User talk:Moreschi

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

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

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

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

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

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally. It was like roll, roll, roll, yawn, roll, roll... But don't worry will make this one as big in no time. VartanM (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia naming dispute

Oh the irony... Will ^(talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

[1] Lawrence § t/e 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

VartanM

I hope you can take a look at this [2] and my report [3]. The comments are inappropriate and are essentially a personal attack to which I prefer not to respond. But this form of targeting of myself for article contribution grievances really needs to stop. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

But he is truly being immature here. Accusing me of POV and OR for presenting the majority position is senseless. He lied on his report about me to have me sanctioned. I wasn't even included in the proposed decisions neither in the AA1 nor the AA2, I was placed in restriction months after AA2 for a dubious reason. Check the discussion on the articles talkpage, as he does not even read what others write and basically repeats the same things which were addressed. He even lies about the harassment for a material presented in the evidence of this arbitration case. I am getting tired of his creative wiki-lawyering, and he just abused the report incidence once again. Anyway, I already mentioned that I won't bother, he can disrupt all he wants and you can ignore it all you want. VartanM (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile you never addressed the inflammatory, racist and incivil comments on your talkpage. [4], [5] VartanM (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps because I thought the comments from Tigran were just as bad? Having a go at each other's nations is not, strictly speaking, a policy violation, though as far as you lot are concerned that may change. Now, please, Vartan. Cool it. I realise the ArbCom case means things are all a little heated at the moment, but it's no reason to go totally overboard. Moreschi (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 10	3 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties	Eleven users apply for bureaucratship
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas	Role of hidden categories under discussion
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual	Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing"	News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article	WikiProject Report: Football
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Dear Moreschi, Unfortunately I cannot disagree with your reasons for giving me a notice for being uncivil on several discussion pages. When people are rude and dishonest, it irritates me plain and simple. I'm sure I get sucked into it too much, and get too reactive. If you wish to achieve the laudable objectives implied by your warning, I hope you have also issued similar warnings to Tymek, Ostap, Molobo and, especially, Space Cadet, and that you will devote similar attention to their posts. Ubudoda (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Space Cadet was warned earlier by another admin and I did, in fact, recently block him for his violation of the civility supervision. I'll take a look at the contributions of the others. Moreschi (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

RfB

You never asked me to comment, Moreschi. You stated you had concerns, and far be it from me to try and influence your decision unasked and unprompted. But, should you be interested, I have responded to Jay at length. Thank you for taking the time to participate and make your opinion heard. -- Avi (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And, as an aside, I supported Riana and opposed Mongo, so do you still think I am under the influence of shadowy cabals? -- Avi (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

Perhaps you were already aware of this, but just in case you aren't [6]. --Folantin (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd missed that, but seeing as my IRC is broken, it's scarcely relevant. Irpen can waste his time if he wishes. Moreschi (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB

I wanted to personally thank you, Moreschi, for your participation in my recent RfB. I am sorry that you feel that once incident, in which I was a passive participant, and over which I had no control was enough to outweigh 30+ months and 21K+ edits, and I am gratified that almost everyone else saw fit to either support my request, or oppose for technical and not fundamental reasons. Regardless, if you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I really don't think you're an evil person, or a sicko cabalist. You dealt with my comments, and those of others, well and in an honourable fashion. I still have...a feeling, shall we say? I apologise for the irrationality, but...ah. Anyway, good luck. Moreschi (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize, you have to do what you think is best for the project and the community, and I respect that and your opinion. I sincerely hope that you keep a close eye on my edits these next few months, and that, together with my edit history, may help you come to a better decision as to whether you believe I would put any outside interests ahead of wikipedia policy and guidelines and the best interests of the project. Regardless, I hope you will have the opportunity to express your opinion in a few months if I resubmit an RfB, and once again, thank you for your forthrightness and participation; there is no way I can learn how to better help the project without constructive criticism and feedback. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah

He's back at it [7] I'll undo this, but surely this kind of behaviour warrants admin action as a disruptive, pointy, poor faith exercise. Thanks for taking care of the rollbacks. Eusebeus (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Left a final, final warning. Moreschi (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something to consider... whether or not the initial intention was "pointy" (and I'm not addressing that here), the fact is that a discussion about merging did actually start, and is still under way. Repeatedly removing the template before that debate is concluded could in fact be considered disruptive. (Removing it would be more appropriate if there had been no discussion; given that there is, it makes more sense to allow it to conclude and then remove the template.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Plague sock

AerospaceM (talk · contribs) seems to be identical with a serial dynamic-IP edit warrior, 77.83.xx.xx, and most likely is a reincarnation of Mywayyy (talk · contribs), who was banned for incessant revert warring in summer of 2006 (and subsequently waged a weeks-long sock war on Wikipedia). All of these users focus on removing Turkish placenames from Greek locality articles, edit-warring over the "FYROM" naming, or removing references to non-Greek minorities in general.

• National Bank of Greece [8], [9] (note extreme revert-warring spree)
• Komotini [10], [11]
• Xanthi [12], [13]
• Minorities in Greece [14], [15]
• Greece [16], [17]

• IPs:
  • 77.83.40.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.38.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.42.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.43.254 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.37.237 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.23.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • 77.83.46.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Other thematic links with Mywayyy

• Interest in communications companies, especially OTE, in Greece

[18]

• Interest in macroeconomic statistics (GDP data etc.) [19]

Please do as your wisdom guides you. :-)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The connection between AerospaceM and the IPs is completely proven, so AerospaceM gets a 48-hour block for the edit-warring on National Bank of Greece and a heavy whack with le grand stick (check the enforcement log for ARBMAC to see exactly what I've done, but basically it's revert limitation + limitation to one account). As far as the connection between AerospaceM and Mywayyy - it looks convincing, but given the current climate about blocking likely socks, I'm going to wait for more evidence that will hopefully make the connection a little stronger - particularly since, quite frankly, there are a couple arbitrators who are out for my blood. Anyway, since I've explicitly warned Aerospace M that one violation of the limitations will result in a indefinite block, it might well prove immaterial anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

FYROOM / Republic of Macedonia

Thanks for the block on AerospaceM. That said, given that there is a dispute, can we use both names in a formula such as: Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)? I can live with that quite happily if others will too. Acad Ronin (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would work fine. The rule of thumb is WP:MOSMAC + a dose of common sense. BTW, I really should have blocked you as well, because you did violate WP:3RR. Seeing as how, in my opinion, you were most likely reverting the edits of a banned user, I'm not going to. Next time you get in an edit-war, however, please try discussing the matter on the talk page, and if the reverting continues, go to WP:RFPP to request a brief protection (for breathing space in which to settle the differences) before you go over the magic limit. Best, Moreschi (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I did NOT restore/revert a banned user's edit as you claimed in the history of National Bank of Greece. In my second edit I only added a white space at the end of a sentence, so I could add an edit remark in the page's history. Furthermore I had already stated in the same remark that I wasn't in the mood for endless reversing. So your remark "RienPost, restoring edits made by the likely sock of a banned user is a bad idea. Edit war ends here" was incorrect and unnecessary. And yes, you should have blocked Acad Ronin as well. Fair play and all that. (Oh, BTW, personally I don't give a toss what that country's called, so don't think I'm nationalist freak or something.) Thank you. Rien Post (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies; this is my first edit war. Now I know the rules and will comply. (By-the-way, I looked for the rules after I saw someone refer to the rule of 3RR, but a search under that rubric alone yielded no info.) Earlier, I did go to Mediation Cabal where I asked for help, but simply received the suggestion that I forget it. Anyway, thanks for the leeway and as I said, now I know. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk)

I've put in a RFPP. I implemented the Republic of Macedonia/FYROM compromise, which Rien Post also accepted, only to get a quick revert to FYROM from an anonymous editor. I did not contact the editor on his talk page as there were no entries there, suggesting that it is a temporary address. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe AerospaceM is evading his block with another IP [20]. BalkanFever 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodona

I'm pretty sure Dodona evaded his block. See his (and my) comments on Fut. Perf's talk. BalkanFever 09:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dodona's already blocked indef. If he's making new sockbabies just block them. The main account is already dealt with. Moreschi (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Thanks. BalkanFever 10:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

6-month ban of User:Arsenic99

That's probably what I should have done in the first place. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it was worth starting off gently to see what reaction you get. His reaction...quite conclusive. Moreschi (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

irredentism

pls. look at page Irredentism. new user keeps removing sourced information without substantial discussion and makes personal attacks and threatens with edit war.--Dacy69 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

it seems that this user also haunting me at other pages [21]

He or someone else still vandalise the page after you blocked him. [22] I think that anon user from IP address 149.68.32.48 should be blocked. --Dacy69 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought also maybe the page should protected.--Dacy69 (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Just trying ot be reasonable and make article encyclopedic, wikipedia is not a place to interpret whether there is an "Armenian project" of irredentism going on, not a place to publish opinions of random people also see this:

it is clear admins like you are not caring or out for a solution:[23] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.31.146 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx

Thanx for helping to keep the bio page for me in proper wiki order. I have no idea who added reference to me as a "loving husband, etc." It ain't me (or my wife or son), nor is it anyone who told me that they wanted or planned to do this. DanaUllman^Talk 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certain editors from the Kannada/Karnataka WikiProject

Hi there,

I was hoping you could provide me with some assistance and guidance on a matter that has been going on for some time.

Certain editors who have keenly or indirectly been pushing a Kannada and anti-Tamil POV in certain articles. These editors (hereafter for the purposes of this message referred to as Kannada editors) are from the Kannada/Karnataka Wikiproject - a subproject of WP:WikiProject India, and are gaming the system in such a way that assumes ownership over certain articles in Wikipedia. When their conduct is questioned, they use excuses like 'content dispute' and 'obsessed with improving the article' to justify their incivility and edit-warring, while harassing editors that openly disagree their POV. These editors include: (User:Sarvagnya, User:Dineshkannambadi, User:KNM, User:Amarrg, User:Gnanapiti and User:Naadapriya).

They continue to push their POV into certain articles, particularly Carnatic music. The history of edits on this article indicates a long line of edit-warring, with some or all of the above editors trying to push their POV, whether on the talk page, or through the edit-warring. It is more than a coincidence that the editors are all from the same Kannada Wikiproject, and do not object to one another's proposals that to independent editors, are nonsensical and POV-based. The only editors who are independent, in the broad WikiProject India, or Wikipedia overall, are User:Badagnani and myself (User:Ncmvocalist). Yet, User:Naadapriya makes it appear as if there is consensus because the Kannada editors are greater in number, and disagree with the independent editors of the broad WikiProject India. This is not true, as consensus is not reached by voting or 'no comment' as Naadapriya has erroneously indicated in his edit summaries.

I am not interested in further edit-warring to keep the article neutral. Having worked on this article since 2005 and steadily improving it from the pathetic state it was in (as a result of previous edit warring, again from some of the Kannada editors above including User:Sarvagnya), it is frustrating to note that these editors are resorting to similar tactics. So, my first request is: can you please lock this article in the following version that is neutral of synthesised POV additions here? Could you also indicate to Naadapriya that there is no consensus based on the number of editors who make no comment or who vote for or against his proposals?

Secondly, I am considering filing an arbitration case against User:Sarvagnya for continued incivility and assuming ownership (and trollistic behavior). While the case against User:Bharatveer was primarily based on the 3RR rule, this editor has shown no willingness to remedy this issue (evidenced by the fact the editor chose not to respond at all the ANI I'd filed last month (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=192204749 see-the-bottom-section-of-this-page). (Since then, there are more diffs to add regarding incivility and personal attacks.) If possible, could you please read through and investigate this incident report and editor's history of disruptive edits, and let me know what can be done or what I should do?

Thank you for your time and patience - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it called meat-puppetry btw? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian music is not my speciality, putting it mildly. I can hardly tell who's right or wrong here as far as the content is concerned. The protection log of Carnatic music is busy, though, so clearly genuine controversy exists. I'd advise against going to arbitration at this time, mostly because having looked at this quickly I don't think the ArbCom would actually accept the case. Some general advice: don't edit-war, play nice, and cite your academic sources for every claim you make. Someone with brain cells must have written about this subject. Then why are they not cited?

Reading the article, that would be my overall comment - the thing needs proper sourcing - that is, better, more academic sources need to be cited. If that's done, the dispute is likely to solve itself. Does Britannica offer a bibliography? That would be one place to start. If you want outside opinions from someone more clued-up than myself, you could try Dbachmann (talk · contribs), though I've got no idea as to whether he will be able to help or not on the content side - for certain, though, he's better than I am when it comes to intra-Indian ethnic disputes. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:(

[24] - you know I try. :( ~ Riana ⁂ 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Guess you figured I pressed the wrong button :) Moreschi (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Moreschi, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Any chance you could post the update? It's due and we currently have a backlog. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Too lazy to give everyone their credits, but DYK is updated. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ping

You have mail. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Will take that on board. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lick Me in the Ass

This classical music masterpiece needs urgent attention to get it fit for Main Page FA for April Fools Day. Interested? :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

hehe. Ok, why the hell not? Sounds like great fun. Pieces like this always are, particularly some of 18th-century catches you get. Overall, the words tend to be perfectly innocuous - the hilarity starts in the way the vocal line is combined. One tenor sings "I have a long prick...", second tenor "I will shake it", followed by the bass with "She pulled out nine inches"...and that's a real example too. Love this sort of stuff. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems our man wasn't much a one for that sort of subtlety though. It's not relly that innocuous... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mozart was certainly something of a clown. You get that in Figaro to a certain extent - I'm sure he loved all the hopping in and out of everyone's bedrooms, through windows or otherwise - but most of all in Magic Flute. All the Enlightenment stuff in there doesn't do it for me - it's Papageno and Papagena that do. They've got better music, for one thing :) Moreschi (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Leck mich im Arsch

Sorry, I didn't realize that that actually was supposed to be there. My revert was a mistake and I meant to revert my revert, but you got there first. :) scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We all mess up with reverts sometimes. Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being an effective administrator, willing to both make tough calls, but at the same time, help people out when necessary. Thanks also for your excellent article-work as well: you are a brilliant editor. Acalamari 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Flattered, I am :) Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 15:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What?

What "recent tendentious editing"? I haven't done any tendentious editing, sometimes I removed a few POV statements by Armenian-POV pushers a long time ago. But I have not done anything else that's wrong. And if I am to be banned for fixing POV and following WP:NPOV, then why don't you also ban VartanM or Meowy and other Armenian nationalists who do ten times worse than me? Why does Meowy get warnings and "31 hour" punishments, when I get 6 months for simply discussing something. This is unfair, and I'm sure as a decent person you will see this.

Edit: Also I just found your reasoning: "is not getting the message, so he is banned from editing all articles and talk pages that, reasonably speaking, relate to the Armenian Genocide, for a period of six months", I don't get this, so suggesting a category for deletion and discussing it and also creating another category and discussing whether or not it should be deleted, is good enough reason to ban me for 6 months? So then you're saying, anyone who makes a page or category but doesn't technically fit the wikipedia policy should be banned, especially if they discuss it? I don't understand this at all, it seems like everyone is overreacting whenever I talk something on a Talk page, please put yourself in my shoes. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, you are not blocked. That should not be necessary. You are simply not permitted to edit a tiny proportion of Wikipedia's articles. There are over 2 million other ones for you to edit. I have not applied a major sanction. Any suggestion I have is just wikilawyering. As regards our Armenian nationalists, I do not regard their editing to Armenian Genocide-related articles as seriously problematic. When it comes to questions of "Armenian antiquity" (Ararat arev), or the conflicts with our Azeri users over NKR, then it's different. Come back in 3 months with some solid, unbiased editing in other topics and I'll have a think about lifting the ban early. Moreschi (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I understand now, thank you for your efforts. Actually I am quite surprised anyone even gives warnings to Armenian nationalists, since they are the majority in wikipedia. However, I still wanted to clarify one thing about the category I created:

Nazi and Soviet propagandists, created falsehoods for governments in order to believe in a certain ideology. Armenian Genocide propagandists, i'm not talking about Armenians who accept the Armenian Genocide--- please don't be confused, in other words I wasn't pushing any POV. I made the category for Armenian propagandists who create falsehoods for the Armenian government, or to attack the Turkish government, which is the same as what Soviet propagandists and Nazi propagandists did to other nations, right? The Category didn't say "Armenian Genocide propagandist = anyone who believes in the Armenian genocide", see the difference???? --- I think what happened is that people misunderstood the purpose of the article. I was trying to make it for people who were trying to press anti-Turkism, falsehoods regarding the Armenian Genocide (like forgeries), in order to attack other governments for the nationalist agenda of their own government.

