at wiki. It is also one of the most professionally edited, so much so that it is tempting for wiki editors and admins alike to completely ignore wiki policy forbidding such activity and even condone a bizarre series of personal attacks and not assuming good faith of any editors to enforce the edits by a primary editor. This editor, who called for the ban of Ludvikus, even gloats over its ownership and has consistently resorted to taking any statements by a potential editor he can embellish and distort as a conspiracy theory, for instance if one merely made mention of curiousity about a Northern American Union-not said it was a fact, but mention it in passing? Voila', you are now a conspiracy theorist, or CRANK, and now you are proudly excluded from touching in any way his article as you must be pushing your agenda. I know this sounds childish but this has long been the case there. My first attempt to edit the page saw the first sentance from the editor in the talk page state that he went to my user page and from it he thinks I sound like a crank. He did the same thing to Ludikus, and used that flame on both of us and others countless times, which was brought to Arthur Rubin's attention (he's an admin) by Ludikus, whose response was... to again call me a crank.

However I am not of thin skin and this is not the problem. The issue is supposedly Ludikus editing outside consensus and causing a conflict merely by accusing loremaster of article ownership. Yet Loremaster was apparantly found by Ludvikus to be using a sock ISP for editing and possibly consensus building. Loremaster admits to using a sock to edit but not consensus but has a few comments with the sock so Ludvikus was justifiably peeved when claimed to be outside consensus, especially when I who have a long history of edits on the page, chime in with a proposal vote just to have both Arthur Rubin and Loremaster reply "batvette is a crank and we don't take him seriously" and tell Ludvikus "moving on..." just like that. (for the record I am not a CT, he's distorted my position to claim this repeatedly, I summarize my beliefs on a recent entry on my short talk page) It got much uglier than that and I honestly am getting a headache describing this mess as you probably did following it on the admin page but I believe I can get you to see what's going on with a piece of evidence that got me pretty angry as this developed, and I think prompted the reaction from Ludvikus. As I came to Ludvikus' defense and was vouching for him describing my exact same difficulty with these editors, Loremaster enters the thread and C/P's this passage from the third NWO/CT archive- Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)/Archive_3#Content_reflecting_ugly_realities_suggested a quote from another editor in one of his favorite tactics, accusing other editors of always attacking his person to derail the issues-

---

I agree with Arthur Rubin where he says "the article is now much less biased than it was previously, and none of your suggestions is even plausibly related to article improvement." and with his comment on YouTube. I would use the word responsibility, not ownership. It's not a bad thing. I was wondering about it when he first arrived, but not now. In fact, I'm pleased someone is looking after this article, it needs it. Loremaster's comments above are well said. Batvette is clearly not showing good faith towards Loremaster and needs to read WP:AGF as well as WP:NPOV which he either doesn't understand or does not agree with. And of course WP:Fringe which also applies here. I've already had to warn Batvette about personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

---

He places that not once, or twice, but three times in the ANI thread to discredit the only guy backing him up that he's being unfairly set up by an editor who wants his (and anyone's) hands off the article- bolding that just as I did- but look right underneath that passage in the third archive link I just provided-

---

And I explained on my talk page where you voiced that complaint that the comment in question was not a personal attack. The fact you didn't respond to that yet repeat the complaint now suggest it is you who lacks good faith.Batvette (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

---

the personal attack DougWeller alluded to concerned a remark I once made about loremaster's "shifty and dishonest ARGUMENTS", it's on my user talk page and that's not a personal attack-but the relevance is why does he make a known groundless accusation 3 times in the ANI thread? Worse he has a blatant history of that cheap maneuver. See Batvette's quotes- Talk:New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) I've never done any such thing to him, the false claim amounts to a personal attack itself.

I don't care what editors call me, I'm 47 years old and don't care. By that incredibly dishonest copy and paste of another editor's known false claim THREE times in the ANI thread he started to get a ban on Ludvikus, marginalizing his lone supporter when consensus was being gathered at that very moment, that is the most blatant setup imaginable. Are you suprised Ludvikus lashed out at the moment this was happening?

I barely know Ludvikus, but I know what fairness is. One only look at the behaviour shown toward Ludvikus and the only person supporting him as you were pondering your decision and consensus was being raised in that thread by the editors who initiated it to realize nobody is tempermentally suited for working with that. I bring this to your attention as surely you must not have seen it. Thank you for reading this. Batvette (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think your indefinite ban on Ludvikus is justified at this time. He was making a real effort to improve his behaviour and to make useful constructive edits to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Please could you reconsider.

Why not restrict him to only editing articles related to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - because that is where he is really useful.

And what about restricting the number of edits he can make per day to 5. That would cure his bad habits of making numerous small edits, and posting a reply to every comment.

Please reconsider. It is not fair how Ludvikus is being treated.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Batvette, I could't get anything intelligible out of that wall of text, certaily nothing relating to as why I actually blocked Ludvikus.

• Toddy1, my thanks for writing something I could actually read. I am uncertain that Ludvikus's edits to Protocols of the elders of Zion were as constructive as all that: certainly, re-reading the ANI thread, jpgordon doesn't seem to think so, and I have no reason to doubt his opinion. Limiting him to X number of edits per day is certainly novel, and probably not a bad idea. But this doesn't really address the issue of why I blocked Ludvikus either. He's blocked because over the years he has proven himself a long-term tendentious editor, unable to accept consensus, compromise, collaboration, or any of the basic prerequisites for editing here. Yes, 5 edits per day would limit the disruption, I guess, but it would still be there wasting people's time (just on a lesser scale). There needs to be a better solution. Best, Moreschi (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your experience of him must be different from mine. I first encountered him four and a half weeks ago. He is certainly a difficult person - but after initial resistance, he did compromise with me. He tried to find ways forward (i.e. collaboration), even though he sometimes misunderstood my motives. He did seem to have difficulty with the concept of consensus. If you want some examples of him compromising, and collaborating, please look at: Revision history of The Beckwith Company or Revision history of World domination.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your generosity of spirit, sir, is truly outstanding :) After reading Talk:The Beckwith Company, I see he accused you of racism, with no evidence, no prelude, nothing. quite right, you weren't best pleased. It was just his default reaction to someone disagreeing with him. This more than cancels out the other talkpage which is, I admit, slightly more promising. Moreschi (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly given the amount of discussion going on in the ANI and the talk page that started the dispute it requires a wall 'o' text to cover the issues even minimally, so please don't think I'm an idiot who can't relay simple points. You stated directly in the ANI you were banning him for ''not being tempermentally suited for collaborative editing and cited his rather childish last outburst (right after your reply to him) as an example of that. I tried to detail that not only in the article that was the center of the ANI conflict but that in the ANI itself at the exact moment you were witnessing Ludvikus in a tempermental outburst he was being subjected to the most blatantly dishonest and outrageous behaviour by the editor who started the ANI and anyone would react that way. (the bulk of my text above supporting my accusation against that editor) Clearer now?

This doesn't address the points you make above, just the reason you said in the ANI you banned him. Batvette (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Moreschi. Forgive me if my comment misses any important cruxes; this is a very difficult topic to keep up with, and in my opinion, much of it moved much faster than generally I generally like to see for Wikipedia actions. I wanted to say that I would also disagree with the actions taken against Ludvikus.

Speaking frankly, most of my dealings with Ludvikus have been quite annoying. Most of his ideas varied between bad and nonsensical. He seems to severely lack understanding of numerous policies and guidelines, most critically Consensus. He's made poor attempts at humor at inappropriate times, he's not very good at providing support for his arguments, or in basic techniques of persuasive argument at all. He reiterates points unnecessarily if he thinks they have not been sufficiently addressed.

Nevertheless, with all of those complaints, I still can't understand the justification for blocking/banning him. It really feels to me as though he was blocked by looking for any valid excuse, just because some users don't want to put up with him. I can empathize with such actions. I admit, I've scrutinized his recent edits myself, expecting to find reasons to splatter his talkpage with user-warning templates. But everything I saw revealed his edits and comments genuinely were acting with the sincere desire to improve the articles while following policy. Ignorant as they often were, all of his actions appeared, to me, to be in good faith.

I could certainly understand if Wikipedia wished to be a project that put a greater concern on the quality of articles than being "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However, all policies and guidelines I've read indicate otherwise. Legal concerns and edits in bad faith aside, disagreements between editors should be resolved through discussion and conflict resolution, not indefinite blocks. This user appears to have been earnestly trying to use that process.

