User talk:Spartaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Spartaz)
Jump to: navigation, search

Spartaz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

What again?

I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2006 and have been an admin since the middle of 2007 with a couple of long breaks due to on and off-wiki stress. Historically I have worked mostly on deletion discussions and at one time was one of the most prolific AFD closers. From November 2012 to early 2014 I closed most DRVs but am no longer very active there. I am a strong proponent of applying the GNG to article content - especially for BLPs.

I am mostly inactive now. If you have a question or a request don't be surprised if there is a delay for an answer. I have no problems with you asking another admin on my behalf.

Useful Links:

please stay in the top three tiers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catharsis (Sworn In EP)[edit]

Do you know what exactly am I supposed to do from here? I assume the article isn't suddenly immune from deletion, so... I think it's pretty obvious that article should've ended up deleted. Do I wait and start a second AfD? Take it to Deletion Review? It just seems really weird. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • drv will be very unlikely to entertain an appeal for this. The long and the short is that Wgolf should not have canvassed and it destroyed the discussion. I can't see how any of the canvassed users can nominate or participate in future discussions with clean hands. I suggest you leave it someone uninvolved to pick this up in due course. Spartaz Humbug! 08:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Like that's gonna happen. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one who canvassed and ruined the discussion so its pointless being passive aggressive with me. I have teenage kids so its water off a duck's back. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not my fault either, that's why it's so weird, like, this article should've been deleted but didn't because of some bureaucratic technicality, and now the article just sits there and there's nothing I can do about it because, why? I agree that the nominator made a mistake by canvassing, but the result of that doesn't make any sense. ... It's just an article about some EP so I'm gonna let it go now, but I'm not happy about it. It might take literally forever for some uninvolved editor to come out of nowhere and realize that the article could be AfD'd. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Its not a technicality, its a fundamental requirement to maintain the integrity of our decision making. Perhaps the person who did the canvassing might feel embarrassed about the effect of their actions but they didn't seem very contrite when I raised it on their talk page. Perhaps you should continue this discussion with them? Spartaz Humbug! 19:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi Spartaz, I think you may have accidentally deleted Inoculation yesterday. The AfD was for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inoculator, though that article on an album had been moved to Inoculator (EP). Other than the name it's not related to inoculation.--Cúchullain t/c 11:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Please accept my apologies. Colour me embarrassed.Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No harm done. And no worries, it happens.--Cúchullain t/c 19:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Allied Wallet[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I'd like you to change your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Wallet (2nd nomination) as it does not reflect the discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The discussion was worthless because of the use of the notification system for canvassing delete votes so I'm afraid I'm not reclosing this. I suggest you wait a while and renominate and hope that the canvassing isn't repeated. Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I've taken it to DRV. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)



May I please request that you reveal what you meant by the term "non-established users" from the phrase " I'm giving less weight to arguments from non-established users" that you left in your closing statement for the AFD here [1] Thank you for your time. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm referring to the ip voters. Spartaz Humbug! 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Trigon Engineering Society[edit]

Hello Spartaz,

I was wondering if you could explain why you decided to delete Trigon Engineering Society. I strongly feel that a consensus had not been reached since a discussion was still ongoing between me and Bali88, with Bali88 stating he would review the new sources and update his opinion (from probable delete to delete or keep). Therefore I believe the result should have been to relist the discussion for further review. Thank you for your help!

Puppysnot (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Consensus was clear and the policy based votes were to delete. Location means nothing and your other argument - of a single source - did not meet the requirement for multiple reliable sources. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree. All votes were policy-based, with two arguing delete, one arguing keep, and one arguing probable delete pending review of sources. More important, Bali88 did not get to update the "probable delete" vote based on review of the new sources that I added. I'm not saying the overall verdict should have been "keep," but I believe the discussion should have been relisted to allow Bali88 to review all the facts. If he had decided "delete," that would be that. I don't know what you mean by "location doesn't matter." I don't remember bringing up location at any point. Again, thank you for your clarification. Puppysnot (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Your keep argument started the organization has had a permanent presence on the Lawn of Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village. I'm not sure how I was supposed to interpret that except as a reference to location. And there were 2 delete (nominator counts), 1 probable delete (all 3 reflecting policy) and your non-policy based keep. That equals a delete consensus when consensus is measured by arguments against policy. Spartaz Humbug! 20:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • You're right, I forgot I had mentioned that. I initially believed my keep was policy-based, since I believed I had two reliable sources, but on further review of WP:SCHOLARSHIP it looks like non-PHD theses aren't permissible. In that case I understand your judgment. Thanks for clarifying. Puppysnot (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pawn deletion[edit]

Hello. You closed the pawn deletion discussion with delete citing lack of sources: But I listed at least two WP:RELIABLE sources, and updated the article with them. And an editor previous voting for delete changed it's vote to keep after seeing that. All the delete votes were cast before I edited the original article with the new sources. There was no lack of sources (IMHO) nor consensus for deletion. Please review your decision. Caroliano (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Are these the same sources you gave in the AFD where two very experienced editors still voted to delete afterwards? Spartaz Humbug! 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That was in 2 April. After Neutrality voted delete I went again to search for more sources and posted them in 5 April. Piotrus aparently didn't even read any of that, as it said "Self-published (creator's website) references only". Then I went to update the article itself. After that Be..anyone changed his vote. The other two didn't apear again to say if they changed their opinion or not after that. Caroliano (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I didn't pick up on that - probably because your comment included I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion. What were the additional sources you referred to? I will review them and see if that should have changed the outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I think you can see the history of the article. The main ones were the Dr. Dobbs article and the page in that book (that is a real mainstream printed book where it costs to them to add one extra page). And also the notable software/games that use/used it. In the deletion page I also listed lots of evidence that it is widely used by many groups unrelated to the language authors, as an informal pledge for notability, to show it is not a pet project or commercial spam. Caroliano (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
for your cool consideration of and decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African american men in computer science. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Andreas Lubitz[edit]

No doubt you'll see it eventully, but a DRV has been raised on this subject. It appears a merge discussion and the deletion were running concurrently which makes this a bit messy. -- (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Allied Wallet AfD[edit]

Just to let you know, I didn't receive any ping or canvassing of the new nomination (I just learned that I could have pings on in notifications); I learned about the re-nom through my daliy check of the AfD log, and that alone. Just wanted to let you know that only my familiarity with the previous AfD, not any notice from the nominator was why I even learned of it. I do accept the no-con determination, but usually I don't even enjoy receiving canvassing notices as it screams 'please delete/keep this article please!' and just is desperate. Nate (chatter) 03:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)