User talk:Kafziel/archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Permanent vacation template.

I like :) Will (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks. Feel free to take it. Kafziel Talk 04:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 51 17 December 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: ArbCom elections, holiday publication 
Former Wikimedia employee's criminal history detailed Möller resigns from board, joins foundation as employee 
Google announces foray into user-generated knowledge WikiWorld comic: "Tractor beam" 
News and notes: Elections, Wikimania 2009, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
WikiProject Report: Plants Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 52 26 December 2007 About the Signpost
Wales appoints six arbitrators Board approves expansion, up to 11 trustees possible 
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards, Senate testimony, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Plants 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 13:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

More socks of Bruce99999?

Hi Kafziel. I notice you blocked indefinitely Homoman12 following vandalism to Bruce Mansfield. Since then Philmanskkjaaaw, 220.235.198.186 and 220.235.212.211 have 'contributed' similar edits/reversions to that article and to Philip Brady, among others, and all have been warned (or temporarily blocked in the case of Philmanskkjaaaw) for vandalism. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern

I'm disappointed to hear your comments on WP:3RR. I've raised concerns about this editor's behaviour. It appears you wish me to wait for them to disappear of their own account. Should I come back in two years and hope he has grown up? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

From looking at your interactions, you both seem to be equally involved in the edit war. In fact, the only difference I can see is that you seem to be using more bad language and name-calling. Kafziel Talk 16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
In what universe? Certainly not this one. Not one foul word was uttered by me, and name-calling? Come on. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the all-caps sentence here. Care to reconsider? Kafziel Talk 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol ... look again at that ... just more carefully. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've looked at it very carefully. Tell me how I've misinterpreted the word FUCKING. Kafziel Talk 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to give you a chance to redeem yourself. A quick glance at the diff link would have told you that it was he that used it, not me. It was the most extreme of the three instances of 3RR wiki-lawyering I found this multi-blocked user conducting in edit summaries while avoiding talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to redeem myself. You're in the wrong here, and I've given you your last warning. Go back to the talk page and discuss it like a grown-up. Or don't. Kafziel Talk 17:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And I see you have just given me a block warning for complaining about your treatment of me? Is that something you think would go down well with other admins? As for my lack of civility, if you've perceived that then I apologize, but I'm awaiting your apology to me too. Slanderous and inaccurate accusations against established users by an admin is relatively serious. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to apologize. You just need to step back and settle down. You're not going to argue me into blocking another editor who hasn't violated 3RR just by pointing out peripheral misunderstandings on my part. By this time, you could have simply taken it to the discussion page as I originally suggested. Kafziel Talk 17:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you block him, he'll be back soon enough anyways and will get blocked soon enough for other misdemeanors. The conversation is now about you. False accusations of foul language and sock puppetry are not "peripheral", they are serious, esp. by an admin at such a forum. You've compounded that by threatening to block me. I bear you no ill will and don't wish to do so, but I'm taking this further if you don't retract those statements. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make any accusations in any forum; I made them right here, on my own talk page. And although I was wrong about the bad language, I wasn't wrong about the personal attacks. Go ahead and take it further if you want to - that will only confirm that you've made this personal because you didn't get your way. You should be glad I didn't block both of you right from the start, since you both made 3 reverts. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've done that. Instead, in the interest of positive progress, I recommended you take it to the discussion page (which you still haven't done). If you want to spend your time hounding me, rather than trying to work out the problem at hand, that's fine. See how far it gets you. Kafziel Talk 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised you didn't retract those slanderous comments, nor substantiate your accusation of personal attacks. Well, I'm going to take it "further". It's not about me, it's about unworthy and untrustworthy admins who use blocking powers. This is a real pet issue of mine; I believe behind vandals and users such as the one you were protecting, such admins are the biggest threat to wikipedia's health. I'm of course not going to get anywhere, I'm not deluded, but it can't hurt. Regarding "taking it to talk page" ... that matter is and has always been in hand, and your urgings in that direction have always been superfluous. It's a 5 hour old edit conflict regarding drastic changes to content one and a half years old. My stance as you know is that I've already taken this to talk page and that it is up the other user to respond now; he has promised to do so. If he doesn't, and if I can be bothered letting the matter take up my time, I will repeat the matter on the talk page. After that, who knows. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Antagonistic edit summaries like this one are what I'm talking about. Edit summaries are for summarizing edits, not for discussion and certainly not for insulting remarks to other editors. Speaking of discussion, the fact that you got to the talk page first doesn't mean you're relieved of all responsibility and are free to edit war as you please. One comment six months ago does not a discussion make. Now that it's been pointed out that you were just as wrong as the editor you wanted blocked, you're trying to change the subject and redirect your anger at me.
But the fact is I didn't use my so-called "blocking powers"; in fact, this whole thing came about because you're mad that I didn't block anyone at all. Kafziel Talk 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not a personal attack, that's a comment on the editor's knowledge, something entirely relevant to the course of things; yes, it appears very rude, and I fully apologize for that. One often gets more passionate than is good when events are running their course, which is why a well phrased suggestion to disappear for a wee while is always helpful. Regarding the edit warring. It was drastic change to 18 month old content. It was undefended. Now, one should the talk pages as much as anything, but when you don't know why content has been removed, what are you supposed to write, esp. as you'll already written? In fairness to me, in a new conflict (this is a day old), one doesn't know how committed the other user is to his edits, so it's not unreasonable to revert at first. With thousands of pages on one's watch list and loads of other things to do, you can't write essays for every edit a user of that type makes. So reverting him at first is far from "edit warring". When the other user makes his third edit and boasts about 3rr in the edit summaries, you know he is edit warring. Like I said before, I don't actually care if you blocked Thank ... whatever he's called ... and I didn't actually expect him to be blocked; I used an ambiguity in the phraseology of WP:3RR as an excuse to bring attention to his editing. Bringing such users to attention is sometimes a good way of reigning them in. I expected weight to be exerted in a way helpful to the matter, not to be accused of his crimes and otherwise slandered. Regarding your blocking, whether or not you used your blocking power on me (and you know that such a dubious block would not have lasted very long saving extremely unfortunate admin lottery) I know you use your blocking powers often; and I've seen how you handled that matter today, and it bothers me. It bothers me that you have those powers and have a confrontational approach to criticism. You threatened to block me for complaining about your handling of the 3RR. Now even if you handled that perfectly, I'm entirely within my rights to criticize and you are not in your rights to block or threaten to block me for doing so, per conflict of interest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, and you know it. You can't say it isn't and then claim to apologize for it in the same breath.

As for his edits, old content does not equal good content. He was justified in making the change (no matter how drastic), and you were justified in reverting him. Once. But he couldn't have reached 3 reverts if you hadn't done the same thing. The entire time, you've been claiming that the burden is on him to start discussion, and that is simply not true. Content disputes, no matter how correct you might be, are not exempt from 3RR, so both of you are equally accountable. It should be painfully obvious by now that the comment you left back in June is not adequate. Rather than wasting all this time arguing about it, you could have simply expanded upon it in a new section.

