LessHeard vanU (talk | contribs) |
Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) →Your comments at the Moreschi RfAR: NPA warning |
||
Line 244: | Line 244: | ||
:::* Thank you but try not to remove arbitrators comments by mistake next time. ;-). I have restored it for you. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) |
:::* Thank you but try not to remove arbitrators comments by mistake next time. ;-). I have restored it for you. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::* Thanks; and I didn't warn you - as I hope you realise - but spoke of the consequences to the community (and if there was a warning from anyone else, I trust you binned it!!!) [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC) |
:::::* Thanks; and I didn't warn you - as I hope you realise - but spoke of the consequences to the community (and if there was a warning from anyone else, I trust you binned it!!!) [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC) |
||
Look... The problem here was not that you have an opinion. The problem was that the original comment was a personal attack and violated civility policy. |
|||
There are numerous examples above your comment of people making critical comments without making personal attacks. I believe that you know what you did wrong, whether you want to admit it to us right now or not. |
|||
When you blow up on someone and make it a personal attack or uncivil to the point of rudeness, it doesn't help. It muddies the waters, degrades the whole conversation. It is counterproductive, and corrosive to the community. |
|||
I agree with you that Giano's been an ongoing problem. But I would like you to consider this note a formal NPA warning. Even your redacted comment leaves the lingering stench of personal attack. Again - your opinion (which I agree with, on a personal level) is not the problem. It's how you've expressed it. Please do us all a favor and refactor it again in a manner which doesn't insult Giano in the process of stating your opinion on the events. Thank you. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:09, 18 December 2008
Hi, sorry if you object to my editing this page, but I think you should take another look at Tung-Wang, because I don't think anyone realizes exactly how bad the "sources" are. People were voting "keep" on notability grounds, which I would agree with, except that this wasn't a real person, it's a recent story floating around the internet. Juzhong (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying this is a hoax or did the bloke really exist? Spartaz Humbug! 08:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
consensus?
I should imagine, and would prefer, to see this AfD closed as "no consensus" as opposed to "keep"; there didn't seem to be any consensus for the latter in the discussion. If your interpretation concedes a consensus that I don't see, could you then instead explain such? Thanks. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You nominated the article as unsourced. DGG made the following keep argument "Keep There are multiple sources available for all star treckepisodes, and they've been cited in other articles. since they've all been discussed by RSs, they are every one of them notable". You did not challenge the accuracy of this assertion and, as I'm sure you know, discussions are closed against policy not headcount. There was a clear assertion by a trustworthy well established editor that sources would exist and this was not challenged by the nominator. I can only presume that you accepted the argument that there were sources. Since the nomination was that there were no sources and you accepted there were I can only conclude that the consensus of the discussion was to keep the article. Spartaz Humbug! 08:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- One reason I didn't challenge DGG (talk · contribs) because I made the same argument to 23skidoo (talk · contribs)
Another is because DGG was effectively arguing that despite no providence of evidence, he's absolutely sure "there're pertinent sources out there for this article—I just don't need to provide them or cite them specifically here so others can improve it." I was silent on his point because I assumed the administrative closure would see the same fallacious argument as I did.True, there are a lot of relable, secondary sources for a lot of Star Trek. Whether there are for this particular episode[, there's been no evidence proffered]: for the last 14 months there has been no effort or interest in this article except for reverting my {{notability}} and {{reliable sources}} tagging (and deftly ignoring that particular page's discussion tab).
