Hosta

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There's a whole new bunch of suspicious accounts. Moonvise (talk · contribs) I believe is yet another sock of Verjakette (talk · contribs). And then Kalifo (talk · contribs), who clearly is not a newbie. Grandmaster 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are also both accounts whose editors have just made edits which Grandmaster particularly didn't like - one on the Alinca entry, and the other on the Shusha talk page. The latter particularly hurt him, uti possidetis being a silver bullet for Azeri wolfishness. [[1]]. Meowy 21:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Moonvise, that's pretty glaring. Kalifo may well be a reincarnation but I'm not sure who of, and seems fairly harmless for now. Moreschi (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another SPA: Karabakh Boyevik (talk · contribs). Mass socking by the proponents of a certain ethnic POV becomes a serious concern. I'm thinking of taking this to arbitration, as it appears to be coordinated off wiki. There is also a bunch of older accounts, which joined the circus after the long period of inactivity. Matrixfighter (talk · contribs) is a good example. Grandmaster 07:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI folks, User:Brandmeister has started an AN/I thread, with concern that Meowy's post above constitutes an ethnic insult. I'm not sure I follow, but I'm informing you anyway. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA blocked. Grandmaster, I wouldn't bother taking this to arbcom. There's nothing they can do here without a smoking gun, as there was in the recent Eastern European mailing list case. We'll just have to block the socks as they come up, and fairly liberally at that. Shrug. I believe IRL tensions are somewhat heightened around now, so it's not really surprising that we're seeing an upsurge in sock activity.

It is just irritating that we have to spend our time on all those throwaway accounts, which reappear the very next day. Grandmaster 12:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meowy, toning down the rhetoric would be nice. Werewolf metaphors are always entertaining but perhaps not the most mellow, hmmm? Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually a Grey Wolf metaphor. :) How can it be an "ethnic insult" when those it concerns seem to think being called wolves is a good thing? Meowy 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"IRL"? Do you mean "in real life"? I haven't noticed anything - for example the likes of day.az periodically go on anti-Wikipedia drives, encouraging the faithful to come and edit out what they don't like, but they seem fairly silent just now, and I've seen no "troop mustering" on any Armenia-related boards. Meowy 01:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about this guy - Oceolcspsms (talk · contribs), another older account that, after a long period of inactivity, is suddenly doing a lot of reverting without discussion. Meowy 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. I'll keep an eye on that one, I suppose it's just possible he's a bona fide newbie. Too early to tell. Thanks for letting me know. Moreschi (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Oceolcspsms is a sleeper account of Verjakette. He used such accounts. Oceolcspsms fist appeared in July to support Lumberjak, the sock of Verjakette, and vanished once Lumberjak was banned. Now he is back again, and his appearance coincides with emergence of new socks of Verjakette. And he reverted the article to this edit by Moonvise [2]. It is very strange when the only edit by a newbie after the long absence is a revert for the banned user. And another new account to keep an eye on: Szentida (talk · contribs) Grandmaster 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently reverted this disruptive IP [3], who reminds me very much of someone else [4] [5]. --Athenean (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with, thanks. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, by the way, would you be willing to semiprotect Anatolia while you're at it? Shuppi socking through IPs again [6]. --Athenean (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, joyful Christmas and fortunate New Year, both in real life and here. Brand[t] 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was never to question your judgement, and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Happy holidays. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. At bottom, though, I really miss the old culture of rouge adminship, which seems to have totally died out, both in terms of people actually using the term and in terms of people doing rouge things. There was always a good deal of playfulness and humour surrounding rougery, but at the root of the concept there was a realization - taken fairly seriously - that when push came to shove, and the drama boiled over, some brave admin would stand up, make the decision, and do the right thing for the encyclopedia. And when he or she did, people would applaud and say they wish they had done so, had they the courage.

Ah, the old times. Gone now. As sysops, we're supposed to be craven creatures, afraid of our own shadows, needing every decision double-checked and filled out on the triplicate form. Automatically guilty of all sorts of horrible policy violations unless extensively proven otherwise. Abusive OCD nutters, out to ban the people who cross us on the slightest pretext.

