Jump to content

User talk:Moreschi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erekint (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 26 March 2011 (→For the people still reading this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recently archived

Please check the archives for anything older. Moreschi (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did I miss?

Anything fun happen while I was otherwise engaged? Moreschi (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, happy new year! Oh, just a lot of dramas, denunciations, accusations, and sockpuppets delivering lectures on hypocrisy or assuming good faith; the usual. Some of it's been fun. Welcome back! Antandrus (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year too! 2010 was quiet for me round these parts and I liked it that way. My only run-in was with a standard-issue ethnic POV-pusher who tried to file an SPI against me. Unsurprisingly, just a few days ago he was outed as a big-time abusive astro-turfer himself [1]. I haven't looked at the Drama Boards for a long time so I couldn't tell you who's currently at the top of the greasy pole of Wiki-politics. Same old sorry-go-round at FTN: Historicity of Jesus, Cyrus Cylinder, Shakespeare Authorship Question etc. etc. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you back. As Antandrus says, the usual. Folantin, I think I missed the SPI, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys :) So a pretty quiet year, then? Good to hear. Shakespeare Authorship Question is new to me, though - tell me, do we have any Baconians among us now? Or Marlovians? Or Oxfordians? Has anyone here ever read Jasper Fforde's "THursday Next" books? Great stuff. Projects include Lucretius and some random music stuff...let's go! Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oxfordianism seems to be where it's at nowadays. --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charming. BTW, have you seen Bach's talkpage over the last couple days? I'm actually quite afraid to comment, but I haven't seen such a tone used on the internet...anywhere...since the days of Dr B! Genius! Moreschi (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've gotten as far writing a nice thermite bomb in the edit box, but so far all I've done is click "cancel." Sometimes the best response to arrogant, "I'm smarter than all of you" anons is the non-response. Posts such as his aren't designed to improve the articles; their purpose is to display the superior intelligence and education of the poster, but more often than not they fail hilariously. Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back indeed! It was a real bummer to have to file SPI after SPI with mountains of evidence, instead of simply leaving a note here. You missed this [2], which I think you will find quite interesting (wins my vote for RfC/U of the Year 2010). There is also the usual fun at Cyrus Cylinder and the absolutely dreadful History of human rights. Good to have you back. Cheers, Athenean (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And not even to mention WP:ARBMAC! There is so much hell things there, that it is too much for multiple editors to comprehend! I hope that you have tough stomach! :) --WhiteWriter speaks 21:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Happy New Year and welcome back! Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you again. Happy New Year and all the best to you and yours. 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Mathsci, and somebody who signed with 5 tildes, but turned out to be Judith :) Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Moreschi! Happy New Year, and welcome back!! Where were you so long? We missed you! All best! :) :) --WhiteWriter speaks 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hi, Moreschi,

I don't think we've "met" in article space, but I somehow came across quite a few of your edits a while ago, and I'm glad to see you back. Please let me know if I am striking the right balance in my editing--I am still quite new here (registered since April 2010, editing actively since May 2010). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Any questions, just come and ask. Moreschi (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's editing well. Keep up the good work WBB, and consult about specific issues as you go along. Four tildes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISO & language standard naming

I added the standard ISO naming on several language-related articles, but on Arvanitika it got removed twice. I started a RfC so after your last job on Illyrian languages please respond to this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect appears to be handling this just fine. Any course of action I may suggest is not going to be an improvement on his wisdom. Moreschi (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give your opinion

I filed a AA2 violation here[3]. I was under the impression that all editors that edit Armenian-Azerbaijan articles are limited to 1RR/week. Could you enlighten those involved as to whether or not this is correct? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, gosh. Lord, I don't think so. I mean, for one thing, new editors will come to the site every now and then, and it's unfair for them to be punished simply for the sins of their predecessors. An extensive number of editors are probably under 1RR, but those may not have had a duration of more than a year. I did log all the restrictions I handed out at WP:ARBAA2, so whatever text I put there is correct over and above whatever winds up over at the editing restrictions page.
  • That said, I've been away for a while, and it seems as though the same old names are still battling away, so it's probably time for the some bans. Call me when the next edit war blows up. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bach