Further, Wizardman (talk · contribs) has now removed the {{notability}} tag after the AfD closure, despite it still being obviously applicable. Would you be willing to make the reversion there as the involved administration? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, I'd rather have my teeth drilled without painkillers then insert myself into this fiction wars. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ouch, and with regard to the former? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Its a valid statement. DGG is an established good faith editor who is knowledgeable about sourcing and deletion policy. I rarely agree with his actual position on deletion - I'm mildly deletionist and he is definitely inclusionist but I respect his opinions and listen carefully to his comments. If he says sources exist then I would tend to accept that in good faith unless the position is challenged in the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ouch, and with regard to the former? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- One reason I didn't challenge DGG (talk · contribs) because I made the same argument to 23skidoo (talk · contribs)
Neil Clark BLP/OTRS issues popping up again
Hi there. Please take a look at this Wikiquette Alert. I saw that a couple weeks ago you had referred to prior OTRS involvement. I think that something concerning BLPs and OTRS probably supercedes what one might call "Wikiquette". heh... Anyway, FYI that this little fight appears to be ongoing still. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, you may want to take a look at this blog post as well... --Jaysweet (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Concerns
Spartaz, I have to admit concerns about your block of IwRnHaA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Especially because in your block message you said that there was a "clear consensus" at ANI.[1] I think that this may have been an overstatement of the situation, especially as the thread had only been running for a few hours.[2] As more voices have joined the discussion, even more good faith concerns have now been raised about this block. In other words, it's just not a good idea to place an indefinite block on a user who does not have any clear history of disruption. There was no imminent danger to the project here, that required such a rapid block. Please, in the future, you might want to consider acting with a bit more restraint. Especially in controversial situations, it is better to ensure that there is a clear community consensus before taking such strong action. Thanks, --Elonka 23:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, at the time I blocked yours was the only voice that disagreed. I think you would agree that the block was broadly accepted with only one real dissenting voice - at least by the time I went to bed last night anyway. I'm really surprised that you think its OK to lecture another admin about consensus in these circumstances. Spartaz Humbug! 06:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Nick Savoy
Hi,
Could you put the deleted Nick Savoy page in my user space? I would like to work on the page and have it rewritten again so that the page does conform to the core Wikipedia policies. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster7 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nick Savoy Consensus
May I ask you to relook at this DRV? To quote in its entirety what you wrote: "There are so many comments by users with few contributions that do not really city policy reasons that its really hard to reconcile a policy based consensus with the overall level of opinions cast. While by no means disregarding or disrespecting the opinions of the new commentators, I have been swayed by the fact that the experienced users have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. Deletion is therefore endorsed by the last version will be made available on request to any editor who would like to work on this in their userspace. I think it would be much easier for the article to be undeleted if we are presented with a well written version of the article that is fully compliant with core polcies to review" You twice here make reference to the apparent consensus among editors for deletion (if ignoring the new editors), for instance: have pretty much all argued to endorse the deletion. While I'd normally agree with the point being made that the correct action for the closing admin to take is the same as "pretty much all" the editors took as consensus is important. Yet when I read through the DRV I see the majority of opinion is towards keeping this article (even when completely ignoring all the new editors, but then strictly speaking you could also exclude an additional couple of editors who were for deleting as they were mainly swayed by the flood of new editors. Ironic really that a person's popularity is causing a hindrance to them being covered by Wikipedia. Anyway, the level of opinion for keeping the article comes out on top regardless of how all the new editors are treated. Though ideally their opinions shouldn't be completely ignored either, some of them have obviously carefully thought about this such as the last editor on the DRV with his references to relevant policies.). While I of course do know these are not decided by simple majorities, the lack of consensus for deletion does appear to be at odds with your closing statements. Thanks for you time. :) Mathmo Talk 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll look at it later when I have had time to properly review this. Thank you for raising your concerns. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz - I also wanted to chime in here, and I appreciate your time, with a couple of points - you'll see some of these in the undelete discussion, but they're kind of jumbled in there and I wanted to drop you a note.
1) Yes, a bunch of new users (or old users who hadn't edited in a while, who I think is unfair to call sock puppets, since they do have editing histories even if a bit old) did weigh in on this, and I know that can be annoying. But it's not the fault of the people who worked on the page. There is a post on The Attraction Forums (a large free forum devoted to exploring Nick Savoy's techniques) - not by me - that I'm sure drew some traffic and new people - http://www.theattractionforums.com/forum/discussion/81896-savoy-has-wikipedia-page.html
2) There was some confusion over whether we were asking for the original AfD to be overturned (no) or whether we had made a new page on the same subject (yes). The first couple of votes seemed to be based on the former idea, which I then corrected. It wasnt even the same people who did the original article vs. the new article.
3) Many experienced users including Mathmo, Secondsight, and woodenbuddha (and others) argued against deletion, some quite strongly.
4) Many of the issues with the article noted by "no" votes have already been fixed or are referring to the previous version.
5) Someone - I forget who - put up a list of "sock puppets" voting in favor as a reason to vote no. When I looked at that list, I was pretty surprised to see that most of the names on that last had not voted. I think that person was referring to the earlier discussion.