This is what the actual purpose of the category was, it wasn't trying to deny the Armenian Genocide, those are my personal opinions and I don't use that when I edit wikipedia, the majority of my edits were to remove POV statements from wikipedia articles, that I found were clearly violating WP:NPOV, sometimes they weren't even referenced, and even when I reference things, people remove them claiming my sources are bad because they don't agree with them. When I stopped adding POV statements and started editing cited facts that show the mistakes of previous editors who sourced opinion articles, rather than factual documentation, I became a bigger target because now I was damaging their POV articles without breaking the rules, I was reported twice to administrators for simply discussing things in talk pages, and was even given nasty comments on my talk page, so you must understand that I stopped pushing POV long time ago, but they are only trying to dig up my very earliest edits to find mistakes. But I will be editing non-AG related topics from now on and take your suggestions sincerely. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From a wikilegalistic point of view, the community can't order the arbitration committee to do anything, either regarding its processes or its decisions. ArbCom was established by JimboDictate, not by the community. Sure, it would be perfectly possible for the community to ignore the arbitration committee's decisions, or to establish an alternative process and committee that bypassed the current lot were we to get so completely fed up with the current lot. When I say "the community", naturally in this context adminstrators have extra weight, for were the admin corps en masse to ignore ArbCom's decisions, or cease enforcing them, the ArbCom would be finished. But all that's unlikely. My point is that any "Arbitration RFC" will have to be "recommendations only". But the idea of such an RFC is certainly not a bad one. Moreschi (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So...

In regards to this, I had an idea for a solution, and had thought about it a few weeks ago. Might be dumb, but I can think of at least 4 editors off the top of my head that would blow their gaskets to derail it, screaming the word PROCESS!!! at the top of their lungs.

Basically, a function like the AC, for when things get sticky. Submit a report for sanctions. Evidence. The whole nine--sort of like an RFC, or even the same format. You've got say one week to see if a decent number of UNINVOLVED people sign off on your evidence and "complaint". No Support/Oppose nonsense. I have no idea what a decent number would be. If that happens, your complaint is certified, and then a group of users (a mix of admins and non-admins by design) who were chosen ahead of time by the community just draws up a couple of remedies. Nothing in any of this is as formal of the AC. A remedy committee, I suppose, to suggest solutions (topic bans of various flavors, sanctions, article/user probations, blocks, whatever) to the certified problem. Once that's done, the "RC" just pops their suggested solutions back into the RFC type thing, and voila--all suggestions that have clear support after a week are "in effect". It's not a votes for banning. It requires THREE layers of consensus--consensus from uninvolved people *only* being allowed to weigh in if the initial complaint has merit, a week to certify--slow consensus layer 1. Then the "RC" suggests and posts solution suggestions--slow consensus layer 2. Then the community gets to endorse whichever suggestions they feel are best over a week, and those stick--slow consensus layer 3. No one on Earth could argue then that they were quickly railroaded, or that consensus was dubious for their sanctions. Anyone dicking around in violation of THESE sanctions would be on a fast track to nastiness like very easy Arbitration.

What do you think? Lawrence § t/e 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that's clever. I like it. What a lot of people don't realise is that a wiki is only a means to an end: same with the much-abused term pure wiki process (so no process at all). You have to adapt to suit your end, and some things do require more formal process - arbitration, community sanction. Particularly the latter. You have to strike a balance between the lynch mob and nothing getting done, and the process we adopt will have to reflect that. Current lack of process is open to both dangers.

Your idea is certainly worth developing, spamming around, seeing what people think. The problem with all big ideas on Wikipedia is getting consensus for them, because we don't have any sort of definition of what constitutes consensus, nor any mechanism for "declaring consensus" (God, how I hate that vile phrase!). This is probably because we've gone not with real consensus, but pseudo-consensus - I agree with Kelly about this, but to change that you'd need a long chat with The Boss.

Immediately after making that post, I thought about some of the ways people have tried to make RFA less vote-like, and how we did things at CSN. At least as a baby-step, current discussions at AN need to become more structured. Look at the current Mantanmoreland discussion. Who the hell can garner any kind of agreement out of that pile of ill-ordered screed? Next time I propose a community sanction for someone, I'll split discussion up into 4 sections: "Those broadly in favour, with reasons why", "Those broadly against, with reasons why", "General discussion", and "Alternate proposals". At least this first step is reasonable. Moreschi (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck, take a look. Tweak at will: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. Lawrence § t/e 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

What Wikipedia policy did I violate to get blocked? --Jagz (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Carantania verofication

Hi,

I recently visited WP:FRINGE and came across your userpage. It seems you deal with topics concerning fringe theories and nationalism and I was wondering whether you could help. There is a potentially sensitive article I would like to propose for verofication. Regards, Jalen (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) Looks like a case for Fringe Theories Noticeboard. --Folantin (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I see the case has already appeared at the Fringe theories noticeboard. I would like to propose Carantania for verofication. I am not the exclusive author of that article, but I did contribute considerable amount of content and I would like to have it verofied/verified to prevent the article from being marred. Would that go? Regards, Jalen (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I already sent an email to Veropedia. Regards, Jalen (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Moreschi, this IP account (with other extensions) [25] has been vandalizing Azerbaijan-related pages for couple of times now. I presented my report here [26] with all relevant IP extensions, but unfortunately, no conclusion was made on IPs even with the evidence of incivilities presented in diffs. Can you please, let me know if the edits are considered a vandalism as it was concluded here, so that registered users can protect the content of articles. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Morechi,

1. I accept your outsider's perspective on the 'involvement issue' but tend to think that points (1) and (2) from my recent note on Addhoc's talk page were not addressed properly. I don't have a history of soapboxing and am consist contributor on very difficult to work in articles. I apologized and retraced after only 1.5 hours a comment which was not nearly as racist as involved editors who continuously make offensive comments presented it to be.
2. I am not contesting my block but only requesting the chance to present the problematic behavior of other editors which allowed the discussions to escalate... it seemed as though Addhoc decided from the beginning to implement sanctions only against me and that he believes only one side of a dispute may be punished for improper conduct.
3. I'm requesting the case reopened so I can present the misconduct that led to my own poorly phrased comment; and that other editor's behavior be examined under the same strict rules that are applied to me.

I believe this is a fair request and hope you agree that if other editors have misconducted themselves that they should be reviewed as well. With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Query

Are there any general Arbcom sanctions imposed on "Iranian-Azeri" articles (maybe as an offshoot of the Armenia-Azerbaijan cases)? --Folantin (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea, to be honest. There's been a number of Perso-Turkic ArbCom cases but as far as I'm aware no general sanctions have resulted from any of them. I've gone to RFAR and asked the arbitrators to clarify whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 can be extended, if necessary, to cover Azeri-Iranian articles. It certainly should be, given all the fighting you get in this area. Best, Moreschi (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I've done a bit of digging myself and found this among the AA2 blocks and bans [27]:

• ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs) banned from Sari, Iran for two months for "failing to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in his interactions". Instead of discussing content on the talk page, he has resorted to inflammatory and incivil edit summaries.