Turns out it was a banned user from almost five years ago -- see my post here: [4]. I had a hunch. Something about that flavour of bombast. Make sure you read the last post by the anon before I removed the section. (Was there any reason to keep it? I don't mind my decision being overturned, but it looked like a violation of FORUM.) Advice/backup appreciated. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah. I'll go and cull it now, nice catch. No reason to keep such obvious trolling fouling up the talk page. Desecrating, as this guy might say :) Moreschi (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armida (Sacchini)/Dardanus (Sacchini)

Hi, Moreschi. While editing the Italian Wikipedia articles about it:Antonio Sacchini and his operas it:Renaud (opera) and it:Œdipe à Colone (Sacchini), I’ve come across the English article Armida (Sacchini) that you had edited some years ago. In accordance with most sources, you write that the musician returned to the subject of the libretto twice more in his career. In fact, however, it is not quite correct as the subject of Renaud is more precisely a sequel to that of Armida, and Renaud as a whole should not be regarded as a revision of Armida, but as a really new opera. My main source is here, and I have verified the libretto matter here. I’ve not corrected Armida (Sacchini) myself, because my English does not enable me to easily extricate myself from all necessary explications. Should you feel like dealing with the matter and should not be able (despite your Wikipedia name!) to read Italian, I’ll be glad to help you with translation. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sure. I guess the the plot of Renaud is still based off Tasso, though? Should be easy enough to tweak the article to reflect that. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is (XVII and XX cantos), but it strays from Tasso in the happy ending (in Gerusalemme Liberata Armida and Rinaldo bid good-bye to each other without being in love any longer, I think). BTW, I'll modify myself something in Dardanus (Sacchini), too. Wonder if you could be so kind as to check and copy-edit it later! Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what about removing template Stub, by now?--Jeanambr (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance list

Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to post on the noticeboard, so I post here. As one of the users involved in the debate on the astrology talk page, I emphatically deny the accusation of off-site coordination or being part of a rent-a-mob. I don't know any of the other users and I confined my involvement on the astrology page from early on to the talk page only. Recently, I tried to defuse the conflict by trying to form a consensus. When that failed, I try to bring the matter to a vote to break the deadlock (requiring 3/4 majority). I then asked both sides to cool it, when it got unruly. I did not participate in the edit-revert war. I expect the ban to be lifted. As the debate did not resolve the matter, even if good reasons were brought up for changes to the text, formal arbitration to settle the matter is needed. Erekint (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, if you are interested, see the post on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Apagogeron#Astrology_ban_March_21.2C_2011. Apagogeron (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

91.155.234.89 and Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde‎

I suppose I should have known better than to try and reason with this IP. The result is unneeded drama and weird talk of having me 'banned'. I'm going to disengage from the article and let events take their course. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's made some peculiar posts on that talkpage, but I wouldn't say "disengaging" from the article is necessary, it's semiprot for a month so he can't edit it anyway when the block expires. If he keeps digging I'll just give him a really long block - no reason why troublesome SPAs should be allowed to waste our time. Moreschi (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I wasn't aware the article was semiprot for a month. Good call, that helps. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should take another look at the IP's user page - s/he is now making all sorts of wild accusations including this about me: "You have practised CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, which is CRIMINAL and which has been DELIBERATE from the very start." With hindsight, it seems that I'd have been better off not interacting with the anon IP at all, as s/he seems utterly incapable of engaging in rational debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP up to their usual antics as BackInDisguise (talk · contribs). - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology ban