There was talk of using some form of mentorship to help this user better understand policies and guidelines. I'd be willing to volunteer in that capacity. An examination of my edit history will reveal that I generally act in the vein of policy enforcement, and my arguments in discussions are consistently sound. -Verdatum (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Briefly, my job as an administrator (as I view it) is the protection and maintanence of the encyclopedia. I do not doubt (as I stated at ANI) Ludvikus' good faith. But WP:COMPETENCE applies: there is no reason to permit to continue wasting the time of other editors who actually know what they're doing, no matter how great his good faith, unless we're getting something back in return. And we're not, are we?

He's a net negative to the project. Good faith aside, he's often rude, anticonsensual, plain clueless on talk pages, and simply refuses to admit he can be wrong even after all reason says this is so. In short, he's a timesink. And continues to be so after many, many blocks, so clearly incapable of getting the point. If people are willing to go on wasting their time over his nonsense (as you call it), then that is their prerogative. I happen to think that Wikipedia would be better off without .

In the long term, when an editor is simply repeating his original position ad nauseam, as he does, then good faith ceases to operate and he simply becomes tendentious. And yes, tendentious editing is sanctionable. Best, Moreschi (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block. Good intentions are not enough. If Ludvikus had been sincerely trying to amend his behavior, there would have been some evidence of that in the ANI discussion. What I got from his comments was mostly attempts to blame his accusers and a denial that there was any problem. There was no admission of any error that I could see. After an editor has burned up this much time on admin noticeboards our patience should run out. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my concerns Moreschi. I hadn't seen this essay before, and it raises some valid points, which certainly can be seen to apply to this situation. Issues like this are precisely why my user page explicitly states my disinterest in adminship. I'm glad for everyone who performs administrative duties, because it means I don't have to step up and deal with it :) I'd love to see Ludvikus eventually grok WP policy and become a strong positive contributing force, but I suppose, until that happens, he's always welcome to fork the DB and set up his own encyclopedia, maintained however he likes. Happy editing! -Verdatum (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please permanently protect the above redirect? The article has been merged, but the anon 91.210.40.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has already reverted you twice there. I think protection is the only way to stop the disruption there. Grandmaster 10:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, before pushing pro-azeri pov look at the articles talk [50]. no any consensus on article's merge. it is not correct behavior, and I'm not the only user who will object it! Gazifikator (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff and nonsense. This is not a question of anyone's POV, this is a question of basic style guidelines. There is not enough at Islam in Azerbaijan to justify a summary style article, which seems to be largely original synthesis anyway. Moreschi (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"which seems to be largely original synthesis anyway"... for whom? for you and another azeri user? as an admin you must be neutral and to not support anyones POV (especially if this one is a side at AA2), and explain your "seems to be" and other feelings at the merge discussion as a user's view or as an admin's decision. Otherwise you look like a self-proclaimed WikiGod who do not care of any discussions and just push dubious POV when it seems to be... Gazifikator (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Moreschi. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  10:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to use a template warning, but I think it is required here. I don't know what stresses you, but I'd rather you'd not let it stress you out, because we need you here. Best regards,  Sandstein  10:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have you warned on ANI, and here, using a template, rather than simply asking for a refactoring? Verbal chat 10:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't use the template. Please check the IPs history. This is obviously a disruptive meatpuppet out to troll. He's cheesed off because I blocked Ludvikus and is jumping on Gazifikator's bandwagon, not because he knows anything about the armenia-azeri dispute, but just to annoy me. I don't know where you saw a personal attack. Telling someone to "shoo" is hardly incivil. Moreschi (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you don't let trolls and puppets annoy you. Just block them, while being civil about it. "Maybe you could read Wikipedia:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo." is, frankly, an incivil personal attack, and you demean yourself by using such words.  Sandstein  11:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could block the IP. I clearly can't because, troll though he is, he's trying to appeal a block I made yesterday, and to block him myself would be clearly inappropriate. Moreschi (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, but which edits of his do you think are disruptive enough to warrant a block?  Sandstein  11:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did we block for particular edits? Just have a look at the pattern. Go through all the edits. It's called being a responsible sysop, not just lazily reviewing a few diffs here or there as "evidence". Moreschi (talk) 11:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you do need to tell me where to look. Besides, I've registered my grave concerns about your possible misuse of admin tools at the ANI thread, and I sincerely hope that you can allay them with a good explanation.  Sandstein  11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*2 The only thing I see is the "no clue" bit, but I don't think it deserves the public comment on ANI or the template here. A very minor infraction. A simple request to review would have been more than adequate. Verbal chat 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Admins should follow Moreschi's example. It's time to stop focussing on policy wonkery. Instead we could try to put an end to Armenian and Azeri editors continuing to fight the Nagorno-Karabakh War on Wikipedia. Or isn't WP:BATTLEFIELD policy any more? --Folantin (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you noticed the changes to User:The Twelfth Doctor, or the other edits of the comparatively new editor who asked you to "forgive" The Twelfth Doctor. ;) John Carter (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Moreschi,

I apologise if I have caused any umbrage but I have traipsed around wikipedia projects and realized the issue of the Twelfth Doctor. I feel that you should not be harsh towards him since there are 2 sides to every story and it seems he's just a kid who is interested in philosophy and politics. Alot of what he says is rude but he is slightly obnoxious.

Do forgive him and mitigate his penalty.

Peter Pepperfield —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.168.194 (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked this account over a disagreement on Saturday. Clearly however it was the other user who was failing to adhere to wiki-policies by undoing diverse edits, initially because he disagreed, but in the end without any reason at all. He did not give reasons in most cases, and his last edit, which it seems he applied after I was blocked, was nothing more than an undo to an improvement of grammar and clarity, and again without reason. Please explain why you chose to restrict my account when the lack of rationality was from this almost obsessed user, who I might add watches my every move on this account and has requested information on my other account(s) presumably so that he may do the same there.

Further to this topic, you made an edit to my user page on this account to say that it is my only account. This act, which other admins have universally agreed to be vandalism, coupled with the first leads me to believe that you are not suitable to be an administator, but unfortunately Wikipedia's open door policy allows a great number of admins to be approved simply by them co-perating with like-minded users. How you can think that you know better than me on that matter is beyond me.

If you still cannot comprehend the function of this account allow me to clarify: "an alternative to a variable IP address". Add this to "This user uses more than one account". If to you that means it is my main and only account then I can see my typing effort is wasted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TokenPassport (talk • contribs) 18:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yada yada yada. Y'know, I'm really getting bored of people like you. Instead of admitting "yes, I'm sorry, I fucked up, it won't happen again", you wikilawyer at immense length to justify yourself to your ego. It's very tedious.

Ok, fine. Please read WP:3RR. You violated it. You were not reverting vandalism. This was a bona fide content dispute involving multiple users and you chose to edit-war rather than follow normal WP:DR procedures. Ergo you got blocked. Nobody else came close to violating 3RR, from memory, so they didn't. Next time, try following those procedures, because if you edit-war again I will block again, for a very lengthy period of time.

Secondly, your userbox led me to think that you in fact had another account (not an IP address), and were using one as a good-hand account and one as a bad-hand account. This almost got you blocked indefinitely, had I not seen your post on the talkpage where you explained that the account was an alternative to using dynamic IPs. That's fine, but please just use your account in future: now you've created one, you have no need to use IPs anymore, unless it's to disrupt incognito.

Oh, and accusing me of "vandalism" is a short way to a long block. Kindly refrain. Moreschi (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another SPA, Brunotheborat (talk · contribs) is mass reverting pages. Apparently, it is banned user Hetoum I (talk · contribs), since the SPA reverts pages to the same versions as Hetoum's socks. --Grandmaster 17:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is moreschi a checkuser? if not, what's the reason for this support "campaign"? Is he your instrument against Armenian usrs? Andranikpasha (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brunotheborat is confirmed as sock of Hetoum: [51] Blocked by Fut.Perf., so sorry for disturbance. To Andranikpasha, I asked both a checkuser, and an admin who has an experience in AA issues to check this. It was proven that this account was indeed a sock, even though it was obvious even without any CU. Grandmaster 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I read your essay "The plague". Pretty much agree with it verbatim, as I've written there. Especially on the need for Admin discretion if we're going to sort out these problems. Given your interest in these disuputes, you might be interested in Dunmanway killings, about an incident in Ireland in 1922. You can see there what the Mod who tries to impose neutrality gets himself into, and even worse here, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Rockpocket, is threatened with blocking for doing it.