I'll check up on it. --Folantin (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Slightly off-topic - actually I think that was a rather dubious ban because ChateauLincoln was promoting superior content). --Folantin (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read this, the wording is "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area "...so I guess that's fairly conclusive, it must carry over to the current discretionary sanctions, although the ArbCom haven't made it very clear. I hadn't realised that either. Useful! Moreschi (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. With any luck it won't be necessary in the present case I'm dealing with but it's useful for future reference. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the general sanctions. Incidentally, look who's right at the bottom of this list of involved parties in AA2 [28]. --Folantin (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 11	13 March 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Accusations of financial impropriety receive more coverage	Best of WikiWorld: "Five-second rule"
News and notes: New bureaucrat, Wikimania bids narrowed, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Vintage image restoration	WikiProject Report: Professional wrestling
Tutorial: Summary of policies	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 12	17 March 2008	About the Signpost

Best of WikiWorld: "The Rutles"	News and notes: Single-user login, election commission, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at peer review
WikiProject Report: Tropical cyclones	Tutorial: Editing Monobook, installing scripts
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Wiktionary

Hello Moreschi.

I'd like to inform you about an impostor on the Irish Wiktionary who's chosen your name. If you'd like to usurp this account please contact me or another steward. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

your comments

Hello Moreschi,

I ask you to read my civilized ocnversationsand compare it to the insultive way Folantin talks and behave, to see who began with personal attacks. I also ask you to do proper actions when my user page is vandalised. When articles concerning Iranian history is vandalized time over time. Please please be neutral and do not take sides. Let me say this: I do not care if the anonymous vandalizer is Folantin or not. I speak about this act and not the person necessarily.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Let me say this: I do not care if the anonymous vandalizer is Folantin or not". Thanks, that's really generous of you. --Folantin (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch it, Mr Babakexorramdin. You are sailing very close to the line. Moreschi (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Racist

I would like to report Slrubenstein for calling me a racist.[29] See near the bottom, "not come her trying to push our own racist agendas". This racist name calling for people working on the article has got to stop. --Jagz (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not call you a racist, certainly not explicitly. Moreschi (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sure he was careful to do it in an indirect way. --Jagz (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I just had an interesting time reading through the deleted revs of Human intelligence controversies. Taken literally, his advice is good. Why not take it literally and refuse to be offended? That's probably the most productive path. Moreschi (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the other article have to do with it? --Jagz (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever, I just like to familiarise myself with the background. This discussion can end now, I think. Moreschi (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Homer

The page on Homer is disgraceful, and I think it worth subjecting to a consistent redrafting. Everybody seems to edit back and forth, but serious hands leave it, by the looks of the record. I now have some time to go through it, but, in revising, cannot seem to manage to place the irrelevant chat about his biography in the 'lede/lead' further down below the content list, in its proper place, where it must be relocated and then revised. The passage I have tried to transpoose out of the lead, begins, 'For example, when the Emperor Hadrian asked . . .' I have rewritten the passage above it, as the lead (which, following the German Wiki article should be very brief). I wonder if you could be so kind as to consider effecting that transposition? I'm sorry for the bother. Some things escape my aged brain. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No need. I'd misformatted a tag, and another editor has fixed it. Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Aye, it does need some work. I'm planning to have a go at this one myself someday. Moreschi (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IRC

You may want to pop on. I haven't spoken to you for a while, and I have something you might be interested in. Qst (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

XChat seems impossibly difficult to get working, you'll probably have to email. Sorry :( Moreschi (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'll send you one later the evening. Qst (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably best make that sooner than rather than later, I'll be around for another hour and a half or so but today's not an all-nighter. Moreschi (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

AA2 change

I reverted you here. If you wish to change some part of the wording of a decision, I suggest you contact ArbCom, instead of making the change yourself.

"1) Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise."

This is only regarding editors of AA1, like Hajji Piruz, not the editors of AA2. The second remedy states that the "area of conflict" was "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

(butting in) Hmm, so on what grounds was ChateauLincoln punished under the general sanctions resulting from this case (details further up the page [30])? As far as I can see he edited a page about a town in Iran, not Armenia or Azerbaijan. This is the message he received on his talk page [31]. It begins: "Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page". --Folantin (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase. The editing restriction template is here [32]. It clearly mentions Turkey and Iran as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan. --Folantin (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's wrong. The issues covered in AA2 centered around Armenia, Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Turkey and Iran were included for editors involved with AA1. I talked to FT2 before reverting Moreschi. He said Moreschi needs to contact ArbCom if he wishes to alter the wording of an ArbCom decision. In this situation, I think he could file a motion and let ArbCom decide for themselves. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 04:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• The last time this issue was brought before the arbitrators they indicated that it was their intention that the same remedies and scope apply to all editors, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Clarification_request_October_2007. Therefore the probation will be enforced according to the template wording unless you can persuade the Arbitrators otherwise. Thatcher 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Protected of WTB

Please, if you are going to edit WTB while it is in protected mode, please handle the outstanding requests, and revert the change you made. The presence of JZ Knight in the lead has been a very contentious issue, and has caused enormous amounts of fighting in the past. I'm doing my best to get this article to some kind of consensus shape, and the only way I am going to be able to do that is if nobody from either side of the issue makes arbitrary edits. It does nothing but inflame one of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia.Kww (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this is ridiculous. How the hell can a brief mention of Madam Knight be contentious? There's a word for this: obsession. As far as I know I'm not from either side of the debate: I've consistently said the fighting on this article is beyond lame. Moreschi (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's absolutely ridiculous. It's the most ridiculous article I've ever worked on, and my personal opinion is that it should be deleted and the namespace protected to prevent recreation. Failing that, it needs to be understood that every word and every phrase in the article is controversial. It took me three damn weeks to get people to finally agree on a lead paragraph, and after that, someone still had to come along and stir the pot at the last second. Please revert your change.Kww (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done your edit-protected request for you, though "consciousness" used twice in two straight sentences isn't great, can we think of a synonym?

I guess I really should revert my edit, but I'm reluctant to do so. Can you point me to a discussion where the question of JZ Knight in the lede has been fought over? If I imagine myself as one of the "pro science" (?) editors, linking to the Ramtha School and JZ Knight articles would mean all the rest is a lot less contentious. I'll make a post about this on the talk. Moreschi (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• One objection to mentioning her at all: [33]
• A sample of numerous questions about identification. Is she JZ Knight? Is she really a Lemurian warrior?

My main point is that I have seen people willing to go to edit wars over the most trivial of points on this thing. No rational mind can guess what is going to be the trigger point, and I get surprised every time. Watching the article get protected because ScienceApologist and WNDL42 were edit-warring, and ScienceApologist was edit-warring to protect a change proposed by MartinPhi was a surreal experience. The only way I see out of this mess is a long, slow trudge through the article, gaining consensus paragraph by paragraph, and then using edit-protected to incorporate the changes. Eventually, we'll get somewhere that everyone is mildly unhappy with. Outside changes, no matter how trivial, make it even harder to get that process to work.Kww (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Second point: I notice that you used the version that SA swapped in at the last second, after everyone had agreed to a slightly different wording. Did you do that on purpose, or did you not notice my note to that effect?Kww (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, no, that was not intentional. I've swapped that in for your version, which looks to be backed up by consensus. As regards the rest - I've just left a lengthy post on the talk page, which has one suggested "solution" of sorts - talk page enforced moratorium. I'll revert my inclusion of Madam Knight in the lede if someone objects on other than procedural grounds - otherwise I'll stay rouge.

I'm just not sure I see the need for a "long, slow trudge through the article". For one thing, you'll never get to the end. Second: that's indulging the baser urges of these guys to be petty and edit-war over every damn subordinate clause. IMO they need to be forced to stand back from the dead horse, quit flogging it, and see the bigger picture that A) the article isn't so bad, and that B) nobody gives a rat's ass anyway except themselves. If you don't force them to see the bigger picture we're setting ourselves up for the whole damn thing to happen elsewhere - because they're not being taught such petty edit-warring is not on. Moreschi (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with both you and Kww here. But who's them Moreschi? If you look at the history, and the talk page, you'll notice both sides were extremely disruptive, but one side much more so- that calling itself the pro-science side (some were reasonable, of course, else we'd not have got consensus). Neither could take a reasonable attitude to the article, but it wasn't a matter of fringe POV pushers against reasonable scientists. Don't take sides just because of what you hear. You'd have to go back and look at the actual edits and talk.