Thanks for considering this. I know this must be a pain in the neck. It's just disappointing because we were gearing up for another round of major edits to the page - our goal is actually to win a wikipedia commendation for the page. Aim high, right?Camera123456 (talk) 20:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Love Systems
Hi Spartaz,
There seems to be a misunderstanding. This new Love Systems page was revised after several contributors of the Wiki seduction community approved the page. However, according to G4 this page is not substantially similar to the old AfD page. Could the page be back up? I would like to work out the standards on the discussion page of the article. Coaster7 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted the page because it was originally deleted after a AFD and Camera12345 recreated it in mainspace without first going through DRV. I might have let it slide but they were also told by another experienced user that they needed to DRV it but instead used a misleading edit summary to the effect that the experienced user had given them the OK to ignore the AFD. Frankly that is poor form and I'm not prepared to let gaming of the deletion/undeletion system slide in such circumstances. Userfication of the deleted article is available on request but I would expect the draft to go through DRV before it reappeared in mainspace. Spartaz Humbug! 19:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you could put it through DRV and let the community work out the page. Coaster7 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Not really my role to do that. I wouldn't in good faith raise a DRV for an article I had no active interest in having undeleted. You are welcome to host the draft in userspace yourself and raise the DRV but it should be raised by someone who actively wants the article undeleted. Why don't you hold fire while I rereview the DRV close per Mathmo's request since it makes no sense to have this running if I end up relisting the other discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would love to have the draft in my user space. After some revisions and editing, I'll notice you about it and I would love to receive future critiques on the page. Thanks! Coaster7 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you could put it through DRV and let the community work out the page. Coaster7 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz - I just wanted to apologize if I went about the Love Systems page the wrong way. I am keenly interested in continuing to research and learn wikipedia standards (and have come a long way, lol) and wanted to assure you that it wasn't intentional. I will do whatever it takes to do this properly, and I appreciate your time in dropping me a note on my talk page. I will do whatever you think is right for that page.Camera123456 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was working on the Love Systems page and I wanted to make sure Wikipedia several admins would approve the page. Since we had contact before on this page, I wanted to have your input on it. Whenever you have time, could you give me some pointers on how to improve the page? The page has to go through a DRV before it can get back up like you said. Any feedback is much appreciated!
The page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coaster7/Love_Systems
Thanks in advance. Coaster7 (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your conclusion, "inadequately sourced for an independent article," sounds like it's leading up to "merge", not the delete you said. I think you picked the wrong word to summarize it. Perhaps you want to correct the slip. DGG (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Nick Savoy
Hi there, courtesy heads up that your close is being contested on my talk. It doesn't appear he notified you. I don't have the time or inclination to look into this at the moment, but it appears I agree with you. Just wanted you to know it's being discussed. StarM 03:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Request
Hey - can I get a copy of Heroin (band)? Chubbles (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm stepping on your toes, Spartaz, but I went ahead and emailed Chubbles the content from the most recent deleted version, taking care of this request. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Request
Dear Spartaz, you closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shirley_the_Loon, saying that it is “inadequateluy sourced for an independant article”; however, there seemed more than sufficient consensus there for a merge and redirect and recent discussions concerning characters from the same franchise with similar notability and sourcing closed as keep (see for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dizzy_Devil, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold the Pit Bull, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifi Le Fume, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Babs_and_Buster_Bunny). Thus, I would be willing to create a list of characters as suggested in that discussion and am therefore requesting the article be undeleted so that I can merge any cited material after which I will immediately redirect the article or even if you would be willing to undelete the edit history, create the redirect, and then protect it, that would be fine too. From here on out, I am only willing to make such lists that I am able to significantly improve and build as I did with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_characters_in_The_Nightmare_Before_Christmas&diff=251606962&oldid=251096230 so my goal would be to do what I am doing with the Nightmare Before Christmas character list with the planned Tiny Toon list as well. As with the Nightmare Before Christmas character list, I hope to add out of universe sections and only include information and list characters for which I can find references in secondary sources. I have avoided commenting in the actual AfDs, because I would much rather focus my time on article building (plus it was my birthday weekend and all…) Thank you for your time and help! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The article is currently at DRV so all bets are off until that has finished. Mudge me afterwards if the article is still deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The JIDF thread at WP:AN/I and that Checkuser discussion