Moreschi, Please answer my question regarding this on the Admin noticeboard. At the same time, I see no valid reason for your action and would like to be informed of the remedial process. Petersburg (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at AN. Moreschi (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You did not reply to me but once again, just as with your banning, you lumped me in with all other editors. I posted this on the admin noticeboard and am looking for a specific, personal reply. If you had time to ban me, you can find the time to talk to me.
Moreschi, Could you please give me a single specific reason why you banned me from the Astrology page? As a so-called "uninvolved" administrator, you could have no direct knowledge of the background unless you had taken the time to pour through pages and pages of Talk and Edit history. Since it seems to me that you are having trouble finding the time to answer my simple question, I somehow doubt that you would have done that. The above generalization clearly doesn't apply to me, and I believe you will have to demonstrate the basis for your unwarranted action. This is not something that can be taken lightly. Groundless banning is abuse of administrative power, which is an issue you will have to deal with eventually.
Petersburg (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted the following on the admin noticeboard:
Moreschi, I believe you will see that I am a fairly patient editor. I have asked you repeatedly for a specific reason for your action against me here on the noticeboard and on your talk page. This you didn't give before or even after the ban. I have highlighted the fact that keeping silent following an unwarranted and drastic action such as this one does not appear to be in line with your administrative privileges. Your behaviour belies any explanation. Why was I so important to you one day that you actually took the time for disciplinary action, and then for several days following you are not even responding to my queries? Do you realize that replying to someone you "hit" without reason is not only courteous but also characteristic of a good administrator? Do you even care about your image on Wikipedia? Well, I think you should because your interactions with other editors will be tainted by bad impressions. As an administrator, you should also be aware that you are a role model for other editors, especially those aspiring to be administrators. While I am not one who is quick to judge, you certainly doesn't seem to be setting a good example here. All I am asking for is a simple explanation of your action. If the ban cannot be explained (and suspicion is developing to that effect) then it should be reverted.
Petersburg (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent a couple of hours pulling my hair out just reading the debates, and then another half hour adding my two cents' worth, I have grown to admire your forbearance and patience, Moreschi. At some stage I might have just bowed out, or fashioned little cardboard dolls, suspended them from string around their necks, and set fire to them with a blow-torch while giggling insanely and hopping from one foot to another (all strictly as Gestalt therapy, of course). Good on ya, cobber. Peter S Strempel | Talk 17:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Moreschi (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like another editor needs to get an AE warning template on their talk page after making this statement:
  • "Moreover, the editors who were banned should be immediately unbanned as to allow the discussion to continue, showing Wikipedia Good Faith. One does not deny knowledge on any encyclopedia, but includes it.
    "Anyone who supports the 'ban' is therefore ideological and against the very concept of an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's guidelines of good faith." Eagle Eye 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)
A warning made now will hopefully be sufficient, but maybe not since this one came in swinging. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope the above comment is not a suggestion that another editor is banned for daring to express an opinion?! Moresechi I have addressed a comment to you on my talkpage. For your convenience I will copy it below. Please feel free to repond on my talk page or yours (If you respond here I'll copy your response over to my page for my easy reference; hope that is OK).
Moreschi I have asked you several times on the administrator's noticeboard if you would be specific about the reason you have banned me, but you keep evading the question. The best I have had from you is that you thought a particular edit pushed a POV (not realising that I was not deleting the controversial comment but discussing its wording in the talk section); and then you made a general statement to say that your reasons are perfectly clear [for banning six editors]: "meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted". Please be specific if you think one or all of those criticisms apply to me - an indication of where and when I am supposed to have done this will be appreciated too, but if you are not prepared to do that, at least could you confirm which of the collection of criticisms that have been indiscriminately applied to a large number of editors you accuse me of personally?
Also, I would like to ask you to recognise that your actions were hasty and unsupported, based on a suspicion that editors were colluding together following your discovery of an off-wiki blog that clearly belonged to someone who was editing the astrology page. The editor involved, Apagoneron, has now revealed himself and explained his actions. This external activity did not involve me, and please consider that I have never been significantly involved in the points of discussion that were the focus of that editor's input. This being the case I would ask you to please end this unsupported ban before creating the need to enter into arbitration. On a technical point I also don't believe that this ban is a legitimate one, because (besides failing to be clear about what I am supposed to have done wrong even after banning me) there was no prior warning of what I might be doing wrong, by which I could explain, justify or correct my editing behaviour. Also I would argue that you have a conflict of interest which prompted you to act thoughtlessly and rather brutally, in banning a whole collection of contributing editors for no other reason than they were contributing to the consensus of opinion on that page at a time when important points of policy on edits were being discussed - and that after removing enough editors to change the consensus of the discussion, you then entered the discussion yourself and attempted to steer it along a direction of your own preference. The page is now at a stage where very significant changes are (hopefully) about to be made. I would like to offer the benefit of my experience and offer constructive advice on this process. So now that Apagorenon has explained himself, can you please revert this action quickly and allow the discussion to continue without the worry of the consensus being distorted or deliberately biased. Thank you, Costmary

