User talk:Spartaz

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

What again?

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2017. That makes me a bit stuck in my ways but I have the benefit of experience and working through many of the changes that have left us where we are. I am getting grumpy. Sorry but all the drama and grief has washed away a lot of my younger idealism...

A BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

I mostly work on deletion discussions. I am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources? Also, don’t waste your time asking me to review a close or you are going to DRV because I’m not going to review a close with a sword hanging over my head. Just raise the DRV or ask someone else.

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

Please don't leave talkback templates as I always watchlist pages when I edit and I'm perfectly capable of looking for a reply myself.

please stay in the top three tiers

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 25 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive24 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Jonathan Peizer

Regarding recent deletion of article for Jonathan Peizer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Peizer_(2nd_nomination) This was created by an unaffiliated 3rd party in 2012 and since I have referenced it in multiple links over the ensuing years I'd like to make a case for maintaining it at the risk of a lot of 404 errors.

Please find additional references not on the current article page: - https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer - https://everything.explained.today/Jonathan_Peizer/ - http://moussemagazine.it/influencing-machine-galeria-nicodim-bucharest/ (See references Jonathan Peizer) - Morino Institute From Access to Outcomes, Digital Divide Report http://www.morino.org/divides/participants.htm - https://socialsourcecommons.org/appreciations - Wired June 1998 pg 106 Netizen Section - Sysop for Soros by Ben Green - Uncanny Networks The MIT Press, A Leonardo Book March 2003 ISBN 0-262-12251-0 7 x 9, 392 pp.- (Description of Background on page 144 prior to the Actual Interview Chapter) - https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/651/566 (Background information proceeds interview)

3rd Party reviews of my Books / Manuals: https://www.alliancemagazine.org/book-review/the-dynamics-of-technology-for-social-change-jonathan-peizer/ https://fcw.com/articles/2006/07/24/welles-the-dynamics-of-technology.aspx https://www.philanthropy.com/article/What-Grant-Seekers-Should-Know/174201 https://www.philanthropy.com/article/New-Book-Explores-Role-of/172427

Thank you for your time. Jpeizer (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer April 21st, 2019

I'm happy to review the deletion but you are clearly not practiced here and a half-baked request won't make any progress and might make getting the article back harder. Please can you read WP:NOTPROMO & WP:GNG to understand the hurdles you need to jump. Once you have done that, pick two sources that you think best meet GNG and list them here. If they are any good, I will.either relist or undelete the article. If they are not good, I won't. Please don't waste your time or mine if the articles are not good enough. It would help you know what to put up it you can say how the sources are independent, reliable & in-depth. The source would need to meet all 3. Interviews are not independent, profiles are. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Agree with you 100% that I am clearly not practiced here with the variety of rules and procedures. Per your request:

• https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer
• https://alchetron.com/Jonathan-Peizer
• https://everything.explained.today/Jonathan_Peizer/

Jpeizer (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Jonathan Peizer 22 April 2019

Sorry, none of those are even close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spartaz: Really? https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jonathan_Peizer is not even close? I'm never disappointed by the arbitrariness displayed on Wikipedia. An article goes uncontested for five years. Out of the blue it is deemed unworthy, invalidating years of reference links to it. Is there consideration taken of the consequences of that? Not an iota. While we who ask questions are told to always be polite, more often than not we encounter rather unnecessary snarkyness as a reply and derision for not being expert in following multiple levels of distributed and ever changing rules that all too often make something that was fine one day, an egregious sin the next. Thanks for your "consideration/considerateness" in deeming my accomplishments unworthy, including, most ironically, supporting Wales/Wikipedia through the Information Program in its early years at OSI. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

In what way do you consider SourceSafe meets the GNG? Look at the criteria. look at the source, tell me how it meets it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z152

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Template:Z83

I dispute I was creepy

You wrote "An I the on!y one who thinks contacting the subject is a bit creepy. "

Could you please refrain from applying the word "creepy" to other contributors' character?

In 2011 I started an article on Dawn Dumont, a multi-talented Native American woman, who was a lawyer, an actor, an author, a journalist, and a stand-up comic. I had even found a couple of freely re-usable pictures of her, a fan of hers had uploaded to flickr, from one of her stand-up performances, to illustrate that article.

I was impressed by Ms Dumont. I thought the article I had written was neutrally written. I thought it didn't say anything negative, or objectionable.

Well, a month or two after I started the Dawn Dumont article I learned Ms Dumont wasn't happy with it. Her initial complaint was over the freely distributable picture I had chosen. She uploaded some alternate photos, she preferred, and replaced the free picture with one of her proprietary images. She then seemed not to understand that those images were going to be deleted, because she had not specified a free license when she uploaded them.

When her images were deleted she got angry, said she resented any kind of online profile of herself, that she didn't control, and said she wanted the article deleted.

I had been the only contributor who had altered the article's editorial content, so I had the option to apply a G7, author requests deletion speedy tag. Ms Dumont's wishes were clear. I could have told her how to use our procedures to go through the usual channels to make a request for speedy deletion. But, I decided not to force her to jump though those hoops.

That was my intent in leaving a note on one of Ms Nelson's YouTube videos.

While I think Ms Nelson measures up to our inclusion criteria, I also think she is close enough to the cusp that she would win a courtesy deletion, if she were to request one. Traditionally, while we would not agree to delete an article about a really major figure, like OJ Simpson, we have agreed to delete articles on BLPs who have measured up to our inclusion criteria, who are less notable - as a courtesy.

I would prefer to save my time, and not work on an article that may get a courtesy deletion. If Ms Nelson is going to consider requesting courtesy deletion, I can save her time, and the time of everyone who reads her request, by a request not to bother.