Hi, Is anything happening out of your discussion with user:Jehochman about doing a CU on User:DontbeaPOVPUSHER and his reincarnation? I had said that he may not be User:Einsteindonut because of failing to deny a connection with the JIDF, but he has now made such a denial [4]. I'm the most active of three people reverting his edits and I'd rather have this progressed quickly so that I don't get dealt with under edit-warring policy.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- yeah, its needs listing at RFCU and I haven't had time yet. You don't need tyo be an admin to list a CU so feel free if you have time before I do. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you undo the 'Resolved' banner on this issue at ANI? Since the reincarnation of DontbeaPOVPUSHER, Howdypardner, is continuing to edit the article actively, a 3RR case may be possible. In my opinion, single-purpose accounts that edit the article of just one controversial organization deserve the searchlight glare of admin attention. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- 3RR has been violated. Looking within a 24 hour period
- I reinstate the quaotation from the FAZ [5]
- Howdy undoes my edit [6]
- Hans Adler reinstates my edit [7]
- Howdy does a series of edits which remove the "self-styled fighters against hate" [8]
- I partially revert what he has done [9]
- Howdy reverts a reference to Antiislamism I added the previous day (word used in the FAZ article)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force&diff=252575910&oldid=252547640
- Howdy reverts another addition of mine where Haaretz reports the return of groups to their previous owners.
- In the talk page, Howdy claims that Haaretz was wrong on this detail (but not on others which benefit his side), gives links to what was going on in the various groups which I think is enough to indicate he is well enough aware of the details of JIDF's operations against the Facebook groups to demonstrate that he is a JIDF insider and has a WP:COI. Could one of you two please block him under 3RR for long enough for the Checkuser, COI and disruptive single purpose account issues to be considered? That way it will be worth my and other people's efforts to restore the article page. Also may be a long term semiprotect will make it harder for the JIDF to create accounts and immediately disrupt the page. They'll have to wait for the accounts to mature enough to edit.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that Howdypardner is editing agressively at JIDF, and there is a reasonable suspicion of a COI. These days it takes a long discussion on a noticeboard before COI will lead to any sanctions (unless there is blatant disruption or spam going on), and it is more straightforward to block for 3RR violation. Howdypardner does appear to be dancing around a whole lot of issues. I would consider a block if there were an obvious 3RR; the events listed above by Peter don't seem decisive. Going by the letter of policy, there's not even a case for semi-protection. Howdy would be stopped by a semi, but he is not a vandal or (so far as we can tell) a sock. If his only reason for being here is to push the JIDF line, that should become more clear in the next few days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to think this is more a desire for attention, in the WP:TROLL sense, rather than POV-pushing. At the point Einsteindonut was blocked, his version was the current version of the article, and it remained that way for weeks. It's not about the content. This string of new editors seems to be mostly intended to create drama. The JIDF's real problem is that they had their 15 minutes of fame, got their press coverage, and scrolled off the news. They need to provoke another controversy to get more coverage. I think that's what we're seeing. So, as I've suggested before, the usual WP:TROLL procedure should apply. Revert slowly, ignore attempts to get attention, block when necessary. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- If some editors are working disruptively here because they want more attention paid to their group, we might consider the value of shortening the JIDF article. Though newspaper articles are reliable sources, many of the article's references are to websites of various kinds. Normally we de-emphasize controversies that are happening only on blogs. Perhaps the article could be shortened to emphasize only those facts that are known through the reliable sources. Talking about their campaign to influence Wikipedia seems a bit self-referential; perhaps that could be shortened to a couple of sentences. I'm not sure why we would include so many links to JIDF's site in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a case for that, but I'm inclined to leave the article alone for now. I've asked on AN/I for 48 hours of semi-protection, to put a damper on the sockpuppetry. --John Nagle (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You asked for semi only at Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force#Editing today, unless I missed it. I could not decide if semiprotection is the smartest move, but someone else may figure it out. Howdypardner is not yet blocked, most likely due to some uncertainties in the CU report, which I'm still reflecting on. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, my edit to AN/I didn't commit. The article was semi-protected anyway. Things should quiet down now. --John Nagle (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- You asked for semi only at Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force#Editing today, unless I missed it. I could not decide if semiprotection is the smartest move, but someone else may figure it out. Howdypardner is not yet blocked, most likely due to some uncertainties in the CU report, which I'm still reflecting on. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There's a case for that, but I'm inclined to leave the article alone for now. I've asked on AN/I for 48 hours of semi-protection, to put a damper on the sockpuppetry. --John Nagle (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- If some editors are working disruptively here because they want more attention paid to their group, we might consider the value of shortening the JIDF article. Though newspaper articles are reliable sources, many of the article's references are to websites of various kinds. Normally we de-emphasize controversies that are happening only on blogs. Perhaps the article could be shortened to emphasize only those facts that are known through the reliable sources. Talking about their campaign to influence Wikipedia seems a bit self-referential; perhaps that could be shortened to a couple of sentences. I'm not sure why we would include so many links to JIDF's site in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to think this is more a desire for attention, in the WP:TROLL sense, rather than POV-pushing. At the point Einsteindonut was blocked, his version was the current version of the article, and it remained that way for weeks. It's not about the content. This string of new editors seems to be mostly intended to create drama. The JIDF's real problem is that they had their 15 minutes of fame, got their press coverage, and scrolled off the news. They need to provoke another controversy to get more coverage. I think that's what we're seeing. So, as I've suggested before, the usual WP:TROLL procedure should apply. Revert slowly, ignore attempts to get attention, block when necessary. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that Howdypardner is editing agressively at JIDF, and there is a reasonable suspicion of a COI. These days it takes a long discussion on a noticeboard before COI will lead to any sanctions (unless there is blatant disruption or spam going on), and it is more straightforward to block for 3RR violation. Howdypardner does appear to be dancing around a whole lot of issues. I would consider a block if there were an obvious 3RR; the events listed above by Peter don't seem decisive. Going by the letter of policy, there's not even a case for semi-protection. Howdy would be stopped by a semi, but he is not a vandal or (so far as we can tell) a sock. If his only reason for being here is to push the JIDF line, that should become more clear in the next few days. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the talk page, Howdy claims that Haaretz was wrong on this detail (but not on others which benefit his side), gives links to what was going on in the various groups which I think is enough to indicate he is well enough aware of the details of JIDF's operations against the Facebook groups to demonstrate that he is a JIDF insider and has a WP:COI. Could one of you two please block him under 3RR for long enough for the Checkuser, COI and disruptive single purpose account issues to be considered? That way it will be worth my and other people's efforts to restore the article page. Also may be a long term semiprotect will make it harder for the JIDF to create accounts and immediately disrupt the page. They'll have to wait for the accounts to mature enough to edit.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Freebiejeebies
Thanks for the intervention at Freebiejeebies. If you take a look there's a bit more to the situation. (the article has overwhelming support for deletion and the article's author refuses to improve the article. I've also filed a 3RR. Any assistance would be appreciated. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need to block the article author over this. They are new and are about to see their article deleted. Protection was designed to end the edit war. At this point we just need to walk away and someone will close the AFD and delete the article in the next day or two. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I wasn't planning on reverting again and wasn't really looking for a block so much as maybe an explanation from an admin. I thought maybe that would have some more wieght since nothing else has. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations JIDF rolling newsfeed links to your work.
Yes you feature as a "One Man Campaign to Remove Pro-JIDF Comments on Wikipedia". They haven't added you to there "hate list", however. --Peter cohen (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- According to User:Nagle we might want to ignore these updates, since (in his view) it is feeding the trolls when we draw attention to their activities. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, If they want to watch me dealing with broing deletion debates they are more then welcome to look over my shoulders. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
revert relistings
I notice that you closed several AfDs just a few minutes after another admin decided to relist them, and after no further discussion had begun, -- , -- I'm a little puzzled. Perhaps it was an edit conflict? DGG (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I, too, am a bit confused. If you get a chance, Spartaz, would you mind leaving a comment at my talk page? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- There was some discussion about this on the talk pages for AfD or the deletion process. My understanding is that "relisting" doesn't bind anyone to 5 more days of discussion or anything similar. Not sure what the "admin" relisting has to do with anything. Protonk (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, DGG is correct, they were showing up as unclosed on the OLD afd listings and for some reason I did not realise to date on the relisting. I'm reopening them now. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I wrote in the wrong place by mistake, and deleted
I answered your question at Deletion review (eom)
Retiring
Just thought you'd like to know that I've given you a mention here. Sincerly, D.M.N. (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
The RfA Barnstar | ||
Spartaz, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC) |
design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies
Heads up
Hi Spartaz!
