User talk:Moreschi/My Archive 10

Your help needed

Hi Moreschi, Some of the usual suspects on India-related pages, in particular:

• Nikkul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

have apparently now been joined by

• Beamathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Desione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

in attempting to move Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (a page name in keeping with those on Britannica, Encarta, Columbia, Webster's encyclopedias, as well as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) to Mahatma Gandhi (where "Mahatma" an honorific (and qualifier) is explicitly discouraged in the lead of WP:NAMEPEOPLE. user:Nikkul is now attempting to conduct a straw-poll and user:Beamathan is talking about moving the page-name regardless. Can the page be protected? Or at least protected against moves? Sorry for dumping this on you, but I am beginning to get a big headache with their antics. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation of administration administered

Moreschi, I just wanted to express my appreciation for the fact that you have decided to take action as an admin on what seems rather clear evidence of disruption. There is on need to bog down arbitration with these things. Best.PelleSmith (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciation appreciated :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Seen this?

[1]. I think you might have more experience with the nuts and bolts of setting up these things (WP:FTN). --Folantin (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest "National, ethnic and cultural conflicts [or edit wars?] noticeboard" as the title. See this first [2]. --Folantin (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I don't have time to set it up today anyway, but that's now at the top of things-to-do. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these comments about living authors acceptable?

Please take a look at [3], a debate about the authors of a quote I've used in the Cahokia article. The debate I am not so bothered about, the comments on the authors (which I've just summarised at the bottom) I don't know what to do about (if anything should be done of course). If I found it on a talk page I wasn't involved in I might delete it myself, but I can't do that here even if it should be done. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know..

That after your indefinite block of User:Dzonatas he was sending emails via the MediaWiki interface with further attacks on editors, so I reapplied the block, this time with email ability disabled. SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabal

• Hi, I've decided to check some sources on Tabal and have withdrawn my question to you on it. I still think they spoke an Indo-Europeans language though. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Great :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic Sock drawer

Hi, Moreschi. I am a long time admirer of your anti-Plague efforts. A "new" user named User:Dvaaeg has been revert warring at Florina. He appears to be part of the User:Aegeanhawk and User:Aee1980 franchise. Would you mind taking a look? I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Dvaaeg_reported_by_User:Aramgar_.28Result:_.29. Thanks, Aramgar (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 24h by ChrisO: I've filed a checkuser request. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Moreschi - I think that IP:77.83.189.85 should be added to the RfCU. I wasn't sure if I should do this myself, so I'm notifying you. This IP is removing the Slavic name from the lead of Florina and changing Macedonia to FYROM in various other articles. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, thanks for all your good work. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks from me, too. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 23	2 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections open	WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes
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) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth: A Drama

My valiant liege, I come with dismal tidings:
Mighty Mactruth, the thane of Skopje, hath,
Of Macedonian strife grossly enraged,
Forsaken all pretence of peace and reason,
And bloody battle sworn upon the 'pedia.
Now redirects he madly strews about:
Some call it pointy; others, vandal's madness,
some say it's valiant fury: but, for certain,
He cannot buckle his distemper'd course
Within the belt of rule. I only halted
For one short day his rage. Who will perform
What needful course in measure, time and place
Can keep disruption off our peaceful folds?

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. What a wonderful thing to find on your talkpage in the morning :)

Anyway, levity over. He's topic-banned for 2 months. When will they learn, you wonder? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, pretty soon it'll just be FP allowed to edit the topic.... :) BalkanFever 12:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, that is my ill-concealèd purpose
In doing what I do. And once my triumph
I see completed, and my labours crowned
With full success, and world dominion mine,
I will proceed towards rewriting promptly
Whatever articles this website holds
That deal with your fair Macedonian lands
In purest blank verse. Nothing then will keep
Me back from furthering my chosen task:
Shakespearean pentameter shall reign
Supreme, where Alexander lived, and where Philip was slain.

--Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't really argue with that now, can I? BalkanFever 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's leave it to the real Shakespeare to decide on Macedonian matters. This from Henry V:

FLUELLEN Ay, [King Henry] was porn at Monmouth, Captain Gower. What call you the town's name where Alexander the Pig was born!

GOWER Alexander the Great.

FLUELLEN Why, I pray you, is not pig great? the pig, or the great, or the mighty, or the huge, or the magnanimous, are all one reckonings, save the phrase is a little variations.

GOWER I think Alexander the Great was born in Macedon; his father was called Philip of Macedon, as I take it.

FLUELLEN I think it is in Macedon where Alexander is porn. I tell you, captain, if you look in the maps of the 'orld, I warrant you sall find, in the comparisons between Macedon and Monmouth, that the situations, look you, is both alike. There is a river in Macedon; and there is also moreover a river at Monmouth: it is called Wye at Monmouth; but it is out of my prains what is the name of the other river; but 'tis all one, 'tis alike as my fingers is to my fingers, and there is salmons in both. If you mark Alexander's life well, Harry of Monmouth's life is come after it indifferent well; for there is figures in all things. Alexander, God knows, and you know, in his rages, and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures, and his indignations, and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his ales and his angers, look you, kill his best friend, Cleitus.

GOWER Our king is not like him in that: he never killed any of his friends.

FLUELLEN It is not well done, mark you now take the tales out of my mouth, ere it is made and finished. I speak but in the figures and comparisons of it: as Alexander killed his friend Cleitus, being in his ales and his cups; so also Harry Monmouth, being in his right wits and his good judgments, turned away the fat knight with the great belly-doublet: he was full of jests, and gipes, and knaveries, and mocks; I have forgot his name.

GOWER Sir John Falstaff.

FLUELLEN That is he: I'll tell you there is good men porn at Monmouth.

--Folantin (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Dear Moreschi, this article Colchis needs protection again, the vandal is back (he was banned before but now uses new account), he removes content and leaves attacks on our talk pages. Thanks in advance. Iberieli (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with via blocks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Moreschi. The blocked User:Kolkhianboy has reincarnated as User:Anti-Kartvel, choosing his new username due to his habitual prejudice toward the term "Kartvelian", which is, among other things, a clear violation of WP:IU. I would very much appreciate if you could help with this troublesome guy. Best regards, --Kober^Talk 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite right: CU confirmed. Blocked as well. Let me know if anything else comes up :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for good job, Moreschi. :) --Kober^Talk 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed to notify editors of arbitration sanctions?

Moreschi, I think you should take a look at this discussion - you opined a few days ago that any admin can log a notification, but the converse is being argued here. I've left a request for clarification on the thread. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

On your current AE thread, could you put some diffs and specific threads, ie, a bit of detail? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do shortly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Dvaeeg checkuser results

Hello Moreschi. CU did not confirm Aee1980 as a Mywayyy sock, as yet. How about retagging Aee1980 as the puppetmaster and making Dvaeeg be his sock? The sockpuppet categories for Mywayyy seem to be based on old data (2007 and earlier) anyway so maybe start a new puppet category for Aee1980? EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. I'd be very surprised if Mywayyy is not behind this all, based on my experiences with this current lot and AerospaceM (talk · contribs). Admittedly, there's not the CU data to back this up, but IMO it is highly probable based on contribution comparison. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth

I have been blocked from all Macedonia related articles across WP for 2 months. I believe I should be unblocked. Before I get into the reasoning, I would like to state to look at all Macedonia related articles. You will see that I am one of the people who try to keep calm, talk things out and make edits based on sources. When I found the "History of modern Macedonia" article, I quickly realized the article was POV pushing since it only discussed History of Greek Macedonia. I discussed the issue with other WP members in the talk page of that article, who agreed with me that the title is monopolization of the term "Macedonia." I posted the issue several times to several ADMINISTRATORS, but the response from the ADMINS were absent. Instead of trying to fix the issue immediately, ADMINS ignored it without even sending a message to update me on the situation. After trying to get their attention about the issue multiple times, the issue was not dealt with. Because of that, I redirected a couple pages including "Modern Macedonia" to the Republic of Macedonia" since reasoning and discussion were being ignored. The interesting portion of this is "Modern Macedonia" redirect was IMMEDIATELY deleted as soon as a Greek pointed it out. So, I pointed my issue about a week ago and no response occurred, yet when a Greek pointed their issue it was IMMEDIATELY dealt with. Why is this the case? Unfair treatment led to my action. Mactruth (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. When I look at this, it seems as if the naming issue has been sorted out calmly and to what I presume is your satisfaction by others. The problem lies in your approach. You charged in like a high bull in a china shop with a bunch of completely illogical and pointy redirects. That's classic disruption, actually bordering on vandalism. You can hardly be surprised, nor can you justifiably complain, when you get punished for it. So, read the rules and come back to this topic in two months with a much calmer and more logical approach. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that naming issue has been resolved since a Greek member changed the name from the name given by Future, "History of Greek Macedonia" to "History of modern Macedonia (Greece)" which in my opinion still is monopolizing the term. I know my approach was unorthodox but believe me I did try using logic and reasoning but again the administrators were not resolving the issue, nor was I updated on the current situation or status. Again, the lack of reaction with my complaint compared to the quick reaction with the Greek complaint shows there is irregularity in how issues are dealt with. Again, the Administrators have to take quicker and more direct approaches to resolving complaints from BOTH members. Again, I believe my ban should at least be reduced to a lower amount. And administrators should react quicker, more direct and without BIAS next time. Mactruth (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi I was wondering if I could get a reply for my statements and an update of my ban. Again, I have learned my lesson, but from my POV in the future there needs to be NO BIAS in terms of reactions from ADMINs to complaints. Mactruth (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Mactruth II

Here is what I wrote on Future's discussion section:

I wanted to state that my block is over but I have been banned from Macedonia related issues for 2 months. I wanted to state my POV, which was I felt that there was a bias in terms of reaction to complaints. I complained for a week about the article, which is still monopolizing under the article name history of modern Macedonia (Greece) even though you renamed it "History of Greek Macedonia." The reasoning for the monopolizing is that is still states "modern." If I made an article called "History of modern Macedonia (Republic)" it would be changed immediately, which is my main complaint. When a Greek made a complaint about me redirecting articles, you immediately reacted. I have gotten over it and have learned my lesson, but I must insist that no reaction bias should be considered in the future.

Here is what I posted in the article History of modern Macedonia (Greece):

The article name is still monopolizing the term "Macedonia." I must ask the Greeks, what would be your reaction if I created an article entitled "History of modern Macedonia (Republic)"? You would object to monopolization. I believe a good compromise would be:

1. History of Macedonia (Greece) - this is consistent since "Republic of Macedonia" has the article "History of the Republic of Macedonia" therefore the article "Macedonia (Greece)" should have the article "History of Macedonia (Greece)" to be consistent.
2. History of Greek Macedonia - The name implies it is the Greek region of Macedonia and it differentiated from the Republic of Macedonia without monopolization.

In terms of the article Macedonia (region) below to the "See also" section, "History of Greek Macedonia" is directed to History of modern Macedonia. Please direct the page to the appropriate article. Mactruth (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury

HEy, Moreschi! Just so you know, Trial by Jury is going through the last stages of cleanup before a featured article nomination. If you'd like to help, it would be appreciated. H.M.S. Pinafore has been chosen as the next project. Work has barely begun there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please delete this?

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sceptre,_Sxeptomaniac,_SirFozzie,_B? Per concerns at ANI and in the RFC itself and on the initiator's talk page.

I'd asked another administrator (Nishkid64) but he said he's busy and to ask another admin [4].

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to clear the mess up at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Intelligent_Design - perhaps you could? Better yet, deleting it might be preferrable. Morven (arbitrator) made a comment on the talk page in the first section which should also give a hint. The format of the RFC is not helping. I'm mindful that some people don't want to follow the guidelines to try to make it a central place, but this is not a workshop - it's an RFC on user conduct. I don't see how this can, will or has resolved anything either - instead it's a great big mess, and guidelines (at least in replies) are not being adhered to at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Awwww, c'mon Moreschi, please just give it a try? Maybe my method won't work, maybe it will, but it would mean a lot to me if you could back me up, even in the short term? I have huge respect for you, especially because you of all people know the complexities of the "plague" situation. I've had some excellent success at the Hungarian/Slovakian page, so please, could you support me on a similar experiment at the al-Durrah page? Pretty please?  :) It might make things a bit messy at the beginning, but don't worry, I've got longterm plans which I think you'll approve of. Trust me.  :) --Elonka 19:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'll be nice to the regulars. The SPAs I will not, particularly not when they break the rules like that and try to spark off more revert-warring. There's no dealing with obsessives...which unfortunately is what SPAs usually are. Tundrabuggy has been topic-banned anyway for that one, and his mate will have to watch her step. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, congrats on the Wikipedia:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard! I think it's a great addition.  :) --Elonka 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) On Al-Durrah, we also have to bear BLP in mind. Not to mention WP:FRINGE. Just because it's not libellous to say Enderlin was lying doesn't mean that the mainstream view isn't that the boy is dead. Hell, I can't even find anything from the Israeli army disputing his death, who logically would be the first people to do so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_injunction_and_restoration_of_deleted_RFC:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.23Intelligent_design_editors Odd nature (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge to the THIRD RfC they set up would be a good compromise? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy

Can you move a copy of my comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre, Sxeptomaniac, SirFozzie, B and the associated talk page thereof to a user subpage of mine? Thanks! PouponOnToast (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see

[5] for my suggestions in relation to the Obama matter. Without these sort of remedies being enforced, I don't think the situation is going to improve, and going through that talk page did take a long time! I'm not sure if the matter has been forgotten, or MastCell is busy, but I've left a note just in case. Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting which may seem like edit warring

Hi Moreschi, I felt Pedrito made an error by removing content from the references when he added the "ref name" tags so I reverted this edit.[8] In retrospect, this move might seem to an external observer as edit-warring by me and I'm really interested in resolving this issue without enhancing any disputes so I'd appreciate it if you give a look and tell me if my concerns are correct. In fact, some external observation/mediation on this article seems to be a necessity considering that there seems to be a communication problem between me and Pedrito. To put is succinctly, I feel that he's misreading and enhancing material from the sources - and I'm fairly certain that he feels I'm ignoring core material. Would appreciate your participation as an accepted mediator (at least on my side).
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC) clarify 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ARBoVision

Hello! Skopje calling! Various pages (mostly Eurovision-related) affected by the use of FYR, among other things, involving me (today), Isavevski (talk · contribs) and 157.228.x.x (talk · contribs) (for a long while), along with some random anons. 157 blocked for 24 hours for breaking 3RR. Pretty much all the articles this table] we involved. Any further action needed? I'd do a whole thing on twelve point but I'm not as creative as Fut. Perf.BalkanFever 14:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So I assume nothing needs to be done? BalkanFever 05:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility supervision

Does this piss off breach this civility supervision. Additionally he's being telling me to f*ck off all day on ru.wiki, but I don't think that one counts here. --Laveol ^T 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Does indeed. 31 hours for him. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GiovaniG, et al

You've got more experience with this group than I, what do you make of this: User_talk:Rlevse#Request_for_check_up? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably meatpuppetry. Marygiove is self-evidently related to Giovanni - just check the contributions - and the other related accounts are also, I suspect, part of a meatspace tag-team. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Digwuren case

Hi Moreschi! Daniel proposed a motion with regard to the amendment of Digwiren case [9]. Could you please look at the definition of an "uninvolved administrator" there? I am really concerned that an "uninvolved" but a highly opinionated administrator who actually edits in the area of conflict (and you know a lot of them) might block any other users at will based on such ruling. The area of conflict also seem to be poorly defined. Could you please comment on that? Thank you. Biophys (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the area of conflict, that needs better definition. Will attend to this shortly. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	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) 06:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Mactruth

Per ARBCAM: The aformentioned user is "banned from all pages that relate to Macedonia for two months".

