User talk:Spartaz/Archive4

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


RFA thanks

Janitor's bucket with mop.jpg

Thank you, Spartaz, for your constructive comments in my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without frying my brain, of course.
Thank you once more,

AndonicO Talk

Admin mop.PNG

Your RfA nomination

Deletion review

endorseI simply can't see a valid encyclopedic article coming out of the ashes of this lot. We are better off without it - wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for "The Truth"TM

  1. DRV is not AfD. It's for a discussion about the deletion process, not about the article itself. Arguments against keeping the article were already made in the AfD, and a majority rejected them.
  2. Have you actually read the deleted articles or their talk pages? Not the versions from a year ago, but the ones that were deleted? They were already pretty close to valid encyclopedic articles. — Omegatron 13:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't appear to be the only one who thinks we should not host these articles. I'm sorry but we simply do not agree on this. Spartaz Humbug! 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the deleted articles or their talk pages recently? — Omegatron 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tom Rockney (male model)

Replied at deletion review. --Paltriss 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


You receive my full support. I understand that you may not have much time as you want to spend here (I'm not a parent or anything), but you have more than adequate experience and you deserve the admin tools. Sr13 22:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Likewise... I saw your name up at RfA, and I think you'll be a great admin. It should go through, and it looks like it's going well so far (knock on wood). MastCell Talk 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) *sound of knocking on head wood* plenty of time for it to go wrong yet! Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey:) I'm just here to wish you good luck on your Rfa. You have my full support as well:) Have a nice week and god bless:)--†Sir James Paul† 05:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.:) Spartaz Humbug! 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I haven't a clue what info was in the WP article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Spartaz on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Spartaz. Thanks. --Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!! Evilclown93(talk) 15:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and welcome to the Cabal.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Shhh! Anyhoo, congratulations, you'll be a great admin. I've found the learning curve can be a little steep, so don't hesitate to ask for help. MastCell Talk 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations, and I was glad to see your name on the deletion log. If you're going to be helping out with CSD, there is a very useful script at WP:CSDAR.--Kubigula (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you find it helpful. Don't know of any other especially useful admin scripts at the moment, but I'll let you know if I run across any - and please do the same. Cheers.--Kubigula (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am really pleased to see you active in the deletion log. Well done. Not every new admin takes part in this absolutely necessary work.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, Spartaz! Enjoy clearing those backlogs. —Anas talk? 20:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Forest Oak Middle School

Congratulations on your shiny new mop and bucket.

Please consider undeleting Forest Oak Middle School which you delted as an A7 (failure to assert significance). I think it is generally felt that school articles are not appropriate subjects for A7 deletes, due to the general debate over the notability of average schools. Speedy deletes in general are supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions, while (given the history) school articles are likely to be controversial speedy deletes. See WP:SCHOOL and its talk page for some backgrpound on this. Also, A7 formally extends to "people, groups, companies and web content" and it is at least arguable that a school is none of these. DES (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congratulations. Concerning the deletion, I'm curious how you came across this one? I think A7 can generally be used on any article - and this was a one line stub that actually contained meaninful no information. A1 no context might also have applied. While I stand by my deletion, I really don't think that the decision is worth either of us wasting any time spent disagreeing about it - I have undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You might want to re-read A7. It specifically says "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that..." A school is not a person, club, company, or website, and it is not what was intended as a "group" either (the initial proposal for that expansion of A7 used the word "club"). I have been very concerned recently about what I see as significant over-use of WP:CSD#A7. See recent discussion at WT:CSD#A7 Scope again and WT:CSD#An expansion to A7, and look in the archives of WT:CSD for lots more on this subject. see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 25 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 24. Because of this, i have been looking through recent deletion logs from time to time, and double checking A7 deletes. I may have found this page in this way, or I may have ruin into it on speedy delete patrol (which I do fairly often), found it already deleted, and double-checked it (which i routinely do in that circumstance). I can't recall which route this one took, off-hand, but it was one of those two. Thanks for undeleting. Had I encountered this myself, i might have AfDd or even prodded, or have redirected to the school district or municipality, but not speedy deleted. But other admins may well have other views. DES (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that A7 needs to be used with due care and consideration, I think that in view of the limited length and lack of content in this article I would have {{speedy}} deleted it. I have not done so now; any sort of wheel-war is wholly unnecessary on so trivial a point.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW I agree but I didn't think it was worth arguing about. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Positive Coaching Alliance"

The original author of the "Positive Coaching Alliance" article, who is brand new to Wikipedia, requested its deletion, probably because he did not want to appear to have, or be accused of having, a conflict of interest. Before any controversy began, I ran across the article quite by accident, and spent a fair amount of time doing Wiki-formatting (looking up all the Wikilinks to avoid disambig, for example). It seems like "Positive Coaching Alliance" is a good organization with high-profile psychologists and other people supporting it; it probably should have its own article.

If I decide to write it, is there a way for me to access the coded text as it stood after I did all the work to wikify? I don't know how to see anything other than the deletion log:

  • 19:40, 24 June 2007 Spartaz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Positive Coaching Alliance" (CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion)

I suppose I could call myself a co-author of the original article, so a possible solution would be to undelete it and then I would rewrite it, cutting out all the adulatory language. Also, please advise a course of action for the associated Talk page of the deleted article. The original author recently blanked it, apparently not knowing what else to do with it. I've never dealt with these issues before myself. You can respond here as I'm watching this page.

Thanks. -DoctorW 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done - see your talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 05:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasnt sure where to post it. That location will do for the time being until I can get the article restored :P. Cableguytk 06:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Overthrow vs Overturn

Elegant variation. overthrow is perhaps a little over-dramatic. Thanks for noticing DGG 15:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh yeah. I noticed that too; and thought, perhaps he wants the evil "admin-emperor" overthrown for the extreme lack of sense. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


No, that's okay. I was trying to give a hand to the horde of meatpuppets (they were the ones who placed the review tag on their page) since they are quickly becoming uncivil and I didn't want them to try to drag on the process any longer.

For the record:

The sole opposition for the deletion comes from User:Cazza411 which [appears to have been created for that reason alone], and User: whose only [recent activity] is to contest the AfD.

In addition, the review was started/prompted by User:Manic4wiki who appears to have been created [for that purpose], and User: which is the University's proxy.
This all looks like astroturfing by a group of sock and/or meat puppets.

Was what I indended to add, but you were much faster to close that silly review than I could have anticipated.  :-) Coren 15:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to look at the top of your page, where User:Cazza411 is wondering at your closure. I know I miss top-posted messages most of the time. Just a heads up. Coren 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I resent User:Coren insinuation that my sole reason for being on wikipedia is to argue the point about Radio Monash. Yes, it was the first page where I though the argument had enough merit to warrant my joining the wikipedia community, but it is certainly not the only page I have contributed to in some way. I have contributed to several other pages, and have been looking over a number of User:Coren arguments in other debates. It seems User:Coren uses that particular comment on a regular basis to attempt to undermine the validity of a persons argument. I find it juvenile and extremely insulting. That said, the only reason this went to DRV was that KrakatoaKatie (who closed the argument) told me the only way to argue against her decision was to take it to a Deletion Review. Therefore, I placed the DRV template on the page orginally, although did not subst the page. I note others have made changes to the page since my original DRV template was placed on the page. Cazza411 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And I also consider the term sock/meat puppet to be extremely insulting.Cazza411 16:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Go and take your argument to your own talk pages please. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Radio Monash

  • Why did you close the argument for deletion review? I understand that merging is not a deletion, but I was directed by KrakatoaKatie to place the article under deletion review as I disagreed with her closing the original argument. Therefore, since she closed the original argument, I am going to unclose your closure! (sorry)Cazza411 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see your talk. Exactly what are you arguing? If you want to overturn the AFD and delete, please advise. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As per above section, I am not arguing for a deletion. I was told that to argue against the merge of the page (as I considered the argument not settled) I had to take it to a DRV.Cazza411 16:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • DRV won't take on a request to review a merge as technically there is no deletion to duscuss. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, then how do I argue against the merge, and why did another administrator tell me this is how to do it? Additionally, I'd like to make a complaint about Coren. Where do I go to do that?Cazza411
Merges should result in no information being lost and the data should appear in the new parent article. Therefore there is not considered to be anything to argue about. Why don't you wait for the merge to take place and if it is imperfect you can then bring it to DRV but you would be expected to make a good argument why DRV should intervene. Alternatively you could seek a consensus from the editors of the article to see whether there is a case for the information to be spun off to a separate article. If you dfo this, you will as a minimum, be expected to be able to address the concerns raised in the AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, thanks anyway. I've decided, after dealing with Coren, I no longer wish to be a contributor to wiki. My particular field is Genetics, and I think I could have been quite useful here, but I don't want to deal with people like Coren and the consensus seems to be that there are too many like him on wikipedia to make it worth my while. I appreciate your help though.Cazza411 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Elan School

How is this "blatant advertising"?