But anyway, I think that your edit was not bad. Yet, if we are going to go through the process of getting consensus and then asking an admin to insert the change, we have to be able to trust in future that the admin will make only the changes we've agreed upon. I also think that it was bad practice to insert a version which obviously was not the consensus one. Can you go with this process?

Thanks again for your words of wisdom here and on the talk page. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As for staying rouge, I knew someone would object.Kww (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Relating to the Falun Gong arbitration case

On the article political cult I am having some unresolvable issues with two extremely pro-falun gong editors. Little help please? ʄ!•¿talk? 02:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Political cult is probably closely related enough to Falun Gong for the ArbCom case to apply. Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:ViperNerd using sock accounts to vandalize articles and circumvent 48 hour 3RR block.

User:ViperNerd (who you blocked yesterday) is using another one of his socks [34] to continue to vandalize and harass editors. The sock policy suggests that the block clock should be restarted or extended, would that be appropriate here? He was blocked yesterday, but the block essentially doesn't exist because of his use of these other IPs. Edgarde has already initiated a Sock investigation, and I added the new IP to the list of suspected socks. Any help here would be appreciated. --CobraGeek (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well, thank you for this information, but I regret to tell you you are blocked for 72 hours. He's not the only one who's been a naughty boy. Moreschi (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ip disruption

• permalink to current revision of AN/I: [35]

Regarding a rangeblock covering the IPs mentioned in this section, it would (sadly) have an impact on positive contributions that outweighs the benefits of simply reverting the vandal. You were quite right to suggest RBI.

You did mention a lack of technical ability? I'm including some information that may assist in curing that, if you're interested. :)

jbarrett@indigo$ whois 172.165.175.44

OrgName:    America Online
OrgID:      AOL
Address:    22000 AOL Way
City:       Dulles
StateProv:  VA
PostalCode: 20166
Country:    US

NetRange:   172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255
CIDR:       172.128.0.0/10
NetName:    AOL-172BLK
(extra information snipped...)

AOL has a very, very large chunk of internet real-estate. Shame that.

I use Splarka's contribsrange script, which lets you do special:contributions for wildcarded and CIDR ranges. Breaking down the /10 into several ranges, you can see that 90%+ of the edits are non-vandalism in nature.

Taking the two farthest IPs, 172.136.246.196 and 172.165.175.44, you end up with these results

Generally speaking, if you are about to perform a rangeblock and the first digit of the CIDR range mask is a 1 (like /12), you're blocking way too many addresses. There's far more (and more accurate) information available at mw:Help:Range blocks. Even if you're not interested in performing rangeblocks, it's quite an interesting subject and worth a read.

If you're interested and have questions about this, or just want to drop off a "Thanks, but I really don't care" note, feel free. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 05:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nader Shah was Irish - the shocking truth

After all the Perso-Turkic nonsense at Nader Shah, I'm sorely tempted to add this little gem to the page:

"A curious feature of this period [the 18th century] was the belief by some Europeans that certain prominent figures in the Persian scene were of Western origin. There were many who believed that Nadir was a native of Brabant and that he had gone to Persia at an early age. In consequence of the fact that Nadir was known for a time by the title of Tahmasp Quli Khan, corrupted by European merchants and others into Thamas Kouli, others imagined he was really an Irishman named Thomas O'Kelly..." L.Lockhart in The Legacy of Persia, ed. A.J. Arberry (Oxford, 1953) pp.357-358

Shah Thomas O'Kelly. I love it. I bet if Wikipedia was around in the 18th century some Belgian and Irish editors would be pushing to include this info in the interests of NPOV (although the Irish users would be fighting among themselves over whether Nader was a Catholic or a Protestant Muslim). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, that is beyond brilliant. Just too good to be true. What next? "Safavid" is a corruption of "Scouser" and the Ottomans were originally Glaswegian?

I wouldn't spam this one around too much, though, otherwise our current Irish patriots really will be pushing to include Nader Shah's Irishness. As well we all know, the spectre of Joyce's Citizen refuses to go away...

You're just trying to suppress the truth. The O'Tomans were clearly Irish as were the Moghuls (or, to use their real name, the McGills). Reliable sources are just a tool of the System. --Folantin (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pavement surprise

Did I just step in some nationalist bullshit? Gotta watch where you step around here. Good grief, that's the first time in my Wiki career that someone has accused me of vandalism for adding a cite to the New Grove. I now have to bust up laughing. Oh and happy Easter! Antandrus (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) Looks like you were the victim of a "travelling circus" as passing editors engaged in a quarrel over the relative Czechness/Germanness of various composers. I don't know much about Josef Dessauer and he may very well have been Czech, but being born in the Czech Republic in 1798 is clearly an incredible achievement [36]. --Folantin (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, our old friend Matthead (talk · contribs) is involved here as well. Argh! Moreschi (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt' this qualify for WP:Fringe?

This fringe organisation of a lunatic fringe, has witnessed some not too unfamiliar happenings. User:Suciindia who constantly speaks in honorific first person, doesn't care not so much for WP policies as for the decisions of this fringey group. If I say the lunatic streak is apparent in his sputter and stutter across the SPA controlled no-rule articles, that shouldn't offend nobody. User:Soman should know better that revert-warring on these unsupported articles that rely on own websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.11 (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Socks have taken over, including me. [37] For this purpose only (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Help with SA

He keeps reinstating that editprotected, which implies that there is consensus or his requested change is non-controversial ... you've seen that talk page, and you know that neither is true. I've nowikied his macro again, but I don't want to fight a war with him. Most places I can complain would result in a block, but I really don't want to have happen. The two of you seem friendly. Can you give a try at convincing him that this isn't kosher?Kww (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sent him an email. If it has no effect I'll have another think about what to do. Moreschi (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC enforcement

FYI - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Xenovatis. Dunno if you've come across this guy before. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA surprise

Oh man, that's brilliant! How did you come across that? Of course we all know the true purpose of GA is to smooth the way to admin status by bumping up your edit count at the expense of those suckers who are stupid enough to add actual encyclopaedic content instead of networking with useful friends all day. --Folantin (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose it had anything to do with this [38] or this [39]? (Rhetorical question). --Folantin (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Found this one in a discussion - should still be there - at WT:RFA. Really amazing, though not more so the thought of admin coaching for this one, which I hadn't seen. I always did mean to MFD that program. Moreschi (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppet

Can someone block all his puppets this is ridiculous,user puppet.He is not even hiding who he is anymore.10:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do something.Megistias (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with by Fut Perf. Moreschi (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 13	24 March 2008	About the Signpost

Single User Login enabled for administrators	Best of WikiWorld: "Clabbers"
News and notes: $3,000,000 grant, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Banner shells tame talk page clutter	WikiProject Report: Video games
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

000

Kiddo, do better than, say, a Bhati. That account you blocked was created merely because I was not able to create a page as an unregistered user. At the end of the day, you will have to be thankful to me for eliciting some great utterances that could go in to Wikipedia Bad jokes from that 24 carat genuine commie boy.59.91.254.110 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pwned by the parents!