What a joke. In fact there's a whole RFC about the attacks on sysops having gone way too far, at times. I tell you, in 2007 this wouldn't even have got to RFC: CoM would have been recognised as a vexatious litigant and banned from ANI for his own good. Unfortunately he's hardly the worst offender, just the most high-profile. It's sad. We need some of the old spirit back. Moreschi (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. Unfortunately, with Wikipedia's growing prominence, some people are increasingly seeing it as their personal battleground. This invites an atmosphere that is less than conducive to good, wiki-building interactions. With all of the nationalistic crap going on, be it Irish-English, Iraeli-Arab, Turkish-Armenian, or what have you, accusations of bias are nearly as prevalent as helpful edits. The fact that there have recently been events that shake people's faith in the Powers that WikiBe doesn't help one iota. As an aside, if you think the nationalistic crap is bad now, just wait until China starts sending legions of editors our way to make sure they are "truthfully" portrayed. I can't see this mess getting better anytime soon. Hopefully the new Arbcom members will improve things a bit, but, like you said, all the admins are stepping on eggshells. It seems you have to be entirely uncontroversial to actually get any sort of high office, and that doesn't speak well for a reformist Arbcom.

The other problem I see is that most of the articles on political subjects have already been created, and are near-complete. This takes the focus away from article-building, and just leaves POV-pushing and bickering. It'd actually be nice to have a round of RfCs on the controversial articles, do a blitz and get them to GA status, then lock them down until new information arises that warrants addition. Goes against everything the project stands for, but at least it would block some of these pointless feuds. Anyways, that's my rant. Enjoy your holidays, and don't let things on here get to you too much. It's just the internet, after all. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you check out 67.84.140.181 (talk · contribs) for possible socking? Brand[t] 07:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Hetoum, even though the IP points to a different location. He repeats Hetoum's reverts. Could be his meatpuppet. I think Khanate of Nakhichevan should be placed on permanent semi-protection. The amount of regular vandalism there is ridiculous. Grandmaster 09:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Hetoum? The edits on the Khanate of Nakhichevan indicate someone with a probable Iranian agenda (inserting Encyclopedia Iranica-style spelling, use of "province of Persia" phrase, etc. But I think blind reverting by Grandmaster and Brand only makes the sitiuation worse - "RV sock of banned user" should not a valid reason, and it only invites further warring. Only revert if there is something wrong with the actual content of the edit - and say what is wrong with the content (not what is allegedly wrong with the editor). Meowy 15:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reverted to this version many times, and for the most part by IPs from NY University, which belong to Hetoum. Most recently the article was reverted to this version by User:Brunotheborat, a CU proven sock of Hetoum. Now another IP pops up, and reverts to exactly the same version as Hetoum did. I think this pretty much speaks for itself. Even if the IP is not Hetoum, it is his meatpuppet. I think the long term disruption can be stopped by the long term semi-protection. IPs made no useful contribution to that article, other than POV editing and edit warring. Grandmaster 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also check 80.212.247.121 one of Neftchi escape IP used to make controversial edits. The only remaining user who is not blocked or banned for still using socks to make controversial edits. Can someone ask, the initial removal of the modern Azeri alphabet from a subordinate Khanate was whatever or not legitimate regardless of the fact that it was done by a sock or a banned user, when four other registered and genuine users have already removed it? Was Turkic not written in Perso-Arabic alphabet? It's obviously wrong to claim the Turks of Nakhichevan would have called it Naxçıvan xanlığı. That's a modern Azeri pronunciation, and anything comming to us from the Turkic population of the region had it pronunced nowhere like Naxçıvan xanlığı, it can't even be rendered with that alphabet. It comes as no surprise that Grandmaster here who want the Azeri modern rendering there is also the same who removed the Armenian rendering from the article which covers historic as well as modern Nakhichevan (and refused to split the historic Nakhichevan), when that name in its English form came to us first from its Armenian original name, not a modern rendering. Socks could multiply in a bizare way all they want, the initial point on the essence of the conflict is one sides annacronism from one side and the removal of Armenian historic presence. All what I had to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justpassby (talk • contribs) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted now, I think. Moreschi (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] Almost certainly him, socking through IPs again. --Athenean (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Moreschi (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[8] [9]. Not to mention some god-awful editing in other areas. --Athenean (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have broken the ban that I have on Kosovo. I am respecting the ban. Saying that Fadil Vokrri is Kosovo Albanian instead of "Yougoslav" improves wikipedia. The "Yougoslav" nationality does not exist any longer. Basically Athenean is accusing me of mixing onto Yougoslavia issues. Now Yougoslavia included Kosovo, so should I not touch any kind of Slovenian, Serbian, Montenegro, Macedonia, or Croatian issues? This is becoming ridiculous. Athenean, there is need in the US for cops, why don't you come to the streets of LA?