Elan School is a private, residential behavior modification program and school (beginning with 9th grade and extending beyond high school completion) in Poland, Androscoggin County, Maine.
It was founded in 1970 by psychiatrist Gerald Davidson and Joseph Ricci. In 2005 it had an enrollment of 172. The annual cost is $49,071.96.
The school's treatment methods are based on the "TC" or therapeutic community modality popularized in the 1950s at facilities such as Synanon, and later at Daytop Village.
Kappa 03:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the article read like a brochure. Hardly surprising given that it turns out it was a direct cut and paste from & Is that what you created? I can restore the article for you, but only if you make sure that you don't let the article get in this state again. (I'm going to be away today but may have time to do it tonight). Please let me know. Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Elan School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kappa 22:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for assisting me with moving the disambig article Hipparchus to Hipparchus (disambiguation). Now, I need the Hipparchus article (it's just a redirect now) removed so it would be possible to move Hipparchus (astronomer) there. Then it's just a matter of checking and fixing the links and talk pages. Thank you for all the help. Maurog 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm all finished with Hipparchus related stuff. The main article is now the one about the Greek mathematician and astronomer as it should be, the disambig page is linked from there, and all links to these articles were fixed to point to the right pages. You mentioned some fixes to history that should be done, well it's all yours now. Maurog 11:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Shadow

I noticed when you deleted Mr. Shadow, you forgot to delete the talk page. Just letting you know. — Swpb talk contribs 14:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mother Hips

Hi, you've been so kind to put Mother Hips in my user space. Iwould like to have it moved into a subpage, but there is no move tab. Can you help please... Fuhbär 12:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) YesY DoneSpartaz Humbug! 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Danny Sveinson

Thanks for the deleted article history post, but I'd already known about it, being an admin myself. I'm actually looking to see if the notability I'd originally asserted would allow its reinstatement. A further question, though, what's the significance of North Vietnam to your post on my talk page? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You linked to DRV, but apparently that has a deletion review header. Didn't know it was called that now, actually. No worries. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shell Vacations LLC

You deleted my Shell Vacations LLC page for "blatant copyright infringement". Exactly what copyright infringements are you referring to?

Okay, so now that I know what you are objecting to, could you please put the page back up so that I can edit it out the offending language, or do I have to re-create the page from scratch again?Ronstock 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry, none of the deleted versions is untainted by the copyvio, so I'm not going to undelete it. I have no objections to the article being recreated but I believe that you have a conflict of interest and work for the company concerned. In this case, it is not appropriate for you to create or edit the article under the guideline WP:COI. Any article that is recreated should have have multiple independant sources and meet the notabilty guideline WP:CORP. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am curious as to why a page like [Disney Vacation Club] [1], which is a blantant advertisement and has a DVC logo that is clearly copied and pasted from the DVC web site, is allowed to exist untouched and unchallenged.Ronstock 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on A Link to the Past's second unblock request

Just to clarify, the reason he put up a second unblock request was because it was the only way he knew to try to reply to ESkog's comment. (ESkog didn't know what Link meant by obvious vandalism, and he put that up to ESkog could see that he meant things like 'expletives')
Anyways, not a comment on the validity of the unblock decline; just a comment on why he put up a second. Bladestorm 19:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Noise

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sweet Noise. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Not me I'm afraid. Spartaz Humbug! 21:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Declining speedy on Infobox Band Members Cene

Did you even *read the title*? --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't require an admin to move a page to the correct location. Unless we already have an article, this is clearly not a test nor nonsense, its just incorrectly named. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly not a test, huh? --ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 10:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What's your point? You tagged an article as a test when there was no content. Content was subsequently added. The article is not an obvious test. There may be other tests associated with it. Nothing to stop you tagging them. You can also prod the article you nominated. Have you used the article editor's talk page to find out what they are intending or were you proposing to help them learn how to edit wikipedia by having all their work deleted? Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora (computer game)


on 30/06/2007 you deleted this article, citing non-notability as your reason. The game:

Why do you believe it is not noteable? The game has also been documented by many other independent sources.

I believe it was a mistake to delete this article. Mikesc86 12:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. The article was deleted as a prod. You could have foiled the prod by simply removing it and deleted articles are restored on request. I am about to undelete the article. When I have, I strongly advise you to add some sources to the article. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Where did you pull that one from? (please help me stop laughing here -- diffs pweez) Matthew 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You provided a diff (note: single), which was a valid friendly reminder to a user who was being uncivil. You stated "habbit" (definition) -- please provide diffs, I'd be really interested in seeing this habit I supposedly have -- so that I may entertain your egregious accusation. I await your reply in earnest. Matthew 19:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that took you awhile to dig up that diff. If you better did your research you'd notice I'd just reverted one of Gurch's edits (in which he banned a user) and it was simply a bit humour (if that wasn't apparent from the spelling). Now, if I was aware Gurch had actually been blocked, perhaps it would be a different story. Anyway dude, keep those diffs coming! Matthew 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


When deleting prodded/afd'd articles, please make sure you check "What links here" to deal with any incoming links/redirects. There's a bit of a mess left behind after you deleted Heroes in Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends, for example. —Xezbeth 19:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, only mainspace links should be dealt with, along with any adjoining talk pages that are now orphaned. As for the images, they could probably be deleted just by citing the prod, but a bot will tag them anyway as they're orphaned fair use images. —Xezbeth 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

helping me fight vandalism

Thanks! Keep on keeping on. -Superbeecat 09:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the autoblocking

Hi Spartaz

I'm now at my home, writing to you from my pc, so I can’t tell you what is the autoblocking number. Actually, if I remember right, I tried to edit from Haifa University few months ago, from a different computer and a different class (in a different building..) and I wasn’t able to do so. The problem is that the IP address there, (which is the same for many computers) is a public domain which serving thousands of students every day, and so, even if only one of them was uncivil or done any thing else that could justify his/her blocked-it still means that a lot of other people, which have nothing to do with it, would be blocked from the same IP as well.


--Gilisa 13:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Banker

Thanks. Wasn't too sure what the protocol is with articles like that one. Paul20070 21:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Boston Dynamics

I switched the sentence of the companies own description of itself from an inline citation; to quotation marks to satisfy the argument that the sentence was a copyright violation, but the article was again speedy deleted, by the person who deleted it the first time. This time the argument was that I cant use a companies website as a source, because that is the equivalent of a blog, and that it is the equivalent of a primary source. Can't the article go to a regular vote? The more eyes on the issue the more likely it will be resolved to everyones satisfaction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC

How do I assert the notability of a company that already has three wikilinks coming into it? The company doesn't have to be the biggest or the best. It just has to exist, be verifiable and have multiple independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you could try describing it as famous, an industry leader, first to do something or such like. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ken_Kaniff. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.


I'm curious who Nate1478 was harassing and where was his indef ban discussed. Thanks. FeloniousMonk 07:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 3 days I have indef blocked 3 or 4 impostors of User:Nate1481. I rolled back back around a dozen edits by today's sock because the edit summaries referred to reverting non-existant vandalism by User:Nate1481. I don't think the user has been banned but the template refers to blocking as well as banning. Certainly, I'm not prepared to unblock an impostor who is harrassing a good faith editor. Have I done something wrong? Spartaz Humbug! 12:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV/ Starchild_Abraham_Cherrix

At Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_2#Starchild_Abraham_Cherrix you commented that "Marginal notability is less important than basic human dignity." In general I agree with that, but since you haven't commented later, I wonder if you missed the part that the person and family involved don't think being publicized is any assault on their dignity? This is given that they maintain a public web page where they archive all stories and legal decisions, and even started a foundation, named after the person, to help people in similar situations. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The banker

Please feel free to just add a {{db-spam}} on articles like that next time. You can speedy delete obvious adverts and its much faster. Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen this on Articles for deletion, and I am disappointed. I don't think there is any chance that this was posted as "spam". This is a magazine aimed at top bankers, and most copies are probably paid for by banks. I don't think it would cross the publisher's mind to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for that target audience. I can only assume that the list of top banks was posted in good faith to provide Wikipedia with a useful resource, which has now been destroyed on spurious grounds without due debate. Piccadilly 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it was a POV-ridden spamfest and we are better off without it. It was probably the most egregious example of using wikipedia for advertising I have yet seen. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lying Game

On what grounds did you undelete this article? You clearly believe it to be deletable because you have prodded it. --Tony Sidaway 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

7 opinions to 3 basically. Its simply not worth the drama of trying to keep it deleted out of process when it won't survive by the usual channels anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't "out of process" to close such a deletion review as "keep deleted". In fact it's the correct thing to do. All of the overturn opinions were based on the false belief that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy and that articles deleted under the wrong criterion must be undeleted even if they're obviously crap. Kow-towing to that kind of lunacy is very much against Wikipedia policy. Please undo your wasteful and ill-founded restoration. --Tony Sidaway 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Demonoid (BitTorrent)

I'd suggest that the speedy deletion of this article should be removed immediately, it's the largest BitTorrent client, featured on dozens of pages referencing BitTorrent.. simply because you may not see it as a relevant website doesn't mean the hundreds of thousands who use it daily do not see it as such. Perhaps you should list isoHunt, mininova & The Pirate Bay as ones for speedy deletion too based on the criterion you gave for its deletion. 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I left the following message in a number of places Spartaz Humbug! 10:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The article has been deleted because it does not assert notability - this is one of the criteria for Speedy Deletion. To meet the inclusion standards, websites have their own guideline. In general reliable sources need to be multiple, independent and specifically about the subject itself. The article has been recreated 3 times and has now been deleted again. I have protected the location to prevent it reappearing. I would suggest that you try and recreate the content in your user space and make the article compliant with the above guidelines. Once you have done that, you can take the article to deletion review or you can drop me a line on my talk page.
Would the article about Demonoid in De Telegraaf (largest newspaper in the Netherlands) that I referred to on the late Demonoid page count as at least *one* independant & legit source? OK, it was in Dutch because Demonoid's original provider was in the Netherlands until last month, but I can easily provide a translation if needed. DarkSkywise 20:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair block