Can you take a look at the this unblock request? --Chris 10:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's obviously a throwaway sock who's being a bit of a pain in the arse. I hadn't actually listened to the recording when I blocked, I saw it had been deleted as vandalism and assumed it was trash insulting. If it wasn't, shrug. I'm not all that bothered. It could be anyone from an ED troll to an WP admin gone slightly batty. Your call as to what to do. Moreschi (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Safavids

Hi a new user [[40]] which I suspect to be these ips [[41]][[42]] [[43]] is constantly insulting. The reason he is those ips is that he is repeating the same claims and more importantly, he semi admits it himself:it seems that the other guy is a imitator of me who copy my statements somewhere else.. His level of English is terrible and I have responded to his questions several times, but he still repeats it. Of course I can pay him back in kind, but I believe the right thing to do is to tell an Admin who may take actions. As an example of his foul mouth: You are a Lyer.its better you change your name in AlyerDoostzadeh., and you are a member of the Pan-Iranian Propaganda machine who cant accept 1000 Years of turkish Rule in Iran and .the only thing what i can see in this article is the fact that iranians have a big complex and cant accept that their founders were Turks.. Some other comments he made:another part of faked persian history.the turko-persians wars was only between turks but here it was selled as "Persian Victory".am i the only one who dont accept this art of falsification??? And this one: what kind of cheater you are . I have tried to explain to the user some concepts [[44]], but he still doesn't get it. Due to perhaps his poor English. I have also warned him here:By the way if you repeat your attacks on Iranians, I will report you to the admin. I can easily keep going and respond to your provocations in kind (and more), but: 1) There are also decent Turks out there who might read this and get upset if I act like you do and actually bring sourced materials too. 2) I don't want to get banned like you did in German wikipedia :) 3) Wikipedia is not an open forum, so I don't want to get carried away. Besides that, he believes the ancient Indo-Iranians, Iranians, Perrsians, Parthians, Achaemenids, Scythians, Bahram Chobin, languages(Avesta, Parthian, Elamite) were all Turks. The claim about the person Bahram Chobin (a Persian/Parthian General of the Sassanids) is unheared of, even on the internet and the first person to make such a claim in Wikipedia is the ip from Germany/around it (where Altai Khan writes from also). --alidoostzadeh (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This Altai Khan individual has become increasingly rude and abusive. Ali, has explained in depth about the Safavids, and Altai is upset with his posts, thus resorting to personal attacks. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look. Moreschi (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In his newest message: it seems you have only noticed my attacks.yes, but this article is a hidden attack again all turks and their history.it tells that azeris were turkified iranians.thats only tactics. The user admits to making personal attacks! Infact he is probably the ip I mentioned a while back, since he and the ip go back to the same location and made the same extremly rare claim on Bahram Chobin. And the Richard Frye source he is talking about was not even put by me, but by people who I was arguing against. He considers it an insult, although it is sourced and I did not even put it there. I asked him many times that he can bring any sourced information, as long as he gives proper citation, and it is not say from 100 years and is relavent to the section. He has taken a content dispute and has made it personal. Now he is repeating the same points I have responded to already several times in the talkpage. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the checkuser. The Geographic locations are in the same region. I have left a comment on the checkuser page. Basically, the user is a banned in German Wikipedia (a language he knows well) and has been editing the same article: Safavids there. His i.d. in German Wikipedia was E-mailed to me. I think if there is confirmation between the banned user (which in my opinion is 100%) in German Wikipedia and AltaiKhan, then he unfortunately did not change his behavior when arriving in English Wikipedia. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, looks like Checkuser is almost finished? I note besides the compatible geographic location, in German Wikipedia, the user has been banned: [[45]] and has been making the exact statements/POV edits on Safawids. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him indef. Moreschi (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad flag featured-articles.

Since you're concerned with The Plague, here is something perhaps you could help me with? I'm not sure what to do.

Flag of Armenia was featured yesterday on the frontpage. It didn't look very good, so I commented on it on the main talkpage and others agreed. Its initial version that was nominated a year ago was horrible and there didn't seem to be a strong consensus to support featuring it.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Armenia

To give you a good baseline for what I'm talking about, I decided to briefly look at other featured articles on flags and I discovered that this problem exists somewhat in certain other flag FAs.

FEATURE-WORTHY:

• Flag of Germany (FA nomination page)
• Flag of Australia (FA nomination page)
• Flag of Portugal (FA nomination page)
• Flag of India, with some cleaning up (FA nomination page)

NOT FEATURE-WORTHY:

• Flag of Belarus (FA nomination page)
• Flag of Hong Kong (FA nomination page)
• Flag of Lithuania (FA nomination page)
• Flag of Mexico (FA nomination page)

Or are my standards merely too high? That is possible, because I believe that certain topics (i.e., videogames) ought to be "unfeaturable," because there simply isn't enough source material out there to make a featurable article. Flags with very small histories are similar.

I notice a problem, however: There is no set time on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates for when a FA nomination should be closed. So, they're treated like AfDs, being closed after 5 days or so, but sometimes much later than that (the FA nomination on Flag of Germany lasted about a month). But then removing something from FA is a two-step process, taking a month or two: Several weeks to nominate it for FA review, then several weeks after that to nominate it for removal from FA. Why should the bureaucracy be so thick in one direction? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. I've no doubt you're right - Flag of X articles are prime suspects to b full of nationalist BS - but I doubt there's much to do about them. The whole FA/FAC/FARC process is a FARCE - it's just a pity that most of our readers don't know enough about the way Wikipedia works to recognise it as such. Moreschi (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

email

Hi, I just replied to your email, and then saw this (in that order)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive135#Jack Merridew

Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on this. Thanks for the replies. Moreschi (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be working on a few loose ends such as this User:Jack Merridew/Allison Sudradjat tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Psilofyr

Hello! :) Late last year, Psilofyr was nominated for deletion. After a surprisingly heated debate, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (5 delete (including one vote from recently banned Jack Merridew)/4 merge/3 keep or merge). Based on the consensus, you deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. Thanks, BOZ (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome, thanks! :) BOZ (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Osroene

You banned me from Osroene due to complaints from who? VartanM, TigranTheGreat, banned vandal User:Azad chai and other POV pushers? Can you please explain to me which of my edits in Osroene article was disruptive, I can provide diffs of all of my original edits in both main space and talk page, every sentence of my edits is referenced to neutral source. It's not quite fair to restrict me from editing the page, which I only improved, just because someone appears after wikistalking me (note without any punishment) on this page, refuses to compromise on anything and wants to present only one-sided historical POV on remotely related page that they never touched before, engages in coordinated and mass revert war. And doesn't the action of banning me from editing the page essentially imply endorsement for recently identified Wiki vandal [46], who was reverting my edits: [47], [48] and making incivil insults. And I did seek the mediation of 3rd party [49] and did engage in constructive discussion with that party on the talk page. Did I do something wrong? Atabek (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also please, note that banned sock/vandal User:Azerbaboon, which was reverting me along with other wikistalking pals at Osroene, was also wikistalking me at Safavid dynasty - check the edit comment mentioning my username [50]. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Complaint against two users

1) Hi User Timzissou a while back made this comment: [51]. Unfortunately he just received a light warning from Dab to never do it again. But then the user in September 12 vandalized my page: [52] and I guess it is too late to complain for that. Note the ip and his connection does not even need checkuser, since he signs in [53]. But, the user then makes a personal attack here: [54]. Note I hardly even enter modern political articles and I am no fan of the Iranian government or any modern government for that matter. I just used the standard term Persian instead of "Farsi" for the Persian language, since it is used in virtually all academic sources (Brittanica, Iranica, Encyclopedia of Islam,..). Somehow the user thinks I work for the government!

2) This is user AltaiKhan[[55]], who used sames sources in German Wikipedia before he was banned by a German Administrator for fringe theories and manners.

--alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Number 1 for 24 hours for incivility, and will ask the checkusers to take a look at Number 2. Moreschi (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You were absolutely right about Number 2. Blocked him indefinitely. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You were likely correct in blocking me for incivility. I made the change from "Persian" to "Farsi" for a second time and would not have changed it again to avoid violating the three-revert rule. The description of the change I made was not civil, just as the last time I was reprimanded for being uncivil in a dispute with alidoostzadeh. His motivation and manner drive me up the wall, and I would not be alone in my view that his interests do not lie with Wikipedia nor the community of editors which care for it were his history of contributions examined. A look through his editing history will show that I'm not the only otherwise-valuable editor who has had talk page fights with him: indeed, there are more disputes between him and otherwise-valuable editors than anyone else's history I've seen. His contributions overwhelmingly support pro-Iranian and pro-Persian views -- the points these edits make often leading to (erroneous or irrelevant) positive associations with modern Iran. Although he claims some very cerebral-sounding academics as his references while debating his edits on talk pages (usually a list of names whose works which no editor has time to actually read), his actual references have often been attributed to online encyclopedias (some with outdated content, in terms of populations, lineage and ancestry) and online magazine articles.