The Bjeshket e Nemuna/Prokletije are in Albania, so that cannot be a ban on Kosovo for that. The table was too big, but user:Tadija reverted that already. How does that count as a topic ban break?

In addition I would recall Moreschi's attention about the consistent vandalism of User:Athenean in the Albania page where he is trolling the page: [10] sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadil Vokrri is, as you said yourself, from Kosovo, and the Prokletije form the boundary between Albania and Kosovo. Therefore, these are Kosovo-related articles, from which you have been banned. --Athenean (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait a moment: Since Albania is adjacent to Kosovo and the Prokletije mountains, i.e. the Northern Albanian mountains are found in Albania, should I also be banned from editing Albania articles? You are becoming even more pathetic. On Fadil Vokrri: He is not a Yougoslav, so that has to be removed.

Below more information for Moreschi to see that you are really obsessed with trolling Albania-related pages. Moreschi you should block Athenean for awhile form touching ANY ALBANIAN RELATED PAGESsulmues (talk--Sulmues 23:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of the type "you are becoming even more pathetic" are personal attacks and a major violation of your civility parole [11]. I strongly urge you to stop digging yourself even deeper. --Athenean (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you feel offended. Please do accept my apologies if you were hurt.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention on User:Athenean

User:Athenean's marked anti-albanian obsession can also be viewed in the following edits (only in the last week because his anti-albanianism is a very long disease, so it would take me days to sort through his obsession):

Moscopole: [12] - Clear POV that all the muslims that ruined Moscopole were not Turkish regiments but only Albanian muslims.

Greater Albania: [13]

Berat: [[14] Pushing POV that Dassaretae were greeks.

Epirus (region): [15] Again POV pushing that Epirus has no traces of Albanians, but even the air is in old greek and the flowers smell in old greek too.

Korçë: [16] Taking out initial stubs that are a very common way of starting new Wikipedia articles.

Gjirokastër: [17] Deleting people that are ALREADY in Wikipedia and trolling the page by taking out useful information.

Aristeidis_Kollias: [18] A nomination for deletion for a very prominent Arvanite.

Albanian communities in Greece: [19] completely trolled the page and made a total mess there.

sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ignores trolling) The plot thickens. This [20] IP is none other than Sulmues [21], which he used to evade both his block and his topic ban on Kosovo-related topics [22]. --Athenean (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go prove it that it wasn't my grandchild that did it. And try to give some explanations for your own obsessions.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 13:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put under Moreschi's attention that the article Albania has been requested to be protected because of the continuous vandalism of user:athenean. I made useful changes to the religious statistics here: [23] because the numbers in the reference [24]was incorrectly used and added so I had to foot the numbers properly. It took me some minutes to do that.

But here he comes and reverts the WHOLE THING with other things as well and makes a mess in the article. Of course his numbers in the article for religious statistics won't add up to the right amounts that appear in the source. [25]. What kind of an editor are you Athenean? Making a mess everywhere in albanian-related topics won't get you anywhere. Please get your frustrations elsewhere.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrrggghhh. Alright, one minor fix as an IP I can live with, but any future non-compliance with the topic-ban will be rewarded by block. Football and geography articles that aren't directly related, that I can live with as well, but nothing closer, OK? And stop informing the world that Athenean is a vandal. He just isn't, OK? Please right WP:VANDAL for an explanation of what is and is not a vandal. Further accusations of this type will be viewed as violations of your civility parole and rewarded (you guessed it) by block. Thank you. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Moreschi! sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 20:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moreschi. Bigred58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC) It would have been quicker for me to type out a personal message than work out how to use that template...[reply]

Hehe. This seems to have been dealt with. Scibaby this may not have been, but the account will clearly need monitoring with so many sockmasters active in this topic area. It is difficult to see what else we can do but block on sight when accounts like this turn up, we simply don't have the number of checkusers to deal with the shitstorm any other way. Moreschi (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with your block and I dont accept your demands. You didnt punish other people violating Wikipedia rules.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is free encyclopedia, you cant decide what I should write.--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free as in libre, Pawel. It's not a free-for-all. And it's my job to stop it becoming a free-for-all.