What a joke!

You self-appointed, misguided, pseudo-skeptic, pseudo-scientific "editors" and "administrators", so called, ganging up on and bullying subject matter experts whose only desire is to improve the quality of the article! It was interesting to see how the game developed when you realized you were losing a battle you had been fighting for years. You will of course deny that the sudden appearance of twice the number of debunkers such as yourselves involved on the page prior to your call for help was orchestrated. You will also deny that you have an agenda, which is to keep pushing a particular point of view that you call "scientific". Well, you probably don't even know what the word "science" means, let alone understand the intricate issues on subjects you are "editing". For that matter, you have no idea what a true skeptic is because that is what you are calling yourselves so proudly while it is obvious for all involved that your closed mind testifies to the contrary. You notify users of the three-revert rule and then innocently ponder about these users suspiciously adhering to it. You have the balls to quote the five pillars when it is yourselves who should be locked up for treason. You are questioning the edit practices of reasonable users while yourselves are reverting any change on the article within a minute and dumbing down the page without using talk. You keep rehashing old arguments mindlessly and then hide discussions that are leading toward consensus for reasons of "irrelevance". When users start talking about going to arbitration, you suddenly ban them. When consensus starts developing on adopting a sentence from a policy word for word, you start a temper tantrum and throw in all the misinterpretations you can come up with. How wonderful is your sandbox where your mommies will support your bullying behaviour to keep you in control and to ensure that you end up with all the toys! All I can say, farewell kids, enjoy your populous solitude and the hellhole you built for yourselves. Send me a note when you find the light at the end of the tunnel. Aquirata (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Par for the course from that editor. He's been the nastiest of them all and the door should probably be closed on him. A long block needs to ensure it since this is far from the only such gross personal attack. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the people still reading this

In short, there has been a concerted campaign to edit-war over Astrology: the main effort of the campaign has been to either remove or minimize the impact of the word "pseudoscience" in the lede. Costmary, Aquirata, Erekint (who appears suspiciously familiar with Wikimarkup and site norms for a supposedly brand new account) and Petersburg have all edit-warred over extensively over this, with Petersburg tendentiously misrepresenting policy on the talkpage, Aquirata trying to get everybody wound up, Costmary drowning the talkpage in reams of text that don't lead anywhere, and Erekint...making posts like this. The edit-warring has attempted to drive the article (mostly the lede) in one direction only, and this has been sustained for almost a month and a half, on and off through protections and sporadic ceasefires.