Since you are the one the one you imposed the topic ban, and after Mactruth's edits here, please clarify whether the topic ban includes the talk pages or not. Respectfully,--Yannismarou (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been a lot of people arguing saying I'm banned from editing all pages across WP that involve the Macedonia topic, but I've been confused myself. I have been on the talk pages, but I don't think that counts as editing the actual articles? Does it? Is discussion the same as editing? Here was your explanation to me Mactruth (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if you were allowed to edit article talk pages, I don't think inflammatory posts like this, in which you label Greeks "Christian Turks", are the way to go. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very true. Further comment on Mactruth's talk. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but I am still allowed to talk about Macedonia issues on my page, right? About the trolling, you are right, my blood boils sometimes and my emotions come into play. When that happens, it is difficult for me not to defend myself. I will do a better job at that, considering it is foolish comments.

About the amount of time banned, is there a way to contest the time amount banned? Mactruth (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Molobo

As I've noted here, I very strongly object to this block. I see no evidence of 3RR violation, sockpuppetry, even revert warring. Any editors, per AGF and WP:BRD has the right to revert every now and then, and I see nothing in Molobo's edits that looks "over the top".--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Molobo? Cast-iron. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he has once edited an article as an anon, in a case that is a very dubious breach of 3RR. Per AGF, it neither looks like he breeched 3RR there, nor like he logged out on purpose. If you want to build a case for perblock on that, please go ahead and block me too, as well as 90% of Wikipedians out there. Seriously: Molobo should not be permblocked without an ArbCom ruling, he has done nothing disruptive enough to warrant such a treatment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

One lousy IP edit ist cast-iron proof of sockpuppetry? As I have explaned on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431, even the first major block can be challenged for the same reason - three IP edits coming from the same source somewhere in Poland, and one from somewhere in Switzerland. Please, reconsider your verdict, User Moreschi, because it's not right. If you wanna block someone permanently for POV, be bold and say it, that's the Wikipedia way as Jimbo claims. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, he shouldn't be unblocked, because he even didn't serve his one year ban. Molobo was still editing either as an IP, or through proxy users, while he was banned. And you know it Piotrus very well. He hasn't changed at all just check his block log at pl.wikipedia. Only change that might be worth consideration is banning from whole wiki project all together. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations (Care to point out to the checkuser supporting your accusation). Molobo was blocked and got a bad reputation significantly because several users pushing fringe POV repeated such claims, and despite lack of truth to most of them, mud stucks... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I have more interesting things to do than dig through old garbage. Diffs can be provided, google does wonders these days, but why waste time, when you surely must know what I'm talking about. M0RD00R (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are throwing serious accusation, present diffs or what you are doing is no different from WP:SLANDER/WP:HARASSMENT. I am not familiar with any case of Molobo using socks (other than once logging out by accident and making a single edit as an IP).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you insist I'll try to do some google magic. Let's see what it might bring. M0RD00R (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with WP:BANPOL:

Editing on behalf of banned users

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called proxying.

And now let's look at these diffs

[10]

Post titled "Prośba o rozszerzenie artykułu o Łodzi na English wiki" (Request to expand article about Lodz on English wiki)

Znowu o "wyzwalaniu" w angielskojęzycznym artykule o Łodzi. Czy mógłbyś przywrócić i rozszerzyć artykuł o informacje dotyczące zbrodni "wyzwolicieli" (Again about "liberation" in English article about Lodz, could you rollback and expand article with information about crimes of "liberators") then Molobo presents a source http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=55026

Edit was made on July 10, 2006 (Molobo still on one year ban)

Now lets look at this diff [11]. Piotrus does exactly what was asked.

• Another case of proxying.

While on another block Molobo comes to Piotrus asking for favour [12]

"Piotruś jakbyś mógł, przekaż Szopenowi żeby się ze mną skontaktował na english wiki, ewentualnie zobaczył mój talk i ostatnie linki które dają bo dotyczą dyskusji w jakiej tam uczestniczy"(Piotrus could you tell Szopen that he cantacted me on English wiki, to see links provided on my talk page, because they relate to discussion he's taking part in)

Piotrus does what asked [13].

Enough with proxying issue. Piotrus pl.wiki talk is riddled with Molobo requests while he was on ban, and frankly I do not have time, nor will to check every single case.

Now let's take a look how Molobo obeyed his one year ban.

Very interesting diff by user claiming to be Molobo at ru.wiki [14])

Now let's look at this IP edits at en.wiki [15]

[16]. Edits were made while Molobo was banned for one year. I bet there will be plenty of users who would recognize Molobos style, and put these and other edits by this IP onto detaileid linguistic, semantic analysis

So these are results of my quick and shallow google job. I do not have time nor am interested in in-depth investigation of this case, although I have some thoughts on edit history of User:Lastaer for example. Situation when admins serve as proxies for banned users is sad as it is. Summary: I have very serious doubts, that Molobo complied with his one year ban, I don't think he will comply with indef as well. What I hope this time there will be no proxying on his behalf by admins, because this behaviour puts integrity of whole project at risk.

P.S. Molobo's block log at pl.wiki [17]

Molobo at Alternative History wiki - banned [18]

Axishistory forum - banned [19]

I don't know if it is the same Molobo, I don't know how many more Molobos are banned from how many more forums, wikis etc, and I don't care, enough time has been wasted on this topic already. EOT for me. Over and out. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, huh? You forgot to finish the sentence from BANPOL: unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Regarding your other research, until you feel a CHECKUSER case, your accusations have no weight. And yes, what other people with the same nick did outside en wiki is of no interest to us.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I applaud your courage to block Molobo indefinitely. Piotruś, I deplore your constant siding with Molobo and trying to save him the long deserved punishment with nitpicking on technicalities. Or are you seriously suggesting the Molobo on .pl. is a different person? Molobo is an extreme POV pusher with a history of bans as long as any I've seen, he's been poisoning the atmosphere everywhere he turned up, he's been damaging Poland's image, he has deterred other users from Poland-related articles, thus turning them into nationalistic backwaters and compromising the quality and reputation of Wikipedia as a whole. It's a shame he's gotten away with all this for so long, and it's a good thing someone has finally had the courage to enforce the overdue ban. --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'll have to back down from my statement above:

"20:33, 30 June 2008 Moreschi (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Molobo (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (Clemency is a virtue: user has agreed to stick to 1RR per week and civility supervision)" [20]

Why, everybody deserves a 21st chance, don't they? One million strikes and you're out, right? :| --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

More User:PIO

Hi, wondering if you would finally resolve this ugly business: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd)? Be advised that User:Luigi 28/PIO has intentionally cluttered the report up to prevent a resolution. He added tons of info completely irrelevant to the sockpuppeteering accusation (such as a list of occurrences when I called him "PIO"). The fact that anyone wanting to end this guy's disruption would have to sift through the gibberish is probably the only reason he's still not blocked. Would really appreciate it if you could find the time to have a look, this matter is affecting a number of editors and disrupting work on articles, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

:) Thanks so much for your time. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

cheerio!

you've got mail

Hi Moreschi, you've got mail about a live meat-puppetry / off-site "tactical" discussion--Cailil ^talk 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see it, thanks. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you get mine? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I'm sorry for not being able to handle everything at once, the last week or so has been nastily busy. I'll try to catch up over the weekend. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

User:M.V.E.i.

Hey, I could do with a second opinion on something before I go any further. If you have time, would you mind taking a look at this sockpuppetry case, and this one, then see if you spot a similar pattern here. Cheers, Papa November (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The Israeli IPs make it conclusive. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the user is back again after his community ban. The new user User:SharpNail was created at 14:55 today, just two hours after his latest sockpuppet User:MaIl89 had his unblock refused. The new user has so far:

• Referred to User:Protagon on their talk page, who was the first person to bring a sockpuppetry case against User:M.V.E.i..
• Admitted that they are a sockpuppet account, albeit with claims that they will behave themselves this time.
• Continued a thread at Talk:Russians, which User:MaIl89 started
• Used very similar spelling/grammatical errors to previous incarnations.

Despite the user's insistence that they are making a clean start, this is clearly a block evasion. Do you think it's worth taking this to checkuser? I don't think we'll have much luck with the ban if it's already been broken after 2 hours! Papa November (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, I took care of it for you. It's quite obviously him; no CU necessary, in my opinion. I remember him from his "Shpakovich" incarnation. If he genuinely wants to reform he needs to get community buy-in for an overturn of his ban, and I explained that on his talk page. Antandrus (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ant :) This one's beyond reform, IMO - all we could ever teach him is how to game the system better and push POV more effectively. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Greek Camus spammer back

Remember Christos Papachristopoulos? Well, he's back in IP form: [21]. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Berkunt/Miyokan again

Dear Moreschi, regarding that failed RFCU, look at this please: [22] vs. [23], and [24], and [25]. Frankly, I absolutely don't believe that they are not related. And what worries me more is that Berkunt has uploaded a number of pictures taken all over Russia (in St. Petersburg, Moscow and Volgograd) labelling them as PD-Self, while he can't even tell the Senate and Synod Buildings from the General Staff Building on his pictures from St. Petersburg. It is unlikely that the pictures are all PD-Self. Note the same pattern with Miyokan (Sochi, Virgin Komi Forests, Magadan – He has travelled a lot, if this is true). Well, taking the aerial picture of the Virgin Komi Forests is certainly out of the means of an average Wikipedian. While I oppose copyright myself, such is life, and if they are not really PD-Self, I think it makes a disservice to Wikipedia.Colchicum (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG, the images are all taken from Flickr. I'll present evidence soon. Colchicum (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, here is it: User:Berkunt's PD-Self: Image:The_motherland_calls.jpg stolen from [26], Image:Bolshoi theatre before 2005 restoration.jpg stolen from [27], Image:Senatesynod2.jpg stolen from [28]. User:Miyokan's PD-Self: Image:Magadan2.jpg stolen from [29]. I have little doubt that Image:Russia_taiga.jpg, Image:Virgin_komi.jpg and the rest are also stolen, but cannot locate the source. Colchicum (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started deleting a few. Obviously a serial offender. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A serial one, indeed. Image:Virgin komi.jpg is from [30] with the copyright notice cropped out. Colchicum (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is much much worse than just a copyvio, he falsely claims copyright over others' work. It is not only copyright infringement, it is authorship infringement. Image:Russia taiga.jpg is stolen from [31]. Colchicum (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, I don't know how CU came back negative. I'll ask him. Thanks for helping with the pics, Fut.Perf :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Balkans

Some naive administrator has just unprotected International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Keep an eye on this, please. Colchicum (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Colchian Boy

Hi Moreschi. Our Laz nationalist, hating the word "Kartvelian", staged a comeback. He just attacked my talkpage. He also uses IPs to push his POV in the target articles Laz people, Mingrelians, Kartvelian peoples, and South Caucasian languages. How about semi-protecting them? Many thanks, --Kober^Talk 19:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the new sock and have semiprotted most of the relevant articles. Thanks for keeping tabs on this chap. Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this directed at me?

I was very much enjoying your Wikithoughts, etc., page. I did happen to notice that you added this around the time I started posting a lot to ANI. I have said on numerous occasions that if an admin tells me they feel I am being unhelpful, I will back off and just stick to WP:WQA, though so far nobody's said that. If the diff I pointed out is your way of saying that, it's cool, my feelings won't be hurt... I just want to make sure I am actually helping and not hindering. I feel like I am helping, but of course it is always very difficult to be objective about one's own actions :)

Anyway, no hard feelings either way, but I had to ask given the timing of your addition... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good god, no. Your contributions at ANI and various other places are invariably helpful. I actually wrote that after Durova took an obviously problematic editor to ANI, but got no response because said editor flooded the board with crap, leading to mass case of tl;dr syndromw. She then took it to RFAR, where I was actually able to notice the problem, see all the evidence clearly laid out by multiple editors, and block the troll indef, thus saving the arbitrators a case. The problem with ANI is not you, it's the fact that the board is too massive and we haven't got enough people there, especially not enough admins. Perhaps a "no posting in my section" rule, like at RFAR, would help. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, phew, thanks for the clarification. I still make a lot of mistakes in ignorance (e.g. this just yesterday: [32] [33]) so I'm always worried I might be creating more problems than I am solving. Sorry for the paranoia, and thanks for the reply! :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "no posting in my section" is not at all a bad idea, BTW. I also think that admins should be more bold in putting disccusion top/discussion bottom tags on conversations for which clearly no admin action is necessary. In my mind, ANI is not a Truth & Reconciliation Committee (even though I know even some admins see it that way sometimes)... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop creating noticeboards

They are dumb, and we have too many already.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}}. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of Mrg3105

Hi, Moreschi.

I am not sure blocking Mrg3105 (talk · contribs) for [34] was a good idea. Basically he was saying that he finds edits by Piotrus to be biased and so he would rather avoid editing the same article as Piotrus. The first part seems to be a widely held opinion (see the correspondent arbcom, for instance). It is not denied by Piotrus himself. The second part is a personal choice of an editor that we are usually trying to encourage. Avoidance of an editor if somebody dislikes his or her editorial pattern is a good thing. It is usually a first step in any conflict resolution. I have never heard somebody was punished for this. It is much better for peace in the community than to follow the editor you dislike and challenge him or her to edit wars on any applicable page.

Mrg3105 seems to be a productive editor with high quality contributions who is not a POV-pusher or edit warrior. He is a real life professional historian if I am correct. IMHO we a driving out a good asset to the project on unclear reasons.

If there is a background in the case I am missing please let me know. Otherwise I would ask for the block review Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I was going to comment on this case anyway, but Alex's comment makes it vital. I can reference numerous examples of such incivility for which Mrg3105 has just been blocked. ([35] - be aware, it's a very long AfD, and Mrg tends to write very long replies) ([36]) ([37])([38]) ([39])([40]) Mrg3105 has been involved for months in bitter disagreements, edit warring, and disruptive editing, consistently introducing changes, being notified that they breach consensus, being counselled as such, and then pouring scorn on such opinions and changing things back. I can quote numerous examples, but most recently is trying to rewrite the introduction of Battle of the Atlantic([41]) and trying to change the category structure of World War II [42] against numerous editors' opposition. He's also responded in foul language when several of his WP:RMs goes against him. ([43] ) - and been block warned for it. While he makes a lot of noise about professionalism, I have never heard him claim actually to be a historian - merely that he claims to act like one. However, an earlier discussion about blocking him by the military history project's coordinators closed with just the block warning referred to. ([44]) Most recent warning of a block is the bottom of this section ([45] - note the scorn and argumentativeness it was met with, including personal attacks [46] - 'you ought to get out more') I'll go and get the relevant links. Cavert: I'm quite heavily involved in several of these disputes, as I'm appalled at the disruption caused by this user. Buckshot06(prof) 03:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it was a good idea! We're dealing with Mrg's disruptivity for about one year and it's enough. He always disrupts Wikipedia and the Milhist project in order to illustrate his own point. Also, he usually misuse Wiki guidelines in many abuses of process - one example can be found here. Personally, i'm glad that this user was finally blocked. --Eurocopter (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possible he was disruptive over his interpretation of WP:MOS that cause problems to other users. Quite possible it was blockable. Why he was not blocked for this but instead on an overextended interpretation of Digwuren clause. Regardless of Mrg's sins overextension of Digwuren case would probably progressively lead to blocking of all the editors ever involved into the Eastern Europe articles in a process not unlike the Salem witch trials Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but "play nice" applies to everyone. His description of Piotrus's editing was highly nasty and unfair. So, he gets blocked as per the Digwuren case, and will keep on getting blocked until he calms it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For another incident that happened about the same time see User talk:Mrg3105#Warning on Layout and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrg3105 Layout. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (Updated link to AN/I here) Buckshot06(prof) 14:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do not get me started on this guy, probably the rudest person in Milhist, his condescending and superior attitude is absolutely unbearable. A temporary block is hardly the solution in my view... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This block seems justified, and I agree with the above editors who have pointed out that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Mrg has been repeatedly warned about his uncivil behaviour, but it doesn't seem to have had any noticable effect. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

We all respect (or should respect) people who contribute significantly to Wikipedia, there comes a point, however, when one's objective value to the encyclopedia is dwarfed by the amount of disruption his particular attitude generates. To use a minor incident as an example, this guy, Mrg3105, engaged me in a debate lasting several hours trying to prove that using the adjective "Soviet" (i.e. "of the Soviet Union") is incorrect when referring to military units of the Red Army. Why? because the Red Army changed its name into "Army of the Soviet Union" after WW2, and therefore it is wrong to refer to Red Army units as those belonging to the Soviet Union. Again, this lasted hours, and the guy still maintains I'm far too stupid to understand his point :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really only involved on the fringes of all this, but I support the block. On the occasions I've head to deal with Mrg or have seen others deal with him, he has often been rude, condescending or outright rude. He has some good ideas, but never attempts to create a consensus, or often even consult with other editors. He simply goes on his way and criticizes anyone who attempts to oppose him. Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Moreschi, thanks for enforcing WP:CIV. I was highly offended by mgr, comments like those make me question whether I should contribute to this project, and enforcing civility reassures me I should stick here. Btw, have you seen this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moreschi, Do you consider this talkpage response below WP:CIV? It's the bottom part of this diff.