You don't actually have much of a choice. You can either play by the rules or get banned. And yes, I will be the one doing the banning. It's as simple as that. Moreschi (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look closer to my edits, you can find there only the truth, not sweet but bitter truth. I have no fun with war edit or anything else, but my opponents are trying to destroy my work and stop me. I am just trying to write about Massacres of Poles to hounour victims and to make Encyclopedia better. I will use only reliable sources, I have now good relationships with Faustian. Look also at my Polish profile, you can find there some stars, I am not troublemaker. See template, Birczanin is trying to remove link to article, this is misbehaviour, but you didnt react. I will play by the rules (no edit wars, and good behaviour) but I won't stop write about Massacres. If you want to ban me, go ahead, this is simply for you as you said. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRUTH. Please. Just try to comply with policy, OK? Then you'd be amazed how easy this editing lark becomes. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I need your help and cooperation. Myself I cant do it. Do you see this revert? - 1. In ref you can find number of pages. So Birczanin did this revert only to provocate your ban to me. This is their strategy against me.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually because it's technically unacceptable to provide an 80 page range for a specific citation.--Львівське (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is abbreviation from this pages, in this section are many informations from different pages.--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, cite the specific pages or specific bits of data, or smaller ranges, like 5 pages. But an 80-page range isn't really on. Moreschi (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[26] It's this damn laptop and its twitchy touchpad. It doesn't help that the stupid "rollback" link is right next to "diff" like, everywhere. Anyway -- happy new year to you! Antandrus (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I do that fairly often on my laptop as well. Seemingly that feature was added purely with people with mouses in mind :) Happy New Year - and may 2010 be less drama-ridden than the end of 2009! Moreschi (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi and Happy New Year. On the anniversary of my previous RfA (which you will remember ;-) ) I was thinking about having another go. What do you reckon? Worth it or not? Am I ready/do I have the skill set? I suggested it to Doug and he said I should look at recent RfAs, which I have done, a bit. If it is worth me going for it again, would you want to nom again? I thought I might also ask Vassyana and FayssalF, ArbCom members who I know a bit and who voted for me last time. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, would be good. Getting Vassyana to co-nom would be excellent, he's seen you around the block enough to know what you're about. That last RFA was one of my biggest mistakes on this site (being stupid enough to prick the vanity of the RFA crowd cost the 'pedia a perfectly good admin for a whole year), and I would relish the chance to put the error right.

In the last year, I trust you have exhaustively researched image copyright images and what the appropriate standards are for bestowing rollback (*sarcasm alert*). On the off-chance that you haven't, I recommend the usual ploy you were too honest to use last time - copy/pasting the answers of the last person to pass RFA, with minor tweaks so nobody notices (*sarcasm alert - but everyone does it*).

Ok, boy, control! Don't worry, I'll behave myself this time. No snark at silly questions - I'll write a flowery nom, then look the other way and hold my nose for a week. If you're agreeable, I'll write that up tomorrow, if Vassyana agrees he can add his co-nom at his leisure, and then you can transclude to RFA at your leisure. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judith, I also strongly support this idea. From what I've seen you'd be an excellent addition to the admin corps; I appreciate your even temper and common sense. (I'd offer to co-nom but I haven't worked with you directly much.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just make Moreschi promise to unwatchlist the RfA and stay away from his computer for a week, and you'll be fine. :P On the upside, it looks like he's getting it out of his system now... MastCell ^Talk 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. If, having written my nomination and voted, I so much as make 1 edit to the RFA, MastCell has permission to block me for the remainder of the RFA. Deal? Moreschi (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that Moreschi graciously step aside as nominator this time around? Not that he did a bad job before, just that his larger-than-life personality could be a distraction from the merits of the candidate. Also Itsmejudith should consider prepping extra well in any of the admin areas that were questioned last time. Be sure you'll have enough time during the RfA to write full answers to all reasonable questions. For some reason, RfA voters don't like it if a candidate says 'I won't work in area X' if someone poses a question about the policy on X. Expect to be grilled on deletion policy and blocking policy: people may give you hard cases just to see if you can deal with tricky stuff and keep your composure. Please take all the questions seriously, even those about WP:NFCC. If you are willing to wait longer before applying, consider spending more time participating at WP:ANI and WP:AFD. (This experience would help you answer the questions). EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has it really been almost a year? Time is fun when you are having flies. If someone drops a note on my talkpage when this goes live, I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly agree with EdJohnston. RfAs are fickle things, and it might be good to get new noms. He's absolutely right about the questions. And there are a lot more questions being asked now than when you ran last time, it's going to be time consuming. Dougweller (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I certainly did a terrible job last time, and would like the chance to put it right, but that is strictly up to Judith. Please note I have promised to behave - MastCell, you must hold me too it!

