User talk:Moreschi

An open debate on how to resolve nationalist conflicts - please visit

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)

When was the project redirected after Poco reintroduced it? and by whom? You simply can't singlehandedly close a project because two external editors are unhappy with it. At first the project tag was the reason, I offered to change it, then it was its scope, Then it turned out that they are going to be unhappy with with that project no matter how many compromises I offered. You see, this goes against their governments ideology that the NK doesn't exist, and they're simply following it. Their only argument was that there are already WP:AM and WP:AZ, but as Poco pointed out there are some members who don't want to join one or the other, and view that as taking a side. Some members are interested with the region and the project without feeling the need to join either of the projects. I will revert any removal of the tags.VartanM (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• One: I redirected the project and permanently protected the redirect.
• Two: I have the authority to do so unless ArbCom tells me otherwise.
• Three: If you do revert the removal of the tags to a dead project, that would be disruptive. I don't want to have to spell out the consequences.
• Four: Wikipedia does not need another advocacy WikiProject. We already have far too many. Moreschi (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ossetia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abkhazia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Transnistria
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kurdistan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Taiwan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Silesia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kosovo

Having too many doesn't give you the right to close another. If you really are so righteous and think that its best for wikipedia, then close the others as well. Let me remind you that the project isn't hurting anyone except the egos of Grandmaster and Atabek. VartanM (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Vartan, OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the members of those projects would be delighted to hear about how they were called crap, but back to the point. A whole wikiproject was disrupted because of two users. They showed that they were unwilling to compromise on anything and the only solution for them was the dismantling of the wikiproject. You essentially played to their tune and closed the project. I view this as disrupting wikipedia and you are part of that disruption. What is going to be done to stop the disruption? VartanM (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, another narrrative: an Armenians-only advocacy group is set up to coordinate POV-pushing. I stop the silliness in its tracks. We can both cook up scenarios all day, I'm sure.

So, please don't waste your time here. Either try to manage without the NK WikiProject, as I'm sure Wikipedia will, or go to ArbCom. Cheerio! Moreschi (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read here[69] you would see that we were more then willing to compromise and work with Azeris. You can also see how all of our efforts to reach a compromise were rejected. Cheerio indeed. VartanM (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, if you are going to balance an undisputed advocacy group’s existence by some speculation for the other side go for it. The fact of the matter is that closing a WikiProject is something which should reach consensus. The reasons of its existence and why they were important were already given which you have not even addressed. NK has its own government, ministers, army, law enforcement, schools, churches, etc. They neither fit directly in the Armenian WikiProject, and surely neither in Azerbaijan.

And I’m pretty sure that you know that the existence of the project is legitimate, you have versed too much with projects here to know that even if NK had to be disputed, it could still have its own WikiProject even as a province or whatever.

• Quebec
• Ontario

Canadian provinces have theirs, the WikiProject is legitimate no matter if the region is disputed, it could have indisputably been apart of Azerbaijan and been self-administrated by them... if enough particular articles were to exist about the region, it could have had its own WikiProject. Besides, current geography is not even a prerequisite. NK had formed Kingdoms and principalities for at least a millennium, and is currently self-administrated. If countries’ provinces could have their own WikipProject, then so can NK.

Show me from here according to what the project was closed, and what rule is enforced here. A project creating controversy because of some editors is no excuse to do this. - Fedayee (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, per WP:BOLD I have added a Karabakh Task Force to WikiProject Armenia. We can use this to collaborate if a WikiProject Karabakh isn't going to be permitted. We can add a Karabakh task force switch to the WikiProject Armenia template (actually I tried to do it myself but my wikimarkup aint the best so it didn't work). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got reverted by VartanM on Talk:Artsakh when removing a NK project tag: [70] VartanM never discussed this rv on talk of the article. You said that it was Ok to remove those tags and restoring would be disruption. In addition, this user joined banned user Azad chai/Azerbaboon on a couple of articles and resumed old edit wars. Here he removed a large chunk of sourced info without any agreement on talk: [71] Here he removed Azerbaijani name: [72] in support of banned user. The IPs in 85.211. and 149.68.164 ranges (plus a couple of others) have been harassing Azerbaijan related articles for quite some time now. While many of them were blocked, they keep on reappearing every day to rv the same set of articles. The IPs in 149 range are proven to be Azad chai: [73] Others must be his pals, as they do identical reverts. It is no good that established users join forces with banned users, instead of helping to stop disruption, and engage in revert wars elsewhere, restoring tags to discontinued wikiprojects. Grandmaster (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've rolled back Vartan's revert. Tags to a project that is dead, and will stay so, are ridiculous. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you see me discussing my revert here. Moreschi agreed on the removal of the tags because he wrongly believed that there won't be anyone objecting. As you can see there are at least three members objecting to that, but you went ahead and started removing those tags. Unlike Dacy69, I reverted once and I'm not violating the parole since I've been discussing this all day long. Please also note that any more removal of tags will be viewed as disruption on your part.

As for the rest, I kindly asked you to source your claims, instead you're here complaining about it. I really do want to see the sources I requested. VartanM (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when we need sources for native language spellings? If so, we need to request them for every article such spelling is included. It is not a good pretext for unjustified rv in support of a banned user, who has been trolling and disrupting articles for quite some time now. As for the tag, I don't see that this issue is still open, and you were clearly personally warned just above, quote: If you do revert the removal of the tags to a dead project, that would be disruptive. I don't want to have to spell out the consequences. Still you chose to revert, and this fact deserves a mention here. Grandmaster (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite interesting that anon IPs such as 85.211.0.96 (talk · contribs) and 85.211.0.105 (talk · contribs) are also there to revert in support of VartanM. The above IPs right now are restoring tags of the dead Wikiproject and revert other articles to VartanM's version. Grandmaster (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need a source, foreign language additions for historic regions need justification to be added, this has been explained to you on several occasions. Britannica, Iranica and several other encyclopedia’s, do include the Armenian term and not Azeri. And this has been explained to you by several users.

Parthian, Armenian, Persian works etc. Are the only source available for the existence of their identity. More particularly the only available sources for that people are in the Armenian manuscripts like the history of Aghvank. This is why they are included. The disappearance of Aghvanks and the existence of the Azeri language are centuries apart, you simply can't claim Azeri as native spelling.