'Quite frankly changing the titles of these sections does not breach any editing policies. Far be it from being disruptive, it sets a logical and consistent approach to presentation of materials used to construct an article, and encourages others to use the {{find}} feature to use the special relationship Wikipedia has with Google to its fullest. So, in summary, I don’t need to do anything Philip says I need to do because quite frankly I do more then he does by using this format. If he doesn't like me editing the section titles, he can write his own articles, but all articles are subject to editing, so given I have offered my rationale, and all he has to say is "there is no consensus" I can acknowledge that no consensus can exist on a set of guidelines and conventions that are not binding on editors as policy is.

The explanation why I use this structure is simple, and far from "haphazard". I edit several articles simultaneously within the narrow subject range and often use same sources and even references (page numbers) across several articles. This means that I can readily add citations to multiple articles. Its called being productive. I note Philip's opposition to my productivity, but there it is. In general I would encourage Philip to edit articles more than spend time on insisting that editors keep strictly to guidelines, because they are guidelines, and not rules carved in stone.' :::Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied over from another page - finished copying. Buckshot06(prof) 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"If he doesn't like me editing the section titles, he can write his own articles..."

Neither Mrg nor Phillip can "own" articles. I'm sure he is fundamentally aware of WP:OWN (as I do not presume the stupidity of others), yet even here, on an Admin's talkpage, his choice of words betrays a mentality of article ownership displayed on truly numerous occasions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that everyone has had their say on how horrible mrg315 is, I only have one reply to all these accusations.

The acceptance of Wikpedia as an authoritative reference work can only come from its own reliance on solid and verifiable sources, and their proper referencing; that's the use of page numbers. Wikipedia will not be accepted until its product, the articles, conform to academic standard of writing, and are therefore recommended by academics to their students and enter the mainstream popular use. All my "conflicts" stem from insistence on use, correct use that is, of verifiable sources, which is the Wikipedia policy. I take no bs on this, it being the core policy that is at the root of Wikipedia's success or failure. People seem to think that just because it has been around for years and has 2.5 million articles, its a success, but its success is measured, as everywhere, by quality and not quantity, and that quality is represented in its FA and GA articles, which are very few in number, largely because of deficient sourcing and referencing.

In future I will limit my discussions to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Macedonian Canadians

User:Aquanodd has been editing this article to include racial slurs, and in the "notable person" category has removed Steven Stamkos. I have a feeling this guy may want to remove him to do the recent NHL draft. Mactruth (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

View this persons edits here. I believe the person does not believe Steve Stamkos is Macedonian but Greek and has therefore changed the article to suit his agenda. Mactruth (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Steve Stamkos

User:Aquanodd has also removed sections of this page and editing to his liking. Please view his edits here. Mactruth (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

*Boink*

Looks like you were right: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Miyokan. I would appreciate comment. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) Russian nationalist with an interest in aircraft? Sounds like Miyokan (who, I imagine, took his name from this). --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am personally have little doubts that Berkunt and Miyokan are the same person. On the other hand I am wondering what change this info makes other than satisfying some sort of personal curiosity. We respect WP:VANISH up to the point of assigning administrative flags without RFA to returning users, the story of User:!! may also be useful. Miyokan was a user in good standing on May 16 2008 when Berkunt did his first entry outside the userspace. Miyokan did no editing since May 6 2008. The only problem I could see is that they both edited a few articles but there is a large time gap between those edits making the point moot. Any suggestions why we should continue violating privacy of a contributor instead of doing something for the project? Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Digwuren (talk · contribs) is not in the good standing, he is banned by the [in]famous Arbcom decision. I guess nobody has any doubt that he is the same person as Karabinier (talk · contribs). Still I do not see any reason to investigate this, so far as Karabinier works mostly productively without creation of major disruptions.

Actually, no, Alex: "Right to vanish" is only if you actually want to vanish, i.e. stop contributing, and the other (related but not identical) notion is when you need to protect your privacy; neither of these cases applies here ("Miyokan" doesn't seem to be a real-life name or anything). Miyokan switched accounts to hide his block log and his abusive record of copyvio image uploads. WP:SOCK is explicit in naming "avoiding scrutiny" among the illegitimate uses of duplicate accounts. Second, Miyokan was not an editor in good standing when Berkunt started to edit: he was blocked. Berkunt started on 15 May, not 16 May, and made dozens of edits during the >30 hours his block was still running. Most of those were "harmless" vandalism reverts, but at least some were substantial content edits in his normal editing domain (e.g. [47]). So, while the account switch in itself is not too problematic, we do have (a) block evasion, (b) the fact that Miyokan's block log ought to be taken into account whenever there's an issue of judging Berkunt's behaviour in edit-warring and similar issues, and (c) that Berkunt needs to be held responsible for Miyokan's copyvios, and must be treated as a hardened serial offender who knew very well what he was doing. (Note that Miyokan started falsely declaring images as "pd-self" exactly when he understood that his earlier pattern of sourcing "noncommercial-only" images to flickr didn't work [48])., and Berkunt systematically continued that pattern. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What Future Perfect said. It's the second time this has happened (Miyokan was originally User:Ilya1166). We don't allow problem editors to award themselves clean block logs every few months or so. --Folantin (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse FuturePerfect at Sunrise and Folantin's opinions. This user is not contributing productively to wikipedia - I've had run-ins with him before. Buckshot06(prof) 11:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And what, User:Karabinier is User:Digwuren, and we're supposed to tolerate that? No way. I'm not familiar enough with the case to see the identity immediately, but if anybody gives me some evidence, I of course will block Karabinier. Note that he again has a block log for edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I have some doubt, Alex, to put it mildly. It is unlikely. Last year Dugwuren edited many articles I was interested in, and I communicated with him very often (well, you know), yet Karabinier now appears only very rarely on my watchlist. And there is absolutely no similarity in their editing patterns (well, I hope you understand that it is perfectly natural for an Estonian to be interested in Estonia, this doesn't count). Estonia is a small country, and we all know that Estonians may look very similar on Wikipedia, we've already discussed this more than a year ago (see the disgraceful abused RFCUs and details of the arbitration case), let's not start this again. As to Miyokan as a user in a good standing as of May 2008, this is new to me. He has a strong antagonistic pro-Russian, pro-Soviet and economically leftist POV, some problems with WP:OWN on the article Russia (in good faith), as well as an impressive log of blocks for edit-warring as a result, and was about to be placed on 1RR around that time. Actually I believe he has been placed on 1RR. I don't think that this is a blockable case of sockpuppetry, not at all, but as long as we have block logs and community sanctions on Wikipedia, it is not fair to try to wipe the logs clean by assuming a new identity. Colchicum (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've annotated Berkunt's block log to include links to his two previous block logs. That's fair enough (and "invasion of privacy" - my arse). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum (looks like you're still foaming at the mouth from our past conflict a year ago ^_^ [49] Thought I'd include this gem for everyone: Colchicum - "Ok, I don't care much about that country. Go on playing with yourself. Bye." - Charming) and co., (looks like still harbouring grudges against me from past conflicts we've had (Folantin[[50]]) (Moreschi[51]) when my contributions were endorsed by other users in these cases?) whether you agree with my contributions is moot, I was an editor in good standing and have never been blocked for the content of my contributions, with plenty of users agreeing with me in my edits. --Berkunt (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Berkunt, don't think I dream of you every night. I don't even know who the hell you are and don't consider that to be a conflict. If I have any grudges against you now, this is primarily because of this. When you inserted the false information (about my native city, by the way), you should take care of correcting it as soon as you became aware of this, yet you have preferred to conceal the fact. Ok, great virtue. Very patriotic. I think we are here to write an accurate encyclopedia rather than to glorify our native countries by whatever means available, you don't. Ok. I have little doubt that there are great many economically leftist pro-Russian state Wikipedians (well, unlike Moreschi and Folantin I wouldn't call such things nationalism) and others agreeing with you in your edits, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and I am certainly not very happy with your version of the history of Russia in the 1980s-1990s, which has little to do with reality and can only be supported by marginal or fringe publications or superfluous and tangential remarks in tertiary sources (like Britannica), which is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Yes, I am not going to pay much attention to the article Russia as long as it is spoiled by a single POV, but I hope that somebody else will be interested. You may sincerely think that the article gets better, but it doesn't. It neither gets more accurate nor evokes more sympathy for Russia. To put it short, I don't know you personally, and if I hold any grudges against you, this is only because of the content you add or delete, and this is legitimate. Sorry for being rude. It is not surprising that you have no blocks for content. Normally Wikipedians are not blocked for content. However, this doesn't mean that everything is ok with the content, especially when Wikipedians get blocked for edit-warring while defending their content. By the way, I have no intention to continue chatting with you, unless you come up with content issues. Colchicum (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Further development: Berkunt has reverted to the old account and old habits and as Miyokan is now engaged in a holy crusade to delete Polish and Lithuanian names of West Belarusian towns and edit-warring on Holodomor (well above the 1RR limit), and in general seeks conflict with Polish and Ukrainian editors. Why can't he edit calmly and constructively? Colchicum (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Even MORE User:PIO

Hi Moreschi, remember User:Luigi 28, the latest sock by banned User:PIO? Well he just won't stay banned, he's now simply editing via his IP(s), namely, 151.67.84.1 (contribs: [52]), 151.67.87.5 (contribs: [53]), and 151.67.86.133 (contribs: [54]), I'm sure he considers himself very clever. He's been incessantly annoying numerous editors and Admins for weeks now, and I'm hoping you might finally end the matter somehow, thanks. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked these IPs. If you think some articles would benefit from semiprotection, please let me know which ones. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the articles Istria, Istrian exodus and Foibe massacres are usually targeted by PIO and his horde of alter-egos. Thanks for the help. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected these indefinitely. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Ottava Rima

Hi, Moreschi. I have posted an alternative suggestion for blocking Ottava Rima—a "block refactoring"— on ANI, here. Could you take a look and respond to my suggestion, please? Bishonen | talk 14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC).

Ok, will do. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if you still remember me. As an update, I have been working on Samuel Johnson. I was wondering if you could take a look there and at its talk page to see if I have met the promise that I made to you back then. Also, it is up for peer review here, and you can feel free to comment. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Could you move List of important opera terminology to List of opera topics (over redirect)? It seems the page is stuck somehow at its current location. *Sigh* "Neutrality" obsessives yet again...Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a request at the ANI discussion concerning this move. The Transhumanist    00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And seemingly de-requested. Can we please have less bureaucratic wankery next time? And a bit less insistence on uniformity? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Veropedia

Looking around your userpages, and thinking of articles I would like to upload to Veropedia, there's not a single simple explanation of how to do that. I infer from this that one has to get a Veropedia account, but nowhere does it actually say that. When one clicks on the suggest articles page, and one is not using Microsoft Outlook, you get this annoying series of pop-ups. Thought you might like to know this for improvement. Kind regards Buckshot06(prof) 03:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet more PIO

Hi Moreschi. There's another PIO sock appeared. It's User:Ustashi, oddly editing a couple of PIO's favourite articles, using identical edit summaries as PIO's IP did last week at the History of Croatia article - [55], as well as a couple of choice entries on DIREKTOR's talk page today [56]. Should I prepare an SSP report or is this one obvious enough to be nukable? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Did you see happen to see this charming remark as he was being ushered towards the exit? [57] :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol, did indeed. The irony is outstanding - it's a pity he and his kind never seem to appreciate it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Such moments are to be cherished, but make no mistake: he'll be back. Maybe next time he'll go really nuts and act like a Serbian nationalist. :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be truly awesome. I await with anticipation :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And now how can somebody say that wikipedia is not amusing. No forum, blog can produce such joke and attract this quality entertainer. Zenanarh (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Byzantium

You probably need to semi-protect the talk page at Byzantium. The IP crank is up to no good again. His other accounts can be blocked until he retracts the legal threats too. --Folantin (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nishkid got to it before I did. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect my user and talk page? Anonymous crank is at it again. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FPAS took care of the user page, and I just did the talk page for you. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I appreciate your forbearance, and I want to re-emphasise my general support for your approach to dealing with bad editing. DGG (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And I yours :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

is "inability to use a dictionary" a reason for blocking?

See Talk:Jesus_myth_hypothesis#Euhemerization. It's hard to believe the kinds of things you have to deal with on Wikipedia sometimes...

I doubt any administrative action could be taken, I just wanted to share my frustration. BruceGrubb is basically an SPA on this topic and I don't think he's contributed anything useful. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get round to this soonish. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating a battleground

Would you think that falls under it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, probably does. Duly noted. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted, too. And this, of course. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Again Sock of Colchian boy

Dear Moreschi, another sock of our laz fellow appeared on the same pages, vandalizing as usual [58],[59]. Iberieli (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, that is a content dispute. If you are going to block anyone I suggest blocking all three edit warriors (Kober, Iberieli, and the user that Iberieli is complaining about). Also, please have a look at the uncivil behaviour of Kober and Iberieli on the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pocopocopocopoco (talk • contribs) Jun 26, 2008

Dear Pocopo, please stop following other users and calumniating Iberieli and me. This is not the first case you have done this and your behavior in such cases is way too much stereotypical. I urge you to reconsider your tactic of settling personal scores with your perceived enemies. It is not helpful at all. Best, Kober^Talk 05:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And you got warned for edit warring in that instance. I could have easily reported both you and Iberieli for 3RR as you had done something like 35RR in your edit war with that user. I tried to calm things down and stop the edit warring in the talk page and got nothing but abusive comments from you and Iberieli. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Look, this guy is banned. He doesn't get to edit. Kober and Ibereili can revert his edits 'till kingdom come. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned where? Was it an arbcom ban or a community ban and do you have the link? I know some of his socks have been blocked but I wasn't aware there was a ban. Personally I don't see anything that warrants a ban, from what I see he gets into edit wars with Kober and Iberieli over content issues. My only compliant about him is that he sometimes comes up with some abusive edit summaries, but I also find Kober and Iberieli to be uncivil and hostile in the talk pages. In this particular edit war at Georgia (country) it is a content dispute because user:Pasquale (a linguist) seems to disagree with Kober and Iberieli. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
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) 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-17 Muhammad al-Durrah

Hello. I'm going to take over this MedCab case and try to work this stuff out. I posted in the talk page what I would like all participants to do to start. Hopefully this all works out well, I have zero intention of leaning towards any one side in this dispute, and I only care about getting it taken care of. Wizardman 18:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested recordings

I posted a request at requested recordings. If you have the time, please take a look. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

heh

For what it's worth, I think this whole FT2 fiasco is the first time you and I have completely agreed on anything. Jtrainor (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another page move

Could you move Michel Montéclair to Michel Pignolet de Montéclair over the redirect? The latter is his correct name. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. --Folantin (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

In case you might have missed this: there is an arbitrator activity in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	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) 03:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Worst. ANI. Thread. Ever

[60]. Shame you're not around. Read it and laugh/weep. Wikipedia is safe in the hands of our Keystone Cops admin corps. Conclusion: I'm "angry", therefore I'm "wrong". Never mind the faked sources. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your trout

You haven't responded to my comment there; for the most part you're right on the money although I wish you had expressed it with a little less heat. My own error was a garden variety thing that I withdrew with apologies immediately. Let's not make this situation up to appear worse than it already is. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ty :) Durova^Charge! 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible evasion of block via sock puppetry

On July 7, you blocked Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) (aka William P. Reaves) from further editing for one month. Today, "Jack's" pattern of edits to the Viktor Rydberg article is continuing from what I have previously identified as an apparent sock puppet account of Mr. Reaves, Finnrekkr (talk). Is there a procedure that should be followed to report apparent evasions of blocks via sock puppets? Rsradford (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I already had this checked. Apparently it's not sockpuppetry, though meatpuppetry looks likely. I'll deal with it on that basis. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pest about this, but could you let me know what procedures were used to determine that this is not sockpuppetry? There is absolutely no doubt that the individual now editing as Finnrekkr (talk) is William P. Reaves, whom you banned from editing as Jack the Giant-Killer. He is misspelling the same words ("concensus"), falsifying the same quotes in exactly the same way (Clive Tolley), and concentrating all his editing activity on pushing the same POV in the same two articles ( Viktor Rydberg and Lotte Motz ). If this is none of my business, feel free to say so and I'll drop it, but because Reaves stalked me to the Lotte Motz article solely for the purpose of provoking an edit war, I have a vested interest in seeing that once he's banned, he stays banned. Thanks. Rsradford (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the hell is the basis for restricting my editing. I find it absurd that Jack and myself are restricted, while Mr. Radford, who has shown his bad faith as well as deliberate distortion of sources in the interests of slander, is let off scot free. What kinds of policies do you have going here at Wikipedia?CarlaO'Harris (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Because by every conceivable standard, so far your editing, and that of your mates, has been awful. Shape up or face the consequences. You're very lucky to have got off with something this light as a first sanction. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting OF Molobo?