• As regards the rest of Ed's post - it's worth noting that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Shubinator just passed easily with only (!) 9 additional questions being asked, and the candidate's replies were very brief (although perfectly reasonable). Probably this was a consequence in part of the time of year, with many of the regulars doubtless sleeping off their Christmas excess, but it does seem as though how much of a grilling you get at RFA depends on how well you've insinuated yourself with the regulars. Ucucha, earlier in December, passed with only 7 (!!) additional questions asked, these being answered more fully.

• However, I strongly advise against wasting your time hanging out at the dramaboards/AFD pre-RFA. Unless you're interested, it's just not worth it. You've seen enough disruptive users at FTN/RSN, plus enough articles of dubious validity, to know how I and others handle these things. And frankly, your brains are too good to be wasted on AFD. One can slog through the logs for tedious hours before finding even one discussion that's less than obvious, and it takes hours more to find one that's interesting. The general mental level of ANI has also deteriorated markedly even since last year. And AFD and ANI will not help you with stupid copyright questions, should they be asked (since when did a knowledge of copyright law become a requirement for adminship?) nor with rollback bestowal questions, nor with other pieces of trivial idiocy that may well crop up. For these there is no solution other than to read the relevant policy - or just cribbing from the RFA in which they were last asked, which helps as well. Adminship has to be on your terms, Judith, not those of the RFA crowd, otherwise it's just not worth the candle. To a certain extent, anyway. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Moreschi, you are absolutely right about the questions. Interesting how these things change. You're also right about AfD. I have no doubts about your willingness to behave, but although I'm still willing to be a nominator, more than willing in fact, I worry about the knock-on effect of the last RfA and don't mind being replaced by someone not involved in that. On the other hand, there are other changes in the landscape since then and maybe they're enough so that no one will care about what happened last time. And I don't blame you for wanting to see it through. And you did a magnificent job with my RfA, no question about that. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, and thanks very much for all contributions. I'm going to have a bit of a busy week ahead, so will use any spare time to mug up on admin duties and definitely not send the RfA live until next week end. And I will ask Vassyana what he thinks about co-nom. Of course I would like Moreschi and Doug again if they are willing, because Moreschi didn't deserve the flak he got for flippancy, and he didn't expect it to be compounded with me answering questions in a hurry/fluster. Doug, I don't think anyone had anything to reproach you for at all, and they won't again. I've sent enough articles to AfD to know how they are handled there, and have see enough ANIs to know what happens there too, so I don't think I should really spend too much time there. In the next week or until I/noms feel ready to put the RfA live, I'd rather carry on with responding on the boards, wikifying, requests for feedback and responding to RFCs. Enough tasks that need doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm certainly willing. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, guys. Best of luck, Judith. Moreschi (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Toa (Bionicle). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toa (Bionicle) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to do with me. Moreschi (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Noticed that u hv misused your rollback feature, see [27] and u reverted my goodfaith edit, this is purely vandalism. next time if you continue i will report to admin. be aware that your rollback feature may be removed if you misuse it again. 59.96.58.134 (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreschi is an admin and his rollback cannot be removed without desysopping him. And guess that the all caps edit summary probably confused Moreschi as to which edit was the vandalism. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes. One minor slip is hardly abuse. Cool it, IP. Moreschi (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your edits and I have tried to answer your question (hidden comments). If my explanations are good enough, can you kindly remove the hidden comments please ? Thanks and a happy new year :))Taprobanus (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted now, I think. Moreschi (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody edit-warring over whether this is the start of a new decade? What are things coming to? I see there is some excitement on Ancient Egyptian race controversy, one of your special favourites I think. Is User:Salaam1000 a long-lost friend of yours? All the best for 2010, Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh...thanks for letting me know. Happy new year! Moreschi (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into Sulmues, the more I am convinced he is the same user an Guildenrich. We have established that these two IPs [28], [29] in the 79.106 range are Guildenrich who edited unlogged. This was the basis for blocking him indefinitely if you recall. Thus, we can be fairly certain that these IPs are also most likely Guildenrich [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], most characteristically [45] [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]... and it goes on and on and on. I think you get the picture. Now, if we look at the contribs log of the 198.185 IP [69] that we know is Sulmues unlogged (as well as Sulmues' proper's contribs), we see a striking similarity in interests: Albanian Big Brother, Albanian soccer, Albanian history (particularly Skenderbeg, the siege of Kruje, and the Ottoman conquest), obscure medieval religious figures like John Kukuzelis (Sulmues) and Maximus the Greek, Nektarios Terpos (Guildenrich), Gjon Muzaka [70] [71] (Sulmues), and general Albanian nationalism and trolling. Not to mention the habit of editing unlogged. What do you think? Does this scream WP:DUCK or should I request a checkuser? --Athenean (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something else: Sulmues' account is created on April 24 2008, which is one day after the dreadful Jurgenalbanian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) got indef blocked. I always suspected Guildenrich to be a sock of Jurgenalbanian, particularly because of the similar preference for a Germanic-sounding nick, ultra-nationalist battleground attitude, immaturity and gross incivility. Traits that Sulmues seems to share to a large extent. --Athenean (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship with Guilderich whatsoever and I have no idea who Jurgenalbanian is either. I edit from 198.185.66.249 . The fact that I am a poliglot does not link me to these characters.