You claim that a large junk of information has been deleted from Azerbaijanis of Armenia. If you really want to go there, I will show Moreschi how Parishan has dishonestly misquoted sources which do not say what he claims they say. Particularly the recent one he has added, or those presented out of context.

As for the IP’s, I won’t be intimidated by them anymore. Those IP's have always favored you and Atabek, by making changes that are essentially accurate and then start sockuppeting and getting blocked. Then you and Atabek start to associate any edits of the regular editors to those socks. How convenient for you, is it not? VartanM (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see Grandmaster addressing the points I have raised, he changed the entire subject by bringing back those IPs and socks, which have only served him. Grandmaster answer, Vartan agreed that he could find a solution with the map which was a problem with you. Tell us why NK should not have its Wikiproject, when provinces, territories, disputed or not have theirs. - Fedayee (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about Nakhchivan khanate here, Vartan, which you reverted. Since when we need a source for the native name? As for the IPs, if those IPs are connected with me as you claim, then why are you defending them at the talk of admin who blocked them? You know perfectly well that it is a banned user, yet you are there to defend him. I really hope that this IP activity is not coordinated outside of wiki. Those IPs targeted me and Atabek from the very beginning. They would follow us and undo all our edits. It seems that the purpose was to bait us to violate our parole. Azad chai/Azerbaboon was helping you on Osroene (using his cu proven IP), and some other articles. If it is just a coincidence, then a very strange one. I hope this stops soon. Grandmaster (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, any pair of eyes who would witness those IPs for a long time would know, by paying particular attention to what is the result of their actions, the following 1) Those IPs have valid elements in their edits, which always center around the controversies brought by you, Parishan and Atabek mostly. 2) Those IPs would then engage in sockpuppetry. 3) The action finally results in intimidating the editors who you oppose, under threat that their edits will be associated with some IP or blocked member, restraining to do the job of reinserting legitimate edits which you both know were debated already. 4) That Eupator, I and Vartan have been intimidated by this, and the end result being your version being kept without exception is strong evidence. 5) Those IPs and pretending Armenians have been exposed on several occasion to not even knowing any Armenian. Since you bring Osroene, Osroene is another evidence of that, while Atabek was going against historical consensus, the only way he found to have other established members to revert to his version was because again those IPs were doing the reverts by the same token intimidating Vartan who was afraid to be associated with them.

Had those IP anything to do with us, or on "our side", they’d had by now realized that on each cases where they had been involved the only ones who profited were you and Atabek. You can try associating them with us to not avail, because only you and Atabek were those who profited by this.

Coming to Nakhichevan, the Khanate of Nakhichevan was not an "Azerbaijani" Khanate, provide me any "Azerbaijani" map of the time, or anything. Please provide any encyclopedias which provide this. And I am still waiting for you to address what was raised for the WikiProject. Still waiting... - Fedayee (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell the IPs to stop if you do not support them. What I see is that VartanM is advocating for them. I don't know how you "exposed" those IPs, but their poor Armenian would not surprise me, Rovoam is not even an ethnic Armenian. In any case, banned users obviously are trying to help you, and you do not distance yourself from them. As for the Nakhchiban khanate, please tell me what language in your opinion the majority of population and rulers of Kengerli clan spoke? This is the answer to your question. As for wikiproject, I believe this issue has already been closed. Grandmaster (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, please, WP:AGF or maybe wasting community's time by bringing to User:Ehud Lesar ArbCom case hasn't been enough for you? Now, I do not quite see what's your point with disputing whether Nakhchivan was Azerbaijani khanate or not. Was it Armenian khanate? No such entity as Armenia existed from 5th century A.D. till 20th century.

Also, I am not sure what gives you basis to dispute Osroene's status as a first Christian kingdom claiming "historical consensus", e.g. original research. Whose consensus is that? There are many neutral references affirming Osroene's acceptance of Christianity by the beginning of 3rd century. Atabek (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, this is total fabrication. This IP mysteriously knows every point of contention in your and Atabek’s positions, you make no sense whatsoever. You ask me to ask the IP to stop. How and where? They’re multiple IP’s. As for Rovoam, the alleged identity he pertained to be and claimed by Tabib seems to be bogus; we have not obtained any confirmation from the authors of the site which Tabib associated himself. We’re searching more on this and contacting the administrators, but the evidences are turning that Tabib probably cooked it up. - Fedayee (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Atabek, the only editors who have been wasting the community time are you and Grandmaster, but one thing you both have to be thanked for is to prove once for all for all of us, that the arbitration is a kangaroo court. It was already documented how you distort, misquote and falsify sources. Your intrusion in those articles was to push Adil Baguirov’s claims off-wiki..., links have been already provided about Adil Baguirov pov pushing about this particular subject. Enough said. - Fedayee (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee, I will let arbitrators and administrators judge your opinion of ArbCom being a "kangaroo court". Although I do believe, your unsubstantiated accusations against User:Ehud Lesar, and alluding to myself and User:AdilBaguirov having allegedly off-wiki relation wasted community's time. Based on nothing other than WP:AGF, your evidence was based primarily on intolerance of other side's opinion and warring along national lines, anti-Semitic and racist attacks upon User:Ehud Lesar, stalking and personal attacks upon myself, and other violations, which contributed no improvement to Wikipedia articles. So assume good faith, and understand that your approach above is counterproductive and disruptive. And if you still insist that some user is Adil Baguirov, then better and more appropriate way of pursuing your claim with evidence is ArbCom. Atabek (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So it was Tabib who cooked up Rovoam? :) Another wild fantasy similar to the one that resulted in Ehud's case. Did Tabib cooked up Rovoam in Russian wiki too? You probably know that Rovoam got kicked from there as well for the similar behavior. No one likes vandals. If you have already established a contact with Rovoam, like Artaxiad did, [74] tell him to stop it. It is pointless and is just a waste of everyone's time. Grandmaster (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Grandmaster, if I were you I would not go there (fantasy accusations) neither put on happy faces because these fantasies could lead to certain consequences that are hard to digest. For Rovoam, keep trying to twist my words. The alleged identity attributed to him, and the alleged author of the site Tabib has claimed is what appears to be a fabrication. Over a month now of finding it out and a contact directly to the source is starting to show the fabrication it was. I’m leaving this here, and great job once more changing the subject to not have to address the initial arguments raised. - Fedayee (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So Rovoam is Tabib? And Ehud was Adil? What's next? Atabek is me? Artaxiad is Parishan? Good luck with your new conspiracy theories. Grandmaster (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Veropedia account