Could you comment regarding this? At the very least, I think it shows bad faith.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Also [61].

Such remarks aren't friendly and don't serve any improvement of the article in my view.

--Molobo (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

@Piotruś: "Could you comment regarding this?" I'm surprised you're asking Moreschi, can't you comment yourself? But wait - you did comment, after all, just not to my face, but around my back, right? Not what I would do, but if that's your style, so be it. To answer your comment, of course it shows bad faith. I assume good faith by default, and I did so with Molobo back in 2005. Three years and roughly 20 blocks later, whatever remained of my good faith in him is used up. I'm trying hard to continue to assume good faith in you, Piotr, and so far I've always been able to muster up some of it. Without your constant patronage of an editor as disruptive as you-know-who it would be a whole lot easier, though.

@Molobo: Why don't we discuss this where it belongs? --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you to be more polite and assume more good faith at WP:PWNB before. Since you ignored my requests, and continue to follow Molobo and bait him, I am asking another admin to review your actions (I am too involved to do so myself).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to repair the damage that Molobo is doing to Wikipedia with his incompetent and/or politically motivated edits. Just like Molobo is (once again) entitled to edit where he pleases, I am entitled to correct/undo his tampering where necessary and challenge him to justify his edits on talk pages (that's what they're for). If that's "baiting" in your book, I can't help it. As for politeness, if you can point me to any rude things I shouldn't have said, please point me to it - personally - and I'll mend my ways. (I doubt that you'll find any, but never mind that.) As for assuming "good faith", I think you will agree that "good faith" is not an endless resource. Telling someone to have "good faith" in Molobo is like telling someone to please believe in the tooth-fairy again. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Piotrus, Thorsten1 made a good point in that edit in that birds of the same feather do not always need to flock together. The board, which you consider your Polish community, is not a Latin or general help desk, although for Molobo it always proved the last stronghold when he gets in trouble (that's why his thanks for the unblock went there and to Greg in particular). Or is it about the joke about German imperialism? Many a true word is spoken in jest - Molobo's profound dislike for and immense stereotypes about Germany and Germans are no assumption or accusation but fact, yet it's not funny. His whole account operates as a single-purpose account to spread negative information about Germany and Russia in conjunction with information favouring Polish nationalism. But as long as he does not revert twice within 24h, he is allowed to do that - where there's a will there's always a way. Plus, he's got people advising and protecting him, ready to attack anyone's motives who opposes Molobo (at present: accusations of baiting) so that only the others remain. The edit preceding the one you pointed out is also noteworthy ("rv censorship"). Sciurinæ (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Scurinae, please. Was Molobo supposed to thank the Japanese or Korean portals? Tymek (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

FFS, people. This is a non-thread. Grow thicker skins. BTW, Tymek, Molobo's revert parole is 1RR per week, not per day. Thorsten: if over the next few months Molobo keeps POV-pushing, give me clear and coherent evidence of him doing so and I will reban him. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion review concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Publication as source of information regarding Polish German history  ?

Would you like to comment on what I discovered ?

[62] --Molobo (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
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) 09:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
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) 09:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Notification

Hi! Your name was mentioned in this discussion. Regards! --Olahus (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Old Alex, again...

Care to have a look at the history of Alexander the Great (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (yes, he has a disambiguation too!) Some pretty serious revert-warring on the parts of Cukiger (talk · contribs), 157.228.x.x (talk · contribs) and Zylox (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Two out of the three got ARBMACed. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Would be useful, if and when you will. Thanks. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Best, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

Hello. Why did you revert my edit to Warren Kinsella? Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Note / edit-war + ban

Moreschi, I'd like to apologize for so hastily jumping on the defensive regarding this edit-war and the associated ban. As far as I knew, I was doing the right thing by participating in a reasonable discussion with the involved parties. This ban was completely unexpected, for as far as I had known (as per the aforementioned discussion), I had reached an agreement with the user involved in the dispute. I'm honestly quite puzzled. I keep asking for people to help me understand what exactly is going on, but everyone seems to assume I'm a bad guy. In any case, I was not aware that reverting the same vandalism from different users would be classified as edit-warring, and had I known, would have ceased immediately and contacted an administrator for advice and assistance if needed.

My concern in all of this is not that I can no longer participate in the protection of that particular page; my concern is that I was banned per WP:ARBMAC, however the section on discretionary sanctions states that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision." Simply put, I received no such warning. A warning alone would have been sufficient to stop my editing of the article in question, however the lack of one was surprising and worrying, to say the least. I hope you can understand my position in all of this. I do not consider myself to be a disruptive editor, and I will no longer engage in edits on this particular page, or any of the pages under WP:ARBMAC. Truth be told, I'm quite tired of the impossible job of keeping things tidy in there.

I'm asking for your understanding, and I humbly request that this ban be lifted, but not so that I can continue editing these pages: I would just prefer not to have my record tainted with unnecessary - and in my opinion, undeserved - bans.

Thank you for your time. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for being reasonable. Much obliged. It's a relief from the usual. I hadn't realized you hadn't been warned. Most people who edit Balkans articles have either been warned or are aware of the case via other means. Apologies for that.

With you having pointed this out, I'm willing to chop the ban down from 3 months to 3 weeks, but not any further, because edit-warring is still wrong - which you knew - and this is largely filled with your reverts in the last month or so, some of which are doubtless justified, others of which are just lame flaming. Deal? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove the ban in exchange for a solemn promise to refrain from any behavior that even remotely resembles edit-warring? I'm really worried about tarnishing my reputation. I haven't been around for all that long, and still have a lot to learn about editing conduct. Without a doubt, I can definitely say I've learned an important lesson today. However, if that is not enough to lift the ban entirely, I will still graciously accept your offer. I thank you for your understanding and your time. --ž¥łǿχ (ŧäłķ | čøŋŧřīъ§) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

image licensing

regarding http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-July/044717.html, english wiki article has many such GFDL-ed images, in fact one was taken from it. --Ilya K (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Something...

Re. [63]: Check. [64]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that was me. But user:iNkubusse and user:Brainmachine are fixing it. BalkanFever 12:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed they started to do a few things a couple of weeks ago when I poked them again. And they also have mk:User:Spiritia now who seems to be coaching them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me draw the lessons?

Moreschi, did you think I was really incivil on the Scientific Dissent page? I obviously really upset Guettarda and he seems to be a committed and experienced editor. There has been an exchange of messages on his page and mine, as well as the talk page of the article. I'd be really glad for comments. Thanks very much if you can, if not, sorry to have bothered you. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Lazs AREN'T KARTVEL/GEORGIAN

"Some Laz living in Turkey do not accept the umbrella term "Kartvelian" no no no Anybody Lazs dont accept that fascist 'Kartveli' term.Stop vandalism and all Kartvelist attacks.Lazs arent Georgian.All Lazs living in Turkey believe that reality.In some Laz living Georgia believe.But not important.Because Kartvelism, Kartveli languages and Lazs and other Georgians what is this ? Are you insane ?Lazs arent Georgian.Lazs are a Caucasic claim in Georgia-Turkey.I'm a Laz(Ma Lazi vore-Me Lazi var) but im not brother of Kartvelians/Georgians.Lazs are brother claim of Mingrelian nation.And Lazs are cousin of Georgians.

In Georgia, The number of Mingrelian speakers is declining, and most Mingrelian speakers positively identify themselves as "Georgian" (Kartveli).There are no Mingrelian language schools, books, or newspapers, although there were periodic attempts at establishing Mingrelian as a literary language in the late czarist and early Soviet periods.The assimilation of Mingrelians by the Georgians, which accelerated in the nineteenth century under the impact of modernization, was completed after the Soviet annexation and MİSHA's Georgia's...

And i didnt see Georgian Catholic Laz :) This is stupidly lie. Yes a small minority(in Sakartvelo) Lazs are Orthodox Predominantly Lazs are Muslim.Not Catholic.

We know they.Stop "Georgianization" ATTACKS.Thats way please open Laz people page.And i shall change that falsesMy documents from MINORITYRIGHTS.COM gropus.Please we(Lazs) believe and much want.TuTastemre LAZ

Oh, please. This is the Laz vandal again. RBI. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Baiting of Molobo by an anon

Can we ban this offensive IP? See [65] for example.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could you semi-protect the Byzantium talk page? He's at it again. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

No offence

intended towards you with my comment. I just found some comments (not all made by you, personally), as well as grand declarations of "edit-warring" in (kinda) bad taste. Add some recent, not-too-amiable interactions with admins overlooking certain matters regarding the same topic to that. Apologies. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken in the first place. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I've reverted your recent triplet of edits to WP:ANI, as this one inadvertently wiped the page. Could I trouble you to re-add your comments again (as the delta is rather too large for me to do so myself safely). Incidentally I've also unlinked a spamlink further up the page (that ccna stuff) which was blocking subsequent edits of the restored content. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This all got sorted. Damn ANI, stupid buggy page. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

Godwin's Law

Did you just break Godwin's Law at ANI, comparing Zero g's edits to Nazis? :) Seriously, I think we're starting to discuss different things there. My concern is that a small group of editors, all agreeing with each other, moving from article to article and rolling over opposition, does not define "consensus". And that this group is adamantly opposed to any kind of wider community input such as an RfC or AfD, further concerns me. I do agree with you that if the opposing editor were one that had a long history of disputes behind him, that there's a limit to what the community should put up with, but I honestly do not feel that this is the case on this one. I've looked at his contribs: Zero g (talk · contribs) and he has very limited participation in Wikipedia space. So I still think that we should take actions based on WP:BITE, and not WP:FRINGE. --Elonka 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, not Godwin's Law, because I didn't compare him to a Nazi. Read again :)

How, may I ask, is WP:BITE relevant? He's been around for two years, albeit editing at low intensity until fairly recently. That's enough time to have learnt the rules by any measure. Our job as admins is to use our buttons to maintain encyclopedicity, not to shelter the underdog. That's Hollywood's job. I'm sorry, but this "group" you describe in such negative terms are representing the academic mainstream more or less correctly: as such, it is our job, as admins, to let them continue doing their job, not to interfere by supporting "filibustering partisans", to quote Dbachmann. I do not think they are unduly skewing the record - unlike some of our overly fervent pro-evolution editors - nor do I think they are coordinated. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great encapsulation of the administrative role, and I think that waiting for each agenda account to accumulate a "long history of disputes" before acting is a recipe for burning out the contributors who are here to actually improve the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 21:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you are suggesting that we block users as soon as they start showing problems, then Slrubenstein and Mathsci would have both been blocked quite some time ago. --Elonka 01:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on Elonka. I wasn't suggesting that at all. And user conduct is judged relative to encyclopedicity of contributions, you know that. Otherwise the whole show falls to pieces. Besides, Mathsci and SLR have always struck me as being pretty reasonable. If they're exasperated with Zero g, I can hardly blame them. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please could Elonka possibly try to moderate her tone on wikipedia? It seems quite sad that she cannot tell the difference between good faith scholarly editors, probably much more qualified than her, and single purpose accounts editing articles in the fringe area of eugenics. Suggesting that WP:BITE applies to a WP editor editing since 2006 is a non-starter. I am actually quite shocked by her suggestion that Slrubenstein, myself or others might be interested in rejecting the views of the community. If that were the case we would certainly not be broadcasting our own individual views so publicly on WP:AN/I. More importantly, if we claim to be representing mainstream science (and that is what the CNRS employs me to do), that would be an absurd attitude to take. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed a sad day when those who report problem users such as POV-pushers themselves get called "problem users" for their trouble. Does that mean the new Wikipedia policy is to let POV-pushers run rampant in the place and push whatever POV they like? (heavy irony not well represented here)--Ramdrake (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the venue to discuss editors' behavior in detail, but yes, I have considerable diffs which show disruptive behavior on the part of a few of the editors who claim to be "defending the wiki" on some of these topics. I think we have probably also all seen places where an editor is called a "POV pusher" from one side, and "a damn good editor dealing with cranks" from the other side. It goes with the territory in this large collaborative environment. And ordinarily, we deal with things reasonably well, assuming good faith, working through dispute resolution procedures, and so forth. But where things go awry, is when we have a few people who decide that they know "the best way" to handle an article, and they camp on it to deal with the POV pushers. Indeed, often such articles are the target of POV-pushing, and so the encamped editors may be doing a good thing, 95% of the time, keeping the article cleaned up and protected from crud. But then I think the encamped folks can go into a bunker mentality, where they see any new editor as a POV pusher. If the new editor just participates once or twice and then wanders away, the problem seems to go away as well. But if the new editor tries to stick around, the encamped folks then often go into a case of "circling the wagons" against the interloper, and dispute resolution sometimes goes out the window, along with the rules of civility. The new editor may be called a wide variety of names (troll, POV pusher, racist, etc. etc.), and the encamped editors feel no need to assume good faith, no need to follow WP:BITE, and no need to follow WP:DR. They're sure that they're right, and that the new editor is wrong, and must be ejected as quickly as possible. And that is where my hackles start going up, especially when there is no clear proof of wrongdoing on the part of the new editor. In Zero G's case, sure, there have been some edit wars, but how are his edits? Has he been inserting unsourced information? Using bad sources? Misinterpreting good sources? Because if so, I sure haven't seen any diffs of it. And until I do, I am going to continue assuming good faith. And if I see longterm established editors treating a new editor with disrespect, I am not going to join the crowd and attack the new editor -- instead, I am going to take the longterm editors to task for bad behavior, and violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. The burden of evidence is on the existing editors to prove ill intent on the part of a newer editor. Or in other words, I tend to go from the assumption of "Innocent until proven guilty", whereas some other editors here seem to be running from the assumption of "Guilty POV-pusher, until proven innocent." --Elonka 19:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, fine. I guess that's going to leave us with no other option other than arbitration, eventually, if the problems continue. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Another easier possibility is the desysopping of maverick administrators who seem intent on misinterpreting wikipedia policies. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer in part Elonka's questions: In Zero G's case, sure, there have been some edit wars, but how are his edits? Has he been inserting unsourced information? Using bad sources? Misinterpreting good sources? Because if so, I sure haven't seen any diffs of it.

• Has he been inserting unsourced information? Not really, that's not the issue here.
• Using bad sources? Yes, definitely, he's been told over and over that his sources were WP:FRINGE, with sources to prove they indeed were, which he has chosen to dismiss every time.
• Misinterpreting good sources? Yes, by inserting sources on differential fertility in support of dysgenics in the article Dysgenics, when those sources never mentioned dysgenics. That's a direct violation of OR and SYN,and Elonka even commented on it here.

So, I'm at a bit of a loss to explain when she says she "hasn't seen any diffs of it", when she actually happened to caution editors about it.