I didn't block you. I didn't threaten to block you. I gave you a warning, and I stand by that. It was because of your behavior in the 3RR discussion, not because you disagreed with my decision. Plenty of people have disagreed with my decisions and it doesn't bother me at all. A lot of other admins would have simply blown you off by now; I've taken a pretty good chunk of my day trying to explain all this to you. If you choose to view that as hostility rather than helpfulness, that's up to you. Feel free to request a refund of your subscription price. They can take it out of my paycheck. Kafziel Talk 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had many conversations about this simplistic philosophy regarding editing on wikipedia, given my say, and can't be bothered responding to you on this any longer. Anyways, a "warning" is a block threat, and you know that. Pretending it isn't is no good. And it came directly after my quite valid criticisms of you (i.e. of two definitely untrue slanders and three misreadings of the 3RR you were closing), you had plenty of earlier opportunity to warn me for any earlier incivility (and yeah, specify to people in future when you warn them for incivility ... makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?). You gave a warning on my talk page for personal reasons, and you know that. Please don't expect me to take you seriously while denying this. And now you expect me to be grateful for condescending to give your time to little me? Hey, I've wasted loads of my day too, responding to you when I didn't need to. We're both volunteers my friend. Is it that you think I live in Never Never Land or something? (The opportunity for a counter here is great ... can ye resist?) Other admins wouldn't have done all that you've done, so they wouldn't have had the problem you've had; what's more, a desire to have the last word is not a virtue. Chill out. I can't take this further now anyways as it prolly would appear that I was merely pursuing a grudge. I'm keeping the summary I've made of this though with all the diffs in case you ever become an issue for wikipedia again. While I'll be tending to my own issues, I hope you exercise your role more professionally in future, and are more careful about throwing false accusations around. I also hope you develop the professionalism to own up to your mistakes when you make them. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Algerianfranc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Algerianfranc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Very funny

Your notification to people who get banned is classic. Great idea. Happy editing. michfan2123 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Kafziel Talk 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rebafan57

Thanks :) Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention request

Hi Kafziel, we have interacted before on Jaswant Singh Khalra article. I have been contributing to Wikipedia off and on since then. Currently, I am looking for admin mediation on an issue which is getting annoying and I hope you being an admin can intervene and make a few things clear. If you note user:Kanchanamala's actions on Sanatan Singh Sabha article, it will not be hard to note that he is pushing unsubstantiated, non-cited, propaganda and POV on that page. He neglects the objections raised to the same content on the talk page of Sanatan Singh Sabha article and simply keeps continually reverting and pushing his POV. Thanks, ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this conflict is too far outside my expertise. As far as I can see, his text is sourced; if the sources are not valid for some reason, I don't understand the subject well enough to help. You may want to ask for another opinion at WikiProject Sikhism. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Kafziel Talk 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem, Kafziel. However, his text is not sourced; it is blatantly unethical content. Please note that his content has following claims:-
1. "There are also Hindus, mainly from Punjab, who follow Sikhism, believing that the Guru Granth Sahib is the fifth Veda."
Problem: Being a Hindu and following Sikhism is a funny claim and moreover there is no source specific and there no substantiation of the claim. Other claim in the same sentence says that Hindu's believe that Guru Granth Sahib is the 5th veda, again a funny and extraordinary claim but no source and substantiation. Note that the source Vish Ayengar that has been provided at the end of the text has no claim from these 2.
2. "Guru Nanak Dev says that the word of the Guru is [also] the Veda"
Problem: This is propaganda and malicious intent misrepresentation of Guru Nanak's views on Vedas. If I start putting Guru Nanak's philosophy on Vedas from his writings in AGGS these guys will surely not like it as Guru Nanak considered Vedas responsible for the prevailing untouchability, class hierarchy and hypocrisy in Indian society and so rejected the authority of the Vedas. user:Kanchanamala is quoting Guru Nanak totally out of context. Any honest scholar cannot do this work or tolerate deliberate misquotations. I can put the detailed information and with translations of Guru Nanak's work but since I work full time, it will need some time to arrive. I've read the whole AGGS that he is sourcing in original Punjabi and also from the best available modern English interpretations of Guru Nanak. There is no claim like the one that is being put in the mouth of Guru Nanak by user:Kanchanamala
3. "Vish Ayengar, says that all the Indian traditions are inspired by the vedas"
Problem: Vish Ayengar has no historical or research credibility on the subject matter. Vish Ayengar's 2 page text sourced for this claim has no citations at all. Its like I myself write my POV on western philosophies, put it on my website and then somebody says at wikipedia "A. S. Aulakh says that all the western philosophies are inspired by Islam". Now the problem is obvious in any such extraordinary claim. First off, this extraordinary claim will need extraordinary evidence. Second, Mr. A. S. Aulakh does not have any authority on interpreting western philosophies (so far). Third, his paper is not a research or a reliable source for any encyclopedia since is was not published in any conference or symposium or peer reviewed, lastly he is not putting any logic behind his extraordinary claims. Thanks, ---- A. S. AulakhTalk 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice the part about Hindus following Sikhism - that's funny. However, I can't be certain about the other claims because I just don't know enough about it. If his sources are bad, then you can mark them with {{dubious}} or {{verify source}} tags and find someone at the Sikhism WikiProject who can take a look. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 16:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thanks for the warning. If I thought it was a serious dispute I would have waited to let someone else revert the guy, but since it was nothing but bad faith disruption, I saw no problem in reverting it. Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith POV pushing isn't vandalism, so reverting it still isn't exempt from 3RR. Kafziel Talk 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course. My point was that, in going up to three reverts I was neither intending to game the system, nor was I "PANICking". Guettarda (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is I've blocked an awful lot of users for fewer than 4 reverts. It was borderline, but certainly within the scope of 3RR. And this sure sounds like unapologetic system-gaming to me. Kafziel Talk 17:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
How so? The guy starts by accusing other editors of being "anti-Christian". He then engages in bad faith editing. He then makes a false 3RR report on AN/I. His attempts at well-poisoning and personal attacks are unacceptable. Obviously "3 reverts" isn't an entitlement, so you are entitled to block for fewer than three reverts. Also, obviously, no one is entitled to cross that threshold. At the same time, when someone is engaging in the kind of bad faith editing that TM was, it's no more edit warring than is reverting vandalism. If you seriously are going to block at less than four, you need to take the time to figure out what the situation is at the article. If you want to do that, at least you should take the time to figure out what's going on. Blocking for a 3RRvio below four reverts is a judgment call. If you're going to make a judgment call, you need to look at the entire situation in context. You aren't a newbie admin any more. If your understanding of the 3RR, I strongly suggest that you avoid making blocks. Guettarda (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And if you are making blocks, should you really have your talk page semi-protected for three months? Guettarda (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
For crying out loud, I have never seen anyone argue with me more than the people I don't block. I don't need to hear your excuses, just stop edit warring.
You are absolutely wrong if you think any amount of bad faith editing is vandalism. Take a look at the policy page - stubbornness and repeated insertion of unreferenced information are specifically listed as not vandalism and are not to be treated as such. I did look at the entire situation, and I absolutely agree that the other editor has used some bad faith, which is why I didn't block you. I assumed it was a case of you being goaded into losing your head momentarily, so a block wasn't necessary. Was I wrong? Kafziel Talk 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban message

lol, i really like your message that you leave with banned users, it is great! Tiptoety talk 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to report?