Hey, I'm pretty interested in getting an account on Veropedia (assumuming they allow GA-class Family Guy articles and the like,) so if you could get me one, I could upload a few articles. Qst (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

Hello Moreschi, you might be interested in this discussion: User talk:Od Mishehu#User:Dodona block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. Well, thanks for letting me know :) Moreschi (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-POV war stuff

Seen this [75]? The demon of Wiki-over-referencing is scuppering our list. --Folantin (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like its been fixed. Now, does this new signature work? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it works. The debate is only in my userspace by default. If we get enough interest we can turn it into some kind of Wikipedia talkspace board. We really need somewhere to discuss these general issues. --Folantin (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was just about to reply

Hi Moreschi. I am really, genuinely flattered. I have thought about it, but decided that negative sneering from the sidelines is more my thing. Looking forward to continued collaboration. More power to you. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Will the rational be provided?

Hey, I am expecting an answer to what has been raised above regarding your unilateral decision. You have failed to address any of the points raised. Again, I ask, according to which rule you did this? You as an administrator are given those tools to enforce rules, but you have failed to provide which rules you have enforced. Your action was challenged here and I am wondering if any answer will come soon. Thanks. - Fedayee (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I've given my rationale 1 billion times over. I'm not doing so again. Go back over the discussions. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That was rude to say the least. I must be blind then; I don’t see this having been done. These are your points.

One: I redirected the project and permanently protected the redirect.

When was this done? You are not entitled to protect the redirect; your decision is not based on any rules at all. You have therefore used your administrative powers to gain advantage on a content dispute.

Two: I have the authority to do so unless ArbCom tells me otherwise.

You don’t, you have no authority to protect the redirect, you have no authority to prevent a group of editors to create a WikiProject, add their names in it and contribute, unless a rule is violated.

Three: If you do revert the removal of the tags to a dead project, that would be disruptive. I don't want to have to spell out the consequences.

You have killed the project by a unilateral decision and then claimed it to not exist anymore to threaten a member who does not agree with you on content dispute.

Four: Wikipedia does not need another advocacy WikiProject. We already have far too many.

This is extremely rude and inaccurate. If you have a problem with advocacy groups, I’ll point you where to check then so that you can act. What you say here assumes that the one who created it and the members of the project had some sort of ill-intent incompatible with Wikipedia. But this not only shows there is an adequate reason for the WikiProject to exist, but that the existence of such WikiProjects is the norm here.

You disagree with the existence of the WikiProject, it is your opinion that it should not exist, it is mine that there is more than legitimate reasons for it to exist. Vartan even agreed to remove the map to make it apolitical, so that no symbols to offend fragile and sensitive hearts. This is a disagreement, on the other hand that WikiProject does not violate any rules, so any uses of administrative powers to sustain your opinion that it should not exist is an abuse of administrative tools. Neither the Arbcom ruling AA1 and AA2, neither the rules give you such power. We both know that if this is submitted to the ANI, not much anyone uninvolved with the case will disagree with the WikiProject since there is nothing wrong for a group of people to create a WikiProject and to add their names. See this as some sort of advocacy for all you want, it won’t make it accurate.

It’s true that not much would change if it exists or not, that members can still contribute, but this is a matter of principal. Based on the fact that there are various articles such as presidents, ministers, schools, etc. and that a WikiProject would have been a good idea. If this will create a conflict because of a passionate group of editors who place some outside interest before Wikipedia, then it is for them to change, and it is up to you to fix this. The problem does not lie on my side. - Fedayee (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Off to RFAR you go. Having stated my rationale, I am not backing down. You either have the option of trying this out or asking the arbitrators for their opinion. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, off the ANI I go, RfAr is not a credible entity, you know they’ll shout content dispute. Three arbitration cases have shown what their worth was. What would be more helpful is that you actually start addressing the points which were raised.

And BTW about this, where were you? This was what was done already, which Atabek, Parishan and Grandmaster disagreed with and changed the redirect. Then Eupator removed prior to 1918 including his additions so that the title fits the content, which was reverted (and not surprising excluding Eupator additions). I guess it is better late than never that another user comes there and suggests what is the most reasonable, that is, the renaming of the article. Participate in that article for just one week, and decide by yourself who are those who disrupt. - Fedayee (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Eupator was involved in disruption on that article, as was admitted by the admins: [76] He tried to move the article without any consensus a number of times, deleted large verifiable content, etc. I don't mind if someone neutral gets involved with this article, as it has become a victim of tendentious editing. A group if editors simply tries to remove Azerbaijani people from the history of Armenia. One can only guess why. Grandmaster (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, if you read this discussion, you will see that Grandmaster’s reply does not take into account any of the points raised here. What is said is that the Turkmen who have a nation, Turkmenistan, have settled in the region with other tribes and were the major Turkic speaking people in Transcaucasia, before the identity ‘’Azerbaijani’’ was even formed. Several Oguz Turkic tribes have as much historical claim on the Turkic population of Armenia than the modern people which is identified as Azerbaijani and more particularly the Turkmen. By calling those people Azerbaijani, Grandmaster dismisses and excludes the Turkmen population of Armenia which were the majority Turkic people living there. Turkmens are not some vanished entity they still exist and currently even have a country. It is one thing that Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan have some modern conflicts, it is another to dismiss Turkmen history (which is OR) by claiming Turkmens to be Azerbaijani. This is the point of contention, and you will see that Ulvi above has actually claimed Turkmens to be Azerbaijani. Turkmens have a much older history than Azerbaijani’s, and historically speaking they are one of their founding ancestors. - Fedayee (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is a prime example of original research. Turkmens live in Central Asia, they do not live in the Caucasus. Neither Russian, nor Soviet statistics mention any significant number of Turkmen people in this region. I do not understand where these entire Turkmen talk comes from. No sources about Turkmens in Caucasus have been provided so far. Fedayee, are you trying to say that Turkic people who lived on the territory of Armenia were Turkmens, who miraculously vanished and became replaced by Azerbaijani people, who appeared out of nowhere in 1918? Grandmaster (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not continue here, it’s someone else talkpage, but the above only shows that Grandmaster does not read what others are writing, neither what he is actually replying to. Moreschi read the article's talkpage and then reply if what I write here is not an accurate description of Grandmaster’s behavior. It’s truly sad that Grandmaster is recycling the words of modern ultra-nationalists who due to the recent conflict between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan (partly due to Turkmenistan’s gas export to Armenia) are dismissing Turkmen historical heritage even going as far as passing them all as Azerbaijani. - Fedayee (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I do warn you. If you prove unable to settle your differences among yourselves I will simply have to settle them for you. Try formal mediation if you don't want that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind meditation. It may help resolve the dispute. Grandmaster (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That is convenient, when you always ignored mediation's decisions to then have it your way. I will only accept mediation under one condition. That you accept being banned from those articles for a period of 6 months if you refuse to accept the results of such mediation. - Fedayee (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Moreschi