More than once editors have observed that his "evidence" has been taken out of context and do not lend weight to the arguments he has tried to make. His response to challenges is predictable and leveled, as if it was generated from a preconceived format. His user page has more barn stars on it than any other editor's I've seen, and these "awards" have most often been "presented" to him by a handful of equally-or-more biased editors who make pro-Iranian or pro-Persian edits and talk page arguments. He jumps from administrator to administrator to ask for help with intervening in arguments and in reprimanding editors who either repeatedly disagree with him or (like me) who get so mad at this pattern that they violate the rules of Wikipedia for the chance to vent their anger. It is likely that many of the anonymous IP vandal attempts to his page or commentaries are angry regular editors using clandestine, vigilante methods to vent their own frustrations -- why else would he be singled out by more than the usual right-wing nutjobs? Occasionally he makes a misstep, but it doesn't get noticed.

With all the "awards" on his page, it is odd that no one but me has noticed that is talk page has been made a "featured article." I doubt very much that his page has ever been -- that any user's page has ever been -- a featured article. Yet, when I pointed this out in my edit to his page that alidoostzadeh refers to above as vandalism, he didn't cry foul and report me. This is because he was in the wrong. He knows he is in the wrong. And, despite my attempt to notify anyone who would listen, the featured article status of his user page has remained. I've not personally changed so that others may see. A petty point upon which to squabble? Perhaps if it was an isolated mistake. But a review of Ali's arguments, edits, requests to admins, and the like-minded editors who lavish him with undue praises (and their edits, etc.) show a distinct pattern that is politically motivated. It's fair that I was blocked for being a jerk. That I (and many others in discussion and on talk pages) have been decried as racists, mouthpieces for our governments, unintelligent, unread and otherwise politically motivated is not. It is funny that those claims that have been made against we who dare disagree with his "expert" opinion, what with his year-or-more-old "new post-doc position" are the very ones that have been made against him, though not usually in such stark language.

His disclaimer that he may be too busy to respond quickly, his edits and their implications, and his format approach to disputes all lean towards the hypothesis that he is a representative of the Iranian government. Do I have proof? No. Is there evidence? Yes, spread over thousands of edits in his history. He has become my Professor Moriarty, but instead of acting like Sherlock Holmes I've been acting like Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane. My apologies to you and to Wikipedia. The disappointing thing is that even if the evidence was damning, nothing would change. At the very, very worst his account would be blocked. Then he'd open another one under a different pseudonym. The effort required to gather enough evidence to persuade the admin community would be great and ultimately accomplish little. In any event, Ali is not as valuable a contributer as you may think, nor is he any more objective than he needs to be to continue pursuing his less-than-noble interests. From now on I'll keep a cool head with Ali, use the time I would have spent huffing to review his contributions and work with the dozens of other good editors to build a case, and wait until he makes a noticeable mistake. No hard feelings. TeamZissou (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) I don`t know alidoostzadeh very well, but from what I have seen, he seems like an objective, reasonable editor.You, TeamZissou, I know well enough from your edits on Iran, and you`re anything but a "valuable editor", it`s actually a miracle that you haven't been banned yet, you contribute nothing worthwhile to the project other than blind reverting without a rational, stalking other editors, vandalizing their user pages, and insulting them with racial slurs like "third world sand monkey" and "durka durka" [56]...Your recurrent diatribe against "inferior people" you see as "third world sand monkeys" and your total disregard for civility is disturbing to say the least. Also, the featured article logo on alidoostzadeh`s user page was added by some vandal [57], and alidoostzadeh probably thought it was a barnstar or something similar--CreazySuit (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to drag Moreschi into this and apologize for taking his time. As CreazySuitpointed out, I did not even add that FA tag. I am not sure how it got on my talkpage. Although I thought someone put it there because I contributed to some FA articles. It was put by another user and I did not notice it. The user could have pointed it out in my talkpage. Insead he vandalized it! and accused me of working for the Iranian government and beig its agent! That is not pointing out an obvious mistake! As I mentioned already, I am not in favor of any current government. Instead of speaking like this: [58] the user could have used a calm approach. Actually if there is any complaint, it is the fact that despite the person insulting the faith of 1.4 billion Muslims and called the people of Middle Eastern descent as "Sand Monkey", he was just let go. As per my editing history, I have contributed mainly in history related articles with regards to Iranian culture and poetry. From Nowruz to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safina-yi_Tabriz to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justanid. And I have much more contributions in the talkpages than main edits. I would say the ratio is about 10 to 1. That is why despite being involved in some contentious issues (regarding history), I have had a clean record. Usually I had to deal with a lot of crank theory, insults and OR while trying to stay as cool as possible! I have not been perfect (who is?), but I can vouch from admins that have looked at my edits, that I do not commit OR and use the most modern sources when making claims. I admit I like Iranian history and culture, but I have equal respects for the positive contributions of all cultures and heritages. And the user has a point. Given the bad image of American media on Iran, which undoubtly leads to such comments: [59], I have contributed to articles with regards to Persian literature and Iranian history. Thus showing English readers that one can find good and bad in any people and culture. I believe the user should be banned from editing any Iran/Islam related topics due to his comment here: [60]. The user says: It is likely that many of the anonymous IP vandal attempts to his page or commentaries are angry regular editors using clandestine, vigilante methods to vent their own frustrations -- why else would he be singled out by more than the usual right-wing nutjobs? . Actually with the exception of this user, no one (or maybe one) has vandalized my talkpage to make an angry point. And I had discussions with other users, some maybe heated, but in the end it has calmed down and the issue has worked itself out. And finally he makes this viewpoint: Although he claims some very cerebral-sounding academics as his references while debating his edits on talk pages (usually a list of names whose works which no editor has time to actually read), his actual references have often been attributed to online encyclopedias (some with outdated content, in terms of populations, lineage and ancestry) and online magazine articles. Again, that is not correct. If the user has a problem with any of my sources, then mention it on the talkpage. And I fully quote all my references. Why? So if someone like him disagrees, then can go their library and check it out. Usually many of my references are taken even from google books. And also, as far as I know, I have rarely or almost never used online magazine articles to stake any sort of controversial claim.

In the end, the reason I brought it to admin's Moreschi's attention, is because he is the best admin to look at people who make such comments: [61]. I really doubt this person has changed his mentality. And doing a small psychological analysis, he is angry that unlike Fox News, I have put dozens of Iran history related articles into Wikipedia and have debated crank theorists on some issue (using academic sources). How many times does a media like Fox News or CNN mention Iran's great poets? Like Khayyam, Rumi, Hafez..or culture? Basically I do not blame this guy for having such a negative viewpoint, although I doubt he can contribute to Iran/Muslim related topics. So as an Iranian-American living in the USA, some of us have a responsibility to show that Iran's image is not all negative. Our government is not helpful, neither is the US media. So when I have time or energy (and who knows maybe soon with growing family I will not), I also try to show we are not bad. Like any other people, Iran has its positive and negative aspects, but you will not see it in Fox News. For example, on the important manuscript Safina-yi Tabrizi, whose article I created, I have written:

“ The texts of the Safina-yi Tabrizi contain separate chapters covering hadeeth(traditions of the prophet of Islam), lexicography, ethics, mysticism, jurisprudence, theology, exegesis, history, grammar, linguistics, literature literary criticism, philosophy, astronomy astrology, geomancy, mineralogy, mathematics, medicine, music, physiognomy, cosmography and geography. ”

So 700 years ago or so, an important classical Encyclopedia was created in Iran. Is it factual? Yes. Now, is that pro-Persia/Iran statement and should it upset anyone? Yes it will upset people who believe that have the belief that Iranians are: third-world sand monkeys as he puts it! And that is the exact reason that most of my contributions have been about Iranian history.