Also, in the specific case of Zero g, WP:BITE doesn't apply to an editor who has been on Wikipedia for two years (otherwise, at three years, I'm almost a newbie myself :) ), and WP:DR was followed, as the disputed merge was brought to AfD, with an even stronger consensus in favor of merging the articles resulting from the action.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Ramdrake's response, I would add this comment at AN/I, specifically, "the recent AfD has shown me that the principles of Wikipedia only apply to non political and ideological articles - apparently the scientific evidence supporting the dysgenic hypothesis is too threatening to mainstream egalitarian convictions." Although Elonka continues to suggest that I an others have not dealt with Zero G in good faith, this edit shows that in fact it is he who refuses to AGF to other editors. After Elonka posted the RfD for the article on the dysgenics book, a number of editors voted and provided thoughtful explanations for their votes. I know what Elonka thinks of me, but surely even she will admit that some, like Tim Vickers, are absolutely sterling in their integrity, commitment to core policies, and knowledge of the life sciences. Most people voted for a merger, not a deletion - which would preserve much of the content and hardly justifies Zero G's alarms that Lynn's views are too dangerous for Wikipedia. And these voters, including the one or two who voted for deletion, all provided serious explanations for their votes, based on wikipedia policies or science. So far Zero G is the only one voting to keep. But instead of conceding that he was giving the book undue weight, he has attacked the motives and integrity of many Wikipedian editors.

I can also point to many examples where other editors disagreed with Zero G in a civil, thoughtful fashion, clearly assuming good faith - the discussion inthis section of archived talk is a good example of people assuming good faith on Zero G's part. If you look at the end of this section, you will see I even support an edit Zero G made - again, there is ample evidence that other editors did assume good faith on Zero G's part for quite some time. I hope Moreschi will indulge one more example, taken from the same archived talk page as the above:

Jagz, you have made a claim. Now provide the evidence. Just one example of what you mean when you say there have been many discoveries in genetics since the thirties that explains IQ gaps between races. Just one example. Just one. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly never intended my comments to be interpreted in that manner. What I meant is that there has been an explosion of genetic discoveries recently[47], there is much more to come, and it is too early to accept or reject the genetic hypothesis. --Jagz (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you're saying that because in the future some discovery in genetics might support the genetic hypothesis, we should treat as plausible science fringe theories based on bad scientific protocols? Is that what you're saying?--Ramdrake (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the genetic view is fringe or certain genetic theories are fringe? --Jagz (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a little bit of intellectual honesty knows the partial genetic hypothesis is the only plausible one. Anyone who looks at the research critically knows that the egalitarian mafia hand picks studies that show the results they like, and makes up silly theories about supposed environmental influences that cause the gap like stereo type threat. Next it's well known they have an almost pedophilic preference for testing children, because they know that racial differences are more pronounced in adults. They constantly claim adoption studies proof them right, without showing any of these studies, and we know they do this because the studies that do matter proof them wrong. They use studies of Indian children, and hope nobody catches them with their hand in the cookie jar when they state how these 'black' children score very well on IQ tests and have no white ancestry. They mix whites with Hispanics to muddy the results, classify half white children as black, and leave out the poorest elements of the black community knowing that nobody will dare point that out.

Obviously part of the dispute is who of the two groups of researchers are the crack pots. Maybe we should dedicate a detailed article to the various claims of fraud made by the two parties? --Zero g (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note in the above that Ramdrake was acting in good faith towards Jagz (I admit I was already suspicious of his credibility). Jagz made a claim, and I asked him for a source. Jagz evaded, and Ramdrake asked for a source. Jagz continued to evade, and Ramdrake continued to ask for a source. Ramdrake was civil, and his request utterly reasonable as Wikipedia policy requires that we add verifiable claims to articles. Note Zero G's response, which is to begin talking about an egalitarian "mafia" and then to make reference to pedophiles. Really, is this acting in good faith? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gone waaaaaay off-topic here. To summarize the situation about Zero G though, I am glad that the AfD has resolved the matter, and that Zero G has acknowledged the will of the community on this particular article. Hopefully it was a learning experience for all involved. I personally think that this entire situation could have been avoided if there would have been a bit more effort in following procedures. For example, when it was clear that the merge was controversial, it would have been helpful to either file an AfD, or an RfC, or list it at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, and/or posting clear notices about it at a few WikiProjects. That way it would have been clear that the issue was getting wider community consultation than just the editors on one talkpage, especially when those editors have a history of being in conflict on multiple articles. --Elonka 15:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, with a single dissenting voice, the merge proposal was not controversial until Zero g made it an issue and started systematically reverting the merge several days after it had been done. Also, it is not customary to draft an AfD for a simple merge proposal. The procedural requirements were met. The controversy started after the mege was done, not during the merge proposal. Had the merge really been controversial, I would have expected more than one voice opposing it at the AfD.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Elonka, you just wrote "I think we've gone waaaaaay off-topic here." Do you mean that you went off topic when you wrote:

.... But then I think the encamped folks can go into a bunker mentality, where they see any new editor as a POV pusher. If the new editor just participates once or twice and then wanders away, the problem seems to go away as well. But if the new editor tries to stick around, the encamped folks then often go into a case of "circling the wagons" against the interloper, and dispute resolution sometimes goes out the window, along with the rules of civility. The new editor may be called a wide variety of names (troll, POV pusher, racist, etc. etc.), and the encamped editors feel no need to assume good faith, no need to follow WP:BITE, and no need to follow WP:DR. ... I am going to take the longterm editors to task for bad behavior, and violation of WP:AGF and WP:BITE. The burden of evidence is on the existing editors to prove ill intent on the part of a newer editor. ....

Or are you just saying that we went off-topic when a couple of us responded to your accusations, or tried to provide the evidence you implied was lacking? If you are apologizing for having gone off-topic, well, all you need to do is say so: apology warmly accepted. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that Elonka's extraordinary remarks above meant that she seriously expected that Zero g would be supported in the AfD by a landslide vote of wikipedians, that "we" were quite aware of this and "we" were doing our best to prevent it. None of this was the case. There was no "we". My worry is that Elonka might also be making similar errors of judgement on other pages that she has volunteered to police. As far as "tag teams" on WP are concerned, I can openly reveal that I did this for the first time today in connection with the libellous remarks being posted on Michael Atiyah's page that I accidentally noticed in the thread below. My "tag team" was User:Charles Matthews and User:R.e.b., both former colleagues, who were contacted by email and who kindly helped resolve the situation in their very different ways. Needless to say I expect to be permabanned for this :-) Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I meant at all.  :) --Elonka 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Please could you then clarify how you meant the following statement to be interpreted: « This is not the venue to discuss editors' behavior in detail, but yes, I have considerable diffs which show disruptive behavior on the part of a few of the editors who claim to be "defending the wiki" on some of these topics. » This was an extraordinary statement for you to make, presumably concerning you own long term activities prior to the incident with Zero g. Perhaps I have again not properly understood the meaning you intended. :-) --Mathsci (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

user:Bharatveer, who is under ArbCom enforced parole, and who you blocked less than a month ago, is back to adding his POV to various pages. This time, strangely enough, it is the Michael Atiyah page (see talk page there) and the Kerala School. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Bharatveer seems to have introduced a number of socks on Michael Atiyah and has summoned Elonka to his rescue. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A wrong allegation. As anyone could see User:fowler is openly flouting all policies of WP( WP:BITE,WP:LEGAL threat amongst others) in this article as well as Kerala school of astro & maths . I summoned elonka as a means of reducing "attacks" -Bharatveer (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivility query

Hello. I don't quite care for the tone of these remarks, but would it be wise to file a complaint? And if so, at the Wikiquette alert board or Arbitration Enforcement? Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not uncivil to tell somone they are inventing history when they support renaming a historical event with another name because someone thinkgs the original name "sounds lousy". Its called discouraging original research. But hey Biruitorul, if you can't actually come up with a good logical reason, why not just accuse the opposition of invcivility and get them out of the way on an abuse of procedural technicality, right?

If Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation gets renamed, the next time you read about it will be in the newspapers. Newspapers just love stories about Wikipedia you know, and this one is ridiculous enought to make front page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. It seems odd you found this page a mere 33 minutes after I posted here. 2. I support the rename because it's the most common name (based on reliable sources), as I clearly stated. There's no "inventing history" or "original research" going on. 3. Reliable sources are a great reason, nobody's trying to get anyone out of the way, and WP:CIV, WP:AGF and WP:NPA are official policies, not "procedural technicalities". 4. I don't think any paper will care about "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" being renamed to "Soviet invasion of Manchuria", but I'll eat my hat if you prove me wrong. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This guy seems to have been blocked for other stuff anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every criticism is 'Vandalism' for mrs.MORESHI!!!

My nickname is TuTastemre LAZ but i am writing with TuTastemre i want write with my real nick.Why banned me ? Please read about writes.Cuz they are "stupidy" (in Laz people) page.Kartvelists say:Mingrelians and other!!! Georgians.Lazs/Megrels arent Georgian.As Dutchs and Germans.Only brother peoples.And i didnt see Orthodox Laz.Lazs are Muslim only a few Orthodox.Lazs are Sünni people.

Turn to back and write scientific articles.Or open my nick:TuTasTemre LAZ.I'm not Laz! vandal. :):):) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TuTasTemre (talk • contribs) 20:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, User:Kolkhianboy anybody? --Folantin (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure is. Sigh. Kolkhian, it's not funny anymore. And you still haven't learnt English. I can hardly read your drivel. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

Mrs? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He means you, Riana. *hides somewhere in the UK* O.O —Dark ^talk 08:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Good laugh :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out this farce

[66] Translation: "I should be unblocked because I'm finding the constant sockpuppetry too much of a strain". --Folantin (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tedious Hellenic socks

Hi, Moreschi. Early last month you delt with a plague-stricken sock puppeteer who went under the names User:Dvaaeg, User:Aegeanhawk, and User:Aee1980. He appeares to be back under the name User:Aeg2008 making the same tedious arguments and reverts at Florina and threatening to do the same on several other pages [67]. Can you help? Regards, Aramgar (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So will you also act in other similar cases?--   Avg    22:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FPAS blocked the first one, and I've semiprotted the other page. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kober case

Dear Moreschi, I dont know to whom i can appeal about the Kober crisis but can only think of you (you have previously made objective analysis of the issues on Georgia related articles and you have a background on the issues around them as well). Kober was blocked by this irresponsible (in my opinion) administrator, here [68]. Afterwards which long time contributors like Grandmaster reported the incident here [69]. After reading these pages, you will get the idea what happened. I dont know where else i can report this and only count on your objective and fair assessment. I'm not asking for helping Kober, but making a fair assessment of the issue, as you have been know for previously. Thanks a lot for your consideration. All the best. Iberieli (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with. For now, at least. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure your unblock has worked [70]. Or does he mean something else? --Folantin (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, many thanks for your time and consideration. I was autoblocked and user:Khoikhoi has already fixed that. Regards, --Kober^Talk 20:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, Papa Carlo is appealing the block. I tried to explain what the block was all about (rather than review it, because he doesn't understand, and no one pointed him to the ANI discussion before). I'm not sure he understood, and he is offering, apparently, to change his approach. You might want to comment. Mangojuice^talk 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

When you get a chance...

would appreciate your input on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_Probation proposal, so it can be enacted or dismissed soon. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone else will have to handle this. Moreschi (talk) (debate)

User:Lucyintheskywithdada

Hi, Moreschi, I see you block Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) indefinitely per WP:ANI. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse

Here I bring the WP:RFCU result on him . Lucyintheskywithdada is indeed a confirmed sock of Documentingabuse (talk · contribs) who has been also indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry, countless block evasions, false accusations, trolling. So can you add the fact at Lucy's block log? I believe in light of his tendency of abusing sockpuppetry, he would not stop himself appearing in Wikipedia, so the block log would be a note for possible block evasions. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No point. All that's easily accessible elsewhere. The CU case is already linked to in the block log anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mischief makers

I'm at the end of my tether. Wikipedia can't let Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now joined by SPAs, hold up productive work on pages Michael Atiyah and Kerala School. They have tried to create new pages Raju-Atiyah case (AfD'd speedily), start various discussions here and there to keep a bogus issue alive. I resent that I, as a knowledgeable editor in the field have to waste so much of my time in engaging mischief-makers, who in real-life I would never have time for. Very depressing also that a notorious editor, under ArbCom restriction, can get away with so much on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We need for eyes on BV. I'll work on that. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	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) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan in sockpuppetry

Hi. You commented on a previous Miyokan sockpuppetry page; the case was closed without action, as block evasion was months old and stale. However, I think there is a hot chance that Krawndawg (talk · contribs) is a sock of Miyokan (backing up each other's point of view on several articles; at very least it looks like meatpuppetry). I don't want to make a scene, as Miyokan is a good editor, and I already did that once. Could you look into this?(I have a user contribution comparison tool if you need more info). The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Afraid it's not me this time, sorry to disappoint.--Miyokan (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. Krawndawg (talk · contribs) and Miyokan (talk · contribs) apparently come from different time zones. It helps them to work as a team around the clock and restore nationalistic nonsense (see edit summary by Krawndawg!) in WP articles. Someone deleted this after Krawndawg, but Miyokan is back Biophys (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You know all about working as a "team" don't you...I'm willing to bet at least half of your registered edits are revert wars in which you follow, or are followed by the same couple users, to spread your propaganda across all Russian related articles and make sure it stays there. Yet when two users agree on keeping some indisputable facts that couldn't be considered anti-Russian, all of the sudden we're a "team". You probably think we work for the FSB and were involved in the poisoning of Litvinenko, right? I know Putin personally by the way, he's a pretty cool guy. We went fishing once. Krawndawg (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can cry "Nationalistic "nonsense"", "chauvanistic "claims"" however long you want, but the fact is Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with you, you have been proven wrong. What is nonsense is your frivilous claim that we "work as a team around the clock", which users can see is nonsense for themselves by checking our contributions. One could make the same claim about you and your extensive and admitted collaboration with User:Pietervhuis (I can provide countless examples). Or following and collaborating with User:Colchicum to back him up on every page he has talked about me [71] [72]. But then again it's beneficial for you to protect your "friends", isn't it?--Miyokan (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such statement the millions of citizens died because of Stalin's "genocide", it says they died because of his harsh policies, not genocide. Such a statement is useful as it is quite fascinating, that a Georgian controlled the Soviet Union, considering, as it is written in the paragraph above, Russia dominated the Soviet Union for its entire 74-year history. Your "nationalistic "nonsense"" and "chauvanistic "claims"" statement that was proved wrong was referring to the statement that Stalin was of Georgian origin, not your theory that you added retrospectively above, which anyone can see for themselves if they look at the diffs. Anyway, this argument is, while entertaining, moot, as I've already said this information "can go" as I don't particuarly care if it stays or not.--Miyokan (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there are more of them. I give up. Please note that Miyokan deleted my reply here. Biophys (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More of what, editors who don't agree with your bigoted point of view? Yeah, wikipedia tends to be like that. Giving up is highly recommended if you aren't able to get along with people who don't share your point of view on every issue. Krawndawg (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More editors disagree with this "bigoted point of view"?. Poor wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin, Russian chauvinism, WP:UNDUE, edit-warring

I think you might be interested in this issue which has been subject to edit-warring for quite some time. The point that Stalin was Geogian in some sense (which is a controversial issue by itself, as he identified himself as Russian, independent Georgia didn't exist when he was born etc.) is repeatedly given undue weight by Russian chauvinists all over Wikipedia (including the article on Russia itself). I think this statement is factually inaccurate (as "Georgia (country)" didn't exist as independent country in the late 19th century) and serves to promote a painfully familiar chauvinist POV (that foreigners are to blame for everything bad in Mother Russia). Colchicum (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is simply not possible to edit this article. A user complained at NPOV noticeboard and rightly so. Any references to scholarly books are flatly refuted. Any references to other sources and common sense are refuted. The history of this article is a constant edit warring by several users (currently only two of them are actively engaged).Biophys (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess Krawndawg (talk · contribs) and that particular content issue should just be on your list alongside Ben Velvel, Miyokan and the likes when you start your case against Russian chauvinists on Wikipedia. Colchicum (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Really-really "Russian chauvinist" gang is at Encyclopedia Britannica [73]. Please. These two WP:POINTy users have already been proven wrong. First Colchicum (and Biophys, claiming it's "nationalist "nonsense"" and "Russian chauvanist "claims") claims that Stalin wasn't Georgian, then after he is shown the Encyclopedia Britannica source he changes his position to "WP:UNDUE". And it is certainly notable that the most notorious leader of Soviet Russia was not Russian.--Miyokan (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I thought Stalin was head of the Soviet Union. Never mind, who could argue with this?:

The Bolsheviks introduced free universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new laws aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities.[59] Notably, Russia became the first country in the world with full freedom of divorce and legalized abortion. After Lenin's death in 1924, Joseph Stalin, of Georgian—not Russian—origin,[60] consolidated power and became dictator.