I would like you to reconsider the block of user Sosomk. He has done nothing wrong, he was engaged in edit war by others who are trying to impose their point of view. If you would like to look into more details you'll see that there are 2 users that try to impose a Russian point of view (they keep reverting and try to block the other editors). Myself I was blocked for false revert warring of that article. There is a conflict of interest between one edit warriors who is also admin and us. You should reconsider his block and reduce it at least since he was the victim of the other 2 persons who are trying to impose a point of view. Maybe you should try to mediate.--Tones benefit 10:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, mediation requires more patience than I possess. I'm not changing the block. The other users have the good sense to stop before they 3RR. Also, edit summaries accused other editors of vandalism, I saw no evidence of a willingness to the use the talk page and he has been blocked many times before for revert warring. He can always request an unblock and I also put the block up on AN/I for review. Spartaz Humbug! 10:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, thank you. I will speak with him.--Tones benefit 10:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz, it looks like Sosomk did stop before the "electric fence" - or at least thats his claim. I can understand blocking for edit waring, but under the assumption that the above is true perhaps 1 month is a tad long? I'm not going to overturn you on this one one, but I though it would be worth discussing with you. I wouldn't want to push away someone who might be a good editor under other circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi J.S. I count the following reverts
08.50 5/7
09.30 5/7
10.28 5/7
08.08 6/7
08.45 6/7
The 24 hours starts from the first revert so there are 5 within 24 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 16:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ignore me then, I didn't check it out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries. You of all people here have a free pass. ;) Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Please be aware that your consideration of Davnel03's unblock request is likely to be viewed very poorly by quite a few people. This editor, in any of his many puppet guises, has consistently shown himself to be disruptive, argumentative, bossy, impoilte, and mildly abusive, even at the best of times. At worst he was frankly foul. His block does not relate to the quality of his previous edits (quite a few of which were poor, including adding plagiarised text to a large number of articles which those of us in WP:F1 are still trying to track down and clean even months later) but to out and out, nasty abusive behaviour. In fact, to draw further from the plagiarism debacle, when this was noticed and we remonstrated with him to stop, he flatly refused to accept that he had done anything wrong, and even went so far as to accuse us of deliberately victimising him. He has a long track record of wheedling and pleading at first, in an attempt to get his own way, then turning vicious when things go against his opinion. As things stand I simply can not support an unblock for this user, two months simply isn't long enough to have had a complete personality transplant. Pyrope 11:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you may not like it, and I'm fully aware of the history, but the original block was for legal threats which have been withdrawn. One of the conditions for the unblock will be a cessation of the abusive language that Davenel03 has been using. I also see over 2000 good faith edits and positive contributors are always given a little more rope than pure vandals. You can rest assured that I will reinstate the indef block without warning, if Davenel03 is abusive again. Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you choose just the one block reason? As Readro points out below, this user has been blocked for upteen reasons. I see now that full editing privileges have been returned to him and I have simply lost faith in both you personally and the admin principle in general. It took us months to manage to get him effectively blocked last time, a process which you have overturned after three days without consultation and in the teeth of direct opposition from his previous victims. Who gave you this right? Pyrope 09:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Its called a second chance. It only requires one step out of line and he is gone for good. The up side is that we might salvage a perfectly good wikipedian out of the process. We just have to see. There will be no mercy if he doesn't stick to the agreement to control his temper. Spartaz Humbug! 13:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that I do not support this unblocking. He is an abusive individual who cannot be trusted with editing privileges. In my experience of him he has plagiarised at least an entire year's worth of Grand Prix reports, made legal threats, threatened to bring down Wikipedia, showed abusive behaviour to many people including making insulting comments about people with Asperger syndrome, evaded a ban, created accounts purely to vandalise Wikipedia, and vandalised user pages and WikiProject pages. Yes, he may have some good faith edits but in my mind the amount of negative edits is overwhelming. Two months is not enough for a complete personality change. Readro 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Readro, I can only echo what I said before. He isn't unblocked unconditionally and he will be reblocked immediately if he steps out of line. 2000 mostly good faith edits do earn you the right to a second chance if you accept the error of your ways. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion it is far too early to even begin considering an unblock. His last abusive sockpuppet (User:F1Fanaticsz) was blocked only a month ago! Why he has been granted a second chance, when he must have used several chances by now, is completely beyond me. Readro 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative not a punishment. We have an editor who claims to want to reform who has some histiry of attempting to edit in good faith. It will only take one abusive edit for him to be gone forever so what are we preventing by giving him a final chance? Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
How many chances? How many do we need to give? How often does an abusive, disruptive, arrogant, vicious editor need to get blocked before you (just you mind, you don't seem to have taken any advice on this) decide that he has had enough? Frankly, as such a newly enroled admin, I thought you might at least have the decency to admit that you have made a huge mistake. Apart from a "history of attempting to edit in good faith", he also has a history of repeated, unrepentant plagiarism, uploading copyright material, disruptive use of bots, and sockpuppeteering. He has created at least five separate identities in order to evade previous bans, so to say that he deserves a second chance is stupid. I am requesting an official review of your conduct in this matter. Pyrope 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Help yourself Spartaz Humbug! 18:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My blocking of user:ConfuciusOrnis

I have received some flack over this. Just a note to let you know that I have asked for comment on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and that you are mentioned in the account on my talk page. Thanks. Banno 11:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Congrats on your recent RFA... I wish I would have seen it so I could have supported you. :) Good luck and have fun! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot to me. Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Sosomk

Please see User talk:Sosomk#Conditional unblock. IMO it is better to defuse the status, because both versions in revert war have problems. `'Miikka 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you are babysitting this I have no problems with unblocking on your terms. You have always been fair. Spartaz Humbug! 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Assuming I have your permission to unblock I did it. I am sure you understand that in case of troubles no big deal to reinstate it with no further mercy. `'Miikka 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Spartaz Humbug! 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the unblock. If I do experience any arguments or any problems, I will contact you in the future. Davnel03 08:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that. Davnel03 14:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking this IP, I've just come onto my laptop as my internet only tends to work on certain days! I've tried not to get into any misunderstandings, and so far, everythings been fine. Davnel03 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Spartaz)

Hello, Spartaz. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Spartaz, where you may want to participate.-- Readro 19:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

A word

As the administrator who unblocked User:Davnel03, you seem to have some sort of connection with him since both of you claim that he is changed, and that you both have discussed your rage and whatnot. Therefore I come not to request his re-banning, since I think at the moment it is futile, but instead to suggest that he needs more talking to.

As you have already seen, he made a bolt deletion to 2007 Formula One season, which you responded to on his talk page. However, since then I think things have really gone out of hand. First, he nominated 2007 French Grand Prix (the article he worked on to be unbanned) for GA status without a word to anyone, let alone consensus or discussion on whether it deserved to be nominated. Clearly has has not read the GA nomination guidelines in doing this. Next, he nominated 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix for the same thing, in the exact same way, although this article he had not worked on. These articles are nowhere near GA status for an F1 article.

Next, he ignored a consensus which had already been established on the talk page of Chris Benoit to create Benoit family tragedy. He clearly could have read the consensus since he took the time to post under the same heading on the Chris Benoit talk page that he had moved the article.[2]

Then, he decided that Dave Bautista and The Undertaker were worthy of GA status, again without actually telling anyone, and even ignoring the fact that The Undertaker had already been nominated before and rejected. He also added a photo to Dave Bautista that he had previously been warned in April was not allowed on a biography page.

I know there is nothing inherently wrong or mischievous about what he has done so far. However, I think it is fairly clear that Davnel does not actually read instructions about how to handle certain situations, nor does he seem to bother to check about what other Wikipedia editors are doing or what they think when it comes to articles. In these cases, Being Bold is not helping Wikipedia. As User:Pyrope so rightly stated, Davnel has continually "screwed things up" on several dozen articles, which have required other editors to come in and fix what he has done.

Therefore I ask that, as someone who he seems to listen to, you might sit him down and explain to him that he cannot bulldoze through articles and ignore other Wikipedia editors around him, because if he claims that he wants to improve Wikipedia, that he is in fact doing it the wrong way. The359 05:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Spartaz. At least I know where I'm going wrong, and know not to make these mistakes in the near future. Davnel03 09:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I've created this page to help me remember these things that I've done wrong. Davnel03 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


You tagged this as unsourced but its got a pd-self tag on it and is clearly non-commercial. I have removed the csd from this but would be open to further reasoning why the image should be deleted. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Mistag- Apologies, will strike thorugh on releavnt users page.. Thanks for the heads-up ShakespeareFan00 18:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for Spartaz,re:davnel unblock


It is my understanding the unblock of Davnel was because the issue of threatening litigation on Yamla was cleared up.

When making this decision, were you also aware that

  • User also made more than five sockpuppets (WP:SOCK), vandalized pages and repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL ?

Please answer this on either my talk page or yours. I was recommended to ask you (the unblocking administrator) as per a question I made on the Administrators Noticeboard (ANI).

I await your response within 24 hours.

Thank you, Guroadrunner 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I already explained my reasoning the reason for the unblock of the RFC. Davnel03 will be blocked indef the moment he steps out of line and blocks are supposed to be preventative not punitive. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


No problem. Congrats on your first admin RfC! :) When unblocking an indef-blocked user, it's useful to pre-screen it on WP:AN (for example, I was happy to be able to chime in on this discussion). You were well within policy, and I don't think you did anything wrong or improper - it just greases the wheels and avoids hard feelings. But that's the learning curve I mentioned (I discovered it when I full-protected the featured article of the day as a new admin, not realizing the reams of debate and policy against doing so). MastCell Talk 17:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, I won't be unblocking anyone else in a hurry... The good thing is that Davnel03 seems to be making a real effort to edit collaboratively and I'm really pleased with his progress. The RFC is probably not one of my better wiki moments :-(. The lesson (and well learned) is to take things easy at first. Thanks again. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for that! Giggy UCP 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Spartaz, per this edit, can you block this user, or warn him. Thanks. Davnel03 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also this. Sorry to keep informing you about these matters. Davnel03 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Its OK to remove warnings. They stay in page history and the user has accepted the point in their edit summary. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I'll keep an eye on his edits from time to time. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 14:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible big problem

Hi Spartaz, I don't know whether you noticed but my userpage was vandalised three times last night, see page history. The IP address that did it traces back to Coventry, UK, as seen here. As you may/may not know, I live in Coventry, and think that this IP address is at the same school that I go to. Several people I have spoken to today have asked "why do you have a wikipedia account"; meaning they have somehow found and are vandalising my account. What should I do? If it gets any more vandalism, I will report the IP address to the Incidents section if it continues - the IP at the moment is blocked for 31 hours as of last night. Just thought I'd let you know. Davnel03 12:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this edit, it's pretty clear he knows me. Davnel03 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Another problem I have just come accross involves Phill, as he yesterday created this subpage. One line in the subpage particulary concerns me: "I will create a page on a free website hosting server to put this report and then hyperlink to it on my userpage." If he does this, several things could happen:
  • Could spread to media outlets, if other users pick up on it. (Unlikely)
  • Wikipedia could get a bad image.
  • I would get an even badder image.