Just wanted to enlighten you a little about a particular user who you recently "ran into" (unfortunately). It might be worthwhile to take a look at a few of their recent edits, see [12] ; [13] ; [14] . I have a serious issue with a person going around and changing biographical information to suit their own predispositions (POV’s) or nationalistic views (no to mention, without any credible sources whatsoever). From the very inception of this user account, this user’s purpose has been exactly this (in fact, if there’s any doubt to user’s mission, see the user page <– to me such “grand” ideas are very dangerous). Unfortunately this user has what seems very much like only one purpose in mind: edits directed against one particular nationality. It is one thing to improve articles relating to your own nationality but something entirely different to direct one’s time at depriving another nationality of its identity and inciting needless nationalistic-based edit wars (see here, somewhat reminiscent but, in fact, more disturbing than the Liszt talk page). To me, all of this just doesn’t seem to be constructive and, in fact, seems very disruptive of Wikipedia. On a lesser note, I should also point out potential sockpuppeting by this user ([15]). I have been an active editor for almost three years now and this is definitely up there with the most disturbing cases that I have come across. In my personal opinion, your block of this user was well placed. Best Regards, aNubiSIII (T / C) 21:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Try the etnnic tensions noticeboard. The user demonstratively improved their editing after my advice and I should not have blocked them. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Reversal of Scientology & Sex NAC
Hello! I am sorry to see that my non-admin closure of the Scientology & Sex article was reversed following an extremely abrupt DRV (no one bothered to notify me that this DRV was taking place). In your edit summary of the reversal, you noted: "Scientology articles are subject to offsite canvassing and a solid rational for deletion has been provided." The first statement is presented without any evidence, at least in relation to this discussion. If you have evidence that this discussion was the subject of off-site canvassing, I would ask that you present it -- otherwise, that statement is not correct in this situation. Your second statement is strictly an opinion that ignores the consensus that I used to justify the NAC. The ongoing discussion is proceeding with an overwhelming consensus to Keep. I suspect this discussion will be closed as Keep, which would confirm the merits of my original NAC decision. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Any NAC is subject to summary reversal by any admin and snowing any Scientology type article after a preponderance of non-policy based arguments is simply absurd. Scientologists always stack debates and canvass off-site. They have a whole department devoted to keeping Scientology articles according to their wishes and there have been millions of arbitration cases about this. Just look at the history of RFAR if you want concrete examples. The DRV was raised with a legitimate complaint and I relisted the discussion summarily because that was what the result of the debate was inevitably going to be 5 days down the line. There are already supporting delete votes at the relisted discussion and AFDs are closed according consensus measured by policy not headcount. Right now we need to discuss whether the sources proffered are RS and whether the article is OR. That can't happen unless the debate is allowed to run. I do allow that I should have notified you but frankly if you are going to try and NAC discussions in controversial areas then you should expect this kind of thing. If you can't cope with that then you should think long and hard about what areas you should be trying NACs. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and comments like "if you can't cope" are inappropriate within an adult conversation. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion closed as Keep In case you were not aware, this AfD was closed earlier today as Keep -- I consider this closure to be a vindication of my original NAC action, since the none of the arguments raised in reopening the AfD were confirmed by the closing admin. That being said, I am sorry that our initial encounter got off on a rough footing, and I sincerely hope that we will be able to work together in the near future on a positive collaborative effort. I greatly appreciate your input and hope to see you online again soon. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion review for Arnolds
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Arnolds. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've protected this article after making it into a redirect. As I noted on its talk page, it's incorrectly titled anyway. I've made a matching redirect from what would have been its correct title at Thomas Kottoor - could you please protect that too, to prevent the article being re-created at its correct title? Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hummus
Thanks for locking the article - I was sorely tempted to do it myself - but sadly I can say with absolute certainty that within a week (if not much sooner) of it being unlocked that it will be reverted back to the POV version, as unfortunately sane, neutral editors are far outnumbered by the opposite in this area.