We simply can't go on like this. Power needs to be returned to Admin's discretion so that they can judge content rather than mere procedure. Isn't what we are trying to do here produce good articles, not work a bureaucracy? Anyway, regards, Jdorney (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I'm coming to you with a problem because I've discovered that you were involved in blocking a certain user in the past for their misuse of Wikipedia ("using socks to spark off a revert-war") and I'm not really sure where else to turn. The user in question is named CobraGeek, and I've tried to ignore a pattern of petty and immature behavior in the 2009 South Carolina Gamecocks football team article over the past few weeks. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I would imagine that usage of the edit summary box is supposed to be limited to a brief formative description of the change one is making to an article, is this basically correct? Well, CobraGeek has instead decided that it's appropriate to use the box to make denigrating remarks about the subject of the article (this is consistent with years of such behavior based on a look at this user's history). This weekend was the final straw for me. Apparently, upon checking the article and being disappointed to find that there were no valid, constructive changes that could be made (thus allowing for another snide remark in an edit summary), CobraGeek decided to simply add a couple spaces to a table, make his childish comment, then remove the spaces in a second edit and make another remark. Here are those edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football_team&diff=324645138&oldid=324529556 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_South_Carolina_Gamecocks_football_team&diff=324645427&oldid=324645138 Please tell me that this type of juvenile behavior is not condoned or tolerated here on Wikipedia, and that appropriate action will be taken (a well-deserved ban on editing articles dealing with USC would be nice). If I'm going about filing this complaint the wrong way, I'd appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction of where it should go, otherwise your help with this matter would be most welcome. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. CobraGeek made two more edits today of the same type that I detailed above, but I don't expect you to do anything about this immature user. Through your apathy and inaction you've helped make it quite clear that the behavior described above is in fact welcomed and condoned on Wikipedia. I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, following your suggestions, which would appear to be a workable solution that might suit everyone, I have established a new poll, if you would like to add your vote. Crazy-dancing (talk) 10:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My complements on your solution. Cheers! Shir-El too 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A couple of years ago I saw the ballet at Covent Garden, with Miyako Yoshida as Ondine, and loved every minute of it. In fact, I remember starting to cry at one stage, at the sheer beauty and pathos of the finale, and I'm not normally one to throw a weepie, as my reputation as badass block-banning butt-kicking admin would attest. The music is genius stuff, a really enthralling blend of Stravinsky-style Rite-of-Spring-paganism and lush neo-romanticism. Severly underrated: the Stravinsky ballets apart, it has to be one of the finest scores of the 20th century. I was shocked to read some harsh comments from dance critics afterwards! Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problems. Crazy-dancing did a merge of some kind (to the agreed title) but things seem to have been screwed up beyond my ability to unscrew them. Admin powers may anyway be needed. These talk pages (and maybe others?) seem to be disconnected:

• Talk:Ondine (Perrot)
• Talk:Undine (ballet)/Archive 1
• Talk:Undine (Henze)
• Talk:Ondine (Ashton)/GA1

Can you help? It would be much appreciated. --Kleinzach 23:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you can sort out these problems that Kleinzach has mentioned, perhaps you could leave me a message to tell me where I went wrong. I know I could have asked an admin to do the move, but I decided to try and do it myself as a learning process, but I realise I probably mucked it up royally. I tried following the help pages on merging, but got hopelessly muddled, so if you could give me a few pointers, it would be much appreciated. Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cool it, gentlemen. Crazy-dancing: yes, Kleinzach can be a bit cranky occasionally. That's just the way he is. No need to overreact; a little bit of sense of humour here would help. Kleinzach: not everyone has the experience we do. It'll all come out in the wash one way or another.
• Ok. The talkpages of the redirects just stay where they are, that's fine. The archives seem to be a mess, though. Moreschi (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go...ok? Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Undine (ballet)/Archive 1 and Talk:Ondine (Ashton)/GA1 look OK to me. (I've done some tidying up myself.) Talk:Ondine (Perrot) and Talk:Undine (Henze) remain problematic: should we try to fix them with ordinary redirects? Re humour: our friend was blocked for edit warring on 30 Oct and nearly blocked for canvassing on 7 November, do you have any good jokes to use in this situation? Thanks in anticipation. --Kleinzach 00:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I would copy/paste the content into new archives, link those from the main talkpage, and then redirect. The canvassing was inappropriate, yes, but it's a typical mistake for those who are fairly new to the site. Moreschi (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake Kleinzach, when will you grow up? Yes, I've attacked this issue with the subtlety and tact of a sledgehammer, but hey, we've made progress, so if you can get over your ego for five minutes, we might be able to tidy up my mess. Anyway, back on topic, I have changed the Perrot talk page into a redirect to the talk page of the Ondine (ballet) article, was this right or wrong? And yes, I'm very new to the more technical aspects of editing, which is why I'm trying to learn. I've been using Wiki a long time now, but literally only contributing to articles and not a great deal else, but I am having fun with this big time, so apologies if I'm causing headaches. Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topics on Talk:Ondine (Perrot) have now apparently been deleted. I can fix it if other people can hold off until it's done. --Kleinzach 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now fixed. --Kleinzach 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens to the old talk page from Undine (Henze)? Does it just stay attached to that page, even though that article now points to the new Ondine (ballet) article? Crazy-dancing (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed in the same way as the other one. --Kleinzach 02:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Right, now I've had the chance to see what you chaps have done to tidy up my mistakes, I understand where I went wrong. I thought I had to archive all the old talk pages, then redirect them to the new talk page, but now I see how that just makes life very difficult and confusing. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to watch you at work, it's been fun!!! Crazy-dancing (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		The Skipsievert saga has been a prolonged one for many of us, and it was appropriate that you blocked him to prevent further damage to the project. -- Johnfos (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am relieved that this seems to have come to an end, finally. Moreschi (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this award. You stand out against other admins who did not act. I commend your guts and sense of decency. Itsmejudith is rejected as an admin? It seems to me that there is a growing schism between serious content editors and many admins, with their attendant wannabe retinues. Ottava Rima is thoroughly frustrating at times. But he is otherwise a magnificent editor, who is intolerably hounded by hordes of resentful green eyed monsters who descend on him like locusts. It is is unutterably sad. Where will this destructive farce end? Still, you are a reminder that there are still pockets of sanity, which make the project maybe worth persisting with. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. That RFA was a farce. Ottava is difficult. He can be a very good writer. And yet I disagree that he has been hounded (he's not Jeff Merkey, and that's the difference): my evidence at the RFAR shows clearly a pattern of him hounding others, of not letting grudges go, of incivility, and of outright bullying. It certainly is very sad, and I wish things were different. But they are not, and somehow he has to be stopped before he drives productive users off the project. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that characterizing it as "radical Catholicism" is unhelpful, especially since he usually doesn't edit areas of the encyclopedia where religion is involved (if ever). Don't suppose you could rephrase that, could you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Ottava's column in the local newspaper on religious matters, and it accords with my description. Moreover, "radical" is not a pejorative, or at any rate is not intended to be one. If Ottava objects I will of course refactor, but this was not intended as negative description - purely as factual. Moreschi (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for removing that. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. It is, I think, very close to the truth, but all it will do is give Ottava a chance to dodge the real issues. Moreschi (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... you probably just didn't notice the date. The page where you put your name is that way. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's difficult, isn't it. I probably have the time (just) this year, and I would like to get a chance to streamline and cut down the Committee's operations, so it doesn't wind up as so much bureaucratic slime (which is where it is going, although some of this year's work on delegation has been quite promising). My motivation has returned after a reasonably lengthy break, and the temptation is there. Two years is too much, though, let alone three, and if I were going to run it would have to be on a one-year-only ticket. I could manage a year, I think, before returning to my favourite haunts of WP:FTN, opera articles, and dealing with our nationalist friends. Moreschi (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can now tell you from experience that while two years may be longish (I don't think there is much chance of three years terms not joining the dodo), one year would be too short — you'd find yourself back in November with too many things left to do that you really wanted to get to. — Coren ^(talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, I think, to leave with things undone but with the road cleared for your successors than to burn out and become unproductive. Moreschi (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair argument, but having the option to continue is better. My point, I suppose, is to not let yourself be shied away by the possibility of staying on two years lest you find yourself regret it at the end of the first. Being on ArbCom isn't quite indenture, so you can still leave if you feel an imminent burnout without closing doors ahead of time. — Coren ^(talk) 19:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[52]. I'm not 100% certain but sure sounds/seems like it. If I'm wrong I'll apologize to the user, but having seen various JPSs around it definitely sets of the alarm bells.radek (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely. Blocked on behaviour, and I've emailed a CU to see if there are any more and if we can take the IPs out of play. Moreschi (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was I supposed to do something about a copyvio here? If I am, you have to tell me, other than vaguely pointing me in the rough direction of what you want me to read. Sorry about this. Moreschi (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive upon my column? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see that's the funny thing. I got a one-off email from what was probably a throwaway gmail account pointing me to it. The author claimed to be personally associated with you at the university, but that may just have been trolling. I hadn't actually bothered to google your real name, which your column is the second hit for: if you don't want people to read your enlightening thoughts, I would use a different email address. Moreschi (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I received a similar e-mail from someone operating under the mistaken assumption I give a monkey's who Ottava is in real life. I see Ottava has been conducting "research" into Folantin/Moreschi. He would have saved himself a lot of time looking through all those AfDs had he realised we were both founder members of WikiProject:Deletion with Elaragirl long, long ago. I plead guilty to the charge of depriving Wikipedia of pages on such vital subjects as The Wussy Boy Manifesto and Snifferanto. I haven't bothered with that project for ages because there are plenty of other people who can be relied on to take out the trash. Nowadays I'm more likely to save valuable articles from being zapped by overzealous new page patrollers, e.g. Vladimir Narbut (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Narbut - BTW that AFD got a brief mention in The New York Review of Books). I'm not sure what the point of your "research" is given most of the pages you are "analysing" are from way before you even appeared on Wikipedia. Maybe it was part of a proleptic cabal against you. --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a month, but now, no sign of any more disruptive contributions. We have a handful of Wikipedians requesting him to be "hoft von die Sperre". It means, getting his blocked lifted. Would you consider unblocking him? I am about to watch his talkpage and if possible, leave a notice about it.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 09:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not really, no. I have not seen any good reason to unblock Ludvikus, so am discinclined to do so. Moreschi (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 7107delicious. Ludvikus was blocked per this discussion at ANI, which closed on 31 October. Please note that the Ludvikus case came up at ANI many, many times. You can get an impression of Ludvikus' attitude by reading through the October 31 ANI thread. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klewster, by the way, is not Varsovian. He has two other accounts, one of which has never made an edit, another of which has made two. Multiple accounts, yes, but non-abusive, and possibly as innocent as forgetting his password. - you mean Klewster, not Varosvian, right? How do you know he has two other accounts? I'm genuinely curious, please take that in good faith.radek (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found your suggestion that Klewster might be Varsovian redux a possibility worth checking, so had a CU run. And yes, I meant Klewster. Moreschi (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, I was going to suggest it.radek (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you resolved the case, someone added this "comment". Could you please remove that and close the thread before it gets out of hand? Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I think you're inverting cause and effect when you worry about clerkship being used as a springboard to being an Arb (and I speak as one of last year's examples): it isn't so much that someone who wants to become an arb will head for clerkship first as it is that the kind of editor that is more likely to volunteer to run for arb is the same kind of editor that's likely to want to help around as a clerk. (For a number of reasons, I think, including willingness to work "backstage", at least basic faith that ArbCom is a workable and useful institution, and a temperament allowing work with editors that are not at their best in a cool manner).