I think this was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Geo Swan (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry mate. It's creepy and I'm entitled to call it out. Why don't you work on articles that are not marginal instead of imposing yourself on this person. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Are you assuming that it is obvious that Ms Nelson was some kind of victim, when her late mother took the picture in question, in 2006? Are you assuming that she was an unknowing victim, brainwashed by her parents, when she offered an apparently articulate rebuttal of the politician's criticisms of her mother, in 2008? Please consider the possibility that she wasn't brainwashed, in 2008, and that she may still believe her late mother's artistic choices deserve her defence today. If she still continues to want to defend her late mother's artistic choices, as an adult, please consider the possibility that your efforts to "protect" her actually constitute an unwelcome effort to silence her. If she continues to hold the same views about her mother's artistic choices in 2019 that she held in 2008, why shouldn't it be you, Spartaz, and those who agreed with you, who she might regard as creepy, for trying to censor her?
2. The wikipedia is not a fora for advocacy. Specifically, in this particular case, the Olympia Nelson article is neither a fora for true believers to advocate for the suppression of discussion of instances of images of unclothed people, or unclothed children, nor is it a fora for other true believers to advocate for the free expression of what they consider images of images that hold significant historic or artistic value. If Ms Nelson did not have significant referencing to support that she measures up to inclusion criteria of GNG, neither the views of her mother's challengers, or the views she voiced in 2008, would merit inclusion in a standalone article. But you looked at the version of the article on the non-WMF wiki. The main change I made there was to more than double the number of references, to over 2 dozen references.

   We are not prosecutors. Perhaps some people who have voiced opinions on Ms Nelson's mother's artistic choices think she should have faced criminal charges? Tough. She didn't. If she had I am sure we could have found a way to cover those charges using a neutral voice. I think anyone who is disturbed that she didn't face charges, who then wants to delete this article to suppress an instance where the free expression they oppose won, would be seriously lapsing from NPOV.

3. While the public discussion in 2008 can fairly be called a controversy, I think it is one that could trivially be covered if those working on the article bore in mind the various wikidocuments we have for how cover RS that disagree using a neutral voice. I think that when the article was nominated, and when it was deleted, it was written from a neutral point of view. Maybe, looking at some version or versions of the deleted article, you think you see lapses from neutrality? If so, they are small lapses, right, ones that could be dealt with through small rewordings, or excisions - not requiring outright deletion, correct? I don't think there was ever a meaningful controversy over the actual wording of the article.
4. You are correct, that, in 2017, prior to the closure of the AFD, I copied the wikipedia article to a non-WMF wiki. However, if you meant to imply bad faith on my part, for requesting the admin who closed the AFD to userify the article, a week ago, you are completely incorrect. We are all subject to normal human fallibility. I did recollect copying it to the non-WMF wiki. But, when I went looking for it, I couldn't find it. I thought my memory of copying it to the non-WMF wiki was a false memory, and I was cross with myself. That is when I requested the closing admin to userify it, and, when they declined, I opened the DRV. You noted I had edited it "recently". My first edit of it in a year and a half was May 12th, several days after I made my userification requests. I did a google search looking for recent RS that mentioned Ms Nelson, and was very surprised to see I had copied it to that other wiki after all. It is doubly surprising as material in the other wikis Deleted: namespace used to be protected by a blanket NOINDEX.
5. So, having found the version on the other wiki, on May 12th, why didn't I withdraw the request for userification?
   • I still think Ms Nelson is notable enough to merit a standalone article;
   • I don't think anyone offered a genuine policy based justification as to why the article should have been deleted, in the AFD. BLP1E was repeatedly claimed, and it was frankly bullshit, as she clearly was known for TWO events. The nominator eventually claimed he made the nomination after he ...noticed this article because it used as a source the personal blog of a creepy Australian fucker obsessed with naked children. I am sure I don't have to remind you that if we find an article with lots of acceptable references, and one reference we consider really bad, deletion is overkill. Simply removing the bad reference is simpler and more appropriate.
   • I don't think anyone has offered a genuine policy based justification as to why the topic doesn't merit a standalone article in the DRV.
6. If Ms Nelson responds that she doesn't want to be covered by a standalone wikipedia article, I will remove the article from the non-WMF wiki.

   What will your position be if Ms Nelson says she has no objection to having the article restored? If she were to say my note was considerate, not creepy, are you going to withdraw your characterization of my note as "creepy"? Geo Swan (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sometimes verbosity betrays the lack of a good argument. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

• You wrote "You are really obsessed by this person aren't you.

Your use of the term "obsessed" does not comply with our policies and conventions on civility. As an administrator I think the rest of us are entitled to see you show an example of civility for other contributors to emulate. Please see my essay User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...

No, I am not obsessed with Ms Nelson. I am very concerned that good faith contributors should be able to find the decisions we make here understandable. They should either be firmly based in our written policies, or in our long-standing conventions, like the allowance of courtesy deletion. This one isn't, because:

1. Since her 2013 op-ed triggered world-wide comment claims of BLP1E became bogus;
2. Complaints I was "creepy" have nothing to do with her notability or assertions of whether or not that certain policies applied to her;
3. The essay BLUDGEON was wielded like it was an actual policy, as if these claims justified endorsing the original closure.

I'd be completely happy to see her remain uncovered, if a convincing policy-based justification for deletion was advanced. Geo Swan (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fellowship of Friends has been accepted

Fellowship of Friends, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yo Spartaz, you want to go for the AUTOPATROL flag, I'll second you :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)