User talk:Kafziel

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 2 days days are automatically archived to User talk:Kafziel/archive4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Barnstar for excellent writting on spam

		The Original Barnstar
		Great essay on WP:GRIEF, as someone who deals with counterspam often, that is well written! Congrats! —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding block of Netscott

Hi, I am responding to an unblock request from Netscott. Looking at the history for the page it seems that Netscott made three edits that day if you count consecutive edits as one as WP:3RR says is often done. The report on the 3RR noticeboard if read on it's own would lead me to the conclusion it was a technical violation of 3RR, when in fact it was not a technical violation, though very possibly one in spirit.

My question to you is, did you make that block under the impression that Netscott has violated the letter of the 3RR rule, or did you do it for his violation of the spirit of the rule? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the most unpleasant thing I've had to do so far as an admin. Kafziel ^Talk 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a tough job. Remember, no matter how correct you are, people are still going contest your actions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, per HighInBC. I don't mean to second-guess your decision, but with the page protected a block might be unnecessary. Maybe Netscott could be unblocked so he can continue his work on other pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. As Netscott himself already pointed out in the 3RR discussion, the two of them have not just been edit warring on this page. Kafziel ^Talk 16:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are more familiar with the details than I am, so I'll leave it to your judgment. Best, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Never an easy call to make, and I commend your fortitude. However, it seems to me that two of the edits, while odd, are not by any means reverts. While he may have reverted elsewhere, or at other times (I'm seeing some evidence of that about 6 days before the block) it doesn't appear that he did so on this occasion and at this article. I'd be concerned that a future complainant (say 6 months down the track) would use as justification that he was blocked for 3RR here when it appears the other party was equally guilty and can continue without any stain on the record. I would also note that Netscott is not an administrator, so the "higher bar" comments made on the page (by another user, and which I acknowledge you probably didn't take into account anyway) don't seem to stick. Orderinchaos 05:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you help, please?

Hi Kafziel, my article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked by a user for deletion as a way to force its merging with another article. I think there is a violation of certain commonly accepted WP practices here. Someone suggested to merge this article with other articles just a day ago. This is fine. We started discussing this question at the talk page. I suggested to try some improvements and then decide about merging. So, why not to allow me to improve this article first, and then decide? What would happen if everyone started marking articles for deletion instead of discussing their merging and working under their improvement first? Could you take a look and tell: is not it a kind of violation? Thank you.Biophys 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a violation of any policy. The AfD seems to be made in good faith, with a reasonable argument. If nobody agrees that it should be deleted, the discussion might be closed early. On the other hand, a lot of people might think that it should be deleted or merged. Either way, AfD will encourage input from a lot of other editors. Don't worry about it! Kafziel ^Talk 23:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree. Actually, AfD discussions help to improve articles and also learn something.Biophys 03:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope it is not the case of approaching an administrator who would decide on whether the article would be deleted? Would Biophys mind keeping distance from deciding admins in order to produce more objectivity? Biophys, you approach every admin who could affect you interests. How is it called commonly? Vlad fedorov 04:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will not be the one to decide whether to keep or delete that article. Kafziel ^Talk 04:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:GRIEF

Two words: pure genius! And much respect to a fellow angel-name-stealer. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. If you're the cousin of Jesus could you get him to verify a few facts on his entry?

Pure gold :) Orderinchaos 01:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just laughed my ass off! (It's around here on the floor somewhere...) Brilliant! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rooz

Thanks for your message and being reasonable. However I have to admit that I was raising all my concerns in the talk page but Gerash refused to provide the translations and separate the references so we can see who is claiming what, and grouped them together for his benefit. That's the only "change" he did. I guess it's never easy with the articles with little interest so I will follow your advise and seek third party opinion. Regards, --Rayis 14:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

read one more time

User:Rayis reported by User:Gerash77 (Result:)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Rooz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rayis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 1st revert: 07:57, 15 April 2007
• 2nd revert: 04:54, 16 April 2007
• 3rd revert: 05:40, 16 April 2007
• 4th revert: 05:43, 16 April 2007
• Aware of 3RR [1]

The part about Rooz being "funded by Hivos", and critics argument "it works in the interest of that nation, and does not represent factual accuracy of the events" was reverted four times as seen.--Gerash77 12:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Regarding your decision on 3RR and an interesting 3RR warning left on my talk page, I have noticed that Rayis has "retaliated" my comments and my report, contrary to the guidelines of Wikipedia. It is clearly obvious that the terms "funded by Hivos", and "it works in the interest of that nation, and does not represent factual accuracy of the events" was reverted four times. Please take appropriate action. Thank you.--Gerash77 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is protected, so you needn't worry about any more reverts. We block people to prevent disruptive behavior, not to punish them. Protecting the article has settled the edit war; now it's up to you to discuss the changes you want to make. Kafziel ^Talk 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Then would it be possible to block both of us for a few days to teach us a lesson? Thanks.--Gerash77 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What would that solve? The issue would still be there when you got back, and neither of you would have been able to discuss it.

Use the article talk page to work out your dispute, or seek mediation. Kafziel ^Talk 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gerash

I am sure you read that surprising message above, but whats next is please read what he said next on the article's talk page [2], what constructive comment! the guy is out to get me blocked! He has previously been blocked for stalking [3]. What am I supposed to do? It's hard to WP:AGF when the user is not here to improve articles --Rayis 14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this listed under 3RR and I feel obliged to point out that User:Rayis has displayed disruptive behaviour on serveal occasions. Recently I had a confrontation with him due to uncivil behaviour, borderline NPAs and most importantly, removal of other people's edits from an article's Talk page. I tried to bring this matter to admin attention but it was not taken very seriously [4]. This is not about Rayis versus me or any editor whatsoever, it's about Rayis being a disruptive editor due to his poor understanding of WP:POLICY. I brought this up in hopes that he'd receive an official warning, understand his mistakes and ameliorate himself as a wikipedian. I was at the point of filing an RfC myself but I dropped the subject at EL_C's request. Miskin 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)