Hi, you removed my report about vandalism by multiple users on Me from [Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism] because it was filed on the wrong page. Could you please direct me to the correct page? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but the article you're referring to won't qualify. It's only been vandalized once in the past week (possibly twice, but I think the "do-re-me" guy was simply misguided); it takes a lot more than that for a page to be protected. If it needed protection, I would have taken care of it myself. I hope that clears things up, and I'm sorry I didn't leave you a note earlier - I meant to, but got sidetracked. Kafziel Talk 10:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Administrator Kafziel:

May I request you to read the talk page of the article on "Sanatan Singh Sabha". I shall appreciate your input on my talk page. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the highest form of compliment

I developed a things that Make Me Laugh section as well, though i am not sure how to TOC my user page. Take a look and (hopefully) enjoy. thanks for the idea. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Good stuff! I feel sorry for the people who can't find humor working here; if you don't laugh, you'll just go crazy. Kafziel Talk 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you like it. :) Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion of 219.66.41.150

Hi, Kafziel. I have kept encountered socks of 219.66.41.150 even thought he is blocked by you, and not allowed to edit wiki for 24 hours . http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:219.66.41.150

However, 219.66.41.150 is evading his sanction with slightly different ip address 219.66.41.162 or obvious using a computer in another place 43.244.133.167. I made a 3RR file again[1] and RFCU case[2], which takes some time to get an effort on the user. I've been witnessing his disruption for a long time. Please make him stop doing such things. Thanks.-Appletrees (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Determined IP vandals will always find a way around their blocks. I have semi-protected Kofun period so that new and anonymous users can no longer edit it at all, but I can't protect all the articles he has been editing. If the investigation proves that they are all the same blocked user, you will be allowed to revert him as many times as necessary without being in danger of violating 3RR. Good luck! Kafziel Talk 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sanatan Singh Sabha & Kanchanamala

Administrator Kafziel, may I request you to revisit the talk page of Sanatan Singh Sabha, and read my response to A.S. Aulakh's objections, and his reply to my response. I am accustomed to scholarly exchanges, and I regret to say that A.S. Aulakh's reply has baffled me. May I request you to give your input in this matter right here as you seem to prefer. I shall keep checking this page. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A.S. Aulakh requested my input as well, but I'm sorry to say I simply do not know enough about the subject to offer any advice. As far as I can see, his arguments seem sound. You may want to ask for assistance at WikiProject Hinduism or WikiProject Sikhism. Someone there will surely be able to help you. Kafziel Talk 07:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, I am not requesting for your intervention regarding the subject-matter of the article. I am requesting your intervention to see if my response is coherent, and if A.S. Aulakh's reply is not. Does he make his point, reasonable or otherwise, well enough to edit the longstanding original version of the article? Is A.S. Aulakh making his efforts properly? I am not requesting any expertise in Sanatan Singh Sabha from you. Kafziel, I am requesting you to review the manner of discussion as an administrator. That's all the favor I am asking of you. Please do oblige. Thanks.Kanchanamala (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

His arguments seem sound and correct, yes. Whether information is "longstanding" or "original" is not part of our criteria; an article may be as old as Wikipedia itself, but if it lacks proper sources then it may be changed by anyone at any time. His explanations all seem valid, from a policy standpoint. And, even if they weren't, he would still be allowed to make any changes he saw fit, without any explanation at all (short of edit warring). That is the nature of wikis. Kafziel Talk 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback tools

Thank you for the timely approval! :) Regards, Xdenizen (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. Enjoy your new button! Kafziel Talk 20:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Vtwm

Hiya, I was suprised to find that wikipedia doesn't have a page for Vtwm, (I've just downloaded it and made some changes, and was telling someone about it and said 'wp it'.. and they said, it's got nothing!) so I started to edit one, but then found it had been deleted. I'm not sure that this is the same vtwm that I'm dealing with though. I'm talking about the 'virtual tabbed window manager' which was an offshoot of twm. What was wrong with the article, and how can I avoid making the same mistakes? Also, how do I find out what was in the article, as researching vtwm is proving difficult, I can't even find out who originally 'forked ' the project from Tom LaStrange's twm, even if the article was lacking, it may have some information that I can add to the vtwm page. This is going to give me some difficulty with references, as most of them are in the source!! Hmm.. I'll probably just reference the vtwm.tar.gz download .

I'm going to create the page, and would welcome you having a look at it and tell me if it's okay. I'm still relatively new to wp, (I've been putting stuff up for two years or so, but only intermittently, and still don't know how all the tags work and stuff).

regards Colum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacosm (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The original version was very little but advertising, which was why it was deleted. There's really nothing from that version you could use, and the only reference was vtwm's own website. Your version looks better (it won't be speedy deleted, at least) but you'll still need to establish notability under this guideline or it might be nominated for a deletion discussion. The fact that it's difficult to find reliable sources (i.e. not just the company's own statements) might mean the information is better suited to being a subsection in the twm article. Or the program itself might be sufficient. That would be up to the community to decide, if it ever goes to AfD, but for now it looks like you're off to a much better start than the last guy. Hope this helps! Kafziel Talk 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I must say, this notablity stuff is weird. It basically seems that a thing doesn't exist until people have written about it! I think if this is applied seriously, a lot of wikipedia would disappear! I guess it's there to prevent people writting articles about their dog, although, if they can get a few friends to write articles about their dog elsewhere, then their dog is notable! I've found some pages that I'll add to the link list, and that should count as notibility with a bit of luck!

Thanks Colum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacosm (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I love it!

I just saw that "permanent vacation" template and I have to tell you: It ROCKS! That should be standard issue for each and avery administrator. Vandals don't take this site seriously and they deserve a good kick in the backside before being shown the door. Bravo! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the best I have seen in the war on vandal activity. I know that there are some users who don't like to confront vandals at all, or who would say... "don't offend them". Heck, their vandalism offends me, and it offends the others who are building this project. Some don't even warn even after obvious multiple vandalisms! (damn cowards) You rock this place dude! As an admin, you have my respect indeed. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "voting is evil" on your userpage

...so much for "per nom" with the new rollback poll. :-p
But I guess it was kind of necessary since they fought over it before when discussing. -- Mentifisto 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole situation seems really strange to me, because the majority of opposition is coming from regular editors who could use the tool, and the majority of support is coming from administrators, who have nothing to lose either way. I keep my buttons no matter what. But you're right, I'm not surprised - there was controversy during the original discussion, and some folks just love to keep those fires burning. Kafziel Talk 08:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC).

Rollback removal

Thank you! (I wonder if I'm the first...) --barneca (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you watch these people?