This user continues blunt vandalism here [77], also here [78], [79], [80]. He also also investigated for sockpopetry [81]. Also [82] and [83]. He also vandalized my talk page [84]. He also is stalking other users and harassing them: [85] We need your help. Thanks a lot.

I've semi-protected a whole bundle of his favourite pages. I agree that his contributions are disruptive. With luck this will drive him off the IPs. If he starts sticking to one account we can deal with him more easily. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article more or less fits the stuff you're currently debating about to a T

State terrorism and the United States‎

Same old, same old. An article filled with POV material and irrelevant claptrap that is continually reverted to the version of those who WP:OWN the page, and anyone attempting to clean it up is showered with abuse. Sockpuppets, personal attacks, spurious WP:ANI reports, the whole nine yards-- this article is worse than Lightsaber combat ever was. Jtrainor (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam

An editor has asked for a deletion review of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.--Iamsaa (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

New barnstar proposal

I fancy issuing one or two of these. --Folantin (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Tiresome Contributor Barnstar
		For your tiresome contributions to [insert relevant articles here]. You just never give up, do you?

Undue issues - input requested

Having read your comments on Folantin's talk, I wonder if you could look at the RfC I've filled regarding undue (in my view) changes to lead demanded by some editors at Armia Krajowa. The discussion is here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. Since we agree in our reasoning about the current version, could you remove the NPOV tag from the current version? I feel it would be better for a neutral editor to do so, if I as an involved party would do so, it may lead to bad faith edit warring.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptians

Moreschi, it doesn't make much sense to have a verbatim copy of the identity section from the article on Egypt in the one on Egyptians. A small paragraph suffices for now. — Zerida ☥ 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd say the material is offtopic at Egypt. A small paragraph there would suffice, yes. "Egyptians" is supposed to be the main article for "identity", after all. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. So do I. It's not off-topic in Egypt because the question touches aspects of Egypt's current government which brought Arab nationalist policies on the scene. I don't however see a problem in having a larger section on identity in the article on Egyptians later on when the culture section is worked out. — Zerida ☥ 20:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion last year, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Laz people

Hello :) Do you konow Kartvelian fascism ? "Lazs are Kartvelian or Lazs are Georgian".Not this is historical fascist lie.Not scientific.Example: "Muslim Russians: Bosniaks" or "Catholic Russians: Croatians" ? Don't.'cause of not scientific.That'S way: "Muslim Slavs:Bosnians".. Like Slavic nations not Russians nation ; Lazs aren't kartvelians-Georgians.Only SOUTH CAUCASIAN

Please a little respect for trues :)

Good heavens. South Caucasian ethnic mysticism. This is a first for me! Anyway, please see your talk page, and in particular WP:TRUTH. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) The Laz aren't Georgians but they're certainly Kartvelians. George Hewitt Georgian: A Learner's Grammar (Routledge, 1996) p.1: "The now independent Republic of Georgia incorporates the homeland of three of the four Kartvelian peoples: the Georgians proper, the Mingrelians and the Svans - the fourth people are the Laz, who live almost exclusively in modern-day Turkey." --Folantin (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. This chap's drawing a distinction between "South Caucasian" and "Kartvelian" that simply isn't there, as part of his crusade against the Georgians. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I suppose the redirect page you made for "Kartvelian peoples" should really head towards the "Kartvelian languages" page for the time being rather than "Georgians", given the status of the Laz as Kartvelians but not Georgians. --Folantin (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(I suspect the objection is because "Kartveli" means "Georgian" in the Georgian language. But Kartvelian is indeed the English term for this group of peoples/languages. I suppose it's like Dutch people objecting to their language being called "Germanic" because they don't want to be associated with the Germans. Now did our friend Rex ever do that?). --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've turned Kartvelian peoples into a disambig and sent all the relevant redirects there. This is tricky, because of how much you consider the other three to be separate ethnic groups from the Georgians. But given that "Kartvelian languages" is an umbrella term for all the South Caucasian languages, so, logically, should be "Kartvelian peoples". Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr Folantin, using Georgianophobe Hewitt as the reliable source is not a correct way to find out the information about this issue. He is well known revisionist "historian" married to Abkhaz wife who unfortunately has twisted his mind. His publications are not taken seriously in the scholarly world. Anyway, If you are interested about Kartvelians and Georgians in general I would suggest: Cyril Toumanoffs work (a well know specialist of the Caucasus from Georgetown University), David Marshal Lang (Kartveliologist from Oxford), Dowling, Edward Allen, and one of the best specialist of South Caucasian Languages Howard Aronson from University of Chicago (he just published his briliant work on the Kartvelian languages and Georgian medieval literature). These are all western scholars. There are enormous amount of Georgian scholars too. Unfortunately you are mistaken, the term Kartvelian in our language (and in my regional language of Mingrelia) means simply Georgian :) Kartveli (Georgians) Kartuli (Georgian) Sakartvelo (Georgia) :) Also there is no need to create artificial boundaries between ethnicities, I'm Mingrelian myself and i dont feel separated from the rest of Georgians (in fact we are oldest Georgians). Oh I forgot, Also check out Grigol Suny, he is also good and has very interesting books about this particular topic (Making of the Georgian Nation). Cheers. Iberieli (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, what exactly is the problem here? Both you and I and Hewitt agree that the Laz are a Kartvelian people. I'm already well aware of the background to this issue and Hewitt's (and your) opinions on Abkhazia are irrelevant here, especially since you both agree on the Laz issue.