I think I need to stop this before he proceeds with it. Davnel03 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

While I can see the concerns, if someone wants to report factual evidence, they are well within their bounds if it is offsite, I ?think?. Read up on libel law - in the U.S., making a straight report about a private citizen's public actions online is completely legal.
Let's put it this way: Davnel is facing an uphill battle. He burned his bridges with a lot of other Wikipedians due to behavior and vandalism. It will take a long way, and a lot of months being a completely cool cat and Wikipedian par excellence, before these bridges are built again. Guroadrunner 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Additional information - Davnel, read the writeup from John Siegenthaler on how users are protected in issues of online libel in USA Today - see this link.
"Federal law also protects online corporations — BellSouth, AOL, MCI Wikipedia, etc. — from libel lawsuits. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, specifically states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." That legalese means that, unlike print and broadcast companies, online service providers cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others," Siengenthaler wrote in the editorial. Guroadrunner 06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Davenel03. We can't do very much about content hosted off Wikipedia and the page you linked to is factually accurate if not very nice for you to read. In all honesty, I would just let this go for the time being and continue your good work integrating yourself back into the community. If what he writes becomes inaccurate than it potentially becomes an attack page but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, we will just monitor the situation. Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not involved here, but I recommend this too. Making waves about petty issues looks bad on you but especially puts Spartaz in the spotlight.
This is because the unblock decision was unpopular, and probably Spartaz is tired of dealing with all of the issues surrounding it. Bringing up new issues to the admin who unblocked you -- which looks to outsiders like "running to Mommy" -- isn't good, and it makes any decision by Spartaz under higher scrutiny.
Let's put it this way: if you slip up badly, and if this connection gets too close, it burns Spartaz too. Guroadrunner 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for the constructive way you have approached the controversy over my unblocking of Davnel03 and for the sound advice you have dispensed. Thanks again Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. One often must work diplomatically to succeed in matters like this. Guroadrunner 06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Please can you remove my 31 hour ban which has stayed for more than a week now, I have learnt my lesson, but seeing that ban just stay their makes it feel like I have not been forgiven :( It was a stupid school prank, and it won't happen again. I would be very grateful if you could remove my warning messages, it would just make everything a lot more settled. 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Undelete Titwolf

Why did you delete my band called titwolf and venomboys wikipedia page? this getting to be a joke twice i have uploaded it, we are not a big band just some local fans, so much for this site being available for everyone to contribute, just because you dont know it doesnt mean other people wont. its used to be a good way of getting your information on the internet but now its nothing more than a dictorship with a group of individuals going around deleting other peoples work just because they have never heard of it, does that not defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia? and if you search the bands name on google there is five pages, we have a myspace and a few bands on youtube, so next time you go deleting our peoples work, why not have a deeper look, it took my 2 hours to write that page now its all gone, just because you havent heard of it

  • I always find that if I approach someone nicely, I'm much more likely to get what I want. This is not a democracy. Articles must comply with relevent policy and guidelines. In particular the subjects of an article have to be notable otherwise we will end up with an article on everyone and everything. The bits you need to look at are band notability, reliable sourcing & Verifiability. In your case the absence of reliable secondary sources - I'm perfectly capable of using google by the way but couldn't see any - led to wonder whether this article was a hoax. If it not, you must be able to provide references and sources. Also, you may wish to review the conflicts of interest guidence as you shouldn't really be creating articles about yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

its not about myself, its about my band. thats the myspace page. search titwolf. all we wanted was to provide our fans with a bit of background and information on the band.

But we need some independent sources or the whole thing is original Research and we don't do that. Anyway, if you only want to bring information to your fans you are more then welcome to point them in the direction of your myspace. Wikipedia is not myspace. Sorry but the article doesn't belong here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm awarding you this prestigious Defender of the Wiki Barnstar because you have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Poornachandra Tejasvi Upadhyaya

Per the comments I left at WP:UAA, I don't see why users should have to shorten their names to create an account. Isn't it a bit startling for a new user to be blocked for registering their name? Leebo T/C 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The name is 31 characters long which is excessive. I didn't see your comment on UAA or I would have otherwise discussed this block with you first. Nevertheless, while the block is in accordance with accepted norms, I can't say I feel strongly about this and you are more then welcome to change it. I should say that the reason why names like this are blocked is because they become too unwieldy for other users to interact with as and when the editor begins to contribute. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
29 letters and two spaces is too long? What?? Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers comes into play here, I'm unblocking immediately in hopes we haven't scared him or her away. Sorry if this appears to be wheel warring, but Wikipedia:Username policy does not back this block up. As that page says, lengthiness alone is not a problem, and the name is perfectly easy to type and remember. Picaroon (Talk) 01:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I understood a length of around 30 was generally considered to be excessive and I do think this is overlong. I'm not bothered about the unblock - its your call. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

List of African insurance companies

Hi, please remember to get the talk page too when deleting stuff. Thanks. Picaroon (Talk) 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War Problem

Hey Spartaz, as I am sure you are aware there was a problem with the new user Timber99 on the page Professional wrestling aerial techniques. In the event that this user continued to revert the edits that I made to a move with references. I saw you initially blocked him, then unblocked him feeling that it went to a Talk page... however he again not only reverted the page again (after your reverted back to my edit), he added this to my talk page:

"According to what you wrote on my page, there is a rule about making an edit which goes back to anold version more than 3 times in 24 hours. You're currently at 3 so im giving u aheads up. please be more careful in the future not to engage in "edit wars." i explained on talk page why it is important to get a discussion going about this change ebfore it is made"

Furthermore, he continues to refuse to sign any of his messages and it seems as though this is a user may be a sockpuppet who created this account in order to not blemish his own user account. Not accusing, although he/she seems to know a little more than the regular 'novice' user. Could you please help me with this situation, because it is getting ridiculous. Also note, there are absolutely no edits made by Timber99 other than reverting my edits on a well thought out & referenced change made by me. I did everything possible including adding a friendly Welcome tag to his talk page, and tried to discuss the issue... Please help!!! WrestlefnLI 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll drop him a note shortly (its time to put my kids to bed) and I'll review his contributions. I'll let you know how I get on. Spartaz Humbug! 18:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok Thanks... I left this on the Talk page of the article in question:

As per the request of Timber99, as follows will be the argument and reasoning behind the change of the Iconoclasm to the XiBalba. The origin of the move is obviously the question in this matter. The wrestler CIMA who uses the version of the move as an Iconoclasm, or Goriconoclasm has never stated that he created the move; nor are there any sources stating that he is the creator of the move. The site states that the Iconoclasm is one of CIMA’s trademark moves, although a trademark move is a move a wrestler may perform, however did not necessarily create. However, he was the wrestler that was put down originally as the creator on WP without any source other than a fan site that is shown below again stating only that CIMA uses this move:

  • the Puroresu fan site states as follows: “Iconoclasm: Flipping slam from the corner. Has a cross arm version called the Goriconoslasm. Name comes from a BUCK-TICK song. The CIMA full course is completed if followed by.....”

The sources that I have used for the wrestler Brimstone however show that Brimstone lays claim to the move calling it XiBalba (Entrance to Hell). The fact that he states it in numerous interviews stemming from print, radio, and internet clearly should prove that he is the creator of the actual move itself. The excerpts are as follows:

What is your favorite move? Did you create it, and if so what was your inspiration?

My favorite move is XiBalba (The Entrance to Hell). I created the move years ago because I felt that my original finisher, a Bezerker Bomb, was too boring to be my finishing move. I still use the Bezerker, but during the match as opposed to completing the match. I’m not typically a high flyer although I do hit a top rope elbow from time to time. However I always seem to be surrounded by them! I felt I needed to do something impressive to compete with moonsaults, and triple corkscrew whatever’s! I wanted to show power, intimidation, and athleticism. I worked on XiBalba creating many variations, and eventually came up with the final version where I seat my opponent up in the corner on the top turnbuckle, grab their wrists, twist my body (so my back is towards them and their arms become crossed), then I throw the opponent over my body (into a monkey flip) while I sit out into a pin. I have noticed that other workers started using my move, and different variations as well. But I still did it first, and I do it the best!

  • In an interview excerpt with Brimstone on "The Warned":

What holds and moves is Brimstone best known for?

"My finisher is a fan favorite… it’s a move I created called XiBalba (Entrance to Hell), and normally when I set my opponent up for it the crowd gets amped! I do a double chokeslam sit out bomb called the Smoke Bomb, a spear called the Attitude Adjustment, and a mean wheelbarrow german suplex called Hell’s Bells."

  • An excerpt from an article written on Brimstone in the Publication – “Wrestling Then & Now” stating that Brimstone created the move:

"…The match consisted of almost every move I remembered so vividly… the “Smoke Bomb,” a double chokeslam sit out bomb; “Hell's Bells,” an awe inspiring wheelbarrow german suplex; the “Attitude Adjustment,” a devastating spear; and then the finish with “XiBalba (Entrance to Hell),” a maneuver that Brim created in his early years (that is still a crowd pleaser to this day)…."

And lastly, in an interview with Brimstone on "Trash Talking Radio" at , Brimstone clearly states that he created the move (you can find the archive in the 2007 section).

Finally, Brimstone’s debut was a year prior to CIMA’s in which would lead me to believe that chances are, along with the proof, that Brimstone is the founder of the move. This is not a widely used move such as a Piledriver, or even a Sharpshooter where the person who used it first is easily recognized. Furthermore, there is not even a single reference on CIMA stating that he had anything to do with creating the move. Not to mention that popularizing a move is extremely different than creating it. I feel that due to the fact that I have more than explained the reasoning for the edit, and showed reliability… that my edit should stand.