Hi, Kafiziel. I visited here last week for the sock ip address user's disruptive edits on Korean-Japanese related articles. My RFCU case is still on hold because of the long report(almost 2 weeks!). And anonymous ip users with same ip host(odn.ad.jp) keep deleting or adding inflammatory or irrelvant contents with highly uncivil manners. I think I can't handle the user.

  • Information that a Korean user concealed is returned. 　"Moreover, there is a strong Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea."[3]
  • This Korean user conceals an inconvenient source to Korea. [4]
  • Ｔｈｉｓ Korean people steals a Japanese culture and a Chinese culture.[5]
  • rv: This Korean user is ardent to the change of the Japanese culture to a Korean culture. [6]

Can you stop his disruptive behaviors? Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're better off letting the checkusers run their course. The outcome of that will be more binding than anything I can do, anyway. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 08:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Barnstar of Good Humour
You've won yourself a barnstar for this edit over here! you can do whatever you want with this barnstar! —BoL 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Glad to help. :) Kafziel Ask me for rollback 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax

Although he has certainly been troublesome in the past, I don't think blocking him for revert warring is anyway justified for the reasons I've stated on his talk page. I've taken the liberty of unblocking him. Naturally I will keep an eye on him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned (and blocked) for edit warring in the past, so another set of warnings aren't needed. He didn't technically break 3RR, but he came close enough. Judging by his response to your unblock, which is the same response he always has to blocks, and his continued harassment of K.Lastochka just before the block, I'd say it should have been obvious that he isn't the best user to stake your reputation on. I'm keeping an eye on him. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You are probably right but I'm hoping that by being on his side in this matter will mean that I have more influence on his behaviour. I'm ever optamistic anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 4 21 January 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part II New parser preprocessor to be introduced 
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" 
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ocimum Biosolution

Hi, you deleted the article Ocimum Biosolution. I request you to reconsider the deletion and roll back. My resoning is that the company is significant enough to have an article of its own. (try googling Ocimum Biosolutions) to establish its notability. Is there any other criteria/issues that should be met/addressed? --hydkat 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Google results are not an indication of notability (and, even if they were, the company has only about 150 hits on the Indian Google). Aside from failing to assert notability, the article was largely a re-creation of a previously deleted page (located at Ocimum Biosolutions), as well as a copyright violation of this site and others like it. You are of course welcome to request a review, but you'll need to be prepared with multiple, reliable, independent sources to support your position. Kafziel Ask me for rollback 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict>I'm not saying googling something exclusively proves notability. But c'mon! if newspaper articles like the one by forbes.com cannot be used to verify notability then what can? They are a part of that alliance and the material printed there comes from them, if there is any other copyright issues they can be resolved once the page is up...
-hydkat 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And if I had know Ocimum Biosolutions was deleted back in july I would have contested it then :( --hydkat 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW what do you mean only 150 hits? --hydkat 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've requested for a review here. Thought to inform you... --hydkat 12:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, So if the version is not in copyright violation, and an unbiased description of the company can the page can exist? There's no notability issue now? --hydkat 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's always a notability issue. And, evidently, there's also a COI issue. If it's this important to you, that might be an indication to you that you're not the one to write it.
The review discussion ended early because it was a blatant copyright violation, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be deleted again if notability is not clearly established under the guidelines. Kafziel Take a number 23:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:AIV

That's a Huggle error ;-) - Thanks though! ScarianCall me Pat 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

"You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Ahmad Zahir,". As you can see, I have never edited such article. However, I have been in dispute over the Treaty of Tripoli thread. I must note that the one admin, Vary, refuses to accept a NPOV statement that states that other authors agree with a certain author on a position, especially where the opposite side has the two previous paragraphs. It would seem in violation of NPOV to not accept such a thing. The situation was discussed, but people, like the Admin, felt the need to delete instead of correct statements. That is not contributing to the thread or to anything at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; I was doing too many things at once when I posted your block message.
Of course, that doesn't mean the block wasn't warranted for the edit war at Treaty of Tripoli. Someone pushing a point of view (or you trying to assert one yourself) does not give you the right to edit war. No matter how right you may be, no matter how much you discuss the situation, violating 3RR will only make you look bad and get you blocked. There are appropriate channels for dispute resolution, so start there if you really feel it's necessary. Kafziel Take a number 06:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I did not realize I was going to enter into 3RR, seeing as how they were on two different days. Thank you for correcting it on my talk page. It is important, since I cannot delete my talk page, and people looking back at the history may be confused. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 5 28 January 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor: New feature 
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III Signpost interview: John Broughton 
New parser preprocessor introduced Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness" 
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology 
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dominican Day Parade

Hi Kafziel

I locked the page following a report] at AN3 only to discover that you had blocked the user concerned around 10 minutes earlier. I'm not sure whether you acted as a result of the AN3 report, but, if you did, can I ask you to close reports when you have taken action so that other admins know they have been dealt with? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just in the process of blocking him & leaving a message. I always close reports when I finish them - I just wasn't done yet. Kafziel Take a number 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry then. :( Spartaz Humbug! 08:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It was only 3 minutes between when I blocked him and when you protected the article - funny how it sat there for hours and hours and then you & I both decided to take care of it at the exact same time. I guess great minds think alike. :) Kafziel Take a number 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[7]

Oh the irony. :) Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not just a content dispute

The vandal "fabricated information to upset me because I filed WP:RFCU and WP:SSP on User:KoreanShoriSenyou, User:Azukimonaka, User:Orchis29 and User:Amazonfire and except Amazonfire, all has been infinitely blocked. However either they're likely evading their sanction or Amazonfire who recently has been blocked for his disruptive editing and stalking me. --Appletrees (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that it's fabricated. I don't see any evidence that it was done to upset you. And, even if you do have evidence, AIV isn't the place to present your case. Most of those IPs haven't even edited in a week or more. Start an RFC or something. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Like you said, I may lock the wrong door, but you didn't follow the cited links. The vandal has followed my steps with various IP address along with the abovementioned IP addreses. The vandal gradually fabricated statics with immflammory langauge. Thanks anyway, the vandal hit and ran already.--Appletrees (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Kafziel Complaint Department 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Commitment vs Treatment

Hello there. With regards to the C&C-related dispute; I hope it is now settled, as I'd much rather invest my time here on Wikipedia into improving the quality of this website's articles. This is something I've been doing for these past two to three months with quite a bit of commitment and investment of time, as my history pages will demonstrate in no uncertain terms.

I've noted most editors appear to receive barn stars for this. I've apparently been rewarded with a baseless edit war from another user and a one-sided temporary block from Wikipedia by an administrator. I'm aware that a single administrator is hardly representative of the Wikipedia website and its mission in general, and as such I will be able to shrug this off without any real loss of motivation in the long run. But even so, the experience has been so distasteful Wikipedia can quite frankly blow me for an undetermined period of time, with this particular administrator as the first standing in line.

I'm aware this post serves no real purpose. But it is here for you to read, anyway.