I've read many of the writers you mention and I've edited articles on Georgian history on Wikipedia. I've even been accused of being a Georgian nationalist by one Russian user. My speculation that ColchianBoy's "objection is because 'Kartveli' means 'Georgian' in the Georgian language" is pretty much the same as yours below ("However, there are some element in Turkey from the Laz community which reject the term Kartvelian being associated with Georgians (which is ridiculous and needs no further comment). Kartvelian in the Georgian language which obviously means Georgian :) qartveli ქართველი meaning Georgian and Sakartvelo საქართველო Georgia, in Mingrelian its qortu (Georgians) and saqortuo (Georgia)"). --Folantin (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again Laz people

Dear admin please trues :) All "Slavs" aren't Russians= + (yes true) All "South Cucasian peoples not Kartvelian 'casue of this is Georgia's lie,this name to Fascist attack= +

And Dutchs not German.Only relative.As Georgian-kartvels and Lazs. Lazs and Georgians are cousin not brother.And South Caucasıan languages not GEORGIAN LANGUAGES.Is they scientific ? For me and philology-antopology BIG NO NO NO :)

Lazs aren't georgian or Turk or .... Lazs only Laz a South Caucasian nation.Laz language not a dialect of Georgian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolkhianboy (talk • contribs) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Laz speak in Laz language , which is one of the South Caucasian language group, which consist beside Laz/Mingrel of the Georgian and Svan languages. Today the Laz language is writtenwith an alphabet of 35 letters (1984), based on Latin letters."

Ok ? However Lazs aren't Kartvelian people and Laz isn'a adialect of Kartvelian-Georgian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolkhianboy (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, can you please start talking in a form of English that I can actually understand without having to read it 5 times over. Sign yourself up for evening classes or something.

I think our main problem here is that you are confused between different uses of "Kartvelian". In one instance, "Kartvelian" is what the Georgians call themselves. In academic usage, however, and for the purposes of the English Wikipedia, "Kartvelian" is simply a synonym for "South Caucasian", and is therefore an umbrella term incorporating the Mingrelians, Laz, Svans, Georgians, and their respective languages. Ok?

On another note, flinging terms such as "fascist" at Georgians in general and our Georgian users in particular is not acceptable practice. This violates Wikipedia:No personal attacks and makes you look like a virulent bigot. Please bear in mind the consequences of continuing in this vein. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Moreschi, many thanks for your help. I really did not know where to appeal for help because this particular anon was constantly vandalizing those articles. In case of Colchis I provided tons of sources (and all of them are mainly from Western scholarly publications, i try to avoid any other) and i have tons more to add but his behavior is disturbing our work on those articles. I'm Mingrelian myself and actually speak Mingrelian dialect and some Svan too. I'm not going into details about Kartvelian term (I think you know enough about it). However, there are some element in Turkey from the Laz community which reject the term Kartvelian being associated with Georgians (which is ridiculous and needs no further comment). Kartvelian in the Georgian language which obviously means Georgian :) qartveli ქართველი meaning Georgian and Sakartvelo საქართველო Georgia, in Mingrelian its qortu (Georgians) and saqortuo (Georgia). The linguists preferred this term to identify the South Caucasian Language group: Svan, Chan, Zan (Mingrelian and Laz, almost identical dialects) and modern Georgian which we speak today. Anyway its a very long topic and you know better than I do about it :) Thanks also for your edits on Kartvelian language articles, they were neglected for a while and I had very limited time to edit them. A while ago, it included the odd and dubious claim that another component of South Caucasian Language group existed, known as "Gruzinic" (dialect spoken by Georgian Jews) which later turned out to be false (I inquired about it among the Georgian Jewish community) :) Again thank you very much for your help and I hope that you will continue your editing of those articles. Unfortunately, there are very few Georgian editors (me, Kober and i think thats pretty much it in term of activism on Wiki). All the best! Iberieli (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Blimey. This is the kind of tricky subject I attempt to avoid and I really don't have as much material on this as I do for other areas of the Caucasus region. I'll try to look into it tomorrow when I'm fresher. Meanwhile, Google books has a "full view" of The Azerbaijani Turks: Power and Identity Under Russian Rule by Audrey L. Alstadt (Hoover Press, 1992) [86] and a "limited view" of Russian Azerbaijan, 1905-1920: The Shaping of National Identity in a Muslim Community by Tadeusz Swietochowski (Cambridge University Press, 1985) (blurb reads: "Russian Azerbaijan, 1905–1920 describes the rise of national identity among the Azerbaijanis - the Turkic-speaking Muslims of Russia’s borderland with Iran - at the opening of the twentieth century. The principal focus is on the period from the Russian Revolution of 1905, when the Azerbaijanis began to articulate their national aspirations, until the establishment of the Soviet Azerbaijani Republic in 1920. The central theme of the book is the emergence of ideas, and then actions, that would create a new collective identity among the Muslims - a sense of nationality") [87]. Might be worth a look. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Altai Khan

I saw that you've blocked this guy based on CU [88]. He's now back with an obvious IP (same range as his known IPs from CU), and is removing sourced material from another article . [89]. --07fan (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay

Finally, the AC do something useful (and this slipped under the radar for me, strange). The log of bans is disgusting. I can bet it wasn't workshopped, though :( Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just useful, fun also. The things you learn about Balkan history, and at such a pace! Great stuff. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

M

Non-urgent, non-current but amusing. --Folantin (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Read and replied. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection log?