That's right, under the true-blooded Lenin, Soviet Russia had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles....until the nasty old Georgian dictator came along. And all the bits about rights must be true because they're referenced to Tony Cliff, leader of Britain's Socialist Workers' Party, the most impeccable and unbiased source you could ever wish to find. --Folantin (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

So what? And Lenin (and almost everybody in his gang, unlike almost completely ethnically Russian Politburo under Stalin) was of Jewish origin. Hitler and many others considered that fact particularly notable, but we don't mention it in this article. Britannica contains many pieces of crap. Unattributed anonymous claims from tertiary sources don't belong here, this is more or less what is written in our policies, especially if other points of view exist in scholarship (and they do). To be frank here, unlike you, the guys at Encyclopaedia Britannica haven't even considered that claim about Stalin's purported ethnicity notable enough for the article "Russia". You may continue discrediting the article Russia and the rest of Wikipedia and provoke russophoby almost as long as you wish, the paragraph Folantin has cited reads really ridiculous, but I don't understand what you are striving for. An uninformed reader comes there and see: "ok, well, the Russkies who have written this think they have always been innocent, they blame foreigners for everything and cannot even come in terms with faults of their ancestors, let alone their owns. Damned morons. I'd better go somewhere else". That's what you get. Well, you don't care, but apparently you have some aspirations for it to become featured at some point. Well, as long as the article is even remotely similar in content, style and referencing to what it is now this will never happen (and I mean even if I, Biophys, Folantin and others here retire). Colchicum (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that you have finished "venting" - your WP:OR opinion of how users will interpret this article and your ramblings that it will never pass FAC does not interest me. Plenty of people supported it at the last FAC and those that opposed it did not do so because of any Soviet Russia section bias, despite Folantin complaining of some huge POV conspiracy and saying it needed a complete rewrite, as he is doing now. Back then it also had the "Stalin, a Georgian" fact. So you are back to denying that he was a Georgian, after changing your position from "shauvinistic nonsense, he wasn't born in Georgia (country)" to "WP:UNDUE What would this have to do with Russia" when the Britannica source was shown to you? This is a well-known fact and Britannica is certainly satisfiable per WP:SOURCE and more credible than your opinions, but do tell me if you are still unwilling to admit that you were wrong so I can provide you with more sources. Oh, and the Britannica article on "Russia" does say that Stalin was a Georgian. Oops.

However, I do tend to agree that the phrasing "Joseph Stalin, of Georgian—not Russian—origin" sounds inappropriate and can go, or at the least be reworded to something like "After Lenin's death in 1924, Georgian Joseph Stalin", I put it like that because that is the way Britannica writes it.--Miyokan (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

...and Catherine the Great was a German and so what? BTW, as I've already hinted, Stalin was head of the Soviet Union not Soviet Russia (check out where the link takes you). According to this site [74], the heads of Soviet Russia during the Stalin era were Kalinin, Zhdanov, Badaev, Shvernik, Vlasov and Tarasov. --Folantin (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what about "Ethnically German Catherine II (Catherine the Great), who ruled from 1762 to 1796, continued the efforts to establish Russia as one of the Great Powers of Europe" or "The second revolution, the October Revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin of Jewish origin, overthrew the Provisional Government and created the world’s first Communist state."? I wasn't wrong and I haven't changed my position. Stalin could not be born in "Georgia (country)", as there was no such thing in the late 19th century. Moreover, ethnicity is a complicated matter and is at least partially dependent on self-identification, as is well-known to ethnologists. Stalin emphatically considered himself Russian when he led the Soviet Union (see, e.g., publications by Robert C. Tucker) Now, turning to our policies: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Tertiary sources — compendiums, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources — may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Colchicum (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Colchicum, you are wrong. Neither secondary, nor tertiary sources are required. An article can be renamed because "The current article title is lousy" for example through a simple straw poll.[75]

On the matter of Stalin, what you need to know is, what did it say in the "5 entry" of Stalin's passport? :-) I don't even know where it is kept, if it has survived, or even if he needed one. If it exists, that would be the primary source for any assertions as to Stalin's legal ethnicity. :-)

This was inherited from the Russian Empire, where the identity anketa or statement carried not only place of birth and name, but also ethnicity and religion. The Soviet Unon of course got rid of religion, but kept the ethnicity. In the Russian Empire this was used predominantly for identifying recruits as the Muslim recruits served in all-Muslim units, and non-Eastern Orthodox citizens of the Empire served in (usually) Lutheran units of the Baltic regiments. If Stalin changed his passport from Georgian to Russian, he was legally Russian. However, where is his anketa from the Russian Empire, and what does it say there? We know his name at birth, so in all likelihood it did say Georgian. Its a bit like the case with African countries where some have the individual's tribe affiliation in the identity papers (allowing inter-tribal massacres), but when they migrate to say USA, they become African Americans, which raises the question, is Barak Obama a Luo (his father's Kenyan tribe) or an American?

The practice of changing ethnicity (through bribes) was widespread in USSR, particularly after the Civil War for descendants of non-Slavic immigrants, and particularly people with German names who changed them to more Russian sounding names at the same time as changing ethnicity (a larger bribe) so they did not become "families of imperialist bourjua" . The entire issue is academic since "Russia" hadn't existed for hundreds of years prior, and still doesn't, the current Federation including a lot of non-Russians still. Stalin of course was surrounded by Russians (after getting rid of the Jews), so arguments of his sole responsibility for any woes are unfounded.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin - yes, he was the leader of the Soviet Union, very clever, but we are referring to the so-titled "Soviet Russia" section in the Russia article, and during that time period Stalin was indeed to leader of Soviet Russia, just as he was the leader of Soviet Ukraine, Soviet Belarus, Soviet Kazakhstan, etc. And you forget the article is titled Russia, not Soviet Union, that is why such distinctions are appropriate.

Ah Colchicum, the old "he is not Georgian because there was no Georgia country at the time" argument. There was also no Ukraine country when he was born or alive yet Taras Shevchenko is considered the foremost Ukrainian poet[76]. There goes that theory. Stalin was indeed both born in Georgia and was ethnically Georgian, and ethnicity or "race" is not something that depends on whether you like it or not, you are confusing that with nationality. Here are some more academic sources that confirm Stalin was Georgian, as Britannica does, [77] [78] [79] (many more where that came from). Really, you should stop trying to deny this elementary fact, you are making yourself look quite silly.--Miyokan (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's "ethnicity" is completely irrelevant in the context of article Russia, as obvious from the diff. This might be only relevant if someone is trying to "prove" that it were "Georgians" and other minorities who accomplished genocide of Russians. But such nationalistic nonsense do not belong to wikipedia.Biophys (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Also note that Stlin's ethnic origin was disputed. Some claim his real farther was Ossetian ("i shirokaya grud' osetina" said poet Osip Mandelshtam - and has been executed); others claim that his family name (Dzhug-A-shilli) indicates Georgian Jewish roots. But that is all irrelevant either.Biophys (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"And you forget the article is titled Russia, not Soviet Union, that is why such distinctions are appropriate". Nope, you're the one doing the forgetting. An article on Russia should focus on Russia (including the RSFSR and any variants thereof), an article on the Soviet Union should focus on the USSR. Which is why we have two separate pages. All this is time-wasting in any case. As Biophys says, the main point is that Stalin's ethnicity is irrelevant to this article. --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

An article on Russia should focus on Russia (including the RSFSR and any variants thereof), an article on the Soviet Union should focus on the USSR. - Forgetting that Russia was the Soviet republic which dominated the Soviet Union? That is why the "Russia" Britannica article recounts a history of the Soviet Union, unlike the other post-Soviet republic articles there.

With regards to Biophys opinion on what such a statement is only useful for - There is no such statement the millions of citizens died because of Stalin's "genocide", it says they died because of his harsh policies, not genocide. Such a statement is useful as it is quite fascinating, that a Georgian controlled the Soviet Union, considering, as it is written in the paragraph above, Russia dominated the Soviet Union for its entire 74-year history. Your "nationalistic "nonsense"" and "chauvanistic "claims"" statement that was proved wrong was referring to the statement that Stalin was of Georgian origin, not your theory that you added retrospectively above, which anyone can see for themselves if they look at the diffs. Anyway, this argument is, while entertaining, moot, as I've already said this information "can go" as I don't particuarly care if it stays or not.--Miyokan (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You are completely wrong here, nationality is not the same thing as национальность, and ethnicity is not race and depends on many things, including self-identification. Well, you could read the wikipedia article at the very least. Shevchenko considered himself Ukrainian, Stalin didn't consider himself Georgian. That's a fact. As to your "academic sources", they are not academic. Once again you prove to be unable to tell between academic writing and popular journalistic bullshit. J. Bernard Hutton (a.k.a. Joseph Heisler, former Czech communist) was not a scholar, he was merely a journalist, popular storyteller who wasn't even specialized in Stalin, the author of Frogman Extraordinary and Hess: the Man and His Mission, Neville Spearman is not an academic publisher, and the book title (Miraculous Georgian) is merely the way Lenin once (early in their career) jokingly called Stalin (I presume you haven't actually read the book and are judging from the title). Miyokan, you should know that Google indexes every book they can get, regardless of their reliability. In fact, some non-existing titles are also indexed. I still have to wonder where exactly "Dictators and Disciples from Caesar to Stalin" (1948), which is outdated and falls short of modern standards of scholarship as well, claims that Stalin was of Georgian ethnicity. And I can only guess what "The security of the Caspian Sea Region" has to do with Stalin. Never ever refer to books you have not read. You have already discredited yourself to such an extent that the discussion became meaningless. The definitive academic biographies of Stalin by Robert Tucker don't support your claim. Colchicum (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's right, but my point at NPOV noticeboard was completely different. If even such trivial and non-controversial edit causes edit warring and prolonged discussions (see above), how can we discuss more important and complicated matters? We can not. I personally have no problems negotiating anything with a vast majority of wikipedians, but I failed to find common language with Miyokan and Krawndawng. Perhaps that is my personal problem, but it seems that a lot of other people also can not find any common language with them, just looking at the recent history of article Russia. Biophys (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why some are so opposed to highlighting this fact that Stalin was Georgian. Arguments about whether it really belongs in this specific article are irrelevant. It's such a small detail, yet you take such great offense to it and blow it up into a huge issue. Why are you guys so opposed to pointing out the fact that Stalin was ethnically Georgian? You can't argue that he wasn't, every encyclopedia and history book in the world will tell you he was. It's just a matter of information suppression, censorship, the way I see it. So I want to know why. What are you trying to do? what kind of point of view are you trying to present to the readers, by removing this small but important fact from the article? Krawndawg (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As explained above, the point is not about the ethnicity of Stalin, but about the impossibility to edit article Russia due to team work of certain users.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, when the insertion of such tiny, inarguable facts cause such a stir up with semantics as the excuse for deletion, how can you put blame on those who want the fact to be known? Wikipedia is about knowledge, not suppression of knowledge. Krawndawg (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. Because we want to get rid of the Soviet/Russian chauvinist gang, which owns a number of Wikipedia articles, including Russia, and systematically violates a number of fundamental policies and guidelines, including WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, in the most disruptive way. Nothing personal, and other chauvinist gangs are no exception. But the issue will certainly be dealt with as soon after August 8 as weather permits. And no, being a small detail, the issue of Stalin's ethnic identification (1) is nevertheless a matter of controversy and (2) doesn't belong to the article Russia. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You've completely failed to make any valid argument whatsoever, and resort to a slew of personal attacks instead while making..threats? Give it a rest. Either argue our points or write it in your private diary. Accusing users of violating wiki policies when they're not is a violation of wiki policiy in of itself, and I've got a good mind to report you for it if you continue these attacks. Krawndawg (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No, unlike you and Miyokan I have read the books I am referring to at least. My good faith extends only as far as your good sources, and you have none. And I will continue such "attacks", I promise. Report me as much as you wish. For two years I haven't violated any policy or guideline, and you are obviously not in a position to educate me and to assess validity of my arguments. I just call a spade a spade. An edit warrior and POV-pusher is an edit warrior and POV-pusher. It is you who haven't provided any decent sources and haven't produced any valid points, have edit-warred and attacked me with ridiculuos accusations of sockpuppetry. Miyokan is at least able to communicate and reform himself to some extent, while you are plainly boring. Try to count how many of your edits are reverts. Now try to realize that this will not last long. Good luck, you will need it now, but I am not going to continue chating with you. This discussion is not very interesting. Oh yeah, report me, not a big deal. I can't wait. Colchicum (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what's wrong with my sources? The only contributions I've made in the past few days were sourced to BBC and Britannica. I've never once in my entire time on wikipedia added original research or unsourced claims. See, it really doesn't help your case when you make things up. You can now be written off as just another crybaby who hates not getting his way and will revert to personal attacks, false accusations and unjust citing of policies to get his way (that never works by the way because people do actually check to see if those accusations are true). And still, we have no explanation as to why any facts should be removed from the Russia article, just more sidetracking and pot-shots, wholly unproductive. Krawndawg (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Krawndawg, you, and couple other nationalistic oriented users are being in constant edit warring about different subjects. ( Most of your contributions is about edit warring in different articles ) The demagogic tricks you and Miyokan are using in disputes and comments, makes me think that any discussion with you is useless. Because there are couple of you, guys, you are thinking that you could achieve your goals by just active edit warring. Unfortunately this strategy seem to work good for you for quite long time. That + lots of complains and just pure lie about your opponents in different noticeboards, gives me impression that disruption you are bringing to wikipedia is far above the benefits. 89.110.23.40 (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• How's this for a solution?

In the Russian Empire where Stalin was born, he was Georgian by birth

In the USSR where ethnicity in the passport could be amended even by ordinary citizens, he officially identified himself as a Russian because he lived in the RSFSR. This was in effect an administrative technicality specific to that form of government.

When the government changed in Russia long after his death, and with the dissolution of the former authority under which he classified himself as Russian, only his birth certificate can be relied on, which says he was Georgian.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

User 78.183.224.168

This anon has been adding the word "terrorist" into both of these articles[80][81]. I would appreciate whatever you can do to resolve this matter. Thanks. Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

MacedonianBoy

Hi Moreschi, I know you've banned this editor for 4 months on all Macedonia related articles, yet yesterday he performed a very controversial page move from Skopje Airport to Airport Alexander the Great (Republic of Macedonia). The reason I'm posting to your page is that I don't want to enter into a revert/move war. The previous title was a consensus between editors in order not to favour neither Skopje or Kavala airports, both named "Alexander the Great", as you can see in the disambig page Alexander the Great Airport.--   Avg    13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Vio, yes, but also stale, lamentably. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Offensive emails

Could you look here and here. Also consider the diffs I posted [82]. I believe that such attitude, particularly the offensive emailing, should qualify that user for Digwuren's warning list. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Laz vandal

Hi Moreschi

Do the edits here look like the Laz vandal you've been blocking? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. Looks like it's been dealt with, though. This guy's worse than Ararat arev, he's even more juvenile. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, examine the behavior of these users

I do not know if you have examined the behavior of these users but since you blocked me I would like to bring to your attention what triggeered the edit war and demand justice.