With kind regards,

the primary and most active editor of Wikipedia's Command & Conquer-related articles. Kalamrir (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User Complaint/ Important information

I do not know if this is the correct place to put it, but the user User:Maya100 appears to be a spambot, as you may note by the advertisements made by him/her/it. As this is classified under what wikipedia is not, I'm guessing this kind of thing isn't allowed? Daedalus969 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 6 4 February 2008 About the Signpost
Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored 
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes" News and notes: Milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Tutorial: Adding citations 
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:Hebig07

Your edit here........LMAO! XD Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 21:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you not take off my thing I'm editing in "Heavy Metal Music", please?

When I edit that bit on "Heavy Metal Music", in the sentence "Those closer to the music's blues roots or placing greater emphasis on melody are now commonly ascribed the latter label (which is hard rock)" I put in "play acoustic songs, use instruments like flute, mandolin, steel guitar, etc. or incorporate other styles of music in some of their songs" after the line ""Those closer to the music'sblues roots or placing greater emphasis". The reason I put that thing in is because people would commonly say for what I put in "That's not metal, playing acoustic songs, use flutes, mandolins, and that, or flirt with other styles of music in their songs. That's just plain hard rock". That's one of the reasons why they see bands like Led Zeppelin, Rush, Kiss, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Van Halen, Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Whitesnake, Deep Purple, UFO, Uriah Heep, etc. as hard rock bands more often now rather than heavy metal. Can you not delete my bit on that page next time I put it in, because I am telling the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Whitton (talk • contribs) 21:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, you've never edited that article and neither have I. Can you provide a diff? Kafziel Complaint Department 07:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TheDiamonds.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheDiamonds.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brimstone cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brimstone cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dance of Death cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dance of Death cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 7 11 February 2008 About the Signpost
Petition seeks to remove images of Muhammad Foundation's FY2007 audit released 
Vatican claims out-of-context Wikipedia quote was used to attack Pope Best of WikiWorld: "W" 
News and notes: Working group, Wik-iPhone, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Basic dispute resolution Dispatches: Great saves at Featured article review 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 08:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk —Preceding comment was added at 10:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Likely TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppetry (again)

Notification of all-but certain sock-puppetry: 99.129.71.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Give me more information (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are likely sock-puppet of TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu). The same article selection and characteristic edit summary styles are telling. If you need more evidence, please let me know. Thanks. — Myasuda (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Give me more information

I would be inclined to unblock this user on WP:AGF grounds. But I am going to check how you feel about it first. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm also looking at the request. Can you confirm which user you think this is a sock of? Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 13:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't I look stupid now?? ;) There is such an enormous overlap in their edits that I don't think there can be any doubt its the same user. I don't know, I don't really favour unblocking long term sockmasters until they have, well, confessed and made convincing statements of future good behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason, User:TyrusThomas4lyf has been incredibly resilient (and resourceful) in finding a ton of IP adds to edit from. It's been going on for a year already I think. Anyway, appreciate the swift action taken against his socks. Chensiyuan (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I can hardly believe it's been almost a year already, but indeed it has. Well, I wish it wasn't necessary, but I'm happy to help where I can. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

Just saw your vacation template on User_talk:Chasze's talk page. Hilarious. David D. (Talk) 23:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just saw it, too. Made my day!! What a great notice. Thanks. Tim Ross (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned user via 220.233.238.4

Hi! You might want to consider blocking User:220.233.238.4 for a little while. It's that "Kingarthur" nincompoop. I just reverted a whole slew of his edits.

By the way, I was thinking of adding the "vacation from editing" template to that sock of his, but ya beat me to it. Seriously, that is THE funniest template on Wikipedia. Heaven knows this site needs a bit of humor at times. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks; I see you went and clobbered him. Hopefully, he'll learn the lesson. Talk to you soon.  :)) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Heim

Re: this: Yes, I felt it came down to blocking one or neither, and decided to give one more chance largely because Collectonian might have felt her earlier reverts were justified due to the removal of the tag. I find the method of giving a final warning and watchlisting the article sometimes lets one stop the edit war without using the tools.

And here's a classic response. I wonder if we should consider making some sort of note on the 3RR page that edits that are "against consensus" are not vandalism and reverting them isn't exempt from vandalism. It seems to be a really widespread misconception.

Just saw that you moved to Orange County, CA last year (yeah, I guess I'm slow), which makes us almost neighbors (I live in San Bernardino County, myself). Anyway, belated welcome to SoCal! And since I'm apparently just in a chatty mood now, I'll go ahead and finish this post off. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked a range you've been dealing with

I've blocked 118.137.0.0/17 for a week due to the massive amounts of vandlism only edits coming from that range (for example, on the article Sunrise (company)). As you've blocked several of the IPs in this range, I thought you'd want to know. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR

  1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
  2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
  3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
  4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
  5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You'd need to take that up with the admin who protected the page. It often happens that articles get locked on the wrong version, but it's generally against our protection policy to change protected articles in that way. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). Eliko (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
But there's no basis in policy for "undoing" someone's edit just because it violates 3RR. The user himself might have undone it to avoid being blocked in the first place, but undoing it just because it broke 3RR would just amount to one more person adding to the edit war. Once article protection comes into play it can't be changed, but you might want to ask the protecting admin to remove the protection (if that would be appropriate - I can't really say, not being too familiar with the situation myself). Kafziel Complaint Department 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Company name in photo

Dear Kafziel,

I received your final warning for using our company name in the subscript of our photo. Why aren't you following the same policy for our competitor Arrowbio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_Recovery_Facility

On this page some one removed all our photo's and references to our company name REDOX Recycling Technology. Now you're doing the same with the photo of our DAF unit of our company REDOX Water Technology.

Obviously I am doing something wrong here, what should I do to get the same reference to our company name as our competitor Arrowbio?

Thanks in advance.


SmileJohn —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileJohn (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The mention of Arrowbio has been removed and the redirect page deleted. You now both have equal reference (i.e., none). Kafziel Complaint Department 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmileJohn (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help!

It's days like this which make me wish I were still an admin. Might I impose on you to consider blocking User:Hockertonman as a vandalism-only account? His silly hoax article has been deleted and he's making a living mess out of my talk page and that of User:JohnCD. Thank you SO much. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 8 18 February 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab" 
News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 4, Issue 9 25 February 2008 About the Signpost
Signpost interview: Michael Snow Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon 
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned Two major print encyclopedias cease production 
WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia" News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News WikiProject Report: Family Guy 
Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait!