On my watchlist, why am I seeing items that you (and others) are adding to the protection log? My watchlist is filled with pages that are being protected, even though I'm not watching them! Is this a recently-introduced wiki bug? Something else? Timneu22 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, protections and blocks are now appearing in watchlists. Deletions as well, maybe. It's fairly useful for me, though I'm not quite sure why you're seeing protections of pages that you're not watching! That does seem a little strange. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the proper place to report this? Timneu22 (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hi, Moreschi.
I've inserted templates on IP-adresses, that I find that may be sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove (as well as on banned account, of user Marygiove).
I hope I've used the right ones, [90], [91] and [92]. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Fancy posting a DYK? It's late and I'm looking for an active admin to do it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Please read Wikipedia:Civil#Engaging_in_incivility. Much of your recent editting has been in violation of this policy; please try to be friendlier to other editors in the future. KV(Talk) 11:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you would be the author of Hermetism. We'll get round to that eventually. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I would be uninvolved. Please be more civil[93][94][95] in the future Moreschi. As an admin your actions reflect on Wikipedia. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please try to be more civil. I know it can be difficult (I've been unnecessarily uncivil before, for example) but it really is important. :-) --Deskana (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Diff number 1 is trying to deal with startling NPOV violations, diff number 2 is reverting a banned user (I think), and diff number 3 isn't lacking in civility in the first place. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was talking about this, and only that, not any of the diffs listed above. Edit summaries like that are unnecessary. Like I said, I've done it before and know it can be easy, but please try not to in the future. --Deskana (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI. This issue was brought up on AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that diff 3 is rather minor, I do take issue with your justification with diff 1 and 2. Since when is there an exception to the civility policy for NPOV violations or banned users? I am pretty sure it says the opposite, that we do not make exceptions in civility when dealing with troublesome people. Yes, the edits were good edits, but the comments in the edit summary was not appropriate. Not trying to stick to the issue to far, but it did seem by your reply that this needed to be clarified. Peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, I don't see a problem with diff 1 either. "Referenced bullshit" was commenting on the content, not the contributor. "Referenced bullshit" was, in fact, a perfect description of virtually all the content of Hermetism before I spent the last 45 minutes or so cleaning out the crap. I've never before seen so much BS contained in one article. It virtually stank. Atlantis, I ask you...And since when was it our job to look out for trolls like Dodona? Calling his talkpage silliness "idiocy" is hardly worthy of Room 101. Particularly when he was trying to say Alexander the Great was Albanian. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to make a federal case out of this, but you need to take into account that several people do think these comments were uncivil. _(1 == 2)^Until 19:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

may that be because many "admins" find it easier to make armchair decisions on "civility" than (gasp) deal with actual content? I have no respect for the "civility clique". Not because I think WP:CIVIL is unimportant, but because they make judgements based on individual diffs (if even that), without looking at the case background, let alone bothering to learn about the substance of the dispute. WP:SPADE. WP:CIVIL doesn't mean "pamper the pov-warriors". It means "don't rant at people, don't insult them, focus on the edit, not the editor". If the edit is crap, it's alright to call it crap. dab (𒁳) 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something I'm seeing more and more on Wikipedia, watching these conflicts from the sidelines, and it's disturbing. The people who actually struggle to make articles NPOV and purge them of, well, bovine excrement, are becoming an endangered species around here. It's worrisome, and becoming downright scary. Sure, we all could be more civil, but it's only human to snap back at the persistent unreasonableness of nationalists, fringe nutters, conspiracy theorists, and other fanatics.

People who are brave enough to wade into that tick-infested swamp of nationalism deserve praise and recognition, not a constant barrage of civility warnings for every time they show irritation. I haven't seen people violating the policy outrageously anyway: calling a fringe point of view "bullshit" is a lot different from calling a person a "fucking idiot", since the former does not directly attack an individual, while the latter does.

By the way, the "third pillar of western culture" is not hermetism at all; it is bullshit itself. I'm increasingly certain, having observed its copious dumping in this large encyclopedia project. References to follow. Antandrus (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Antandrus. Labelling particular comments and editors as incivil without reflecting on the context is which they were made is ridiculous. Its about time those Wikipedians who spend all their time discussing policies should create a heirachy of core policies and principles, or at least mention which policy prioritises over the other when there is a conflict. Of course, weighing up the policies will differ greatly on case-by-case basis. But unless the admins who regularly watch WP:ANI and the arbcom start to inspect each case further and not gloss over one diff in five seconds, it is crucial for everyone to understand that WP:NPOV/WP:RS > WP:CIVIL if Wikipedia were to remain an WP:ENCcylcopedia. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 11:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Azeris in Armenia

Can you please look at the talkpage and see how Atabek is killing the discussion by pushing me and Fedayee into soapboxing the talkpage by bringing irrelevancies. See here where nowhere does he address arguments which have to do with the article. It is hard to ignore those provocations, he already successfully pushed me to discuss irrelevancies before, I don’t really want to be engaged in this again. VartanM (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite disturbing that after the failure to get rid of Ehud Lesar, based on claims of him not being Jewish, etc., VartanM and Fedayee now turned into tactics of denying of Azeri identity. I believe this is the consequence of not addressing their radical attacks along race lines in Ehud Lesar case. I believe regardless of the article content, such attempts to deny someone's identity are simply intolerant and unacceptable for Wikipedia community.