Personally, I think you have all richly deserved your bans - I hadn't even noticed at first how sustained the campaign was, which makes me even more suspicious that there is a tad more offsite coordination going on here that people are owning up to, particularly given the arrival of the "Wendy Stacey" and EagleEye (talk · contribs)} accounts. This is roughly about a tenth of the evidence I could present at arbitration, which is the only place this is going from here if you so choose. Evidence there would also be in chronological order, which might turn up some interesting patterns. The more carefully one looks at the evidence, the harder it is to exonerate any of you from the charge of having violated a large number of site norms. Moreschi (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTN editors control of astrology page

There seems to be a strong bias in the arguments for enacting the ban. For the record, I would like to react to accusations directed at me above, also as a way of saying adios. First, while I did edit revert, twice, at the beginning of this debate, I was simply objecting to Kwamikagami's provocative placement of the word pseudoscientific in the article's opening statement: "Astrology is a set of systems, traditions, and beliefs". Importantly, I did not violate the three revert rule (WP: 3RR) and after receiving Bobrayner's advice to go to the talk page, I confined my involvement strictly there. Bobrayner, incidentally, was the editor who reverted my edits. The debate on the wording concerning the pseudoscience dragged on without any resolution, although the pro-astrology side was the only one putting any real arguments on the table. When a deadlock set in, a formal resolution process was introduced involving a proposal for compromise on the wording base on a vote with a 3/4 majority. This was proposed to break the deadlock, either way, on the compromise wording proposal. When Moreschi got involved to stop an edit revert war, which broke out after weeks of debating and the unlocking of the article, I was not involved in it. Rather, I was pleading for calm on the talk page: "Cool it, everybody! This is getting out of hand.". Contributing to my ban was evidently the fact that I moved the compromise proposal for wording on the pseudoscientific status to the end of the page as the voting had not ended and sceptical editors were opening up new sections, obscuring the resolution process under way. Such an edit had occurred before. However, this was interpreted as disruptive. During this time, the debate got wild. The anti-astrology editors accused the pro-astrology editors of off-site coordination. As it turns out this was some blog posting long after the debate had begun suggesting the debate on Wikipedia was futile and that it was better to go elsewhere to advance the cause of astrology! In relation to this process-disrupting intervention, I pointed to the post of Yobol who said he joined the debate after reading a notice on it at the Fringe Theories/Noticeboard. This is appears to be clear case of on-site coordination by skeptical edtiors. Interestingly, the FTN appears to be populated by almost all the anti-astrology editors, including the editor who underook to ban the pro-astrology editors. The notice on FTN attracted a number of anti-astrology editors to the astrology talk page, making the debate uncontrollable. After the original compromise proposal had been moved to the end of the page, as new disruptive sections were popping up, the anti-astrology editors decided to hide the voting results under the heading Repetitive proposal, proposer banned. The lesson I draw from this is that there were several anti-astrology editors who were entering highly provocative edits. These editors were the real problem makers and if anyone needs to be banned from the page it is they. However, Wikipedia's 'shoot first, post biased explanations later' editorial banning process seems to rely on on-site coordination and there is no Pseudo-sceptics/Noticeboard to arrange that.;) Erekint (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please note that my posts on Talk:Astrology post-bannings have been limited to a couple of comments about style and over-citations, and one vague remark about original research. It is absolutely untrue that I have in any serious manner tried to influence or lead the post-bannings discussions, which do seem to finally be bearing some useful fruit. Costmary's insinuations to that effect, both here and at AN, are a nice try, but not based on reality. Moreschi (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the mass bannings - an answer to Moreschi

Moreschi I would not suggest that you have been seriously involved in the post-banning discussions, but you have shown an involvement, and that shouldn’t have been the case, since you’ve now lost the right to present yourself as an uninvolved administrator.

But finally – thank you – you have specified your cause of complaint against me. Although actually, by saying that this collective offering is only about a 10th of what you could write, you are not being specific at all, but vague again, pulling together a collection of individually-groundless criticisms to propose an argument that we are all ‘in’ on some kind of mass conspiracy that has led to a concerted campaign to edit-war.

Well you are wrong, but I have found that people tend to see what they choose to see here, so I guess your version will remain the official one. I’ll state my case for the record, as I have no doubt that an appeal to arbitration will be comparative in its judicial discrimination to your standards.