I hope this explains the reasoning enough for the change. Thanks again! WrestlefnLI 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Question for you... Being an Admin, what is your take on the sources that were used in my edit as well as what was used prior? I like to ensure what I do here on WP is correct, and if you feel there is a way to edit what I changed in a better way, I am more than willing to listen & learn. What do I need to do in order to make the edit stick? I understand you do not want Timber99 making any edits there within 24 hours, I will not either unless you have suggestions. I have no idea how to put it up for a discussion. Also, I should not make an assumption like I did in my reasoning about the debut differential, that would be considered a no-no for WP and I realized it after I wrote it. I'm sure you can understand this back and forth garbage can put you in a huff! I'm waiting to hear from you, thanks again. WrestlefnLI 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nudge... Nudge... WrestlefnLI 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Being an admin provides no extra authority in content disputes - indeed most regular non-admin editors probably know more about sourcing than I do. That said, this is what I generally go by. Sources should ideally be secondary so should be reported or from an appropriate review.

I say something is a primary source and fairly hopeless unless its reported in direct quotes. He said that...
A review/opinion/op-ed by an acknowledged expert (say a well known commentator) is a secondary source and is very compelling because he has the experience and information to work out the underlying patterns and facts so their statements can be used as statements. His favourite hold is...
Joe Bloggs in the street is entitled to his opinion but it has no weight and if you insert it into an article its original research because the information is not verifiable anywhere and it hasn't been peer reviewed. We don't use this at all. At least news papers employ fact checkers.

Concerning sources, IMDB is rubbish - they don't have any quality control. Wikipedia is not self-referencing so we can't use that. Interviews are primary so are the weakest reliable sources. Dgusa seems to be a fan-site (correct me if I have this wrong) so is the internet equivalent of joe bloggs. Wrestling then and now is probably a secondary source but it depends on who said it and what context. If it was joe bloggs writing a letter its worthless - if its a named expert/knowledgeable person its ok and fairly authoritative If you have competing sources you need to list them both, A said this but B said that. What I suggest you do is list your sources, cross out all the Joe Bloggs ones and then see how many secondary and primary sources you have. Its 23.00 where I am so I'm about to be offline. Use the article talkpage to discuss the validity of the sources and go by the consensus. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Hellswasteland was very mean to me here - - Timber99 - Timber99 05:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good morning Spartaz, sorry to have you bothered with this again. Timber99 is being unreasonable. Timber put the question to the floor, and other editors answered. Then Timber proceeded to argue with them even when offered a reasonable compromise which I agreed to. I hope as an admin you can step in and help squash this issue. WrestlefnLI 13:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

i have not argued with anybody. i really havent. thats not true. - Timber99 - Timber99 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Case in point. WrestlefnLI 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Er Timber99 is allowed to continue to make his point. Consensus is a discussion not a vote so the issues should continue to be discussed until there is a clear conclusion. Admins aren't going to enforce a content decision unless there are legal/biography problems. I'm busy right now but I'll pass by later and check in on the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to show reasoning in every way possible, I've even gone as far as agreeing to generalize the move and put the moves and wrestlers underneath it which makes sense especially considering the intial content was unreferenced properly by unreliable sources, at least my references were from a semi-reliable source and from published media. Timber is running around in circles while not addressing any of his own reasoning which is unfair. On top of that he mislead other users about the reality of the discussion. I am really trying hard not to bite the head off of a newbie, but the arguement is ridiculous. Considering that most of the page itself has no referencing what-so-ever, and all the moves are generalized and under them "made famous or popular by". I figured I could live with the collaborative compromise. As it appears now, the original move Iconoclasm has been removed by another user anyway until this gets worked out. The solution not only should make everyone happy, it stands by Wiki policy, and in reality it makes the article better. Then if and when valid resources are found to prove otherwise, it can be re-visited. I have even gone through the length of adding a WikiSmile to Timber's talk page to play nice again offering a very fair compromise. Let's put this to bed already! WrestlefnLI 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Heh it was a third actually....he just wasn't blocked the first time....5-4-5 reverts. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Meh, second block I mean Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Yqbd

Regarding your block of Yqbd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): could you please provide information on the 3RR violation that you blocked for? The user currently has an unblock request on his talk page, fyi. Anthøny 08:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects pointing to non-existent page

Hi, I saw you removed the redirect of page In the Grey because the target page has been deleted. In this case, since there is no interesting history in the article, it is probably better to directly nominate the redirect for speedy deletion (CSD R1), for example using the template {{db-redirnone}}. Otherwise, the leftovers of the redirect make for a confusing article which is harder to find for cleanup. If you don't nominate it for SD, it is probably better to leave the non-existent redirect so that the article can be found through Special:BrokenRedirects. Thanks, Schutz 09:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Since you patrol this, could you have a look and approve the 6 users waiting? Thanks :) Giggy Talk | Review 04:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Handled now. Spartaz Humbug! 06:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I looked over your comment on the ip, and concur and will warn/remove. Do you want to look at the ip I commented on? LessHeard vanU 21:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, I agree, not really blockable without further edits. Thanks. The record of that ip over the last coup;e of days is far from impressive. I'd be willing to block straightway they misbehave again. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I hadn't realised it was so loaded (re below). Thanks for the note. LessHeard vanU 22:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry for the edit warring. User:Valrith keeps removing sourced edits. Calling the Fashion Model Directory an unreliable source on models shows his intentions. Maybe you should protect the article for a few days. CarlosMo 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have - by the way I'm not sure I accept this as a reliable source. Please try and find something else. See Article talk page for more. Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, it isn't up to you to decide whether or not the Fashion Model Directory is a reliable source. You should check the article before questioning it, which says "FMD is often denoted as the IMDb of the fashion industry". CarlosMo 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is definitely not a reliable source - the comparison absolutely does not favour FMD. Surely there must be other sources out there. I did spend 10 minutes looking on google but I couldn't find any. WP:BLP is pretty clear that information that can not be unquestionably verified can not be included in the bio of a living person if it may be incorrect and derogatory. Ethnicity can be a major concern for people and absolutely we cannot include this information without a cast iron source. If you can only find one source, that alone, is cause to doubt whether the information is correct. Sorry but BLP must be adhered to. Please try to provide further sources if you wish to include this information in the article. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The Fashion Model Directory is the only source on models. Maybe you should add back the information to avoid more problems, and maybe put these emotions aside and act by Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe it bothers some, including you and User:Valrith, that this supermodel is an Arab, but removing sources, such as the one that was added to the article, will get you and user:Valrith in trouble. Add back the information and [the source] and don't give WIkipedia a worse name. CarlosMo 22:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't be silly - there are lots of sources out there, interviews, profiles, newspaper reports. One website is not the only possible source on the net. Your language is veering dangerously close to threatening. Please don't do that, its not helpful. We work collegiately, that means we listen to other users and try to address their concerns. I can see that you are upset and note that I did not block you for vandalism and I did not block you for a 3RR violation and I have explained to you why the BLP policy requires absolutely solid sourcing of contentious information. All you need to do is find further sources. Surely if the information is correct that shouldn't be a problem. I do not understand why this is a problem for you. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This is now up on ANI [3] for review. Spartaz Humbug! 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW you didn't actually protect the page, so I removed the tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Bah! Thanks. Its protected now. Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


I'm not getting involved any more than this, but this guy's been involved in what appears to be a pretty ugly POV edit war with these two. I keep out of political stufff, so I'm only speaking in an 'on the sidelines' manner... HalfShadow 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for the confusion [4] here. I'd forgotten that I still had a pending request there, or I would have delayed the name change. All fixed now. Into The Fray T/C 08:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warnings

Hi, please can you explain this edit. There were several warnings at User_talk: I have no problem with the decision of an another admin to give the vandal a final warning before blocking, but I am baffled by your "no warnings on userpage" comment. 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please sign your comments. I'm baffled too. I'm guessing I clicked on the user page instead of the talk page and didn't realise. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about forgetting to sign. Viewfinder 18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Undelete YATE

Please undelete the YATE page to have the chance to improve it.

Exactly what article are you referring to? Spartaz Humbug! 06:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to:

Please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end. It helps us know who said what when. I have undeleted but this almost certainly doesn't meet WP:WEB. Please improve it quickly as otherwise I send it to AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit history of user, this user seems to be uniquely dedicated to the promotion of YATE including adding links to other articles that have been removed by other users and myself. Article reads like a promotion of this project with no citations or neutral sources of noteworthy consequences. Calltech 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I wouldn't object to this going to afd. Now that the spam has been removed from the article I don't think its a speedy - and it was marginal at best but notability is certainly a concern. I agree this is a spa but I don't think there is a significant problem from the internal links. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Spartaz. Sorry I missed your comments here or would have responded sooner. I went ahead and started an AfD a few days ago. Links were more of an issue because the user appeared to be promoting the project. Calltech 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CSD #4: Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted.