If VartanM persists, I posed a clear question on the talk page to which he still didn't respond to, instead using disruptive attacks. How did 200,000 Turkic-speakers get deported from Armenia in 1988 if they were Turkmens and not Azerbaijanis? Atabek (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop this provocation by bringing Ehud case on every occasion? The only thing I see here is that you are denying Turkmen identity (while I and Vartan not once had a problem to include Azerbaijani when and where it fits), if the Turkic people living in Azerbaijan were identified as Azerbaijani, how come those living in Armenia prior to 1918 (when the Azerbaijan republic emerged for the first time) should be called Azerbaijani? Why would all those Oguz Turks, be it Turkmens, Osmanli Turks, some assimilated Tatars, some Dagistani’s with strong Turkmen influences etc. all be considered as Azerbaijani. Moreschi, it is a simple case, which in any healthy discussion would have been settled by now. No one is speaking of removing totally from the article the Azerbaijani term, but rather to put the term where it fits. It’s logical, and no one editing in good faith should have any problem with that. Parishan agreed, Ulvi agreed to call those tribes by their names. - Fedayee (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You are engaged in POV push. There were no Turkmens in the territory of modern day Armenia. I provided you the figures of both imperial Russian and Soviet censuses, they did not record any Turkmens in the region, and those censuses meticulously recorded every ethnic group dwelling in the region. So where is your source for existence of Turkmens in the region? Grandmaster (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot be engaged in such a thing when I seek neutrality and you don’t. Administrators’ silence is what permits you to continue endlessly until the one you debate with gets bored and then you do what you want. I thought you wanted mediation? Will you accept being banned for 6 months from those articles if you refuse the conclusion of such mediation? Why are you skipping this? They were called Turkmen, and they came from Turkmenistan and Dagestan to invade Armenia. The rest is your personal interpretation. As for Russian sources, I have already provided sources black on white stating that the Russians build this sense of nationalism for political purposes, as well as several Muslim groups, not even Turkic speaking were dumped as such. Let’s do this, this way, whoever from both of us who does not accept the results of the mediation gets banned for 6 month from the article. Deal or no deal? - Fedayee (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to mediation, but I don't think you are in position to put forward any conditions. Plus, you seem to be misunderstanding what mediation is. Mediation is an attempt to help users reach a compromise, so the end result is something both sides are agree with. Alternatively, we can ask for a third party opinion on this, for example via an RFC. Or contact people who have a knowledge on the subject and are respected by the community. Grandmaster (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As for Turkmen, they never ever recorded in the history of Dagestan, I don't understand what is the basis for these strange theories you keep coming up with. Turkmen are not the same as Turcoman who moved to the region from Central Asia in the 11 century. This whole Turkmen talk is OR and I responded in much detail on talk of the article. Grandmaster (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And I think we should stop abusing Moreschi's talk page with content disputes and take this to an appropriate venue. Grandmaster (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, the Turkic population who came to Armenia came from what is now Turkmenistan, Dagestan... they were called Turkmen, like most Turkic people from the West who were originally Oguz Turks. How many different and coherent ways should I explain this to you? The Turkic people of Armenia prior to the existence of the Azerbaijan north of Arax, can certainly not be called Azerbaijani (which means, from the region of Azerbaijan), neither being identified as those of Tabriz, before the term was more widely used by the Russians. Or else, the Phrygians can be called Armenians, Dutchy can be called German or Dutch. How many different ways can these be written, and for how long? As for mediation, it’s nice to see how you bring back what has been said to you, I am simply repeating what Thatcher has been saying. The disruption is so obvious that any mediation will show who is being clearly unreasonable, just as it was the case on Paytakaran. - Fedayee (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

They're talking about you at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Moreschi. Thought you'd like to know. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think I'll just ignore it. Serious complaints about my conduct can go to RFAR. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Deserved

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For the people who understand that "some things are non-negotiable. NPOV for instance.", instead of the soapboxing we have so rampant on Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you! Moreschi2 (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Worcester College, Oxford

Hi - long time no see on the Opera Project, but you're obviously busy with other things. Here's my problem: IP 86.96.227.70 ([96]) keeps trying to insert the name of David Garrido, whoever he may be, into the list of Notable former students at the above page, without any justification. User:Coldmachine and I have reverted this several times, but (s)he keeps re-reverting, see [97]. Alas, I discover that this isn't sufficiently frequent to enable us to invoke the 3RR rule, but it's very annoying. What remedy do you recommend? Or better, perhaps you could use your supernatural powers to block this address (WHOIS says it's in Dubai, and there are a lot of vandalism alerts on the Talk page) and see what happens. Best. GuillaumeTell 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Battle Ground Mentality

Hi I warned User:Atabek here about his statement here: "The article subject is substantial to be deleted simply on the grounds of few Iranian contributors disagreeing with another Iranian activist Fakhteh Zamani". [98]. This is a battle ground mentality and Wikipedia does not allow comments on user's background but rather it should be on content. I believe that is not the way to resolve content disputes and he claims: "Instead you're making sideline threats of reporting me (for nth time now)". I am not making a threat, but I do not believe using terms like "Iranian contributors" and etc. is a valid way to edit Wikipedia. Much like the comments made here: [99]. Atabek needs to understand that he should name the people he disagrees with instead of labeling nationalities or groups of users. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, refer to my response here, listing the contributors who inserted the deletion tags in this article [100]. My comment was not intended for battling but rather stating a fact, respectfully so. The topic is directly related to Iran and contributors inserting deletion tag and openly attacking Fakhteh Zamani, as well as Fakhteh Zamani herself - are Iranian, as stated on their user pages. And if Ali Doostzadeh feels uncomfortable that I assumed him being Iranian contributor, I can apologize for that.

I would also like to remind that Ali Doostzadeh at least twice threatened to report me for different reasons at Talk:Fazeri - [101], [102]. So it seems as though he has an objective of simply reporting me for any violation he may seek to find, rather than simply engaging in debate for removal or keeping/renaming of article which I proposed and he opposes.

I haven't engaged in any personal attack against this contributor ever, and have no desire to do so. So if he has any personal sensitivities about general subjects I addressed, I again apologize. Atabek (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe using terms "few Arab users", "few Jewish users", "few Iranian users", "few Azeri users", "few Armenian users" in the context of two users opposing each others POVs leads to a battle ground mentality. That is in a argument on content, pointing to the nationalities of the users leads to a battle ground atmosphere. That's all. Just like comments by Fakhteh Zamani, who calls the country of Iran, "So called country of Iran" were to come from a registered Wikipedia user, it will be engaging in a battle ground mentality. So please just comment on the content of the users comments not on their background. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ali, it's natural that many contributors make their edits based on personal feelings of affinity with certain origin. After all, we have lengthy Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and even went through brief Iranian involvement in it via ArbCom in the past. So there is nothing unnatural in your attempt to stand against this article, debate with me for removal of Fakhteh Zamani or any reference critical of Iran. And there is nothing wrong in stating the situation as it is, debate between different nationalities. So please, do not take my statement, which is indeed supported by links to both deletion tags as well as your lengthy commentaries on three different pages, as an attempt to summarize and group people intentionally. It's simply a statement of a fact. I am sure there would be hardly any non-Iranian or non-Azeri contributor who would care much about these topics anyway.