Larno Man

This user simply reverted all of the contributions I had made in two days on July 21st. For example,

1. This user reverted the following commenting "Your numbers are not verified". WP rules do not allow for this sort of arbitrary reverts. Disputes need to be discussed. If he disagrees with a contribution he should have asked for a citation.
2. Eventhough I provided two references he reverted my following contribution under various excuses [83]
3. Reverted this contribution commenting Provide a reference. He should have asked for a citation instead.
4. Again, he reverted this with a comment: "why you guys edit WP without any supportive sources?". When I restored it he reverted it with a comment "You should provide a source first. You cannot descredit articles by adding unsourced information. See WP:Ver". To my understanding there is no rule to provide a source for every contribution by default but I provided it anyway. Still he reverted it without discussion.

Laveol

Since you seem to be interested in ethnic disputes I will address it directly along the same lines. This Bulgarian user has been reverting my edits for quite long time in a nimber of articles. Just today he did the same. He removed my citation requests in two articles under lame excuses. Please, examine this or another edit war is going to start for just keeping a citation request that apparently this user can not provide.

1. This one is of a dynasty that ruled Bulgaria. Sources state that this was a dynasty of Cuman origin. This user, in an apparent desire to establish a connection to Slavic Bulgarians, added the word "partly" to the sentence. I asked for a citation that included a page number. He removed my citation request commenting "already in the ref". That is not true.
2. This user did the same thing here removing three citation requests at once. His excuse is"already in the refs - you mentioned it yourself". That is false.
3. And his last reverd so far is the following "Reverted 1 edit by Nostradamus1; Lol, so much for trying some NPOV". This article has been around for a while. The "edit" he is referring to is a revert to the original version that was edited by an IP address without much explanation. Every sentence was sourced. Laveol is doing this just to frustrate me. I doubt there is much disputed content in the revert. This user just can not discuss any topic with me directly but chooses these sneaky revert tactics.

I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at this. I am loosing my faith in WP. These users are abusing the system of rules. I can not edit war with several users coordinating their efford while they even refuse to actively discuss the disputed parts. I tried twice to mediate with Laveol. All that he does is to include the abbreviations POV or NPOV in his sentences as if he is immune to it. Please, do something about this. They at least deserve some warnings.

Regards.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You had quoted the references that you input in the article and they said "partial". You said it yourself and now you say it's not true? As for NPOV this was already discussed by a number of users (including admins) - how's "(whose cruel pathological character was internationally infamous while he lived and would serve four centuries later as the model for the central character in the vampire novel that made his name immortal)" anywhere near NPOV? And where are the sources for it? There don't seem to be any.--Laveol ^T 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked this admin to take a look at your behavior. You could have asked for a citation about the Dracula part and as you very well know I'd provide it to you. You chose to revert it to an arbitrarily edited version. The article was in a pretty good condition. Don't you think readers should be informed that this voivod Draculesti is the historical figure on whom the Dracula character was based upon? Why remove it? I just do not understant this. Moreschi , please, see this. In the meantime I will restore that part with a page numbered reference. Laveol, I ask again, is there a page number stating that the Asenids, Terterids, and Shishmanids were of "partial" Cuman origin? The burden of providing this is on you. My referenced sentence did not say that.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll take a look. Guys, coming here probably wasn't the best idea, seeing as I did have a big "wikibreak" notice at the top of the page. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Since you were initially involved in the most recent issue with Warren Kinsella, I thought I'd ask you to chime in your opinion. As you know, Warren Kinsella himself appears to have objected to the article, but today, he seems to have written an explanation of his objections on my talk page. I’d like to simply remove all material that has been objected to, as I strongly suspect the article over-represents criticism of Kinsella, but I’m not the best person to ask so I think a few other non-involved opinions are needed. I've protected the page due to an edit war that was occurring over this issue. If you'd like to look into this, hopefully a formal approach won't be needed. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While you're in the region....

Can you please look at this? That's about the fifth time he's called me a nationalist and a racist. And since you seem like a literate guy, please tell me what's wrong with my userpage. I'm really getting sick of trolls. BalkanFever 13:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything much wrong with the statement that it's a wee bit tricky to write Latin in Ancient Greek...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While you're in the region, can you finally put BalkanFever in civility parole? This is too long overdue.--   Avg    16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, he gets a bit heated, but is mostly harmless. Unlike others I could mention, I've never seen him POV-warring like crazy...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, WP:CIV is irrelevant to POV warring, but anyway. Perhaps a refresher: incivility, as defined on Wikipedia, consists of personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and persistent rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. This is like having BalkanFever's picture beside it. I'm not asking anything weird, just someone to prohibit him from using "bullshit", "crap" etc in a daily basis to characterise any comments he doesn't like.--   Avg    17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1. No, it isn't irrelevant. And 2. Occasionally overheated rhetoric without malicious intent is just about acceptable. User conduct is judged relative to encyclopedicity of contributions...and BalkanFever does a better job of WP:ENC than most others. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I got the point. You do not want to do this. Let's see what happens if this goes to WP:WQA and then to WP:RFCC?--   Avg    17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You will get your bottom kicked with the spade so hard we'll be able to fry eggs and bacon on it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to comment here: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:BalkanFever--   Avg    18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a discussion involving you, ChrisO and FP (among others?) in regards to who can give ARBMAC warnings... If you look at Leladax (talk · contribs) he hasn't been constructive in the slightest. I would give him a warning myself, but I don't know if it is up to me, and it would probably be spun as a personal attack anyway. BalkanFever 02:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic user

Not sure if it is a blockable offence right now (though per Digwuren's ArbCom it certainly would be), but please keep an eye on this guy: [84] Colchicum (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If he weren't a newbie, I would block him for that. As it is, I've removed the off-topic chatter from the talk and will keep watching. Please keep me informed as well. Unless of course, he's M.V.E.i....Moreschi (talk) (debate)

Which he is. Another one bites the dust...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if BWC56 (talk · contribs) from the same page is another sock of M.V.E.i. I am not sure. However, regardless of this, he does look problematic as well. His userpage reads: "As long as the Russian soldier has matches, bullets and moonshine, suck a dick, NATO soldiers, and may the Pentagon tremble with fear", and his contributions to talk pages are by no means less entertaining. By the way, the page is a real magnet for Russian chauvinists, one could compile a list. 21:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Although BWC probably stands here for this, and I haven't seen M.V.E.i being interested in boxing, BWC56's recent attention to Digwuren's and Petri Krohn's personal space is puzzling. Watch him closely, please. Colchicum (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

(butting in ...) I just blocked him for this. Sorry, I have little patience for these kinds of users. In addition to the obviously blockable pagemove vandalism, he's clearly here to fight battles, not to build an encyclopedia. Antandrus (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. had an interest in sport as well as being a jingoistic jackass who could never master English orthography, so it might well have been him. --Folantin (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my opinion too. Sports and Russian chauvinism and bad typing. I'd say four out of five it's M.V.E.i, looking through the histories, and looking at the orthographical peculiarities. He wants to be unblocked. I don't see much value in that, but if some other admin wants to do so, ... so it goes. Antandrus (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

He's caused so much disruption in his various incarnations he's on the list of users who will never be unbanned. --Folantin (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately there are good chances that he is not the only such person in the world. Russian websites are full of such personalities, and predictably enough in the coming days Wikipedia will see an influx of them. Are Victor V V (talk · contribs) or LokiiT (talk · contribs) so much better? I don't think so. Colchicum (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at his contribs--per this, he's obviously somebody's sockpuppet. Unblock declined. Blueboy96 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just reduced his block to 24 per my absurd ability to assume good faith. Dunno, maybe I shouldn't have. But you are right, there's going to be lots of similar accounts popping up in the coming days, and they can't all be M.V.E.i. Have a hunch this one is, though. Antandrus (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wise to warn him (and a couple (dozens) of other users engaged in 2008 South Ossetia War) officially per Template:Digwuren enforcement right now? Colchicum (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he needs such a warning. He's obviously aware of the case already, since he's been trolling its archives. He should be banned outright as a sock. The others should probably get their "Digwuren warning" if they're up to no good. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Another sock, obviously: AK-47, when peace is needed, it works (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, when peace is needed, it works even better. Antandrus (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is M.V.E.i., now I'm absolutely positive: [85]. Colchicum (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha, yeah. I've just seen this edit by BWC56 [86]. Check the summary: "Carl bild is frustrated they lost in Poltave and the Euro". It has a virtually complete set of M.V.E.i. trademarks: ethnic taunting (Carl Bildt is Swedish, the Swedes lost to Russia at the Battle of Poltava in the 18th century, plus didn't do too well in the Euro 2008 football championships); Russian jingoism (Poltava ditto); sporting obsession (Euro 2008 ref); and bad spelling ("in Poltave" I presume represents something like в Полтаве). The only thing I can see missing there is some whining about how the National Bolsheviks have been misunderstood. --Folantin (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It is too early to draw conclusions, but UBaHoB (talk · contribs) may be another reincarnation of M.V.E.i. If he is not, somebody else is. He obviously can't live without sockpuppetry. Colchicum (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This IP [87] and this IP[88] and this [89] and this [90] and this [91] are all MVEi. See the history here. These are all him, I am sure of it. Ostap 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments appreciated

Regarding this. Seems to me like a vindicative block shopping past a minor, already resolved issue - but perhaps I am incorrect.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Commented. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User:It's me, i brought the stuff

Whose sock is this? Blueboy96 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs). I blocked another one of his socks earlier today. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's me, i brought the stuff (talk · contribs)

is requesting unblocking or at least a reason for blocking. I think an identification of the sockpuppeteer would be in order. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. (talk · contribs).

Could you check this out...

...if you have the time: Adam Mickiewicz. User:Galassi trying to push the view that Mickiewicz's mother was of Jewish descent when it's no more than a hypothesis which some major scholars (such as Wiktor Weintraub) reject. I tried to restore a neutral version ("some people say this...some people say that...") but he keeps reverting it as "vandalism". Also, there's some obvious original research involved. Not very communicative either (no response to my statement on the talk page). (I've also alerted User:Antandrus). --Folantin (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking now. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oghuz Turks -- Talk page

Could you check on this page[92]? The level of racist remarks is quite disturbing. Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the same thing. I have already left the following warning here. This user is operating under the presumption that some of us ought to include a reference for each contribution. Short of that he removes content without requesting a citation. This is the same user for whom I had previously requested a review above.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The level of the racist remarks of these two users are disruptive. These two users judge editors like me based on their ethnicity and not their edits [93] [94], [95][[96] You may know that User:Nostradamus have been blocked two times recently for his disruptive behaviour, violation of 3rr and edit warring

--Larno Man (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2008_South_Ossetia_War

The paragraph you deleted was supported by pro-israel reference. So it was not any pro-russian stuff. There were actually two sources. If you don't like the truth, close your eyes, but don't prevent others see it. toxygen (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH, please read. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ossetia war lead cut

see article's talk page on intro being too long quoting from there :

I can fairly say that I have no opinion about the conflict, and I have the impression that the current introduction is too detailed about Russia's motives. This can be solved easily by moving the detailed part to the article text. But for some reason, my edit was reverted with the argument that "Russia's actions deserve intro". [1] I agree that Russia's actions deserve an intro, but none of Russia's arguments were removed... Cityvalyu, can you explain your reversal? Sijo Ripa (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC) although no reason could be found in sijo ripa's first edit to shift the added sections(3 sentences), i assumed it was due to the "length factor"..so, i considered that and reduced by one sentence the added sections(2 sentences)... my edit summary should suffice for explaining my edits (and to avoid serving saakashvill's motive).. in a non neutral manner..nevertheless, a few arguments to consider are below..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) argument1: the whole article and each and every section of it is too long (more than 80 kb- deserves split!?!)..efforts to form collapsible lists (see effort on "aug 9"section) were reverted too..i find the size of intro dwarfs in comparison to the individual sections..so it is relatively small anyway..Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument2: if saakashville's stand on the conflict deserves mention, then why accuse mentioning the russian stand? ... georgia could have had a single lined complaint about russian aggression in the breakaway republic of ossetia because it wanted to hide its own role in the preceding attack on 'its own people' (assuming ossetians are georgia nationalists)....just because the russians used more words (more clarity) to describe their response, it is not reason to delete them. if deleted, it serves the motive of saakashville who wants to hide georgia's preceding 'provoking unilateral acts in ossetia' from international attention and who may be wants to portray the event as "unprovoked", "unjustified", "unilateral aggression", "without locus standi" ..from the russian side..Everyone knows that's not the truth since GOERGIA PROVOKED..and russia was forced to respond(see argument3) ! Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

argument3: although i didnt add the following, i infact want to add in future the role of

1 refugee crisis (half the population!)--see indo pak war 1971 to get similarities

2 russia's duty to protect its citizens in the breakaway republic of ossetia (passport holders)

3 mandate to maintain peace in the breakaway province as a major regional power and since ossetia has never been integral part of georgia from 1990 s.

in the crisis as part of the intro to help wiki readers understand "why" this armed conflict occured in ossetia "now".Cityvalyu (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

..so, please add ur view before changing intro..Cityvalyu (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please enforce WP:TALK on Talk:2008 South Ossetia war? I have tried, but have got this ridiculous warning and this flamewar. Colchicum (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As for the article itself, I can see a lot of WP:NPOV problems due to influx of "Russian-minded" SPAs who did not really edit anything before, like User:LokiiT or User:Anthony Ivanoff and due to activity of others you know about. A couple of users, who tried to resist the bias, ended up edit-warring and got blocked.Biophys (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony's contributions go back to November 2004 much longer than mine or Biophys's. I am not sure he deserves to be called SPA Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am trying, guys! I can't be online 24/7 cleaning out the talk page. I know the articles does have a Russian slant to it, but it's not so awful that we won't be able to sort it out with time. The lede has improved overnight, which is good. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to fix a few obvious things with the lead (admittedly, the opening sentences are mostly written by me), so I put the {{in use}} and was amazed that everyone ignored it. In the end, it took me 15-minutes to make 2-minutes worth of changes. El_C 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And you may as well take over this report; since I'm editing the article now, I should avoid appearences of impropriety (though the articles need more admins overseeing it; it also needs editors —I've only been focusing on the lead and already encountered several glaring errors). El_C 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to the above-referenced report here. Thanks --Elliskev 13:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

SRA in the netherlands

Hi,

I just over-wrote your redirect to SRA; I'm hoping this is temporary, right now I'm trying to sort out the info that's there and work in some citation templates. I'll try to finish it up in the next day, if I don't, feel free to re-redirect, but please drop the old copy in User:WLU/Drafts. The Netherlands case is one of the ones held up by supporters of SRA as a "proof" that it exists, and I don't know if it would be notable enough for a separate article but I also don't think the SRA page will be able to deal with the Dutch cases adequately without placing undue weight on them. I'd like a bit of time to work with it in any case, but I'm also easily distracted. If you do change, I'll let you know, and if I end up dragging my feet, please feel very free to over-write my revisions and replace the redirect. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's your ball game. Take how ever much time you want, there's no timetable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, are you interested in a note about the results? WLU (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Note redirect, note merge of content, note post from Criminologist1963, note revert, note another revert (after both our actions on the page), note my comment to C1963, note 2 sections where this was discussed, note a third from the archive and one last note from the SRA archive. Only the first is really of direct relevance, but C1963 is not bothering to read what I'm posting. This irritates me, but I'd be pleased with a proof-read of the new section. WLU (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A note from so called Sherlock

This is about Battle_of_Tskhinvali article. Moreschi, please! I'm a serious editor with education over 30. I respect normal people. I'm not a pirate or something (though I can get mad at times).

Please take a look at that "Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog" discussion page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Captain_Obvious_and_his_crime-fighting_dog. It's full of warnings that the guy is deleting pages! As in, "Warning! Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Okinawa, you will be blocked from editing... " and the like! Now check out who's to blame... Check out who's causing trouble! He deletedd the whole page and he refuses to explain the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.200.186.150 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please protect article 2008 South Ossetia war also from editing by newly registered users with less than 500 edits? There are a lot of them, and quickly transform article into something terrible.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not technically possible, unfortunately. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I am responding to your comment on the admin 3rr board about User:Elliskev, it says the result is warned and that you agree that he should be warned, so could you please post the warning on his talk page Jim Furtado (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the post AN3 was his warning. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I do expect a response to this

This can not continue like that. Please, advice. [97].