Did you even bother to read the new article? I wrote this entirely in my own words without even having seen the old article. Mellentm 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of YATE. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mellentm 15:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem Again

Sorry to bother you Spartaz, but after the back and forth (that I am sure you remember), I comprimised, fixed, referenced, and moved the "move" that was being discussed under Top Rope Flipping Slam under Professional Wrestling Throws. Now, it looks as though I am going to have another issue. As I mentioned before, the name Timber99 was created right after the change and gave a continuous hard time. Then has done nothing more on wiki except complain about me or other users being "mean." Now this more established user Lid reverted the edit that I fixed and I for the first time reverted it back. I find it a little interesting, and I could use a little help here. The two moves are referenced, and my references are more concrete for XiBalba than those of Iconoclasm. I am playing by wiki rules, and it is ludicrous for me to have to defend proven history! Can you please help me out here? WrestlefnLI 13:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Hey there WrestlefnLI, nice try talking behind my back! I never did give you a hard time and was accommodating to you every step of the way, although it could be argued that you gave me a hard time. The fact that you are still talking about me behind my back speaks volumes. There is no excuse for that. You probably didn't have any intention to make up with me like you claimed you did. - Timber99 - Timber99 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, check the edits ok. Also, please find the reply I left for Timber on his talk page with the full explanation of why Wrestling Then & Now is a reliable source. I can re-post it here as well if you would like. I do not want to clutter your talk page though. WrestlefnLI 15:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had time to look at this. Maybe later today or tomorrow? Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:WrestlefnLI vs. User:Timber99

Just to let you know... This dispute has been sent to the Request for Mediation page. -Fall Of Darkness 04:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Yqbd is back at Intelligent design

This user is back again from his ban and continues to disrupt the article and talk page with his super-verbose cut-and-paste style of arguing. He has made three reverts and (apparently) brushed off a new warning on his talk page.

I filed a 3RR violation report which was denied on the grounds that it was badly formatted and there were only 3 reverts. However, as I understand 3RR, 4 reverts may not be strictly necessary for a user who is familiar with edit warring. Therefore, I am hoping that you will reconsider your earlier suggestion of a longer term (or permanent) block. Of course, if you feel I am being over-zealous in this matter, please tell me so! Thank you for your time & help. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 15:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


If you will not unblock me, will you at least remove the thing on my page that says I am the sockpuppet of Bremkshaft. I have never met this person and do not know why you have associated them with me. Even the person on your page for sockpuppets of bremkshaft says that he thinks we do not know each other. I have never once denied knowing sliat_1981. This is a shared computer in the apartment lobby. Please look at my signature and you will see bremkshaft has never opened an account under this address. Also you say that it traces back to Nevada or california. I live in Australika so if his traces back there it's another proof we are not the same person. So far I am more interested in getting back my userpage and identidy more than being unblocked. Please. You do not have any evidence tying me to brepshaft. I do not wish to be called this person. As for sliat_1981, he made the mistake, so block him, not me. As for sliat_1981 and me being the same person, we are not even the same sex. Saying that we share an interest in Australian football is not rare as being Australians ourselves, it is the number one soprt here and most Australians do. For my recordd, as far as I know, there is only sliat_1981 and me that have accounts in this computer. One thing I know for sure, there is no bremkraft. Sliat_1981 has advised me as we can still edit by not logging in, this my only way to appeal as everyone has ignored my side of the story in my unblock and I can not go on the sock discussion page to tell my side. I am asking you to please return my identidy. 10:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear with me - see above. If you want to post your side of the story on your userpage I'll move it across to the sockpuppet case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I must be honest; i did not notice the no consensus AfD. But I am inclined to stick with my deletion anyway - it seems reasonable to me on considering pornbio notability guidelines - and I will see what happens. If it gets taken to WP:DR then so be it. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Just thought I should make you aware. Spartaz Humbug! 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft sockpuppetry case

Regarding Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bremskraft, I'm not seeing the unblock requests that are so similar (as expressed on that page, I see sockpuppetry, but I think there are two groups at work). Can you point me to the similarity in unblock request between the two groups (by email if necessary)?--Chaser - T 00:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm laid up with a chest infection. I'll try and come back to you later today but otherwise will answer this tomorrow. Spartaz Humbug!

Here you go, All screwing up the unblock request in the same way [5] [6] [7] [8] Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I did interpret your comments as being broadly applicable to everyone involved; my retort was more pertaining to my being singled out as a target for the bogus 3RR "report" that User:Lonewolf BC had compiled. I suppose I didn't express myself quite correctly at WP:AN/3RR. --G2bambino 16:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding G's comment, above, I must say that I certainly thought that the 3RR report was legitimate, else I would not have gone to the trouble of compiling it, and that I still think so. To my understanding, reverts need not be blatant returns to a recent previous version, but may be more complex and may revert to much earlier versions. I also think that, given that the purpose of the 3RR is to prevent edit-warring, reversion should not be viewed narrowly: For instance, reverting to essentially the same version, but with the exact words altered and stirred around somewhat, should still be considered a revert. (This applies to one of the reverts I listed in the latest report on G.) If you think that my latest 3RR report against G. is defective, I would very much like to know in what way or ways -- and I say that without any trace of argumentativeness, but only with an eye toward not wasting my time on preparing defective 3RR reports, henceforth, nor wasting anyone else's time in reviewing them.
Sincerely, Lonewolf BC 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (to Spartaz, not to G., just in case that needs making clear)

Can you guys go and take your argument somewhere else please? I'm really not interested in embroiling myself in this nonsense. I have more entertaining things to do with my time. I'd just like you all to stop disrupting this article and have your playground fight somewhere else. Thank you. Spartaz Humbug! 23:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I asked. I think you've misunderstood me, though: I was only asking for your "expert opinion" about 3RR. If I've somehow misunderstood it, in making the report, I'd like to know, so that I don't waste anyone's time by making a similar error in the future. I didn't mean that you should handle the report, which you'd already said you did not wish to do. I'm sorry to have bothered you at all, and would not have if I'd known your feelings. Please be aware, though, that I haven't even edited "Passport". Other than reporting the edit-warring, I've only commented in the RfC, where I suggesting a solution not unlike the one you've just excercised, though less extreme. So I don't think "your playground fight" was fitting in a reply to me. No hard feelings, though, and I hope there are none on your part. Again, sorry that I bothered you. -- Lonewolf BC 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nature Trust of British Columbia

Please have a look at the revised page.

Doug Walker

Echo Article

Hia Spartaz! Long time no talk! I have an article that was posted by missbehave this month - I can't add it myself, but it's a reference. [9] I know that you wanted me to supply you with some references. Won another award as well ( - Soot Sucks! took Gold and Tosca took Silver) - I think someone posted last years. I haven't even been to the page to see if someone updated it. I was in the west coasts first all digital show too. Anyway, hope you're well. back to work! echo

Please undelete "Lisa Michelle Lambert"

While there were five "delete"s to three "keep"s, one "delete" thought the article was about a murder and another thought it about a murderess. Actually, this is a very important Habeas Corpus case, and one in which a federal judge found the appellant "actually innocent", and which appeal was overthrown on a technicality. One must admit that the original writer was poorly informed, mostly from TV "infotainment", but this actually makes the case more interesting: the efforts to convince the public of her guilt and to block her appeals. (In other Pennsylvania cases convicts exonerated by DNA have been released only after pleading guilty to lesser charges.) Was the Dreyfus Affair insignificant? Or the Reichstag fire just an arson case? Our justice system is being consumed by cancer and this is one of the more egregious cases since the Russel Means framing in 1975 (The FBI had a strong case, but also gave a stronger alibi: he had been trapped in a school on the Pine Ridge reservation by the FBI at the time - Second Battle of Wounded Knee). A simple reading of Judge Dalzell's opinion shows that this woman was indeed actually innocent, which is why this case must must not be swept under the carpet.



Sure seems like it. THF 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Quack? I'm away to bed, leave me a note if he returns to the article and I'll look at it in the morning? Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Evading block and making personal attacks. [10] THF 12:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


I understand why you blocked me. I just want to point out that I was the only being trying to be neutral, showing sources, and answering all their questions, but they keep changing their arguments everytime I would answer their questions with proof (4 Times).

Folwer & Folwer and Abecedare are instigating conflict, and won't listen to negotiations ideas, and keep twisting everything. They took turns in reverting to bait me (which worked) and now they have a third person Ragib. Can you warn them not to instigate, and to negotiate? Because they won't listen at all. Another user in support has been shut down.

Please, I feel like my head is going to pop with these guys, They keep making false allegations and changed their argument 4 times ( I have pointed them out on the India talk page under Negotiations) . Thanks.

Cosmos416 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


You blocked User:W. Frank for 12hrs for 3RR Here he has just returned from his block and has reverted the same article twice more, that is 7 reverts within 24hrs, can he be reported again, as the original report only included the first four reverts.--padraig 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There would be less editing going on Padraig if you would reply on talk pages. You can't edit and run. Thats not how wiki works. Conypiece 10:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
W. Frank has a reasonable history of good faith editing and its fairly obvious that outside events will be affecting his emotional state right now. I don't want to end up with a cycle of escalating blocks on this. I have therefore fully protected the page for 48 hours to give everyone pause and an opportunity to discuss this on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
But this is not the only article he is edit warring on, as for his emotional state that is no excuse for edit warring and POV pushing, there is a discussion on the talk page, he is ignoring it.--padraig 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. I want to give Frank space to correct his behaviour and have left him a firm message on his talk page. I want to see how he reacts before considering further action. Please drop me a note here if the behaviour continues. Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to him by numerous editors to see discussion which he ignored and as soon as he gets back he starts again on 2 articles.BigDunc 11:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to Frank though, certain editors are refusing to compromise. Its a tough time for him, I'm surprised hes even using wiki. Conypiece 11:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to comment that Frank is editing normally at this point so no admin attention is necessary at this point. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He seems to be content with making a personal attack against anyone that dosen't agree with him Here can this be removed.--padraig 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please explain where the personal attack is. Spartaz Humbug! 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He has listed editors that disagree with him and accused them of working as a team.--padraig 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I see no incivility. He hasn't called you names, he has just made an assertion. Its not a personal attack, its a statement of his opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Article talk pages are intended to discuss the article, not for editors to carry out attacks on other editors.--padraig 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware of the purpose of talk pages. They are also the venue to discuss concerns about the way any particular article is being managed. Frank's edit is well within the bounds of acceptable posting and if you disagree with it, I suggest that you engage him in discussion on the talk page and rebutt his assertions rather then trying to get him blocked for it. Spartaz Humbug! 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He is spamming talk pages with this on nearly every article that he is starting edit disputes on.--padraig 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see my last edit to W.Frank's talk page. My warning applies to everyone involved in this dispute. Spartaz Humbug! 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion and a proposed compromise to resolve the issue here W. Frank is ignoring this as he is trying to push his own agenda here. How long has he been blocked for this time.--padraig 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He isn't blocked now. He will be if he carries on after this. I'm pleased that discussion is taking place but BigDunc also broke the 3RR over this so my warning has to apply to everyone. Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
But there is no discussion taking place he wont I asked him on numerous occasions to see discussion which I feel he ignored. BigDunc 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible need for assistance from administrator