Mind you, the phenomenon isn't that frequent: the vast majority of arbs weren't clerks and most clerks will never run for arb (let alone get a seat). I just think you risk dismissing possibly good candidates if you dismiss them because they are clerks rather than evaluate their statement and Q&A. (I make no statement as to the suitability of any of the current clerk candidates). — Coren ^(talk) 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first person that went from Clerk to Arb. I volunteered to clerk because I was interested in ArbCom working better. When I started clerking there was no active clerks besides Tony Sidaway and cases were not being opened in a timely fashion if he was not available. I did not see it as a career path to being an arb, since no one had done it before. The same was most likely true for Newyorkbrad. Not sure about the people that followed. But I think it is more likely as Coren says. The people had an interest in admin type work, and ArbCom clerking is one way of getting more involved. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flo: well, of course. Obviously you and Brad were opening a new path.

To Coren - it's difficult. KnightLago has only been a full clerk since September 09 (though in fairness he does seem to have paid his dues as a trainee), Seddon a trainee since only August 09. Particularly in the latter case, that isn't enough time to learn the ropes of clerking properly, let alone consider an actual arbcom run. If you're only going to be a trainee for a couple of months before running for arbcom, then what was the point in the first place? Brad, from memory, was a clerk for a full year before running for arbcom. You can see how this brings accusations of wikipolitics to mind. Nothing could be further from the truth, I know, but it still looks - uncomfortable. Quite apart from anything else that isn't good for the stability of the clerking process.

On clerking in general - this needs a rethink. The talkpage of the proposed decision of the EE mailing list case has settled down now, but for a while it was quite unpleasant with lots of silliness being thrown around. Clerks need to be more proactive in jumping (redacting and blocking) on top of that sort of thing, and arbitrators need to make it explicit that while users are afforded a certain license at arbitration, WP:BATTLEGROUND ultimately applies and outright trolling is not to be tolerated. If this isn't improved, then there seems little point in the clerking process and we might as well have a bot to move the pages and templates around. I agree it is unrealistic to expect arbitrators to clerk their own cases, and that we need something, but clerks must be proactive. Moreschi (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah. That's a sore point. The problem is trying to find a balance between proactive clerks (who then need to be empowered) and the creation of a class of "greater" admins on ArbCom pages, a concept which has been resoundingly rejected by the community on more than one occasion (the first of which was very much spectacular). You raise EE as an example, and it's a good one since this is probably the first where a more proactive style (about midway through) was used with some success. I'm hoping that this will allow some emboldening of the clerks (and the committee's backing of the clerks).

But your point about destabilizing the clerk corp is not without merit: last year's election made a big hole that was long to fix, I expect that it will be remembered as a statistical blip only, however, and that a repeat performance is less likely. — Coren ^(talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, it's not just the clerks. All admins need to enforce WP:TALK better: that is, clamp down on soapboxing. Its effect can be surprisingly corrosive, particularly in nationalist-related disputes if conversation drifts away from the matter at hand to various national wrongs each group has done to the other, or to old personal grudges. Talkpages, we have to remember, have a specific purpose. They are not general forums.

There is no reason why clerks should not have effective carte blanche at arbcom. You're in arbcom's house, so you play by arbcom's rules, and the clerks are the Committee's agents in enforcing said rules. It's just as simple as removing offtopic content, with blocks and bans as a final resort after repeated offences. Emphasis on "final resort". Moreschi (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree (I do not subscribe to the venerable ArbCom philosophy of "let them make the rope to hang themselves" — though it has admittedly lost favor with the whole committee as a rule). The problem is that this cannot be done without the support of the community. Will the idea of editors picked by the committee being given wide discretionary latitude be seen as yet another grab for power or as a reasonable extension of rules of decorum in ArbCom's backyard? I don't know how much an RfC on the subject would help — you might have noted in my Q&A that I have doubt about the ability of consensus to scale for questions of general interest — but it's probably worth a try. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly "wide latitude", as it would extend to what? 10 pages at a time, max? It's purely arbcom's business how they keep their own house in order. I am, and always have been, strongly against Wikipedia becoming a kritocracy. There exists a valuable balance between the admin corps and arbcom. The arbcom, obviously, has authority to deal with abusive admins. But the admin corps, based on the tradition that arbcom does not enforce its own rulings, has always had a measure of authority over the arbcom; if a remedy failed to find the consent of the admin corps, it would be effectively void.

In retrospect, we can see now how the "special civility restriction" Giano was placed under a while back, whereby effectively only arbcom could block Giano, upset the balance. It was a neat solution to the problem but ultimately I think it did more harm than good. Arbcom took a liberty there they had no right to take, effectively overriding the concerns of a a hefty chunk of the admin corps than the parole itself was causing problems. Fundamentally, though we took an awful lot of flak for it, the actions of SlimVirgin and myself in overturning the blocks made under this special restriction were of vital importance to the long-term balance of power on the project.