WAIT!!! I thank you for blocking the vandals, but don't block Saber!! He was only trying to stop them!!! User:Sceptre and I will vouch for him!!! Please? I know he broke 3RR, but he was only reverting their vandalism. They were blatantly vandalizing the page. He only was stopping them. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stubbornness, using incorrect style, bold editing, and addition of links (if well-intentioned) aren't vandalism. I know you guys don't like the changes those other users were making, but if it isn't vandalism then you have to step back and look for help through the proper channels. Remember:There are no emergencies on Wikipedia.
On the other hand, if another admin reviews the block and would like to lift it, I won't have a problem with that. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll just leave it. It's only 24 hours, I guess. I feel bad for Saber but I gotta go soon, anyways. I realize what you're saying, but I don't think that's quite what those users were doing. I still think they were vandalizing. I also think Saber did his best to stop them, but oh well. It's only 24 hours, though, like I said. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

block of User:Andyvphil

If you read his second unblock request, Andy makes a pretty good case that he's not the anonymous reverter -- he seems insistent that he's in Pacifica, and the anon IP is 400 miles away (and a non-proxy). Would you mind taking a second look? Thanks. - Revolving Bugbear 12:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned User:TyrusThomas4lyf: suspected socks

Hi there, a while ago you banned several TyrusThomas4lyf socks. Now, I suspect he has popped up under these socks: User:99.129.69.149, User:75.34.6.84 and User:A fine point. I would appreciate a check, and if it is true, to block these socks. I would also like to know if there is a way to hard ban a user. TT4L is extremely persistent in his attempts to circumvent the indefinite block, and resourceful in his attempts to find new anon IPs: he has 2 confirmed socks and TWENTY FOUR suspected. His presence is highly irritating. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may chime in. I'm not as involved as a couple other editos in looking out for this Tyrus chap, but based on the current edit trails, it's clear to me that the three suspected socks pointed out above are indeed the socks of Tyrus. The problem with him is that while he makes legitimate edits every now and then, more often than not he goes berserk and pushes POV. This is, not forgetting of course, that as a banned user he shouldn't be editing in the first place. Cheers. Chensiyuan (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can something be done about User:A fine point, who is messing up Kobe Bryant?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You have to be careful with the reversions. You only reverted one of six or so vandalistic edits. Your edit summary looked like you completely reverted however, so I almost let it go undone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I rolled back all of his edits to your previous version; there is no difference between mine and the last version you had left. Kafziel Complaint Department 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we've hooked another one in Illadelph halflife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . . . — Myasuda (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What's up with this

The account "CivilityApologist" was created by a user who shares my residence (a college student, I am that user's parent). The account is otherwise unrelated to me or my edits, was created well in advance of the incident, and (most importantly) and has 'NOT EVEN BEEN USED'. Administrator Kafziel, please explain your basis for failure to assume good faith here. WNDL42 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's nice for him. I have no idea what you're talking about, though, since I've never blocked him or even so much as spoken to him. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Subsequent to the expiration of your first block on Wndl42, I found that my IP address was also blocked, and the block notice I saw cited (a) the fact above as regards "CivilityApologist", and (b) your name. So, when the block notice identified you as the blocking admin, I asked the question above. I never said you blocked CA, I asked why you blocked the IP address for my residence. Kafziel: Did you not also block my IP address in addition to my account? If not, I'll go check who did and in that case please accept my apology. WNDL42 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course I did. We always do - it's part of Wikipedia's blocking system. It has nothing to do with assuming good faith. It has to do with preventing users blocked for edit warring from using sockpuppets or anonymous IPs to continue editing. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but it looks like you came back well after you blocked Wndl42 to then block the IP address. Maybe I'm wrong. As this is my first ever block, and as you have recieved a great deal of background information via e-mail that you haven't commented on, and as I am very interested (in the context of "there are no emergencies on Wikipedia") how admins make these decisions, I hope you understand that I am merely trying to understand (a) your decision and (b) the Wikipedia "blocking system" you refer to.
If a preemptive block of an IP address is defined standard practice for a user (a) with no previous history of meat or sock puppetry and (b) who has never been blocked for any reason (c) has managed this even after having performed a couple thousand edits in controversial areas; then I suppose you were doing exactly what you had to do, and no more. Still, as I am new to this experience I would very much appreciate your further generosity in clarifying my understanding. Thanks in advance. WNDL42 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The system blocks IP addresses by default at the same time the user is blocked. If it turns out to effect another user, there is a procedure for fixing that.
As I said to the other editor in the dispute, I'm not interested in any of the details of the article itself, which is why I haven't addressed your emails. Some admins are good at negotiating truces, and some admins are good at dropping the hammer if negotiations fail. I was given this position because I'm the latter. That's why I work 3RR and anti-vandalism, rather than dispute resolution pages like third opinion or RFC. I work on articles I care about, but I don't get involved in content disputes when I need a hour's worth of background info before I can even start to figure out what's going on. But the links above should give you a place to start. Kafziel Complaint Department 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you would be interested

After blocking them for 3RR violation and protecting the subject article, Andyvphil's and Wndl42's first edits after blocks expired.Kww (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is now locked. Kafziel Complaint Department 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A good move for now, thanks for that. I'd like to suggest that if you lift the protection, that the article be left in "semi-protected" state to prevent further edit warring assisted by anon IPs. WNDL42 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Chasze

Hi, last week you indef blocked a user called Chasze for being a vandalism only account. I noticed that a new user wrote "FU" under your blocking message, and then replaced the page with the message "lol hax". I figure it's probably the same guy with a new account. If not, they chose an interesting talk page to begin their vandalism on. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

United States journalism scandals

RE "Important change required during page protection" (Jeffrey T. Kuhner, Insight false "madrassa" report (2007))

Please can you explain why you didn't make the necessary change I requested? Without this clarification here Wikipedia looks like it's endorsing a slur on Muslims! All you have to do is include the literary (and non-pejorative) definition of "madrassa" so people can see the difference! How can that be controversial? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the editor who disagrees with you. Kafziel Complaint Department 01:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen that editor claim he'll make reverts that will keep a page frozen (Ilan Pappe for a good while). I think he stonewalls situations that suite him. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's possible. Disruptive reverts are the reason that page is locked right now. I recommend continuing the discussion with him on the talk page; you've got at least a week before anything gets done, so you might as well use that time to try to come to an agreement. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the editor Matt is referring to at Ilan Pappe is the same, same behavior.
Kafziel, fyi -- a new report filed. I am ok working with Matt, we disagree but (when we are not too busy talking past one another) usually get it right in the end. The problem is that I have no idea how to deal with this. WNDL42 (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kafziel, as the blocking admin in the previous dispute, I can appreciate your now taking an interest in the topic. Please use care to review and understand the sources cited before jumping in to the content dispute, it appears to me that you are not fully up to speed on the sources. Thanks. WNDL42 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And please keep in mind that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. You may wish to go through all the talk page discussions and comment in the relevant places as you join the topic. WNDL42 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about there being no emergencies. I wonder who told you that.
Anyway, that's why I left your changes in place after I blocked you just now. See what a laid back guy I am? Kafziel Complaint Department 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

=wp:3R|3R rule

I have an edit warring editor who has deleted my responses to him off of the talkpage on the Free will article. Could I please have some assistance. Since I have never been engaged in a 3rr before. This editor is deleting content. And as far as I know that talkpage is not the article and is not covered under the 3rr rule. LoveMonkey (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 10 3 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wales' relationship, breakup with journalist Rachel Marsden raises questions about possible improprieties Eleven users apply for bureaucratship 
Signpost interview: Domas Mituzas Role of hidden categories under discussion 
Book review: Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Military history WikiProject elections conclude, nine elected 
Best of WikiWorld: "Extreme ironing" News and notes: Encyclopedia of Life, Wikipedian dies, milestones 
Dispatches: April Fools mainpage featured article WikiProject Report: Football 
Tutorial: How to use an ImageMap Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Grr.