It was indeed a shame that I had to take such action, but over the past couple of years I have rarely (possibly never) seen a report to ANI or AE lead to any kind of action which has actually solved the problem in the long-term, so I hope you can understand my frustrations. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- yes. I understand your frustration, I have been in and out of the door several times in recent months myself but you cannot expect your being an admin to protect you from 3RR blocks. There is no such thing as right or wrong in a 3RR case - simply a bright line that must not be crossed. I doubt you would get another warning. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's very nice and all, but I'd like this decision to be reviewed by another administrator, because it's quite clear that Number 57 feels justified in their reversion,s as evidenced by his follow-up comments to your decision. How would one go about getting this decision reviewed in an impartial, fair, transparent manner? Tiamuttalk 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Raise it at ANI or AE but you strike me as being more concerned about punishing Number 57 then stopping the disruption. I took a course designed to stop immediate disruption and prevent future problems arising so I think my decision is reasonable and defensible. I'm working now so if you raise it can you specify that my justification is here and at the AN3 thread as I don't have time to respond personally. Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you not notify User:Number 57 of the RFA, given that user's persistent reverts of multiple editors, and non-participation in the Talk page? —Ashley Y 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't notify Tiamut either. Both of them were parties and active participants in the case so they already knew of the possibility of discretionary sanctions. The template and the system were designed for an entrenched set of editors with incompatible POVs. Unfortunately, the battle spilled over into this article. I'm sorry that I needed to take the step but templating everyone is a required first step if we are to use the discretionary sanctions to prevent people using the article to push a political POV. Spartaz Humbug! 12:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you think you should give warnings to User:Nudve, User:Nsaum75 etc., as well? I realize they were not involved in the edit-war, but those you did warn only made one edit each (in one case, two). If the warnings are so that everyone is on an equal playing field, re: the discretionary sanctions, then shouldn't everybody involved in the discussion get a warning before the page is unprotected? Tiamuttalk 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Mark Robbins
Hi, I don't see why Mark Robbins would fail the notability test and thereby have his article deleted. If the products he created were notable enough to be in Wikipedia, then it seems that the author could claim derivative notability in the same way an artist, say, may gain notability through the works they create. In this case, Mark's output was rather progressive for its time plus is manifest in several other Wikipedia articles. Please advise, thanks.
- notability is not inherited and must shown by linking to multiple non-trivial independant sources. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for maintaining Wikipedia standards. That's why it's so good. I'm disappointed as he seems to be "notable" enough - but can't prove it... I saved the page code in case he can some day. I would probably remove some "peacocky" statements too. Arrowcatcher —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC).
oops
you protected Talk:Hummus which must be a mistake? <eleland/talkedits> 23:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I think I have cleared it. let me know if there is still a problem. I was extending the protection on the article and protected the talk by mistake. Spartaz Humbug! 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Hummus
Doesn't look like anything is happening. No less than five other editors have offered a compromise version (Al Ameer son, Nudve, GwenGale, Eleland, Ravpapa) which is supported by other editors (myself and Nsaum75), and I have asked the opposers on several occasions to state what would be acceptable for them aside from Palestine, but unfortunately the three (Tiamut, Ashley Y and Ani medjool) are unwilling to move forward... пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have left you a response to your request on how to move forward at Talk:Hummus#A working proposal. Tiamuttalk 21:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
The latest puppet you blocked
Hi Spartaz The sockpuppet report I raised is still open. Can I just delete th report or do you want to close it yourself so that it gets archived?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
DRV closure
In the Fabio da Silva DRV, I presented arguments not raised in the previous DRV. Speedy closing it as a repeat of something we just did is completely improper. Please reverse your action. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. You argued that being a member of team makes you automatically notable but that is not what Athlete states and we already had the discussion about the bar for this player was - his début. Until he makes one he doesn't merit an article. DRV isw not the place to change interpretation of policy. This was clearly supported by everyone contributing so the outcome was clear. On a secondary point you chose to make your nomination an attack on another admin. Practise at DRV is that offensive nominations get closed unless there is real merit in the case put forward Spartaz Humbug! 