Could you please take a look at Murray Waas, which was subject to anon IP and associated vandalism in the past and which you had protected for seven days from vandalism a couple of months ago. One anon IP user particularly seems to be back to the same activities as before and there seems to have been edit war going on there, involving deletion of properly-sourced neutral point of view material. I reverted to the version that existed just prior to protection for the meantime, while you take a look at the editing history. Related earlier discussion of the problem is on the talk:Murray Waas. Thank you. --NYScholar 22:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't look in depth but the article has only been edited 5 time in the last 4 weeks and there doesn't seem to be much if any edit warring there. If you have reverted to the last safe version I can't see a need for admin action right now. Ping me if there are further problems but I'm about to go to bed so RPP may be a better venue if there are problems later on today. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


There is a discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. The consensus is virtually agreed to use IRA, except in certain circumstances. W. Frank has pledged to ignore this, citing some bizarre interpretation of WP:NOT that the use of IRA is propaganda, despite IRA being used by the vast majority of sources. Thank you. Brixton Busters 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just protected the Bhm pub bombings as a result of this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you take a look at Talk:Gerry Adams please? I do not see what the vast majority of W. Frank's posts there today have to do with the article. I have asked him to seek dispute resolution, but he is continuing to post lengthy diatribes that have little relevance. Thank you. Brixton Busters 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
An IP editor made a pair of edits ([11]) which needed reverting, and W. Frank claimed to restore the material ([12]). However there was no mention in his edit summary of that fact that he again changed IRA to PIRA ([13]) against the agreement on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and despite repeated requests to stop doing this, including a request from yourself. Thank you. Brixton Busters 09:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I note:
(1) that you are making no complaints about your own "team player" User:Domer48 summarising this edit with "Please take part in discussion, and abide by concensus" when he removed (amongst other text):

"Gerry Adams was born in West Belfast into a nationalist Catholic family, consisting of 10 children who survived infancy, 5 boys, 5 girls and their parents, Gerry Adams Sr. and Annie Hannaway.

Gerry Sr. and Annie came from strong republican backgrounds. Adams's grandfather, also Gerry Adams, had been a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) during the Irish War of Independence. Two of Adams's uncles, Dominic and Patrick Adams, had been interned by the governments in Belfast and Dublin. Although it is reported that his uncle Dominic was a one-time IRA chief of staff, J. Bowyer Bell, in his widely respected book, The Secret Army: The IRA 1916 (Irish Academy Press), states that Dominic Adams was a senior figure in the IRA of the mid-1940s. Gerry Sr. joined the IRA aged sixteen; in 1942 he participated in an IRA ambush on a Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) patrol but was himself shot, arrested and sentenced to eight years imprisonment.

Adams's maternal great-grandfather, Michael Hannaway, was a member of the Fenians during their dynamiting campaign in England in the 1860s and 1870s. Michael's son, Billy, was election agent for Eamon de Valera in 1918 in West Belfast but refused to follow de Valera into democratic and constitutional politics upon the formation of Fianna Fáil. Annie Hannaway was a member of Cumann na mBan, the women's branch of the IRA. Three of her brothers (Alfie, Liam and Tommy) were known IRA members."

and also in the section "alleged PIRA membership", both references and text:

"Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.[1] However, noted scholars such as Ed Moloney, Richard English, Peter Taylor and Mark Urban have all named Adams to be part of the PIRA leadership during the 1970s.[2][3][4][5] It should be noted, however, that Adams has fervently denied Moloney's claims, calling them "libellous. ref>Adams denies IRA book allegations. BBC News. 12 September 2002</ref>

Fresh evidence emerged of Adams' alleged PIRA membership in 2004. The National Archive released a situation report from Northern Ireland for the Prime Minister, dated the 9th February 1973. Below is an extract from the report;

"It has reliably been reported that Adams, who's been the Provisionals' brigade adjutant in Belfast is now in Dublin as assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast."[6]

In July 2005 Adams, along with Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris, were reported to have left PIRA's ruling Army Council. The resignations were made in advance of the Provisional IRA's statement later that month announcing it was ending the armed campaign.[7][8]"

(2) That there was no such agreement binding on other editors and other articles that you keep on describing erroneously as "consensus" and "agreement" at that article's discussion page: ::::The closest it came to a consensus was here:

"The PIRA regard themselves as the IRA, so in some sense using 'PIRA' has some anti-PIRA bias. Personally I don't think there is a need to specify 'PIRA' in the PIRA article, so the more common and perhaps less POV 'IRA' should be used, in other articles it may make more sense to specify 'PIRA', although only in cases where it might be unclear which 'IRA' we're talking about. --Coroebus 20:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a rational compromise...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This is an enclyclopedia. If there is any danger of confusion, a full version of the name should be used when it is first introduced and linked - Provisional Irish Republican Army. It shouldn't be piped to read IRA. I would agree the most usual abbreviation for the Provisional IRA is just IRA. Where there is no danger of confusion, this could appear in brackets after the first (unpiped) link. Where a danger of confusion does exist, then PIRA should be used. POV doesn't come into it. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not piped. The articles that are being amended say "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)". When there is any ambiguity PIRA is used, see for example Joe Cahill. It says above "although only in cases where it might be unclear which 'IRA' we're talking about". If the first use is "Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)" it's clear which IRA is being talked about. Brixton Busters 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
In other articles we generally need to be clear which particular flavour of paramilitary organisation was involved. That's why the first use in other articles should be "Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA)" and then, when that has been established we can then shorten this to the precise PIRA rather than the ambiguous and, in some case, downright misleading (especially for Asians and Africans) IRA...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"
(3) The place to reach a real consensus and put an end to this to-ing and fro-ing over holy acronyms/ambiguity is at the Ireland Manual of Style pages - with notices placed on relevant project pages and noticeboards before discussion commences.
Lastly I note that, again, you have not had the courtesy to alert me by e-mail or otherwise to your efforta to get me blocked again, Brixton Busters. W. Frank talk   16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion on Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army which you have consistently ignored, and you have not copied the entire discussion above as if you had you would know there is an agreement, although there is some quibbling over one point which does not affect the use of IRA over PIRA. I have no intention of contacting you by email, not now and not ever. Brixton Busters 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Your assertion that I "have consistently ignored" the discussion is patent nonsense. You and your "team editors" go running off to try and find an admin unfamiliar with the situation and your style every time I post on that article's discussion page. If I wasn't participating, who did you reach an agreement and consensus with? Your fellow WP:IRA "team players"?
Now please provide a good reason why you are bothering this admin here again rather than trying to reach a genuine and useful agreement and consensus at the Irish Manual of Style pages. W. Frank talk   16:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion which you have been aware of for well over a week (possibly two weeks) is at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. You have chosen not to participate, and are now trying to move the discussion to a different venue because the agreement is not to your liking. Brixton Busters 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
W. Frank you have continued to ignore the current discussion on this at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army yet you want to start another discussion simply because the other one has reached a agreement that isn't to your liking.--padraig 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. Please can you provide a diff to show exactly what was agreed with whom, where and when?
  2. Now please also provide a good reason why you are bothering this admin here again rather than trying to reach a genuine and useful agreement and consensus at the Irish Manual of Style pages? (Neither you nor I are that important in the great WP scheme of things and it is largely irrelevant whether I like this mythical agreement or you lot love it). W. Frank talk   17:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The agreement was proposed by Bastun, who is not a member of the mythical "team" you claim exists. It was largely agreed to by every editor who has replied, although one detail has yet to be worked out which does not affect the continued use of IRA over PIRA. It is on the relevant talk page. Brixton Busters 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no clear agreement there binding on other editors and other articles different from the one I have outlined above.
  1. Please can you now provide a diff to show exactly what was agreed with whom, where and when?
  2. Now please also provide a good reason why you are bothering this admin here again rather than trying to reach a genuine and useful agreement and consensus at the Irish Manual of Style pages? (Neither you nor I are that important in the great WP scheme of things and it is largely irrelevant whether I like this mythical agreement or you lot do too). W. Frank talk   17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to carry on this fruitless discussion. The agreement is clear, you chose not to take part in the discussion and if you choose to ignore it that is at your discretion. Brixton Busters 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys take this discussion elsewhere? I'm pretty stressed at work right now and could do without the constant orange bars on the watchlist - that's why I haven't dealt with this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 17:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing 3RR


Could you take a look at this report, as the edit-warring by this redlink is ongoing. TewfikTalk 23:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Spartaz Humbug! 23:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up quickly - I love freshly mopped Wikipedia. TewfikTalk 23:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Warning re 3RR

I take your warning and offer my apologies to other editors I mistakenly understood the the rule on 3RR which I now understand and I thank you for your sensible attitude over this silly dispute. BigDunc 08:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Just fyi, I'm going to continue to revert this. Despite your request for status quo, he continues to reinsert the information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually do have a reason for doing this. Jmfangio would know this if he read my comments. Here is the exact explanation I left him on his talk page, which he deleted because he doesn't want to read my comments:

[You need to realize] that I typed my comment in response to your comment. Whether you removed it or not, my comment was still in response to yours. The value of my comment was lessened due to the removal of yours. Because I posted my comment, it needs to be visible what the reason for me leaving that comment was. By removing your comment, my comment doesn't make as much sense. I even came up with a compromise, striking out your comment, perfectly acceptable per WP:TPG, and that didn't satisfy you either. The comment that I was replying to needs to be visible so people reading that discussion can see why I said it.