Since you still feel sensitive about it, out of respect, I will go ahead and remove the reference to word Iranian from my talk page comment. I do so with understanding that I haven't intended any harm and that we both realize who nominated the page for deletion. Atabek (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have not been involved in those Arbcomms and I believe a way not be involved is to basically comment on content and not background. I have withdrawn my complaint. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fedayee

Can you please look into this page Azerbaijanis in Armenia? User:Fedayee pursuing his agenda of denying Azeris ever existed is reverting page - [103], removing a reference added recently, which he himself claimed in favor of his own argument [104]. This means, he is not even reading what he is reverting. It seems impossible to engage in any form of constructive debate with this contributor at Talk:Azerbaijanis in Armenia. Atabek (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It will help if you read what others say before replying to them or reporting them. First, show us where I have denied Azeris ever existed. Second, for the last time, I will say again why I removed the reference. I did not do it because I disagree with it; the reference on page 18 is saying exactly what I have been saying for days. I removed it 1) because you again (it’s far from being the first time, and you were warned for this) copied word by word from another author, not one phrase but several phrase. You cannot do that even if you provide the actual author as a footnote. You have to properly attribute the source by presenting that text as a quote; I could not have done that, because just next to that in the version you edited there was another quote (which was actually redundant, as the info was already presented somewhere else in the article). 2) Even if either you were to reword it or present it as a quote I would have removed it, because what you added was irrelevant to that article which is about the Azeris in Armenia. You didn’t find any context you just dumped that text there.

In short, your revert, as well the those of Grandmaster, re-introduced redundant information, removed relevant information and re-introduced what is contradicted by a large body of published material. Accusing me of pushing an agenda and throwing infantile happy faces in your replies (like the last two in the talkpage of the article) are far from addressing what is raised. If you have no intention to basically address my edits then just don’t answer. - Fedayee (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 15	7 April 2008	About the Signpost

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins	WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges"
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 16	14 April 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles	Image placeholders debated
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: Board meeting, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Featured article milestone
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) 08:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa

Thanks for your comments. I hope we have reached a consensus on the issue of size and "largest", but this still needs to be addressed ([105]). If you could comment on that it would be much appreciated (threads this was discussed: "Lead" - see my post at the bottom of it; "The lead is extremely biased" and "Claims of AK atrocities against the civilian population".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Again?

What do you think is going on here? [106] Isn't this an attempt to reinsert NK separatist symbols at talk of the region related articles under a different banner? I.e. NK wikiproject did not work, let's do the same using the NK Task Force instead. Grandmaster (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a task force. That, to me, is far less dubious than a WikiProject. Moreschi2 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind either, but is it Ok if they replace wikiproject Armenia tag with the taskforce one? Do taskforces actually have their own tags? Grandmaster (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

My report at ANI was removed by Bot twice without being addressed. But I believe situation is serious enough now to be looked at: [107]. If this is not addressed and link is not removed, I will proceed to next stages in arbitration. No one has a right to harass people in real life based on Wikipedia, and I don't know why Babakexorramdin, VartanM or Fedayee are given free ticket for doing so, the latter two for a second time in a row. Atabek (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you try WP:OVERSIGHT. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think personal attacks on other users such as these are acceptable here: [108] especially after the long arbitration case that proved that Ehud was not a banned user? Why does not VartanM keep it to the topic instead? Also his edit warring on Caroline Cox despite the outcome of 2 discussions (see [109] and [110]) at BLP board is not helpful at all, considering that previously VartanM promised to abide by the opinion of the BLP board. [111] Grandmaster (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic wars experiment

Hiya, I've started a thread about an experiment related to the Digwuren case, at WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If you have time, I'd appreciate if you could weigh in there. Thanks, Elonka 12:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

About the implications of User:Zeq

As outraged as I am by his evident actions, I find the implications of those actions to be even more alarming. The idea that there are groups out there engaging in -- or planning to engage in -- coordinated infiltration of Wikipedia's decision-making structure is one that fills me with utmost concern. I'm not asking for details, mind you, but I am curious and would like to know as to whether or not the leadership of Wikipedia is taking this threat seriously.
NBahn (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't claim to speak for "the leadership of Wikipedia", but I'll answer as best I can.

I agree with you: this sort of thing is the most repellent form of gaming the system I can possibly imagine. It's disgusting, and every time I come across it I will deal with it as strictly as I possibly can - perhaps more so. I've heard stories of this sort of thing happening before, particularly concerning our Hindutva friends, but the most worrying aspect of this case was the organised focus they had on RFA and getting partisan admins to wreck the system. That is new to me, and thoroughly disturbing. This is probably the flip side of the ArbCom's recent "discretionary sanctions" remedies: they give good admins more powers to do good things, but also open the gate to trolls, provided those trolls can schmooze their way past RFA.

Ultimately, however, there's little we can do other than remain permanently vigilant. The open model of Wikipedia means that we are always going to be vulnerable to this sort of coordinated attack, and that will not change until the "open model" becomes more closed - something that may happen eventually, but probably not for a while, and even then only to a limited degree. But that's a good thing - the price you have to pay for freedom is eternal vigilance, but it's a price worth paying. On this occasion, we got lucky: some public-minded citizen of the Internet tipped us off. In the future, though, similar cabals will get further along the road than this bunch of morons did. When that happens we shall simply have to deal with the fallout as best we can. Establishing a precedent for desysopping blatantly partisan admins a lot quicker would be one step in the right direction. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:כתר

There's an unblock request at User_talk:כתר. I'm not saying that I see anything particularly constructive in this user's contributions, but I can't help agreeing that an indefinite block needs more than one word of explanation. Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I just don't know. I'm aware that Macedonian articles are subject to a lot of edit warring and sock puppeteering, but I'm afraid that the only clear evidence I see here is in the striking similarity of edit summary. I'm pretty inexperienced at detecting sockpuppets, so maybe I'm being taken for a ride here. No disrespect intended, but I think I'd be happier if this issue was opened up to more eyes (e.g. WP:SSP, WP:RFCU, WP:ANI). It might avoid some drama if the escalation came from you. This stuff ought to get recorded somewhere, right? Even if you're absolutely right in this case, I don't want us to go down a path that will lead to us biting some future newcomer. Bovlb (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - arbitration on Israeli Wiki Lobbying

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)