Jump to content

User talk:Spartaz/Archive20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dairese Gary

Your input is requested at the deletion review. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Please undelete my team

Hi, I'm with the Cambridge Rollerbillies, formerly the Romsey Town Rollerbillies, and we still are actually both until the stationery runs out (http://rollerbillies.com.) We got deleted In 2011 (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies) apparently seven times in quick succession lol (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Romsey_Town_Rollerbillies) but we were already in the UKRDA by 2011, so can we please be undeleted? Thanks love! <3 <3 xoxo DKBaps (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Pleaze see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 26 . Basically, you need to find sources that meet WP:GNG and bring them to DRV for discussion. Please also read WP:COI first. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Is http://www.britishchamps.com/team-profile-cambridge-rollerbillies/ a good source? What does "bring them to DRV" mean and require? Thank you again. DKBaps (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Notm really no. Its just a list of game results and has no critical commentary. I also can't see that there is any peer review or other indpendant fact checking. You need to think more about the standard of broadsheet newspaper articles. Sorry. Spartaz Humbug! 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no

Sorry to undo your redirect for a moment, but you're one of the most sensible DRV admins of the lot, don't let Arbcoms penchant for power-grabbing douchebaggery drive you off. Think about it for a day or so at least. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I have thought about it. I think at least 4 of the 110 are regulars at DRV and I have been a prolific AFD closer in my time. I don't care what one Aerb thinks ( there are far too many people who will delight as using any perceived loopholes for their own advantage or just to make drama. I simply cannot be arsed with that. I have felt for some time that my time here was coming to an end but habit is hard to overcome. The fact that the current arbs think that injuncting 110 people (mostly non admins) from taking admin actions says it all. They can do the AFDs and DRVs. I hope they don't fuck it up any more then they managed with this stupid and ignorant motion.

AfDs, etc

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence#Question for arbs re scope of this case. Doug Weller (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I refer the honorable gentlemen to the answer I gave some moments ago, No disrespect. I have no reason to distrust you personally but this is utterly unworkable and I'm not interested. You may have driven me off completely. Lets see, Well done. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrative abstinence

I, too, am abstaining from administrative abstinence as a result of this absurd injunction. If you take a look at Arbitration_enforcement#Injunction, I posted a list of scenarios to try to help them understand why their policy made no sense (e.g. closing a deletion discussion and having to verify that one of the seven named users was not involved in that discussion or the page or affected in any way by it). My hope was that the arbitration committee would realize how ridiculously worded it was and issue a clarifying statement that it was not their intention to disrupt normal administrative functions. Instead, and shockingly, arbiter Thryduulf (talk · contribs) said that yes, "you should in such cases email the committee if someone else is not dealing with it." So there you go. You either have to tediously inspect every deletion discussion you close to make sure that it in no way affects these people or you need to email arbcom to ask permission to close it. That's obviously impractical. --B (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the link to get to the conversation that B has made several posts at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Injunction Spartaz. I wish that AE would get some sense. I appreciate the stance that you both are taking. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Oops ... yes ... my link didn't work quite right --B (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes - the "injunction" is beyond weird

For the current nature of solutions provided:

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-07/Arbitration report

For the apparent rationale for the expanded remit of the Committee:

Wikipedia:Tiptibism

See also [1], [2], [3] etc. etc. Note he simultaneously presented "evidence" (which no one at all had presented previously whatsoever!) but a remedy of topic banning me -- AFAICT mainly because I was the loudest voice against banning everyone in sight.[4]. [5] shows what AGK considers apparently the "new model" for ArbCom decisions.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision/Archive_2#Proposed_.22motion_for_final_decision.22_may_exceed_ArbCom.27s_remit is fairly clear. [6] notes that the arb who was the one drafting the "kill them all" solution ... [7] has him accepting the responsibility for "killing them all". Personally I found, and still find, such rationales to be contrary to common sense.