The user claims about himself: That I (and many others in discussion and on talk pages) have been decried as racists, mouthpieces for our governments, unintelligent, unread and otherwise politically motivated is not. . Basically, we have someone who is upset that I write about Iranian/Persian history, literature and very rarely on politics. And even if I write on the latter, it is sourced. And why do I write about it? Partly perhaps to show to the average Westerner that Fox News could be wrong and we are not all: third-world sand monkeys, Terrorists and etc. Anyhow, I am not here to offend this user and as long as he uses the discussion page, there is no problem. I am here to contribute to the understand of Iranian history and the history of the Muslim world in general. And finally, as I mentioned, I have never supported any government in any part of the world and will probably never do so. Thanks.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 14	31 March 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires	Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace"	News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones
Dispatches: Featured content overview	WikiProject Report: Australia
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for your contributions for the Kartvelian language articles. Can you please take a look at South Caucasian languages? It might also needs some editing. Thanks again for your help, it was much needed. Iberieli (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, though I don't pretend to be an expert on this sort of stuff. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ring a bell?

I think I remember you reporting this guy Qwl to AN or ANI a few months back (Armenian Genocide talk page mischief). Well, he's re-emerged again at ANI [62]. Worth a look? --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Update It was this, I think [63]. --Folantin (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely worth a look. I think we can stretch the Armenia-Azeri 2 case to cover Armenian Genocide articles, for one thing. Thanks for the note. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking of EricBarbour

No worries. Regards, Rudget (review) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi (2)

Why you dont take first a look before you make my contributions back?know the articles which you have maked back is untrue and a part of falsification of history.they have not even a source!!!but my contributions was based on korrekt sources.and i was not the guy who insult iranians before my time.altai khan was my first nikname.its not a reason if i came from germany.here are 4 million turks living.--Ayamayala (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I'm less than convinced, not to mention less than interested. Your Pan-Turkic crap is completely tedious. I've blocked your newest account indefinitely, as I will any others you care to make. Give it up. Moreschi (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have another pan-Turkist crankster here (this one from Iran probably): [64]. What Ali has done (deleting some things) is what all Persian and Kurdish people do to make a so-called history for themselves by supports and helps of some religious Zionist Jewish people.. Before Turkish Ghaznavis there were not even one famous Persian person or Persian scientist or even Persian Poet and etc" The Persian people and also the Kurdish people delete Turkish and Assyrians History to prove their so-called civilisations,.

I basically removed his unreferenced edits. Since Saka is actually well known and studied language[65] and there is no modern academic source that supports his POV. Note the user has been making such claims about Kurdish towns in Iran too: [66]. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to deal with these sort of behavior (from pan-Turkists) many times in Wikipedia. I have lost count. They basically are usually always wrong, but then add some insults also. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the perfect example of the way Ali chases his opposition. With tenacity and whispering praises and agreement to anyone who even shows the slightest support for his side. Yes, I've been a real big jerk to Ali, and I'm sure that my comments were found offensive by you. My sincere apologies. A review of my contributions that don't involve fights with Ali are much different, and I encourage you to take a look at them. I disagree with Ali on so many levels about reliable sources and what's valuable content that my frustration has degraded into nothing more than insults and reverts, which doesn't help anyone. I'll leave cooler-headed people to deal with his motives, and will remove the Iran article from my watchlist. He has faced enough resistance on the Scythians article to allow me to avoid most fights with him there, but the article is important to me though I have few contributions to it. That's where it stands, and I would have rather approached the situation differently. Ali is a religious nationalist -- truth isn't known to live among such mindsets. Countering such persuasions with vulgar language isn't an effective defense of facts. Give it a few weeks to digest, watch how he interacts with other admins and how he frames his arguments on talk pages and you'll see. As for me, I'm done until he steps on my bio articles. A 700 year-old source is valid on everything? That should provide some indication of his approach to Wikipedia. Ayamayala is likely no more one-sided than alidoostzadeh: Ayamayaia simply isn't as articulate or manipulative. TeamZissou (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

When did I use a 700 year old source to support my thesis? I created an article about 700 year old book that resembles a modern Encyclopedia. Two different things. How can the comments made by the anonymous above be considered opposition? Do you see him bringing any sources? Or is just full of insults? At least be fair. I had to deal with the sourceless anonymous cranky theorists like these numerous times, but have tried my best to not lose my calm, despite the unwavering insults. Just check his contribution, he did not provide one source for his statement. Just started insulting different groups out of the blue! I asked him to bring modern Western academic (not amateur) sources to support his opinion. And of course, the right procedure is to complain to the admins if there is a cranky theorist who starts insulting different groups. As per the article Scythians, there have been arguments, so what? There was couple cranky theorists which I resisted and thankfully user Dab stepped in. For example this guy: [[67] who was banned for vandalism. Dab is a fair admin, and you should be glad he gave you a warning for your initial insult. I am not here to hold grudges, and I am not a religious nationalist. Do I believe in God? Yes. But I am no Pat Robertson or Osama. Do I believe that any particular group in the world is superior? No. So I am not nationalist. But there is a sense of patriotism. I consider patriotism to be defensive gesture. I work mainly on Iranian history and Persian literature articles. And one of my goal is to hopefully present a different viewpoint than Fox News. Because I can contribute this way to Wikipedia. I can also contribute to the technical fields but not biology, because it lacked mathematical formulas. I almost flunked biology. Physics on the other hand was great. So I am not going to bother with biology, and you will not bother with Iran related articles and I guess we will not cross path. As per your insults against me, think none of it and I hope if I have made similar insults to anyone, they will let go also. But on your insult of the Prophet Muhammad, you might want to read the book: [68]]. You might change your opinion. Islam is a big religion, with a wide spectrum and you can get people of all sorts. Some Good, some Bad, and some Ugly. Anyhow, the problem has been solved like two gentlemen and I guess we will not cross paths in Wikipedia. So I apologize to Moreschi for filling up his page. --Alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in agsin) TeamZissou, I did what you asked me and re-reviewed your contributions, and you're a knowledgeable on Zoology and related pages, but how do you expect to be taken seriously on political/historical issues when you go around calling Muslims "third world sand monkeys" and their prophet "schizophrenic pedophile". Don't get me wrong, I am not a practicing Muslim, and I couldn't care less about Mohammad, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a soapbox, or battleground and your tone and edits on political/historical pages suggest a very strong bias tainted with with racist and anti-Muslim prejudice. I'd be more understanding, if you were sorry, but instead you continue to justify your actions and blame alidoostzadeh. alidoostzadeh is hardly "religious" or "nationalist", Wikipedia is infested with nationalists and religious fanatics, I think your obsession with alidoostzadeh has prevented you from looking around and spotting the real nationalists and fanatics on Wikipedia, which explains why you're using those adjectives so lightly. That 85.15.17.141 guy is a fine example of a nationalist on loose, he's adding unreferenced mythology and crap to Wikipedia, and posting racist rants on talk pages.--CreazySuit (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

At least Alidoostzadeh and I both believe Fox News is garbage. You know, I think it just be the way he phrases things or how he fights those who doubt his views (whether they are valid or not) that ruffles my feathers. I cannot help but remain suspicious for the time being, but I think filling Moreschi's page to the brim with this discussion has been at least somewhat helpful. So, thanks Moreschi, CreazySuit and Ali, for what it's worth. TeamZissou (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Busy next Sunday?

Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice. Majorly (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi. Just wanted to ask you a question about Wikipedia:WikiProject_Karabakh, which was closed a while ago. However, this project's tags still remain on almost all region related articles, and even some not directly related to it, such as Talk:Caucasian Albania. I believe these tags need to be removed too. Grandmaster (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. Unlikely anyone will revert. Moreschi (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)