Diversion over. This is by way of showing how opposed I am to unwarranted expansion of arbcom power. That said, I cannot see how backing clerks to do their job comes under that description. Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For my take on the relationship between Clerking and Arbitrating (or what I thought arbitrating would be like), I gave a long answer to a question from Splash about this very subject on my questions page of the 2007 election. I don't have a link handy, but I can probably find it if this is of any general interest. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYB must be referring to this thread from the 2007 election. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, a number of Polish ediitoras has been recently banned, including me. Do you believe that this Wikipedia is better without Polish editors? Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I stopped beating my wife yesterday. Moreschi (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny, indeed. The removal of several editors accused by a nationalistic editor isn't funny for me. I'm asking once more - will this Wikipedia be better without Polish editors? You are an expert regarding nationalistic editors. Is Pomeranian nationalism more acceptable than the Polish one? Xx236 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have another values than you - mainly the truth rather than kindergarden training and serious sources rather than schoolbooks and raw Nazi propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law proves correct yet again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not to mention WP:TRUTH. Xx236, quit trolling. No one wants to see the encylopedia purged of Polish editors but obviously everyone needs to behave here, Poles included. Moreschi (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having been warned here ("When you return from your block, per the general sanctions surrounding Eastern European topics you are limited to 1 revert per page per week indefinitely on all articles") he has begun battling over a reference on the article about Velykyi Khodachkiv, by repeatedly removing some referenced information. He's done so here November 16th and again the next day here. The discussion about this reference can be read here. I am not pushing for the information to be here against consensus. It just shouldn't be unilaterally removed as User:Paweł5586 has been doing.Faustian (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plz look closer to Faustian, Bandurist, Lvivskie, Bobanni and Gallasi edits. They working together to destroy many sourced articles. They are reverting articles, so user like me has no chance. In this topic, they removed some written polish sources but they belive in one non-reliable, source - published in www page only becouse they think it is evidence for their claims. I have proved that this source has nothing to do with massacre in Chodaczków (this woman was expelled from Chodaczków and returned in 1945, one year after massacre) in 1944.

Examples 1 - after my ban, Bandurist removed text - he could followed the link Pidkamin massacre to saw sources, 2 - 4 soucers removed including Grzegorz Motyka, polish historian, 3 again text with sources removed.

I have no idea to have 1RR/week restriction (I thought it was 1 day).--Paweł5586 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources removed, such as here, were by the Nortom publishing house (Siekierka's book). I opened up an RFC and consenus was achieved that this source is not reliable. I am not working together with anybody and I do not appreciate the assumption of bad faith inherent in that accusation.Faustian (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1rr per week. Pawel, you are skating on thin ice here. Please try to work with sources of better quality. Moreschi (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do my best. And I will try to avoid reverting. But can I report to you possible vandalisms done by opponnents? It will be fair. How long this restricon will persist?--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, vandalism reliable source removed without explanation, possbile vandalism same user. Could you react? Redgards--Paweł5586 (talk) 10:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being called out here? I wasn't even involved in your new wave of censorship...yet--Львівське (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... on the evidence page. Please look at User talk:Abecedare#Quick question. Perhaps I am the only one confused by the Newyorkbrad example, but it may also be that it's much easier to understand when you find it on your own than when you find it on the list. In any case, since you have essentially reverted Abecedare in his own section (unwittingly, of course) some communication would be a good idea. Hans Adler 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Jack Merridew's unban motion is approaching a year and there are suggested proposals in Ottava Rima restrictions case, I'm contacting all of Jack Meridew's mentor's about doing a formal unban review. I don't think that it is wise to include anything about JM in the OR restrictions case because it will take the focus off of the core issues in the case. I think a separate unban review is a better way to handle the various issues rather a RFC (which will be open ended), and better than going to AE where arbitrators don't have direct means to alter the restrictions. I already had contacted John, will contact Jack and Cas to get the ball rolling. I'll likely start a subpage on site for JM and his mentors to work on any new motions, then place the motions on an ArbCom page, allow time for comments, and move to arb voting. Hopefully we can get it wrapped up well before I leave the Committee at the end of December. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page for JM and his mentors to work on the unban review and any new motions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab has told me that he might be needing at least a few days off, unrelated to the recent RfC. Just letting you, and anyone else watching this page, know that the articles he had been watching will probably need a few other eyes added to them as well. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the situation at the Niles and Sutherland Report article, what would you do when the sources cited do not support the sentences referenced? What are the options when dealing with that situation? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

"Now, Jack has not, I think, genuinely wikistalked anyone"

I would respectfully disagree, and so would several other editors.

The case of Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman is particularly troubling. Note how Mr. Merridew stalks Mr. Coleman to Talk:Moon and starts harassing him and mocking him. Also note how Jack stalks Mr. Coleman to Talk:Main Page, harrassing him and mocking Mr. Coleman, which resulted in another editor giving Jack more warnings.

I will produce a side by side comparison of the evidence of stalking of White Cat, which resulted in, unanimous findings of stalking by one of Mr. Merridew's socks,[53] which is identical behavior to the stalking of A Nobody, Emmette Hernandez Coleman, and Daedalus969.

Please review this evidence. thank you for your time and dedication. Ikip (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for making a difficult yet necessary block on User:Skipsievert. It takes a lot of courage to issue a difficult block, especially if it is an indefinite block. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moreschi. You've commented on the case at AN3 about this article. As a resolution to the case, I am thinking of proposing a 1RR restriction for this article, which means that no one person could revert more than once a day. Do you think that would be a good closure? If other admins support this, it would need to be confirmed at ANI, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, would it? Isn't pseudoscience under discretionary sanctions? Couldn't we stretch that to this?

But yeah, 1RR sounds like a good idea. If so we could happily cut the protection length down to 3 days rather than 6, just for cooling-off purposes. Go ahead, sounds fine. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moreschi. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I got embroiled, by choice and by circumstance, in all the Eastern European mess I actually edited a relatively quite peaceful area on Wikipedia - Economics (which unfortunately lately has been picking up bad habits from the rest of the 'pedia). While there is a lot of really nasty, mean, dirty, low blow, kick in the nuts kind of stuff that goes on at EE topics I got to say though, EE articles, at least or especially the really contentious ones, are of way better quality than Economics-related article. Compare for example Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which has like an inline citation to an actual reliable source in every sentence to, say Economic inequality which is mostly a confused, unsourced rant. Honestly, I don't even know where to start with fixing up the latter one. Yes, I know that MRP has a dozen Template:There's something about this article I don't like tags on it while Economic Inequality has only one (the Template:This article still sucks tag), which reflect its controversial nature, - but honestly, neither of these really reflect the actual state of the article. You can play this game a bit (I did) - pick an article from EE and one from Economics (or whatever your poison is). Chances are, if the EE article is crappy, it's because it hasn't been ... a battleground. If it's got an inline citation after every sentence it's also probably got 20 pages archived on Talk of people being nasty to each other.

There is something positive to all the battleground and edit warring that goes on here - as long as the end result is better articles. And the way you get that is reliable sources. Bans and blocks should be for POV pushing without using sources, for misusing sources, for lying about sources, for misrepresenting sources, for stonewalling reliable sources provided and so on. At the end of the day I'm willing to forgive quite a few personal attacks, getting reverted much, and a whole lot of incivility if the other person brings a reliable, verifiable source to the table.