[8] quotes an Arb as saying that calling him involved is pretty much the the same as calling him "corrupt." I daresay, moreover, that the wording he used is indicative of being heavily "involved" but he is exempt as he is an arbitrator. [9] makes absolutely clear his "personal involvement" in that he calls me specifically "dishonest" in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/AGK/Questions#Questions_from_Collect. But heck - "involved" does not apply to arbitrators.


[10] shows his addfing of evidence (?) about me to the TPM case on 19 August after I was estopped from making any posts relevant thereto and with instant votes thereon. [11] shows him threatening a person who demurred with being blocked or banned. [12] has him closing a thread with an implicit threat as he does not like it.


And the reference to "Kill them all, God will know his own" which was actively defended by some arbitrators, including some who did not realize that they were absolutely "involved" with regard to me and others. Rules which apply rationally to all, are "arb-exempt".


I commented on my UT page [13] to which he demanded a retraction.

More if needed -- but I suggest I demonstrate that this problem with at least one named arbitrator and his view of the proper remit of that committee now dates back at least two years. Collect (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Sylvester Rivers

Re: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sylvester_Rivers

Thanks, Spartaz, for your thoughtful consideration of this article. I could definitely use some help. Sylvester Rivers has recorded over one hundred albums with numerous major artists on major labels, many of which are RIAA certified gold and multi-platinum. He is the composer and co-writer of the title song of the Michael Henderson album, “In the Night Time,” certified Gold by the RIAA and in the top 10 in two of the Billboard Charts plus in the top 40 in two other Billboard Charts. WP:NMUSIC lists notability criteria as follows, “For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.” Sylvester Rivers is mentioned several times in existing Wikipedia articles and several Sylvester Rivers works have their own separate Wikipedia articles. The main issue seems to be verifiable sources. However, the main sources I used to verify these claims, Allmusic.com, RIAA.com, Billboard.com and Discogs.com, are the same ones used in many Good Articles on many major artists such as Tony Bennett and Nicki Minaj. Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. I very much appreciate it. Riversco (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll think you will find that Nicki Minaj and Tony Bennett are not relying on allmusic et al to show notability. The fact that they are used for non-N reasons has no bearing on the fact that they are not enough on their own for Sylvester Rivers to justify his own article. With regard to mentions you will see at WP;GNG that indepth is the required standard. Sorry but you need to find something more suitable. Spartaz Humbug! 09:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Spartaz, for the help. Riversco (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks again, Spartaz, for the recent clarification. The afd nomination and negative votes were all placed when the article first posted in early draft form, with almost no book or magazine references, except those showing chart positions and RIAA gold and platinum certifications. As you noted the article was close, so I’ve added book and other references below:

1. Jones, Lesley-Ann (2012) “Ride A White Swan: The Lives and death of Marc Bolan” pp. 246-247., Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, ISBN-10: 1444758772, ISBN-13: 978-1444758771

2. MacKenzie, Alex (2009) “The Life and Times of the Motown Stars” p. 144, Together Publications, ISBN: 1842260146, 9781842260142

3. Pool, Jeannie (2007) “The Sound of Motown” http://www.asmac.org/motown-sound-panel-luncheon-november-14-2007/

4. White, Adam; Bronson, Fred (1993) “The Billboard Book of Number One Rhythm & Blues Hits” p. 91, p. 223, p. 238, Billboard Books, ISBN-0823082857, 9780823082858

Thanks, again. Riversco (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=yik3AQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=sylvester+rivers Reference 4: https://books.google.com/books?ei=QVd2VfjtMs_qoASz86Jw&id=w0xLAAAAYAAJ&dq=billboard+book+of+number+one+r%26b&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=sylvester+rivers Thanks, once again. Riversco (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What is DRV?

