User talk:Spartaz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Alt
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

Arbitration case request[edit]

Hi Spartaz, I've commented out the picture you used as your statement as is draws disproportionate attention to your statement and isn't too decorous. Please feel free to make a statement which adds something to the request. Such as a reason the Committee should hear the case. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Spartaz, please don't revert the clerks, they're trying to make Arbcom proceedings a better place. If you disagree with one of their actions, the place to go is their noticeboard. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

this shit again[edit]

Re Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Information -- let it go. AC has never let images remain in their case pages, so it's not a personal thing. They've allowed the image link to remain, so your meaning is clear. NE Ent 19:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I still want my question answered. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox question[edit]

Hey, I was looking for some old information I may have stored somewhere and just noticed that you deleted User:Yaksar/sandbox a few years back. I'm sure this was just some run of the mill procedural thing, but could you let me know if there was any content or edit history on the page when it was deleted and, if so, restore it if possible?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • For some reason a random user did a copy paste usification there. The page copied is now at [[1]]. Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's...interesting? I don't have any explanation for that, at least none that I can recall. Was there any other history to the page besides that?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • None. Spartaz Humbug! 18:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPSOURCES[edit]

You recently reverted another editor and protected an article, [2] justifying your action due to the action of the previous admin, who cited BLPSOURCES. However, I must inform you, BLPSOURCES is explicit on what qualifies for reverting. The relevant parts of the policy that you are appealing to include:

  1. Contentious material that is poorly sourced
  2. Clear BLP violations

The material in question has been previous discussed in February 2014 on both the talk page and on the relevant BLP noticeboard. In both discussions, no evidence emerged that this particular source involves either 1) contentious material nor 2) clear BLP violation. Therefore, your revert and subsequent protection was without merit and should be reversed immediately. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

They won't. This isn't about the source or the article. This is a show of power in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way. I don't want you to feel you are being personally attacked. It is your contribution I criticize. It does appear to be a show of force. I don't know you. You are probably an excellent editor but I do find your contributions as an administrator to be less than acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
The policy I referred to is the actual BLP which states under Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced
Policy shortcuts:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.
Under Restoring deleted content it states:
To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material.
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
John removed the material citing BLP. Whether or not that is right is down to a talk page discussion. The one which was already there did not demonstratively come down in favour of the Daily Mail and as such John was arguably enforcing consensus as well as exercising admin functions under BLP. I have no strong opinion on the actual content but I am clear the policy is that deleted material under BLP should not be restored without a positive consensus to do that. Absent that it is perfect reasonable for any admin to put an article back to the argued BLP compliant state subject to that discussion. This action implies no endorsement of either pro or anti position. Simply a desire to see the content determined by discussion rather than reverting.
You are both entitled to your opinions about t he reasons for my actions but as Mark says you don't know me so your opinions are just that. Speculation. The above interpretations of policy are the reason I acted, If you disagree feel free to ask for a second opinion at ANI. Personally, I would suggest that resolving that consensus on the article talk page is the most productive activity but YMMV.
I get you don't approve of my actions. I can't say I'm over impressed by some of the behavior or rhetoric I have seen around this either but I hope that we are all adult and mature enough to appreciate that other people may have different perceptions of the same events in good faith and subsequently act on that perception in good faith. I realise that some of that good faith is a long way short of being applied at times but I'm old enough and ugly enough not to get upset by that. Whether or not you do is something I do not control. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
There was NO contentious material and the two of you are just picking a fight with an editor you disapprove of and using your tools over a content dispute. Seriously. Unacceptable. Also...you really need to get your shit together when you talk about me and begin telling people I was involved in your block of Viriditas. Such dishonesty and exaggeration is well beyond what is expected of an administrator. I did not involve myself in the 3RR discussion, nor did I ever say one thing about the block until you lied on the edit war page to attempt to drive me off the discussion. You're out of control.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the block. I was referring to the underlying dispute at Talk:Maup_Caransa and described your support of Viriditas Vehement, According to Merriam Webster Vehement means showing strong and often angry feelings : very emotional. Which part of I don't know what the fuck you are screaming at and I don't give a fucking shit. doesn't fit that description? Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

EFC Africa[edit]

I did not see a Deletion review on this [3]. Is this Kosher?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  • This isn't an identical article so is protected from G4 and the sources appear to be different - if equally poor see for yourself. I think this probably needs another AFd to discuss the sources. DRV would refer it there anyway so that would be my preferred response. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Gracie[edit]

The article was deleted via a 3-2 vote. This isn't a consensus but rather a small majority. I have seen quite often when a 3-2 vote did not result in deletion but the talk of no consensus reached. Additionally, many individuals in the articles for deletion noted Jorge via MMAnote rather than MAnote [4]. At worst, I would like to have this article userfied. Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)