[8] – Steel 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

:) Kafziel Complaint Department 03:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the deletion of the page about BeWelcome

Hello Kafziel,

I am contacting for a request to reconsider the deletion you made about BeWelcome page.

I try to explain : when BeWelcome was created in beginning of 2007 (base on an idea started in 2006 : a legal, international, non profit and based on volunteers organization), it was displayed Beta on the website main page and someone made an article about it in Wikipedia.

The page was cancelled with the comment :(PROD expired; reason was that there was essentially no chance of a not yet launched service meeting WP:CORP)

It was pre-maturate, I agree and can understand.

BeWelcome is an opensource project for hospitality exchange and intercultural understanding. Bewelcome was made by ex volunteers [9] of HospitalityClub (almost all of the very active one at this moment) because they were not satisfied with the lack of transparency and censorship in HospitalityClub and neither happy with the company status of of couchsurfing (may be now CouchSurfing is going to become a nonprofit company for real).

The point now, is that BeWelcome is actually a launched service[10] with more than 2600 members across the world, no more beta since April 2007, and daily active.

They are people in Hospitality Service wikipedia page involved in HC management who deny BeWelcome right to exist (to figure it search google for site:www.hospitalityclub.org BeWelcome[11] and do the same for site:www.couchsurfing.com via google [12], you will probably understand what censorship means in HospitalityClub, I know it well as an ex volunteer programmer of HospitalityClub I contributed a lot to "Spam controls" programs ...). A major point of these people is the "fact" that Wikipedia cancelled the initial BW wikipedia page (which was premature action, I can figure)

I hope you understand the problem.

So here is my request : could you restore the BeWelcome page, it certainly needs to be updated and probably need review I am pretty sure many people will like to do it ! I promise to update it my self (at least to remove unappropriated information if they are some)

Greetings From France jyhegron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyhegron (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Matasareanu.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Matasareanu.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Smile

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dunno if you're too much of a "man's man" for that kinda thing, but since I have to pass it on and we had a wee run in a bit ago, I thought I'd pass it to thee. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's ancient history in Wiki-time. Took me a while to figure out who you were.
Sorry it contributed to some headaches on your RfA, and I'm really glad it didn't sink you. If I'd realized what was going on, I'd have supported you. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I don't think our run-in caused more problems than my careless answer to question 8, but I appreciate the sentiment nonetheless. On another note, since you are very experienced now on the 3RR noticeboard, you might wanna have a word to Master of Puppets regarding this and this and this. I appreciate what he's doing, but I'm not sure how well unilaterally imposing editing restrictions not in policy with no definitions of duration or scope would go down if brought to widespread attention. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that yesterday. It's weird, but I'm not sure what my angle is on that just yet... I'm still forming an opinion. I'm looking for precedents. Kafziel Complaint Department 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeedie. Anyways, he can't do that. Mop and bucket don't give him that power, certainly the community has not asserted the right of sysops to perform permanent editing restrictions like that to established editors; this is worse because of the way he phrased it on the two relevant user talk pages. He could block for edit warring, sure, maybe in practice issue a temporary editing restriction as the condition of avoiding a block, but he can't do that. If you remember, sysop rights to issue a block for 3RR had to go through large scale community discussion before becoming established (2005 was it?). If Master of Puppet's declaration is ignored and becomes a de facto precedent, it will not stand up to the wider community and could bring any admins who repeat it into disrepute. I was contemplating objecting on the page, but figured there might be a way of achieving the same objective without doing that ... thus why I seek your counsel. Master of Puppets is a new and young admin (16 y.o.) with limited experience of the more intellectual aspects of wikipedia ... figured you might be better able to sort it out with the minimum of negative consequences. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, dab (the guy he gave the 2RR to) is an admin, too. If he feels it needs to go further, he'll probably do so. But if you want to get a wider survey, there's always ANI. I'd probably comment there. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You block of Prowikipedians

Hey there Kafziel, I have no problem with Prowikipedians being blocked... he did violate 3rr. But your reasoning was "vandal only account." Prowikipedians' edits were not vandalism. As the person who gave him his final 3RR warning, I checked his other edits and they were all good faith edits... this is clearly a newbie who is learning the ropes.Balloonman (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite being blocked, this user is becoming increasingly problematic on his own talk page. If this continues, perhaps protection is warranted? Praia da Lulz (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. We'll see how it goes. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Another sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf

User:Illadelph halflife is another sock of User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Since you helped to block his sock, can you take care of this one, too. Thanks Chris! ct 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian people

Greetings Kafziel. On 15 May 2006, you voted against a move of the page Assyrian people to something else;[[13]] stating I'm more interested in the well-oiled workings of Wikipedia than political correctness. "Assyrian people" is much more likely to be used as a link in an article than "Arameans, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Syriacs". Anyone who would find "Assyrians" offensive should really examine their priorities, since the significance of most of these ethnic groups faded out millennia ago. Besides which, most of those groups already have their own pages. See Chaldean and Aramean. In English, Syriac is a synonym for Aramean. Splitting hairs any further than that isn't conducive to the smooth running of Wikipedia - I would like for you to revisit the page, as a Mod has abused his powers on the page and has made the page a complete mockery. He is now suggesting to move the page as well. I would really appricaite it if you could voice your opinion on the issue. Chaldean (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get too involved in naming debates anymore, but I do think the so-called "naming convention" (written by Dbachmann less than a week ago) has not been sufficiently vetted by the community. I'm not sure who (if anyone) approved it, but I see no mention of it at any of the Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Assyria projects. There is a brief request for discussion here, but that certainly isn't sufficient. I've removed the "naming convention" tag from the top of that page pending a proper evaluation by the community. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. You should see how bullish Dab has been on Assyrian related pages and abusing his admin authority. I have made my case to another admin [[14]]. I don't know if anything will come out of it. Chaldean (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nagasaki

Thank you for creating an article on the Nagasaki Peace Memorial Hall. They normally don't allow photography, but were nice to let me take pictures since I explained they would be useful on Wikipedia. There also is this and this from the Peace Memorial Hall. I have more photos from Nagasaki, but not all uploaded yet to Commons since I had trouble with the batch uploading tools. You may find more on my Flickr page. If you see anything to upload, please let me know. --Aude (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question on reverts when accused of vandalism

Hi, Although recently I was accused of vandalism (probably of the wording?), I've noticed that just about every single page I edited that day has been reverted to the previous user, even though the changes were ethical and of good faith. Why does that happen?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs)