The blocks and bans shouldn't be for edit warring or arguing with other editors - that's how us humans achieve a fragile consensus on topics that consensus is impossible to achieve on (incivility is a different ball game that I'll leave alone for now). I agree with your aims but I also think you're just repeating the mistakes of the past in this regard; blocks and bans for edit warring or snarky edit summaries are easy to give and don't mean much. The ones for the kind of behavior that really holds back quality articles are hard to adjudicate and pretty much never happen when they should.radek (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how you came to this conclusion, Obvious meatpuppet, disruptive SPA regarding the above editor's unblock request, as I really can't see it. BigDunc 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be silly. First edit is to jump straight into a revert war? This is quite obviously someone you or Domer either roped in via some forum, or, equally possibly, you are acquainted with IRL. Kindly make your little tricks a tad less obvious next time, this is a really a blatant insult to everyone's intelligence. Moreschi (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question I didn't want to hear you fantasist bull shit how dare you imply that I have anything to do with this editor that is pure bollox, the reply shows you up for what you are fucking fool so go ahead and block me too this place is a fucking joke with admins like you. BigDunc 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. With pleasure I shall so request. Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be frank and just come out and say it. Your behavior in regards to the events leading up to BigDunc's block was also in violation of our civility policies. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. I will leave it at that, and chalk it up to a bad day and an emotional topic. ^Chillum 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having chalk it up to a bad day and an emotional topic, lets have the block of Dunc lifted! Moreschi antagonized editors and provoked a response, when they are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner. These they clearly did not do! Their accusations were deeply offensive, and a clear attack on Dunc's character as an editor. --Domer48_'fenian' 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, pick a forum and stick to it. You have posted about this in 2 ANI threads and 2 talk pages now. Keep it to the bottom thread at ANI and stop forum shopping. ^Chillum 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Moreschi. You're begining to worry me, about those suspected 'off-Wikipedia' shenanigans. For now, I'll remain calm. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I certainly don't want to start a panic or a witch-hunt. There's little we can do about this sort of thing, just remain aware of the possibilities. And possibilities there certainly are. I would never have put Piotrus down as the sort to be involved in such extensive off-wiki shenanigans, but that happened too: "they're jolly good chaps and all shall be well", whatever its merits in other areas, is a singularly poor way to administer Wikipedia. Particularly in nationalist-tinged disputes. See Number 55: it can happen to anybody. Moreschi (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be quite emotional on those Troubles-related articles. But by golly, I've survived it. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must also remain alive to the fact that Anglo-American nationalists could be scheming "off-Wiki". If they regard nationalists who are not in the Anglo-American camp as the worst cancer on Wiki then, in prudence, we must suspect that they probably are plotting. Sarah777 (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sarah: Just to clarify, I'm speaking of all suspected off-Wikipedia shenanigans, not just Irish. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the nationality G'Day. It's the nationalism; but only when that is put before WP:NPOV. An example would be Moreschi's Anglo-American nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous bullshit, but never mind. Moreschi (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I politely ask you to cease making personal attacks on me at ANI threads at which I wasn't involved. Please retract your comments. Sarah777 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Moreschi (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not joking. WP:NPA is the relevant policy. WP:AGF would also apply to your beheaviour. You might also brush up on WP:CIVIL. A glance at WP:NPOV wouldn't hurt either. Then a retraction. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. The sheer irony of you telling anyone to observe any of those policies, and particularly NPOV, is very charming. C'mon, you are an open advocacy account, we both know this. There's room enough here for such accounts, provided they make some semblance of staying within policy, but why you should object to a factual description of your edit history is beyond me. Moreschi (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "open advocacy account"? You may know that but I don't as I've never heard the term before. I suggest you don't assume anything except good faith Sarah777 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "irony" of me expecting you to adhere to policy; how many tedious times have I read lectures from Admins stating that being a victim of abuse is no excuse to abuse. You may not respond to incivility with incivility. To personal attack with a retort. To assumptions of bad faith with the same in reply. It is indeed "irony" to see an Admin claiming immunity from Wiki standards of civility and respect by citing imagined breaches by someone else. Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Openly advocating or supporting a cause. Off2riorob (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pish-tush. Good faith is all very well but a little realism is nice, don't you think? Do you really think that, if you exercised your right to fork, a Sarah777pedia would contain an objectively neutral account of Irish history? Of course not. You're here to advocate for the nationalist viewpoint on such things, and have been fairly honest about doing so, and if you could stay away from the pointless insults of people who (understandably) disagree with you every now and then there wouldn't be much of a problem, as in the interests of countering systemic bias I suppose we need people like you around to keep us honest. So long as you are open about your biases, all's well and good. If not, your contribution history speaks loudly for you. And would you mind not aiming your rather inflammatory rhetoric at the various admins trying to smooth the paths to consensus? The concept of some homogenous "Anglo-American imperialist" group is just counterfactual, as for one thing the history of American interactions with Ireland, particularly during the Troubles, rather counts against that, and for another, "imperialism" is very passe these days among the liberal, educated elite from which Wikipedia largely draws its sysops. Moreschi (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"if you exercised your right to fork"?? I was led to believe that no such right existed. But in your hypothetical 'reality' Sarah777pedia would be rather more objective than the current version, yes. As for the truth being "passe" with the Admin "elite"...well...that could well be why they are so indifferent to systematic Anglo-American bias. And why so many Anglo-American nationalists are under the illusion that they are "liberals". I am a liberal; and I tell you we are a fairly rare species. I would also hope you are not suggesting I'm 'uneducated' as that would be both inaccurate and uncivil. Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, I never claimed the world of Anglo-American chauvinism was "homogeneous" - any more that the world of, say, non-Anglo nationalists is. Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish and right to fork are the two basic rights of wiki editing: in fact, from memory, there aren't any others. Unfortunately the rest of your post disappears into the rather disappointing realms of WP:TRUTH, which is just sad. All I'm asking for is for people to work on recognizing their biases. Moreschi (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right to fork?! You have clearly never tried to write an article about the UK and Ireland with an NPOV title. The wee essay on WP:TRUTH ignores the fact that, de facto, majority (Anglo-American) POV becomes the truth and "all rules are broken" in support this POV. The very definition of "reliable sources" enshrines the sacred writ of Anglo-American POV. I imagine (but maybe I overestimate you) that you are well aware of this. As you have said I am open about my POV. I also state that I do not try to impose that POV in articles. It is just that my perspective allows me to see bias that is invisible to your "educated elite" - or, in many cases is very visible and desired. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better that I don't respond to most of this, merely to point out that "right to fork" refers to your right to fork the database, not to set up content forks at this site. At that, this conversation is finished. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you look at [54] and suitably amend your edit(s)? I'm asking everyone. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

69.244.182.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked earlier by MastCell for abusing talk pages; he's doing exactly the same thing again now that his block has expired (you just reverted him). Do you suppose you could convince him to go away for a bit? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done already, he's in dreamland for a week. Moreschi (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again: [55]. --Athenean (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and topic-banned. Moreschi (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Starmoney (talk · contribs) appears to be another sock of Hetoum. The account he edit wars with also looks suspicious. Grandmaster 07:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Any idea who that "Zod981" account is? Moreschi (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "edit wars". I do see some useful edits, such as the removal of propaganda and reversal of vandalism such as this [56] Meowy 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an idea who Zod981 could be, but it is possible that it is an SPA from the opposing camp. And Michaeloff (talk · contribs) is yet another suspect account, who very much resembles Hetoum by editing manner. Grandmaster 09:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Very much resembles Hetoum by editing manner" in what way? By posting comments in a thread that has had no new comments for a year? By having lits of little mizz-spellings? By making some extremely specific points regarding the legal status of components of the USSR? Meowy 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally it should only take a couple more days to post a draft, rather than a week. Alas real life picks now to suddenly become difficult, so I'm trying to balance finishing reading everything with writing papers and whatnot. (that and i'm still not 100% positive on the remedies I currently have written up, I may modify them again, or maybe just post both versions.) Wizardman 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed certain parts of the article, and removed some pov statements, and opened a discussion on the talkpage. I am sure I am going to be reverted by the tag team of Athenean and User:Alexikoua(and also accused), so can you take part in the following discussion?--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In all of google, there are just 173 results when searching for "himariote greek dialect" or "himariot greek dialect".(95% of which are copies from this wikipedia article or not related at all to the article ). I am not saying that google can't be wrong, but --really-- if this was a real dialect and not just fiction created for nationalist reasons it would have at least an iso code or some coverage but it has NONE. I really think this is just WP:CFORK.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And here it comes [[57]] like I predicted.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Next prediction:Alexikoua or Athenean will start accusing me somewhere and asking for me to be blocked or something like that.--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The firt main source of this article says nothing about a "Himariote Greek dialect"
• Gregorič, Nataša (2008). "Contested Spaces and Negotiated Identities in Dhermi/Drimades of Himare/Himara area, Southern Albania" (PDF). University of Nova Gorica.Not even one such mention! This is clear WP:CFORK.

• This isn't even a book by a reliable author, this is someone's university thesis probably for their grad!--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have an old editor back. Unfortunately nothing's changed in his activity. The arguments can't be serious, since the article is mainly based on two phd dissertations (peer reviewed by Slovenian and Australian uni each), with detailed descriptions on the nature and phonology of the specific dialect. No wonder he disagrees with this kind of information [[58]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you answer none of my arguments just discard them as "can't be serious". Btw Mrs. Gregoric does not even ONCE mention this "Himariote Greek Dialect". Please, indulge me by answering just for once on my arguments and not with pesonal attacks. (Second I predict your reaction about this case, just the old personal accusations). And yet nowhere in google can this "Himariote Greek Dialect" be found.