I openly admit to asking Wendy Stacey to comment in her official capacity as Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, since those "reams of text" that you say "don’t lead anywhere" in the talkpage, were not designed to lead nowhere, and it’s actually shameful that they did. This was the result of some editors preferring to censor discussion rather than engage in it. I had offered clear arguments against a ridiculous point that needed to be removed from the lede, which maintained that astrologers "‘read’ the stars but don’t actually make use of them" or some such. The point is so ridiculous that there is no defense for it except the contorted, out-of-context inversion of the references I supplied after being requested to do so by an editor whose obstruction has definitely negatively affected the quality of the page content. Even in his admission that he lacked the necessary knowledge, this author demanded to define astrological practice in a way that would not be recognised by any astrologer. Not knowing that anyone could consider it to be a breach of policy I asked Wendy Stacey to comment, to bring that point to an end after the numerous references I offered were all ignored. The matter should have ended at that, since the debate concerned contemporary practice and she spoke as a representative of a professional body of astrologers - but it didn’t!

What I now realise is that it wasn’t for me to provide references to disprove the obstroculous editor’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated point – it should not have existed in the first place since it wasn’t reliable knowledge attributed to a credible source. There should have been no ‘edit war’ there, and if there was, then take to task the editor who insisted on making that discussion as long and as drawn out as it was, simply to make sure that his factually incorrect point of ‘irony’ got expression.

You have indicated 6 instances of suspected policy breach on my part – this point probably underlies most of them. You are wrong. Look at that page with your eyes open to what was really going on there: bigotry, bias, clinging to corrupt content in order to push a non-neutral POV. Being a new user I asked for administrator assistance at that point, and was told to “thrash it out through discussion”. That is what I tried to do and this is what generated what you now describe as a ‘time wasting’ discussion. In the process I asked for mediation – the obstroculous editor refused. I asked for 3rd party assistance – someone came in and said that he couldn’t get involved because more than two editors had contributed (but only one was being obstinate). Upon recommendation I raised an alert to ask for more editorial contribution from other Wikipedia editors – that’s why we got an influx of interested parties with widely differing POVs, and that’s why the astrology page (which anyone can see is full of flaws and badly put-together text, being the colleted results of territorial in-fighting of past editors) became so controversial again and full of new activity.

Your assumption of bad faith on the part of everyone who expressed a certain POV is like a witch-hunt based on unfounded allegations and negative speculations. Here we go with eagle-eye. I have no idea who eagle-eye is, but already smell the unpleasant aroma of someone being about to be censored for daring to express an opinion on the discussion page (!). Why don’t you include a notice “new discussion that we haven’t already had and agreed upon ourselves is not welcome here”? Why don’t you do a little tinkering with the wording of the 2nd principle of the Wikipedia ‘5 pillars’ policy so that it actually reads as it is being interpreted on the Astrology discussion page:

“We strive for articles that advocate a single point of view. Sometimes we need to pretend that we are representing multiple points of view, but by presenting other points of view inaccurately and out of context, we can then present our pseudoskeptic point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

You have failed to make allowance for how I have shifted in my position to try to gain consensus, beyond what I personally believe. You have pointed to edits I made on the first day I joined as an editor, when I didn’t know the policies and made mistakes I later recognised and apologised for. You pointed to mined examples of edit changes that are disconnected to the discussion where my reasoning was justified. You have proposed that I have a non-neutral POV, when I do not. Your only assumption for this reduces everything I have contributed (as everything ultimately is reduced on that page) to an issue over the pseudo-science reference in the lede, and my argument that this was relevant but not such a dominant factor that it needed such stark notice and contrived highlight, so that it was mentioned twice in the lede, whilst the historical, cultural and philosophical significance of astrology, and the proper definition of what it is essentially is, was being wilfully ignored (except in dismissive terms that underlined the obstroculous editor’s need to express an imagined irony).

In short Moreschi, you have contributed to the reason why Wikipedia struggles to be taken seriously as credible reference of information, which I hope one day will be corrected.