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bar for the player should be WP:N, which he clearly meets - something that had not been addressed in prior discussions. Indeed, there was substantial new argument in the DRV, and it does not seem to me appropriate to decide unilaterally that there is no "real merit" to it, especially only seven hours after its opening during a period where the bulk of Wikipedia's users were asleep. Furthermore, the attack on another admin was a perfectly valid observation that he was wheel warring. To my knowledge this is not considered "offensive" in normal circles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I further point out that WP:ATHLETE states that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability," which Fabio da Silva clearly is, making the "fails WP:ATHLETE" arguments wholly irrelevant to policy. To declare this to have no "real merit" is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- While Phil is correct (and I was about to bring that to this discussion), I do note the deleted version only had one reference, which means that the general notability criterion is not yet met, though Phil has claimed elsewhere that more sources are available. This might be a case where userspace editing to add those claimed sources would be appropriate, and presuming they exist, meeting ATHLETE is not required. --MASEM 15:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I provided the sources - I found three - on the closed DRV. I am happy to create a new version of the article without reference to the deleted versions, and utilizing all three sources so as to keep G4 from being an issue. In fact, I think I'll go do that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- While Phil is correct (and I was about to bring that to this discussion), I do note the deleted version only had one reference, which means that the general notability criterion is not yet met, though Phil has claimed elsewhere that more sources are available. This might be a case where userspace editing to add those claimed sources would be appropriate, and presuming they exist, meeting ATHLETE is not required. --MASEM 15:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I further point out that WP:ATHLETE states that "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability," which Fabio da Silva clearly is, making the "fails WP:ATHLETE" arguments wholly irrelevant to policy. To declare this to have no "real merit" is ludicrous. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The bar for the player should be WP:N, which he clearly meets - something that had not been addressed in prior discussions. Indeed, there was substantial new argument in the DRV, and it does not seem to me appropriate to decide unilaterally that there is no "real merit" to it, especially only seven hours after its opening during a period where the bulk of Wikipedia's users were asleep. Furthermore, the attack on another admin was a perfectly valid observation that he was wheel warring. To my knowledge this is not considered "offensive" in normal circles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Liberty Fund
I found evidence of notability that FisherQueen agreed was what she was asking for. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncoverer#AfD_nomination_of_Liberty_Fund . I have removed the copyright violation and am now ready to re-create the article. Please unblock it. Uncoverer (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry no, I don't think the sources in your rewritten article are strong enough. Discuss this with FisherQueen Please. Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Giano II
Was there really any need for this. Those sort of comments are almost indistinguishable from trolling. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please rewrite a little bit and resubmit. --Cyde Weys 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't like it rewrite yourself since I have no idea of knowing exactly what your objections are if you don't tell me. Spartaz Humbug! 22:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comments at the Moreschi RfAR
The above were becoming the focus of an edit war, so I have taken the liberty of removing them as a way of de-escalating the dispute. I do not agree that they should be removed and would be pleased to see them re-instated, but perhaps in a tone that is not so potentially antagonistic. If you were to agree, for the sake of keeping the peace, to have them removed permanently I would be grateful, but it is your right to have your opinions read - but please bear in mind the possible consequences to the community. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- No disrespect to LHVU who is an excellent contributor with great judgement but this really illustrates the dichotomy between those of us who edit with a high tolerance for what I could regard as acceptable "knockabout" and those who do not. I would have removed the section on request and have done so now. Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it is obvious that you care more for the community than Giano does - who generally only cares for the encyclopedia - and I thank you for it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you but try not to remove arbitrators comments by mistake next time. ;-). I have restored it for you. Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks; and I didn't warn you - as I hope you realise - but spoke of the consequences to the community (and if there was a warning from anyone else, I trust you binned it!!!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Look... The problem here was not that you have an opinion. The problem was that the original comment was a personal attack and violated civility policy.
There are numerous examples above your comment of people making critical comments without making personal attacks. I believe that you know what you did wrong, whether you want to admit it to us right now or not.
When you blow up on someone and make it a personal attack or uncivil to the point of rudeness, it doesn't help. It muddies the waters, degrades the whole conversation. It is counterproductive, and corrosive to the community.
I agree with you that Giano's been an ongoing problem. But I would like you to consider this note a formal NPA warning. Even your redacted comment leaves the lingering stench of personal attack. Again - your opinion (which I agree with, on a personal level) is not the problem. It's how you've expressed it. Please do us all a favor and refactor it again in a manner which doesn't insult Giano in the process of stating your opinion on the events. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)