• Third Prediction(After being accurate in 2/2 so far), Athenean will show up, by accusing me of something.--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexikoua do you actually understand what a dissertation is? A dissertation is a document submited to aqcuire a degree, and it really doesn't belong in the "rs" category, although your sources make no mention of the "Himariote Greek Dialect" especially Mrs.Gregoric which hasn't even written such a phrase(so it really doesn't matter that they're not rs).--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try to search 'local Greek dialect' instead, it's the same, at least 20 times mentioned. A peer reviewed dissertation isn't exactly a school homework. By the way one of the mentors is Sarah Green [[59]]Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, please. Stay calm. This isn't the end of the world. Really. I suggest you talk to FPAS - he's a linguist, this is his patch, he should be able to sort you out. If you want further outside opinion on reliability of the sources, try WP:RSN, where the regulars will be delighted to give you helpful advice. But seriously - not my talkpage after just the one revert. Yes, occasionally I will try and settle your disputes for you, as at Souliotes, but it's better if I don't make this a rule, and on this occasion there are lots of other options to try. Moreschi (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw tagteaming again as usual [60].--I Pakapshem (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a caracterization of Albania as Fascist in that article, and someone reverted me. I am currently under 1RR as you know, so there's not much I can do. Can you say something to him? [[61]]. As I saw he has been blocked of having socks and put under ARBMAC for 6 weeks in previous months--I Pakapshem (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then that was Fascist Albania, that section of article is about WWII, Albania was Nazi Germany puppet then? Full sentence is

"in Kosovo, at the time part of Italian-controlled Fascist Albania"

You can talk to me, also, I Pakapshem, not just with administrators. Tadija (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "Fascist" characterisation would appear to be accurate, as Albania was being run by, well, Fascists at that time. If the adjective is there or not hardly makes or breaks the article, anyway. And this is well below the sort of the level that I expect to be bothered about. Moreschi (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexikoua has been wikistalking me. Most of my recent edits have been reverted by him, and he continues to follow me around. What should I do about this, and where should I report him or should I ask from an admin to take direct action?

• [62]Removal of Albanian name of Pirro Dhima who was an Albanian citizen for the most of his life.
  • Born to Greek parents, has competed for Greece for the most part.Moreschi (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• [63]I used southern Albania which is the correct term, and he removed it and added epirus(region), just to promote his nationalism.
  • It was known as Epirus at the time...Moreschi (talk)
• [64]I removed this as even the Greek state doesn't use this term anymore, and he added it again immediately as something all Greeks acknowledge.
  • Not indefensible, as this is an article about an organization aiming to promote Greek rights (or something like that), and why anyone should care anyway...?
• [65]As you know Suliots originally spoke only Albanian and after that they became bilingual. So what's the problem in having the Albanian name of this Suliot? Apparently it causes problems to Alexikoua's nationalist dreams.
  • Yes, but hang on. Here we actually do seem to have some info on this guy's parentage. Any Albanian in there? And plus, the Souliotes had been around for a while by this time, Hellenization was probably well under way. Moreschi (talk)
• [66]I removed an unsourced part and some pov comments and clarified some issues. He thought it was vandalism and reverted me immediately.
  • Well, given that the title of the source used is explicitly about Greeks in post-communist Albania, whereas you added "In communist times..." - I must censure the accusation of vandalism while endorsing the revert. Moreschi (talk)
• Its pretty obvious, that he's wikistalking me, what should I do?--I Pakapshem (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not making so many truly dreadful, petty, and pointless POV edits? Please: every time you hit that edit button, just think: "Am I actually improving the 'pedia here? Or will no one give a flying photon outside the usual circle of nationalist flamers?"
  • Strain my patience any further and you will get banned. Moreschi (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're one to talk about wikistalking, considering this [67]. Reverting me in an article you have never showed the slightest interest only to spite me. --Athenean (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, although Athenean - you really should know that needs explicit sourcing. Moreschi (talk)

I suggest you initiate a wp:ani case against me. Good luckAlexikoua (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not useful. Alexikoua: not so fast with the vandalism accusations, and slow down with the reverts as well. Moreschi (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw this is tagteaming in case you don't know it. --I Pakapshem (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bear that in mind. Moreschi (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are "associated with Stephen Schultz" [68]. Should I know that upstanding young fellow? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, dear. Y'know, there is an actual internet refuge for these people. Why can't they just stay there? Moreschi (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be part of your "click" [sic]? MastCell ^Talk 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am disppointed with your most recent action against me. Though I am not surprised, since I had noticed rather tolerant handling of by you of the well known Armenian edit warriors here. What really got me though was "..your POV-pushing, which is seemingly based on either out-of-date sources or Turkish-government-related ones..". I take pride in backing up every edit with real facts (if nothing else becasue I have an army of stalkers who jump on every edit and it seems to be ok with admins). Give me an example, if you will, of this POV pushing, or out-of-date or bad references. Turkish Government references? You may be confusing Armed Forces archives, or History Inst with government. This is where the real documents and reports are. By the way, if official archives are not good, then what is? These are the archives Armenians have been clamoring to be opened and made available for years. Where else do you think truth is, in private memoires? You tone and wording was eerily similar to the slanders Armenian edit warriors often throw my way fyi. I would appreciate if you give some specifics. Banning from all topics and talk pages? I am probabaly one of the few editors who can actually scrutinize the massive Armenian propaganda (and you must admit, is massive) and your solution is to keep me away but keep the actual edit warriors in? I do not accept this way too general accusation lacking any specifics. I can stand behind every single edit I have made related to this topic. Can you or others? I am hoping you can see you way to modify your unjust decision. --Murat (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some instances of vandalism, for which you have punished me and maybe you can restore: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_nationalism_under_the_Ottoman_Empire&curid=2878046&diff=329373824&oldid=329356575. Referenced statement was twice vandalized. Meowy has been a persistent disruptive editor and seems to have a new protege now. There is no more improtant aspect to the Armenian revolts and the extreme measures Ottoamns took than the involvement of the Russians in this issue. The only reference to this important fac, central to the topic is attacked repeatedly while the pov-pushers expand on non-existent orders and character traits of one Cevdet Pasa!.--Murat (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian nationalism on the 'pedia boils down to 3 distinct types.

1. Pseudohistory, antiquity frenzy, Ararat arev (talk · contribs) at Urartu, Mitanni, Hurrians etc
2. Versus Azeri (Nagorno-Karabakh war)
3. Versus Turk (Armenian Genocide).

Number 1 I have active distaste for, number 2 am fairly apathetic, number 3 - in fairness, there is a vast scholarly consensus that an enormous number of Armenians got horribly butchered, and there is an equally vast Turkish cover-up trying to deny this. Your reliance on and editing of, for instance Niles and Sutherland Report, strikes me as - problematic. For one thing, in your various revisions of the article, we had rather a lot of unsourced complimentary material, and for another, at [69] you were, it seems, genuinely citing something which bore no relevance to the text cited. The confrontational tone used throughout, and at Van Resistance, didn't exactly help. Meowy's editing is clearly problematic and needs constant scrutiny, but right now you are causing more problems than you are solving. Hence the time off, which could you use to read some secondary literature on this subject? Everyone - not just you - seems far too reliant on primary literature for sourcing, when really we shouldn't have to rely on 1917 texts any more. Moreschi (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are again making general statements. You did not address specific comments above. Where did I argue Armenian Genocide in general? If you have such public distaste for the facts contradicting so many of the Armenian assertions, I mean specific facts and events, then what qualifes you as an objective referee? I am still not sure what specific act of mine deserved such a ban. Nile and Sutherland is a report, an eye witness report of truly univolved, respectable foreign government offcials. How can that be worthless "old text"? Then we need to take out or derate almost ALL references related to the topic and start with Ussher! Notice that even the most pov editors have not challenged the facts in the article. They have made untrue statements that I had duly dealt with in discussion. That is how you establish a fact, not by edit warring or spamming it with tags. How can the statement that the report contradicts some of the more common (in Wikipedia) assumptions be irrelevant? That is the major significance of the article and that is why it is attacked so viciously. You think there is no relationship? By the way, the details of the report came from a very contemprary source, someone who knows his stuff, Justin McCarthy, but no reference to his works or him survives the Armenian attacks. Go and check the pathetic state of the article on him. It is an embaressment to Wikipedia. You did not even touch on Russian involvement with Armenian Uprisings, which the Armenian editors diligently cleanse out of "critical" places in Wikipedia.