I really don't know why you would want me banned at any cost. There are very few Albanian editors left and if you want them all banned because they have the same interest (Albanian related articles), just say that you want to edit them all and we'll retire. This is becoming harassment.

I wouls also remind Moreschi of the fact that Athenean accuses me of being a nationalist based only on my interests that are Albania related. This would be the equivalent of me accusing him of shauvinism based solely on his interests (from [72] you can deduct that his top 8 articles are Himarë (Albania), Epirus_(region) (split between Albania and Greece), Cham_Albanians (expulsed by Greece in 1945[73]), Albania, Cyprus, Origin_of_the_Albanians, Gjirokastër (in Albania) and Sarandë (in Albania as well)). But I'm NOT going to accuse him of anything because it's his right to edit in wikipedia, actually I will thank him publicly for that. This doesn't give him the right to persecute me like this.

Last: "Germanic-sounding nick, ultra-nationalist battleground attitude, immaturity and gross incivility" are not traits that I possess and I regret being labeled that. This is one of the many things I've been told by you and it's not nice. And I really wonder how the same person would edit both Albanian Big Brother and gjon muzaka. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 02:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sulmues and 79.106 edit the same exact articles within days of each other [74] [75]. It's uncanny. --Athenean (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, it's definitely worth a CU, and possibly we have some collusion going on here, but I'd be surprised if Guildenrich and Sulmues were genuinely the same person. Writing style is hard to disguise, and S appears considerably more literate, fluent and communicative than G. A possibility, but I think unlikely. Moreschi (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the n-th accusation of Athenean. I repeat: I edit on Wikipedia exclusively from 198.185.66.249. Moreschi, I'll take your compliment about my writing style with a lot of pleasure. Obligated! sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 15:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sogoyan (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one, D178 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Moreschi (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, would you also take a look at the reasons these edits are being done. Brand inserted an "overcoverage" tag into an article [76] but he has declined to say why he thinks there is "extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards Armenia" in the article. He says he is feeling too lazy to do it! [77] This looks like a case of drive-by tagging for pov reasons. Meowy 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the protection. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No problem. Hopefully it will force the IPs to talk, assuming they have anything coherent to say. Moreschi (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin of User:Jo0doe back in 2008 (12 month block I understand) I feel you should know that Jo0doe has recently carried out an act of copy-right violation on the article Battles of Narvik. This edit (a reintroduction "with sources" of these edits, which I reverted because they where uncited) is a word-for-word copy-paste job from this and this page of royalnavy-history.net. I also discovered that he replaced some cited sections of the article with copyvios, meaning not just adding copyvios, but replacing valid content with copyright-violating material as well. I have worked on the edits to make them legal and given Jo0doe a warning, but I wonder what the appropriate procedure in this circumstance is. Manxruler (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]