Just because they were in good faith doesn't mean they were right. You haven't made a usable edit yet. Kafziel Complaint Department 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying here...and yes, someone did mention about the traditions...that is correct. However, Buddhism does mention that he is the "primary role/head" of Buddhism. I think it was the wording that made people confused. Also, what do you mean by "usable edit?" Prowikipedians (talk) 07:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Piling on

Thank you for doing this. I rarely do anything formal with annoying editors, but this one deserves what he got. Oh, and if you don't mind, your final comment was hysterical. I guess admins need a good sense of humor!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

User:VegardNorman has moved pages without even discussing them. He has moved the List of Assyrian villages and Assyrian diaspora, without any discussion. Can you please move them back, since I dont have the power. Chaldean (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Denying own unblocks

You really shouldn't be reviewing your own unblocks. Uninvolved admins should do that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy that says so? Kafziel Complaint Department 01:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am rather concerned by this - the intent of unblock review has always been to allow another admin to review the situation and see whether the block was warranted; by convention the blocking admin should not touch the unblock template and instead wait for another admin to come along; a single admin may not always have an impartial grasp on whether her or his blocks are warranted. That this user is alleging you may have been involved in the dispute makes an impartial third opinion even more vital. "You are allowed to edit your talk page during a block so you can apologize for your behavior" is also rather misrepresentative - we allow users to appeal blocks because the blocks are not always correct. I urge you to please yield unblock requests of your own blocks to uninvolved admins from this point forward. krimpet✽ 01:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext#Appealing and Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block#What happens next both (weakly) suggest that unblock reviews are done by independent admins. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the one that also says admins will not undo one another's decisions without consensus? The one that reads:

The routes to resolve a block are agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or appeal to the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter.

Which one was it in this case? Did I agree? Was the block clearly unjustifiable? Did the ArbCom make a ruling? I'm confused. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Krimpet and Rlevse, you should have allowed another uninvolved admin to review the block you put into place. Dreadstar † 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that just speaks of the act of unblocking, not the review. I'm talking about

Appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block. To do so, add {{unblock|your reason here}}

and

When a block is appealed, other editors - most of whom probably have no involvement in the matter - will review your editing history, which has been logged, as well as the reason for the block and the history leading up to it.

Again, they're not strong suggestions, and I'd rather not debate interpretations of policy right now, I'm just putting it out there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the formatting of this discussion is really awful. My fault for starting with the blockquote stuff. And I'm sorry, Crustacean - that previous remark was meant more for Rlevse (who shortened the block without discussion) than it was for you. I'm going to un-indent so we can start over legibly.

Look - I know there are people who disagree with my interpretation of the policy, and that's as it may be. Any admin who read those unblock requests would have denied them, because they didn't adress the reason for his block in the slightest, but whatever. You're all welcome to fix the policy wording if there's consensus to do so, and I'll never review another block again.

But I'm not wrong about the block itself, which is the real issue when we skip all the hypothetical stuff. I'm only familiar with this article because I answered a 3RR report on it last week and have continued to keep an eye on it. That doesn't make me "involved"; that makes me an admin who gives a rat's ass. I know it's kind of rare and therefore confusing, but there it is. A week after being blocked for edit warring, he was back at it, so he got blocked again. I did my best to explain the situation to him, and while I was doing that he was at the article, re-inserting his content for the third time. I even responded to his emails (something I never do) after his talk page was locked, because I didn't want to leave him hanging. I'm not tyrannical; I'm efficient. Maybe in this case I was excessively efficient, but the facts leading up to the block haven't changed. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You upheld your own block without proper review, so don't start pointing fingers at Rlevse. Dreadstar † 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
And I say again, there is no policy that says I can't do that. If you want to change that situation, do so. However, the policy does specifically list the three ways a block can be lifted, none of which applied to Rlevse's (or your) actions. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to reread the above comments. If you think rlevse and I have abused our administrative rights, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you abused your rights any more than I abused mine. Both parts of the policy are open to interpretation. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I misunderstood your comment above: "the policy does specifically list the three ways a block can be lifted, none of which applied to Rlevse's (or your) actions". Dreadstar † 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on the wording of the policy, the block shouldn't have been overturned without discussion. But I know that's an issue that's been debated at length at WP:WHEEL so I can understand your point of view. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked into the original block or the reduction, but I believe it is pretty generally understood that for obvious reasons, a blocking administrator should not review and deny an appeal from one of his or her own blocks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the reasons are obvious, unless you're going on the assumption that admins are running around with vendettas. If the block is a mistake, I'm just as capable of seeing that as anyone else. If the request is reasonable, I am willing to unblock and have done so. I've blocked a lot of users and I've seen a lot of unblock requests, and I've never had a block overturned because they're always justified. This isn't the first time I've reviewed my own blocks, when the unblock requests are clearly frivolous. If doing that is against policy, then update the policy to say so. First I've heard of it. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen an administrator review an unblock request in a case where they've made the original block - and if that's not a clear statement on process, then we'll certainly shore it up. Plus, no one, afaict, is criticising the original block. Dreadstar † 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen it. Made sense to me, because I assume administrators have the ability to be impartial in reviewing their own actions. And, since we aren't supposed to undo a justified block without consent from the original admin, it just adds an extra step. But if that's a problem for everyone, by all means, change the wording. Kafziel Complaint Department 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
An admin doesn't need consent to undo the actions of another admin, merely discussion. Rlevse clearly discussed it with yout before unblocking. The problem is yours, not ours. I'd suggest you move on. Dreadstar † 04:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Move on"?? Um...this is my talk page. Where am I supposed to "move on" to, when every ten minutes I get another "you have new messages" banner? I haven't followed you to your talk page, or to any other forum for that matter. I haven't made any arguments for reinstating the block, nor have I replied to your less-than-polite comments about me elsewhere. I'm really not sure where this is coming from. Were you expecting me to kowtow? Is that the problem?
And, no, Rlevse didn't discuss it with me. He made a pronouncement here, never responded to my question, and a few minutes later had shortened the block. That's not a discussion under any definition I'm aware of. I'm not clear why you're making this a personal issue - I haven't done anything but respond to messages on my own talk page. Kafziel Complaint Department 05:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe I missed it somewhere, but I'm suggesting that you move on from insisting that you can review unblock requests from editors that you have blocked. It's clearly in the policy wording: "Appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block." "Another administorator" means an administrator other than the one who did the blocking. If that's not clear enough for you, I'll add extra wording to the policy so it's undeniably clear. Dreadstar † 06:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like the part where I said, "You're all welcome to fix the policy wording if there's consensus to do so, and I'll never review another block again"? I guess you did miss it. Now, everyone else here managed to voice their opinions with a modicum of respect, and at this point I think I've put up with just about enough of your abuse. I'm not sure who appointed you the Admin King, but it certainly wasn't me. So if you have a problem beyond this point, take it up somewhere else. Kafziel Complaint Department 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't miss that comment, it just didn't make sense to me. Since you asked, I've clarified who should be reviewing unblock requests. Dreadstar † 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
PS, no I'm not a King, just a Lord....;) Dreadstar † 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 13 March 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nagasaki National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)