I am not the source of the problems. Many of these articles have improved becasue of my scrutiny. Well known Armenian nationalist editors shoot less from the hip now. I only focused on a few articles where I know what I am talking about by the way. I am sure they are grateful for the "breathing" room you have provided. I have also noticed you have not restored any of the vandalsism by Meowy and Ramgavbar. Only propaganda needs this much protection and vigilence.--Murat (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just managed to twist my words ("distaste" was for Ararat arev-style Armenian antiquity frenzy, which is just trolling), ignore the major point I made (so what exactly is your excuse for the misciting at the N&S article?), and FYI, N&S can hardly be considered eyewitnesses since they weren't around until the guns had stopped firing. Yes, the article is over-reliant on Ussher, but at least he was there at the time. Moreschi (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I give constant scrutiny to you, seeking and sometimes finding flawed and contradictory decisions; ironically, I give you more scrutiny than I give to the more disreputable end of the Wikipedia administrator class since we know what to expect from them. As you can see, I also give constant scrutiny to your actual words - so either cite some specific examples to back up your rude " Meowy's editing is clearly problematic and needs constant scrutiny" comment, or apologise now and withdraw it. Meowy 15:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurgghhh. Meowy, I could link to you a bundle of AE threads, or indeed supply dozens of diffs from various talkpages, but do I really need to bother? Come on. Your patriotic spirit does occasionally lead you into conflict with policy: you are no worse than most and better than quite a few. Come on. I'm currently dragging Ottava Rima's backside through RFAR mostly because he can't admit to making mistakes: you know you're not perfect on this set of articles and that I do need to keep an eye on what goes on. Nor am I, but I'm the best you've got available by streets, so you can either work with me or work against me. Moreschi (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, could you please let me know for how long I was banned from Kosovo related topics? user:sulmues--Sulmues 15:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 months. My apologies if I didn't make this clear first time around. Moreschi (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, even though I don't agree with this decision. I suggest you reconsider it and reduce it or even remove it. I did not get a chance to defend myself, and you took the word of the greek-serbian combo without probably realizing that my behavior was absolutely irreprehensible. All I did was to merge into one infobox the three infoboxes present in Kosovo. I had built consensus for that in four months and continuously asked if there was anyone who would disagree. I had even taken a vote. My consensus was much stronger than the consensus to have 3 infoboxes. Kosovo with 3 different infoboxes is a unique case in WIkipedia, completely out of Wikipedia standards. What is important is that there is one infobox per article. The point of the serbian/greek nationalists is that they don't want to see flag and coat of arms on top. But even South Ossetia and Abkhazia have that! And they are recognized by 3 countries (whereas Kosovo is recognized by 63). However once I mention it I am told to go to South Ossetia and Abkhazia talk page and fight it! This abnormal situation is needed by the serbian-greek combo and they will fight for it to death.

There is a very well built homerty (read Mafia don't tell don't don't ask) between the greeks and the serbians to ban the albanians in wikipedia so that they can expand their nationalistic agenda toward Albania in Wikipedia. The serbians will always claim kosovo and the greeks will claim Vorio Epirus, even though the serbs are 5% in Kosovo and the greeks are only 2% in Southern Albania. They several times accuse Albania's textbooks for being biased, but they should read first their own textbooks, to find a hate on Albania and the Albanians that knows no limits. And the result of the upbringing can be seen here in wikipedia where the orthodox agenda includes grecization and serbization of Albanian lands.

After four months of consensus building, Athenean comes, offends, claims to be offended, cries for you and you ban me. You should read more carefully what is going on before banning someone without giving him the chance to defend himself. It is unfair to be treated like that. You are being used by the conglomerate of the greek nationalists like user:athenean and user:megistias, who are siding with the serbians (read user:Tadija, user:Cinema C, user:Avala and so on) because they realize they should build up alliances against the Albanians so that they can claim their Northern Epirus in Wikipedia. They are henceforth banning all the albanians that they find in their way. The strategy is now clear: provoke the Albanians, report them, get them blocked and the serbian/greeks will claim all they want in English Wikipedia. They will claim that that Gjergj Kastrioti was greek, that the suliotes are greeks who speak Albanian by mistake, that Korca, Permet and Argirocastro are greek. They will never get banned for saying that, but if the Albanians start saying that Ioannina was historically Albanian, they'll be given hell.

It's all boiling down to who builds the best alliances in Wikipedia, and this is not what this website is about. I have been banned twice, once on request of the Athean the greek and once on the request of Cinema C the serb. I'm tired of being banned by the nationalists' requests. Greetings. Disappointeduser:sulmues--Sulmues 16:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrgghh. For one thing, tl;dr. Please try to shorten the length of your posts here.

Secondly, "consensus building" was not what I saw from the talkpage threads presented. As regards other matters, Souliotes and related articles seem to have settled down to a rough consensus respected by most, that I think is fairly neutral. I'll deal with this Northern Epirus stuff as it comes up. It is possible that there is a loose degree of collusion going on between the Greeks and the Serbs, but the answer to that is rational argument, not edit-warring and disruption, which is the route you have gone down. Please take the time off to reconsider your attitude to editing here. A read through WP:LAME would be good as well, and consider how well your squabble over the bloody infoboxen could fit in there. Moreschi (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The accusations over Greek-Serbian collusion are conspiratorial fantasies. I have yet to see a single pro-Serbian editor getting involved in Greece-Albania articles, and the only Greek editor active on Kosovo is myself, and rarely so. The reason you were sanctioned, Sulumes, is because you were tendentious: After several other editors repeatedly objected to your proposal and told you there was no consensus, you played dumb, waited for a few months for the furore to die down, then pounced while shouting "CONSENSUS!!!" from the rooftops. That is the very definition of tendentious editing, and that's why I got involved. I really couldn't give a hoot about Kosovo's infoboxes. And when confronted, you responded with edit-warring and personal attacks. Administrators are not puppets manipulated by sinister greek-serbian-russian-byzantine-whatever cabals. I posted on ANI, and if Moreschi had thought my post was without merit, he would have ignored it. There is no "strategy" to "provoke" Albanian editors and get them banned. You are responsible for your own actions and have no one to blame but yourself. I know I have made my share of mistakes and gotten sanctioned, but I take responsibility for that, and do not invoke Albanian-Turkish-Muslim conspiracy theories as a coping mechanism. If you persist in going down this Albanians-as-innocent-victims-of-the-Orthodox-cabal route, you will only be doing yourself a great disservice. Not that I expect someone who makes wild rants about "they will claim Gjergj Kastrioti" and the "orthodox agenda includes grecization and serbization of Albanian lands" to listen to reason, but I thought I might try. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the tl:dr confirms that you didn't take the time to read carefully the infobox talk page. It's useless that I waste time here. Sorry for the lengthy posting. Thanks for the WP:LAME book, I'll borrow it in the local library.user:sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-building over where infoboxes go in Kosovo should be done at Talk:Kosovo, where you did patently not have consensus. Not infobox talkpages that nobody reads, if that's what you meant. As for the rest, see Athenean above, whose point that the Serbs to date have stayed out of Greek-Albanian squabbles is a good one.

And despite the tl;dr, I do actually read what you write, but would prefer not to if it's going to be at such length. Moreschi (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YOU KNOW WHAT MORESCHI DEL CAZZO? FUCK YOU! I WANT TO BE BANNED FOREVER FROM WIKIPEDIA. IT'S THE WORST PLACE THAT HAS HAS GATHERED A BUNCH OF LOSERS WORKING FOR THAT WHIMP OF JIMBO WHO THINKS TO BE THE NEW MESSIAH. FUCK YOU ALL!!! BAN MY IP RIGHT AWAWY PLS.

We seem to have a one-man edit warrior army here. Here is thtotal sum of his contributions to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&diff=prev&oldid=329271899 He reverts an edit, citing that the article is all about Armenians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Van&diff=prev&oldid=329272132 Another revert/delition of a referenced article with some dericive remarks about Jews etc. Irony of his actions and statements seem to escape him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defense_of_Van&diff=prev&oldid=329347058 Another revert/delition

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&diff=prev&oldid=329347484 Another revert/deltion of proper and referenced material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&diff=prev&oldid=329373439 Another revert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rise_of_nationalism_under_the_Ottoman_Empire&curid=2878046&diff=329373824&oldid=329356575 Another revert of my above mentioned proper edit.

Mind you this is happening all in a span of less than 48 Hrs., and it seems under your watchful eyes.

Here is a statement from this warrior in the talk page of the article: "...seems liek another attempt at the denial of armenian genocide and whitewashing the suffering.."

Obviously he thinks Wikipedia is a platform for demonstrating and elaborating on Armenian sufferings solely. He is not alone of course, and I can not wholly blame him for getting that impression.--Murat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd noticed. I was holding fire for a bit but it's clear this is just part of the sock brigade. Blocked indef. Moreschi (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your last edit to Van Rebellion article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&diff=329436109&oldid=329373439 made me chuckle. A while back, my attempts to clean the article of this and similar nonsense was attacked viciously and cost me a ban. Now, not a peep!--Murat (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what you do, it's how you do it. Moreschi (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I do it well. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_Resistance&action=historysubmit&diff=329682490&oldid=329622409 Meowy 16:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for citing that. Do you think you could have a go at cleaning up some of the truly dreadful prose, and citing what remains unsourced? Moreschi (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]