Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 20 March 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Macedonia naming dispute

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

FYI

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

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter

The LGBT studies WikiProject Newsletter! Issue XIV - February 29, 2008 Article Milestones We have one new Featured Article this month - Emily Dickinson was recently promoted thanks to the hard work of Yllosubmarine! We also have 4 new GA-class articles: Ben Daniels, J. Michael Bailey, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and Walt Whitman were promoted this month, but Dante's Cove was demoted. Wikinews Things are happening over at Misplaced Pages sister project Wikinews. First, Nicholas Turnbull became the first openly-Trans reporter to gain (resounding) accreditation by the Wikinews community. Second, project member David Shankbone is going to Rio de Janeiro at the invitation of the Rio Convention & Visitor's Bureau. Wikinews:Portal:LGBT Lambda Book Report Project member Moni3 has been working on the article for Barbara Gittings and noted that the Lambda Literary Foundation used the lead paragraph from Misplaced Pages, skillfully and lovingly written by Moni3, verbatim in the Lambda Literary Pioneers calendar. Moni3 contacted the Lambda Literary Foundation to let them know, and to ask if we could get a little write-up in the next Lambda Book Report. There is a preliminary text you can find here. Feel free to add to it. It should be no longer than 1,000 words, and it needs to be submitted by March 15. New members Let's give a big LGBT welcome to all our new members: Dylankidwell (talk · contribs), Jay*Jay (talk · contribs), Ftmichael (talk · contribs), AgnosticPreachersKid (talk · contribs), Phyesalis (talk · contribs) , Tullerk (talk · contribs), Ravenwhitehorse (talk · contribs), TigressofIndia (talk · contribs), Yohan euan o4 (talk · contribs), Masculinity (talk · contribs), Renegade Replicant (talk · contribs), and Youngwebprogrammer (talk · contribs)! User categories Place yourself in a user category so you can collaborate with other LGBT/Allied Wikipedians! Mostly for allies of LGBT people; To place yourself in Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues, just add ] to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add this userbox by placing {{User:UBX/LGBTinterest}} on your userpage. Mostly for people who identify as either Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender; To place yourself in Category:LGBT Wikipedians, just add ] to your userpage and change the question mark to your username OR add a userbox found at User:Xaosflux/UBX/Sexuality#Sexual orientation. St. Patrick's Day In honor of Saint Patrick's Day, why don't you consider improving one of these articles: Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, LGBT rights in the Republic of Ireland, Campaign for Homosexual Law Reform, Recognition of gay unions in Ireland, List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland, or any of the articles in our to-do list? Women's History Month March is Women's History Month in the United States. Help us celebrate by improving History of lesbianism or Lesbian American history! You could also find references for women in our giant list of LGB people to be sorted. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know.

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

VartanM

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

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

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

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

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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

Notice of editing restrictions

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

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

RfB

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

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

You are being discussed

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

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

My RfB

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

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

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

Gah

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

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

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

Plague sock

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

• National Bank of Greece , (note extreme revert-warring spree)
• Komotini ,
• Xanthi ,
• Minorities in Greece ,
• Greece ,

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

Other thematic links with Mywayyy

• Interest in communications companies, especially OTE, in Greece

• Interest in macroeconomic statistics (GDP data etc.)

Please do as your wisdom guides you. :-)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

FYROOM / Republic of Macedonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dodona

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

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

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

6-month ban of User:Arsenic99

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

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

irredentism

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

it seems that this user also haunting me at other pages

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

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

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

Thanx

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

Certain editors from the Kannada/Karnataka WikiProject

Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:(

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

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

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

DYK

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

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

Ping

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

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

Lick Me in the Ass

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

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

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

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

Leck mich im Arsch

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

What?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

Carantania verofication

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Hi

Hi Morechi,

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

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

Query

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekly Delivery

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

Irish Wiktionary

Hello Moreschi.

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

your comments

Hello Moreschi,

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

Racist

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