And I seem to remember last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment here, but then deleted it because he wanted to. You restored it, and do you remember what your edit summary was? "This needs to be seen." Whether you said something and retracted it or not, you still said it, and I still responded to it. I did the same thing to your comment that you did to Chrisjnelson's comment, which was perfectly acceptable by your standards. Now, when it's done to one of your comments, it's illegal? Ksy92003(talk) 09:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So, Spartaz, you'll see as evidence that Jmfangio is clearly just showing hatred towards me. Last night, Chrisjnelson left a comment on Jmfangio's talk page, which Chrisjnelson removed. Jmfangio decided that the comment was important enough and restored it. This is the same thing I did here. I don't see how Jmfangio allows it last night when he's the one who wants to restore the comment, and it's illegal when I restore his comment tonight, especially because my comment was written in response to his (edit conflict). It doesn't make any sense to me why Jmfangio would do something one night and not let me do it the next. He hasn't liked me ever since we met last week, and I'm more than positive he's only doing this to frustrate me even mroe. I can't believe I can't do something that he didn't do. It really makes me feel like he thinks he's superior to me. Ksy92003(talk) 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, it's 3:00 in the morning, I'm tired, and Jmfangio has already harassed me so much in the past couple days. I'm going to bed and I'll be prepared to resume this discussion in the morning, if I must. But I believe that if you read the comment I left at User talk:Spartaz, it will detail my whole rationale behind my edits. I mean somebody can't do something one day, saying it's alright, and then prevent somebody else from doing it just because it's being done to them this time. I mean seriously, it's like if I did something to somebody else and say it's okay, would I say that it isn't okay just because somebody did it to me? You can't do that, and I really hope that somebody (other than Chrisjnelson) actually understands that. I really need to sleep on this... I'll be prepared to discuss this in the morning. Ksy92003(talk) 09:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest that once you have had some sleep you submit a report to WP:AN/I if you have problems with Jmfangio? - I have looked only at the 3RR and I think what you are trying to do is resolve other issues through the mechanism of a 3RR report. That's not how it works. Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I will stay out of this entirely but i do think that the content of the edit is relevant: I reinserted a personal attack that had been issued against me in the middle of a very long conversation. There was no appology issued during the removal so i put it back in. Right or wrong, very different circumstances. Unless Spartaz has a question for me here, i'm not going to say anything. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the whys and wherefores of your dispute, I'm only dealing with the 3RR report. This conversation is for another venue, not my talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 10:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if ANI will do anything for this situation, but I will report this to ANI once I've gotten enough sleep... I've got to make an attempt. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, it seems that Jmfangio is being a hypocrite in the sense that he does something and says it's perfectly fine, and when I do that same something to him, suddenly it's a huge problem with him, and something clearly needs to be done about this. I restored the comment because my comment was as a reply to his comment, and that loses its value with that comment removed. Additionally, per the GFDL, once somebody clicks on "Save page", their contributions are free to be edited by anybody else for valid means. He doesn't own the comment, and once he clicked on "Save page", it's my interpretation that, because of the GFDL, that he has submitted that comment and I am free to do whatever I want with it. And clearly, my utilization of his comment wasn't being used in any sort of negative fashion, so I'm not at all clear as to how restoring a comment that I replied to could be against any rule.
Now, I'm not sure if you can even answer this impartially, but may I ask if you at least understand my argument? Not saying if you agree with it or not, but I would like to know if you understand what I'm saying? Ksy92003(talk) 10:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I can see your point but I think you were looking at the 3RR violation as a way to even the score rather then to prevent disruption. I understand you want your comment to have context but you can do that by simply recording that Jmfangio has removed his comment and adding a link to it in the history. That would have prevented this escalating and still recorded faithfully on the talk page the full circumstances of the posting. Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I did go to 3RR out of frustration as a result of all the harassment that he's done to me, including constantly reverting edits I made to my own pages (5 reverts to my talk page, 4 reverts to a userfied subpage). When somebody reverts an edit you made to your own pages 9 times, that's harassment, especially when you see the context he was removing: an important three-way discussion involving both of us. He prematurely closed the discussion just because he didn't want to reply to my question, the discussion was spread throughout all 3 talk pages, and I wanted to keep it perfectly intact, but Jmfangio didn't want it there, saying it didn't belong on my talk page, and removed it 5 times from my talk page, I moved it to a subpage, and was blanked there 4 times. I mean if I were to delete this entire discussion, you'd restore it I assume. I don't see how Jmfangio's 9 reverts could be anything other than harassment towards me. Ksy92003(talk) 18:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The correct venue for this discussion is AN/I not my talk page. I don't have time to look into this properly. Make you case (concisely) at AN/I and someone there may be better placed to help. Spartaz Humbug! 18:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have placed my case at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hypocritical edits/harassment, and the user who responded said he couldn't comment on ongoing patterns of harassment. I've replied there with some examples and am awaiting a response. Sorry to have to bring this all to your attention; my 3RR was unjust and more of a revenge-report. Ksy92003(talk) 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You need to be patient - its takes a long time to investigate allegations of harassment. Your report is long, not very coherent and lacks evidence. If you want help, I suggest you find diffs for the exact incidents and condense your complaint. Spartaz Humbug! 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to find evidence, but that's really hard to do because Jmfangio has removed every single one of my comments in the past couple days as soon as I posted it and the edit history is all clustered with edits, making it really hard for me to find the examples I want. The only thing I'm absolutely positively sure about (other than the revert war last night) is the 8 (sorry, not 9) reverts he made to my talk pages. But I'm not so sure that is sufficient enough. Should I just drop it and try to completely ignore Jmfangio? Would that be a better path? Ksy92003(talk) 18:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Disengaging is the first step of dispute resolution. The question is can you continue to avoid each other in future or do you edit the same articles? If you can stay apart naturally I'd say that would be the least painful way forward. If you are going to continue to rub into each other you can document the incidents as they happen for a future complaint - that's if you can manage to tolerate any problems while you do this. At the end of the day its down to you but if you can't document the complaint now its doomed to fail. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I edit the same articles generally as Chrisjnelson does, and he and Jmfangio edit some of the same articles, which is how I first encountered Jmfangio; they were both blocked for 3RR, and I met Jmfangio through CJ. Once again, I don't know if I told you this; I've told plenty other people before; I've been trying to be friendly to Jmfangio ever since the first time we met: [14]. I don't know how, but everything went all downhill from there. I think the best thing to do is just stay away from him... obviously, he doesn't want to have anything to do with me, as evidence by him always removing my comments, no matter how important, from his talk page without even reading them. I'll try to stay as far away from him as possible, but because we edit some of the same articles sometimes, I can't absolutely guarantee it. Ksy92003(talk) 18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Course of action request

The situation is being instigated again [15]. I'm going to leave that alone for now, but please have someone remove it. I'm very upset that I can't even get this guy to disengage me. I am happy to raise this on the ANs, but wanted to run it by you if we can just nip it in the but and have you remove the crap. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I only did that because that's what Spartaz suggested above... he said "I understand you want your comment to have context but you can do that by simply recording that Jmfangio has removed his comment and adding a link to it in the history." I had even removed my comment because of this little situation, but it doesn't make sense for me to need to remove my comment for this... having a link doesn't do any harm at all, in my opinion. Ksy92003(talk) 18:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You should both drop this - I'm getting tired of this. Please take any further comments to AN/I Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, me too. Again, I'm really sorry that I led you into being dragged into this situation. Ksy92003(talk) 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

Just wanted to let you know that I responded to your comments on my 3RR report. I had tried to format one of the diffs to make it clearer what material was being reverted, but now see how that could have confused matters instead (by removing the intermediate edit). I've given an explanation that includes a new diff that shows the revert from the intermediate edit. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks - Raymond Arritt 20:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I am glad you have taken a firm stance with editors on Irish issues. There are too many disputes and edit wars and not enough discussion. However, not hours after you gave the above editor a final warring for his behaviour he posted a number of aggresive and abusive emesseges on the Gerry Adams talk page - especially this edit - I dont think it is on the abuse editors who disagree with him and especially to dish out both personal and sectarian abuse by calling into question editors religon and intelligence. Can you please reinforce your warning as he doesnt seem to be listening. regards--Vintagekits 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't "complain" about your decisions, Spartaz. You are not the only person responsible for maintaining the noticeboard. I'm just trying to determine what the current policy on reverting is. Should I care to compile a 3RR report if it's going to be ignored? All the best, Ghirla-трёп- 13:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I didn't really understand that comment on my talkpage!! I tried out AWB a few days ago, but got nowhere, and had no clue on how to use it! Davnel03 14:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting it for the other user - if they are reviewing citations it makes the grunt work easier. It is complicated. I only use it for list sorting & find and replace but that is extremely useful. I don't understand regex but then I'm old. Spartaz Humbug! 14:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Davnel03 14:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


thank you for very much for giving it a look. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR report on Tiamut

Hi Spartaz, sorry to interject on this, but I wonder if you might have a look at what I've posted regarding the 3RR report on Tiamut. Thanks, --G-Dett 22:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR "technicality"

I say it's a technicality simply because 3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, and unsourced material (which is what that was, because the citations were never proper) does have a vandalism warning tag. MSJapan 22:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Your gracious reconsideration of the case and your prompt attention is very much appreciated. Tiamat 14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency please

Please see: User_talk:Yamla#Huh.3F. Ta. --Mais oui! 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I responded on Yamla's page - Deacon only needs to put up an unblock template along the lines suggested by the blocking admin to get unblocked. Spartaz Humbug! 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


May I ask why you removed my unblock denial and substituted your own? IrishGuy talk 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I screwed up an edit conflict. Sorry. I'll fix it. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Sorry again Spartaz Humbug! 17:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Edit conflicts happen :) IrishGuy talk 18:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)