I am going to leave a few suggestions for administrators below, in the full knowledge that they are likely to be met with the familiar chorus of guffaws and one-line insults that come from those who have learned how to quote policy procedures in such a way that the policy-intention can be evaded. Sorry if my comments lack the undertone of politeness and good faith requested, but I am frustrated, angry, and sad, that all my genuine and well intentioned efforts have been reduced to this. Costmary (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really pains me to say you're wrong, but I have to. Costmary, where do you derive your authority to argue against rationality? Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy or consensus We don't decide the truth or the right or wrong thing to do here.
We just report on what other people said elsewhere. If you don't think that's the right thing to do go to an administrator forum. Tough but true is that we all have to accept our own opinions are exactly that, no matter how much we may argue that they are the truth. I personally like the one about me being irresistible to women ... oops, there I go again. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Genocides in history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DarkFireII13 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to Wikipedia"? Well, hey, let me give you a belated welcome too. Antandrus (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Welocme to Wikipedia" from me too! You can never have too many welcomes. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! I can't even spell "Welcome". Best (or is that Bessed?), Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welocme is eloquent enough from one friend to another, I think. Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After nigh on 20,000 edits, I am finally welcomed to Wikipedia, and told to assume good faith. Jeez, why did nobody tell me that when I started?
  • In the spirit of good faith, of course, I will assume that this was a case of some overly fast twinkle-editing which resulted in a message going to the wrong person, which I will of course forgive, with a reminder to be a tad more careful in the future :) Moreschi (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, apparently this went to the right person after all. [5]. Dear Sir, randomly undoing the edits of established sysops is not likely to end well, particularly not when I have explained myself very carefully on the talkpage (which apparently you didn't bother to do), particularly not on such charged and contentious pages which I am trying to establish a consensus towards fixing. I do not mind my edits being reverted - that is what WP:BRD is for - but you appear to have missed out on the D, apart from leaving me this bizarre template (where, exactly, did I fail to AGF?). Please slow down and think about your editing, and if you don't, I will be happy to assist by removing twinkle from your monobook and protecting it. Best, Moreschi (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look; moar of the usual. Anyhoo, we've not chatted in a while and I thought I'd say hi, and bye. This place is Borked; too many idiots. fyi, see my last at v: re Ottava. Best wishes, David 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we'll see you back, David :) Moreschi (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've promised John that I'll never create other accounts and am in the process of full-scuttling everything WMF-wide. I've given up on this place. You've prolly missed the recent history. Good luck, David 01:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moreschi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Comment on WP:AN#Astrology bannings

It is usual that discretionary sanctions can be appealed at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Any individual may appeal their ban using the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. If the discussion by those banned threatens to use up space at AN into the foreseeable future, this is something you may consider mentioning at AN. Of course WP:RFAR is the last resort for those who are not happy with the decision at Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, Thanks. But I think the AN discussion will end there, I certainly don't plan to respond there. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A concern

Statements like this[6]

"Azeri genocide should be included as Azerbaijan like other countries also have legal right to state. It is funny, how all counter users are from Armenia due they are the guilty party", by editor NovaSkola, does nothing but instigate further battleground mentality. Also such a statement violates good faith and such a statement negates other users from assuming good faith edits from NovaSkola as well. Is there something you can do about this? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but I think a more sensible course of action is, when confronted with such pointless illiteracy, to ignore it. Moreschi (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you start by being discourteous to an administrator (ie, a person who's been around the block an few times) make sure your reasons are a bit more weighty than petulance. My test: can I represent you in all good faith as a Wikipedian (I hate that word, but it will have to do)? Until that's true, don't attack anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterstrempel (talk • contribs) 02:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sine bot actually cut me off in mid-comment. back to topic: if you start by being discourteous to an administrator (ie, a person who's been around the block a few times) make sure your reasons are a bit more weighty than petulance. My test: can I represent you in all good faith as a Wikipedian (I hate that word, but it will have to do)? Until that's true, or you have the skin for rational debate, don't attack anyone. Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&oldid=420785842"