Well, the quality of articles are important to me. This user keeps violating WP:VERIFY and ignore my requests for providing RS for his/her entries. Please, advice.--Larno Man (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog

I'm extremely disappointed you refactored the block without asmuch as a peep at my talk page. Did you notice his prior blocks for edit warring? Or his personal attacks? Or his prior ANI report? I guess not. I'm not going to wheel war over this, but I will be monitoring the page and sorting the shit out over there. seicer | talk | contribs 11:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there was an ANI posting made while I was asleep. I don't agree on the duration of the rafactored block (24 hours is not the standard duration for repeat 3RR violations + etc.), although it would have been nice to notify me of the thread or at least the refactoring first. Keep that in mind for the future. seicer | talk | contribs 11:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have zero time for normal procedure. I'm trying to stop Russian nationalists taking over the entire ball game. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Top Gun

Noticed you ramped up this user's block to indef for lying about sources. What sources did he lie about? He's got an unblock request on his talk page--I'm trying to find out the story here. Blueboy96 19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

He put "180 Georgian dead" into an infobox, no less, with a citation. The article he cited said nothing about 180 dead at all. When it was pointed out to him he just kept on reverting. I cannot put this bluntly enough: we should not permit abuse of sources in this way. He lied. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that was exactly the case. For example, in this version he claims this number in the infobox with references [3] and [4]. But this number is nowhere to be found in these references. He repeatedly reinserted this number again and again, regardless to objections. Furthermore, he was caught with a copyright violation here. He did not care that he has been previously blocked for copyright violations.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... and in the face of the fact that he's on (apparently) indefinite parole for previous copyvios. Unblock declined--has Sandstein been informed as well? Blueboy96 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• No. Nobody ever gets informed of my blocks. Sometimes not even the poor blocked sods themselves. Really, the fewer people know the better. Less chance of wheel wars that way :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Theearthshaker (talk · contribs) is also lying about sources (and this is the only thing he has been doing). Colchicum (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see this link.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

72 h for him. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page

Just to make sure not only 'Balkan fever' gets your attention. --Leladax (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Action of 10 August 2008

You redirected this article without any discussion on the talk page(at least that one). Please disscus, you should know this. Red4tribe (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you, Red4tribe. I think that page should remain in place, we have enough official sources (even if one-sided), so verifiability criteria is largely met. I see no reasons for the merging.--Darius (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I turn to you about few cases

The question: If I was blocked, does that mean I forever lost my chances to become an Administrator, or the right behaviour could cover for it?

The vandal: The IP 24.79.215.70. [98], [99]. He should clearly be blocked. Thats intentional vandalism, he enters false numbers. He have done the same on the Ukrainians, Russians in Ukraine, Ukrainian Census (2001), Croats, articles. I found all that thru his contribution page. It's some kind of ill person that loves inserting false numbers. In some articles I reverted him, in other articles he was reverted by others. He should be blocked! look at his contributions page. It's all about making false numbers. And look at the dates of his edits. Is it possible a user will be free to vandalise so long? Please fix that.

Another case: User:Top Gun. You blocked him, but he's a realy good user. Shure he has "a few" problems, but he contributes, and alot. Indefinite block for such a user, well, let's just remember that Wikipedia first of all is created to bring knowledge to people, with all respect if not such users who create so much articles administrators and their blockings would be jobless. Could you at least reduce his block for like, two years? Thats alot! Me you blocked for 48 hours that felt like forever. Or another idea! Unblock him right now, but ask for like 5-6 administrators from different time zones to simply spy on his edits. Whenever there is a problem, they revert him and block for a few hours. He even theoreticaly couldn't take part in edit war's that way, but that wont prevent him from continuing creating articles.

And the last: Could you drop me as much names of Russian users as possible? I found That thing thru the contributions of another anonymous user, and there are many articles about Russia needing creation, and I would like to spreat that among them. I already did one today.

Good day! Kostan1 (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I droped so much questions on you but since your an administrator, and I dont know here any administrators or how to recognise them and you I know for shure, that's why I ask you all that. Kostan1 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude. I am not an admin, but I have been around for quite some time and know something. There is no such thing as your chances, everything depends on you. And in principle it is possible. What matters is not your block log but your behavior. However, people who strive for adminship from the very beginning rarely become promoted, and for a good reason. Do you really need it? I have been here for two years, yet I don't. Adminship is not an award or indulgence, it just gives access to several fairly technical buttons, puts you under much more considerable scrutiny and is very time-consuming. Anyway, if you are here to try to change public opinion (about Russia or whatever) rather than to build the encyclopedia, and as of now this seems to be fair assessment of the facts, you'll probably never be trusted and never get it. As to the Russian editors, I am one of them (though probably of the kind you won't like), and there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia if you need more. You'd probably better turn to User:Ezhiki or User:Alex Bakharev, they are both admins. As to Top Gun, nobody is entitled to break the rules, and he had a chance to reform himself. We are here to buld the encyclopedia rather than to be humane. A user is as good as his edits' compliance with this purpose. Colchicum (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! I know it's not an award and that it's hard work, and that the head hurts after trying to resolve conflicts. But I rarely get mad, I can take alot of insults and not answer, in real life I'm always the "administrator". Hey, even when I was blocked, if Moreschi will take another look at the version I reverted to in the edit war, I was so surprised to see that eventualy the editors came to the same thing at the talk page discussion (and I understood that on Wikipedia even good things shouldn't be done in edit wars and pushing it). And that is the prove I didn't push my POV. On the talk page? Yes, but that was to answer the Georgians that did the same. But in the article? Non of my edits was POV. That's my life philosophy: I do something? - Someone could do that to me. I push my POV? Someone might push his, and i want like that. Conclusion: Don't push POV. I see Top Gun is problematic but if we will try a different approach we will get one of two: 1. He leaves after he gets tired being blocked after every edit. 2. He changes his ways. Kostan1 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:PipeOrgan needs you!

Hi everyone.

In case you haven't spotted it, Pipe organ is a featured article candidate. If any of you can lend a hand to address the concerns, the WikiProject PipeOrgan would be indebted to you. The article itself is in pretty good shape, there are some concerns about the referencing at the moment, so if you have any reliable sources that may be useful, please have a look at the article.

Many thanks, –MDCollins (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Urgent

You need to check this out right away [100]. --Folantin (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Funny, but I would have thought "Greta" would have been too busy competing for East Germany at the Olympics to edit Wikipedia right now. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. Oh, this has been a good morning for amusement. First the priceless "eutony" at FTN, and then this. Lovely :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(I have just a couple of questions...)--Folantin (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on Moreschi..

What do you think the Perils of Paul.. er. (Falsetto) Perils of Pauline meant, if not to bring up the user's name again? SirFozzie (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Which without mentioning the surname, no one's going to have a clue what it means apart from myself a couple others who have been involved in the whole shebang from the start. Some of which have retired anyway. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Q. How many Civility Police does it take to change a light bulb?

A. THAT'S NOT FUNNY!!

One of the things that's peculiarly cult-like about this place is that we're not supposed to laugh at the people who abuse us. We're only supposed to shun them. Laughter is healthy; laughter is curative; "...humanity has unquestionably one really effective weapon -- laughter. Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little, weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." (Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger). Calling it "incivility" has the paradoxical result of weakening our community. Laughing at our trolls destroys them. Just my two cents. Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Civility Police are right. I made accusations of attempted rape against a 50-foot high ape, clearly identifiable as King Kong. This violates our policy on Biographies of Ludicrous Primates. --Folantin (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One for the ages

[101]. :) I love this place. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, that's just awesome. Thank you :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?

Hi. I noticed you had an opening for admin coaching. I might be interested in participating. Would you please tell me a bit about your coaching method? (Just so I know how it would work.) SunDragon34 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you get grilled on standard policy appliance, but also higher-level stuff (how to deal with civil POV-pushing, how to recognise a fanatical homeopath/Afrocentrist/whatever. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Hello, Unfortunately the blocked editor User:Anwar saadat is doing some reverts in a featured candidate article using an anon account. He is being involved with edit warring with another Anon account in the same article about adding Islam as a religion followed by the Sri Lankan Tamil people. It is not supported by any reliable sources. When I revered his edit he complaints that I am the sock of the Anon account here . Just want this guy to calm down and respect people and wikipedia requirements.Taprobanus (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coach?

Hi, I noticed that you listed yourself as an admin coach that is currently looking for students, and I was wondering if you would like to be my admin coach? I have been actively looking for an admin coach for a while now and everyone that I have talked to is either busy or already has too many students and I was wondering if you would consider becoming my admin coach. Also please do not feel compelled to accept my requst if you don't want to be my admin coach please do not hesitate to say no, I don't want to force you into anything that you don't want to do :). Anyways, thanks in advance and All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. It would be a pleasure. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be honored to have you as my coach :), I have set up a page for the coaching at User:Mifter/Admin Coaching, so if your ready, lets get this started :). All the Best, --Mifter (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Are you online right now? Khoikhoi 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

yes. I'm on IRC too. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you comment

Do you think this was proper explanation [102] Additionally such removal of sourced information (sources being historical books on the subject) [103] [104] Do you think removal of such information is done in proper way and in proper explanation ? --Molobo (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia

Are such remarks appropriate? Colchicum (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

[105] "human trash", [106] "does rather indecent things with his dog every night", [107] "this piece of shit" Colchicum (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of opera moves

Hi. If you're not too busy can you do a couple of moves for us?

They're Oedipe à Colone to Œdipe à Colone and The Tales of Hoffmann (opera) to The Tales of Hoffmann.

Thanks in advance! --Kleinzach 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please comment

I noticed that this has been made into policy by being linked to from here. And also considering this rule I was wondering if you'd mind commenting on something I'd normally let pass.

This accusation I find rather offensive. I'm not at all happy about being called Nazi, especially since all I had done was after an anons blanking restore to the version that the accuser had previously agreed upon in March after I had asked for 3rd opinion. I also note that this edit was left unchallenged, which can perhaps not be directly pinned on the editor in question, but is reminiscent of the 2 actions of this apparent throwaway sock puppet account, first here and also here. In the second case accusing my edits of "propaganda". Rather than reverting this edit this "user" was welcomed and the revert used as basis for further edits. Would you mind commenting? thanks--Stor stark7 ^Speak 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetia-2

Could you please pay attention to Cityvalyu (talk · contribs)? Colchicum (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this war article is simply terrible, after the edit warrings. First, the title is wrong. This is actually Russian-Georgian war because Ossetian separatists are not an independent side of the conflict. Second, the start of the war was wrongly indicated. It began from the attack of Russia on Georgia. One should remember that South Ossetia is a part of internationally recognized Georgian territory. So, whatever wrong Saakashili did at his own territory may be relevant to the causes of the war, but it does not constitute the war itself. As an example, the US invasion of Iraq began from US invasion, not from the genocide of Kurds or anything else. Third, the current outcome of the war is wrong. It is the occupation of the Georigan territory by Russian forces, rather than anything else. I could continue, but what difference does it make? The article is plagued and can hardly be healed, as long as the activities of numerous Russian SPAs continue. I do not name them, but there are many of them who "work" not only with this Ossetian war article.Biophys (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

James Tramel

You closed this AfD as 'rapidly delete' with the "The result was rapidly deleted. We don't really do orphaned BLPs like this on random news stories with no wider connection to anything else, not when it's pretty much a one-event negative bio." I'm still relatively new to wikipedia but this concerns me a bit as you cite no wikipedia policy and the majority of votes (including at least one regular contributor to AfDs) were for keep (I'm aware of the 'not popularity contest' idea but it still seems odd) and the article had only been listed at AfD for a short time. I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning a bit more to me, inlcuding what policies you were following, as it looks to me like you've effectively speedied the article while using an AfD for justification (given your comment in the deletion log). I'm not saying you were wrong to delete it as this could well be me not understanding policies correctly, in which case look upon this as an oppurtinity to educate a relative newbie. Dpmuk (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. You state what sounds an awful lot like a Wikipedia Policy. Surely if this rule about what "we don't do" is important enough to justify an immediate deletion, in opposition to majority vote, it ought to be documented somewhere. Mrhsj (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. We do have strict rules on bios of non-dead people, particularly those that qualify for WP:ONEEVENT - and particularly those that qualify for WP:NEGATIVEONEEVENT (ok, that doesn't exist, but you get my point). Usually, I don't delete these things, actually: I redirect and merge, but this was such an isolated article it didn't seem as though there was anywhere to merge to. Which in turn suggests a basically unencyclopedic article, seeing as it can't be linked to any wider context. Moreschi (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies you've quoted but I'm seeing nothing there that, to me, justifies your early closure as delete. Therefore can I ask that you take a second look at your decision to delete per WP:DRV - not so much why you think it should be deleted but whether you think you've followed the correct procedure. If you still think you were right to delete the article then I'm minded to take this to deletion review. I should point out that I'm only looking at this from a process point of view as I haven't seen the article so no idea what it contained. Dpmuk (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. In which case could I point you to WP:BLPLOG? I haven't actually logged what I did there, but what I did do is certainly within process...unusually for me :) Moreschi (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for James Tramel

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Tramel. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dpmuk (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I have some advice?

Hi. It seems I've stirred up a sockpuppet - a technically knowledgable new user called ENAIC - that entered a discussion about misoperating bots here. He's already been partly outed on his talk page (see also Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Thivierr). Is there any alternative to CHECKUSER? There is more than one user who might be responsible . . . What is the best way to go about this? --Kleinzach 08:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lemmey. Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) worked out who it probably was, and I asked for CU confirmation. We got it, and he's been blocked indef :) Thanks for letting me know about this. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad it worked out. --Kleinzach 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Info

Hi Mr. Moreschi, I am omniposcent. I noticed you have banned my account indefinitely for using sock puppets "abusively." Can you please explain to me how I have used sockpuppets abusively? Plus you missed my other sockpuppet sir. It's called Raimhotep. Last I checked I only use sockpuppets in discussion pages. Only time I use sockpuppets in editing an article is to change blatantly wrong information and I always announce my reasons. I created Omniposcent to test abuses in Wikipedia's editing structure because of abuse I heard in editing of African/African American topics. I have no problems not using sockpuppets, consider the use of sockpuppets by me over. But please explain to me how some individuals can assume anothers account? This can only be done by 1. Hacking 2. Someone with super admin designation 3. collusion among individuals and groups.

All except for a Super Admin designation are violations of Wikipedia's rule. If Wikipedia has such a person or individuals who have such previleges she needs to make that clear. I realize Wikipedia is not a non-profit because she uses volunteers.

I SEE YOU ARE FRIENDS WITH AN ADMIN, I AM HAVING A DISPUTE WITH!!!!

71.112.201.42 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Could you please start talking in coherent English? Your days of contributing at Wikipedia are over, never mind your sockpuppeting. You can't create all these socks to troll talk pages, which is all you did. That's creating an illusion of false consensus across a topic area. In reality there never was much support for all the Afrocentric blarney that infects our articles. You and Enriquecardova just made it look like there was. And both of you two - particularly you - massively fail when it comes to WP:ENC and WP:FRINGE.

Therefore, goodbye. Any further moans you have, please take them www.wikipediareview.com, where they will be welcome. Moreschi (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
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) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.

Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 31	28 July 2008	About the Signpost

Wikimania 2008 wrap-up	WikiWorld: "Terry Gross"
News and notes: Unblocked in China	Dispatches: Find reliable sources online
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 32	9 August 2008	About the Signpost

Anthrax suspect reportedly edit-warred on Wikipedia	WikiWorld: "Fall Out Boy"
Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, July	WikiProject Report: WikiProject New York State routes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 33	11 August 2008	About the Signpost

Study: Wikipedia's growth may indicate unlimited potential	Board of Trustees fills Nominating Committee for new members
Greenspun illustration project moves to first phase	WikiWorld: "George Stroumboulopoulos"
News and notes: Wikipedian dies	Dispatches: Reviewing free images
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 34	18 August 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Help wanted
WikiWorld: "Cashew"	Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article
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) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)