Would you please help with another question about [14]. I believe these are independent sources which have not yet been considered here: [15] and [16]. What does "bring them to DRV" mean? Could you please explain it like I don't know what Wikipedia even is? DKBaps (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Romsey Town Rollerbillies

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Romsey Town Rollerbillies. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I hope I got this right. DKBaps (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Patty Walters

Hi,

In response to your deletion of the page Patty Walters, I am wondering why you did so. Per Wikipedia guidelines, Walters is a notable individual and his article should not have been deleted. His solo work on YouTube gained him significant recognition in various reputable non-trivial articles, both printed in magazines such as Kerrang, with the in-depth article on Walters alone (Hickie, James (15 April 2015). "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?". Kerrang! (1564): 26.), and in reputable online sources, such as this and this; these coverages establish Walters' notability. Aside from articles featuring only Walters, many articles on his band specifically discuss his solo career on YouTube which serves as non-trivial recognition in published secondary sources, such as a paragraph in the printed journal article ("On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015.). Also, Walters is a lyricist in notable works which clearly establishes notability. A consensus of deletion had not been reached on the article's deletion review page as none of the above arguments had been rebutted. Thank you for your time. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • please count how many users agreed with you and how many did not support your arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 17:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, deletion pages are not votes; they are discussions in which the strongest argument is what is put into action. The points that I stated above are based entirely on Wikipedia guidelines. Points made for deletion consisted of claims that Walters is not notable (though my claims prove that he is per the Wikipedia guidelines on notability), sources were not reliable (though all sources are considered acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines; I addressed specific concerns individually on the AfD page), and that there is not enough information available on Walters to sustain an encyclopedic article (though I have a drafted version here which contains a variety of sources which provide ample information on the subject). --Peter Dzubay (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
      • indeed, it is not a vote, but if an argument fails gain traction with voters and the delete votes continue to come in, then it's a safe argument that your view isn't the consensus of the discussion. I think you just need to accept that this hasn't gone your way. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You are failing to acknowledge the points that I made above, which prove certain points made in other users' votes inaccurate. Though more users voted for deletion than restoration, the points made for restoration are stronger, thus the page should be restored. It is not that "this hasn't gone [my] way"; keeping the article is not for me. I am not presenting the points that I have presented because I personally want Walters to have an article, I am presenting them because, by Wikipedia's guidelines, Walters is a notable individual who is deserving of an article. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
          • your problem is that you have not persuaded editors to share your view. Clearly they disagree if they vote to delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Those who voted to delete clearly did not take the comments on the article's restoration into consideration because their comments were points disproved by the points that I presented; the stronger arguments are held by those supporting recreation of the article, so the article should be restored. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
              • It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the claim that you are right and the other editor's didn't understand your point, it cannot change the fact that you failed to persuade people to vote keep instead of delete. At this point we are going round in circles and I suggest you use your time productively by finding better sources then repeating the same argument that has clearly failed to win the day. Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
                • It doesn't matter whether or not other editors understand the points that I had presented; the decision of deletion or restoration is in the hands of the closing administrator, which, in this case, is you. It is the closing administrator's responsibility to weigh the arguments of both sides and decide based on logic, rather than by quantity, but so far, all that you have said in response to my questioning is that there were more users who favored deletion rather than considering the points presented to the discussion. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • If I may...you have already lost the debate at both AfD and DRV, there is no other recourse at this time. Continue to work on the user draft for now if you really want, perhaps another source will come up soon, but draft-space is not a permanent repository for deleted material and I will likely send it to WP:MFD if it still exists in 2-3 months time. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • I have not lost those discussions as they were not mine; I simply presented thoughts in them. However, no one has rebutted or disproved the points which I have presented for restoration, which are still the stronger argument as I have rebutted the reasons for deletion and disproved the majority of them. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
                      • You can keep on repeating that til the cows come home, but it won't make it true. The project functions via consensus, and in both venues the consensus went in the opposite direction of your point-of-view. There is no other recourse available here, other than to work on the user-space copy and then come back to Deletion Review where editors can judge it and see if it is sufficiently expanded enough to justify a return to article-space. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
                        • Per the guideline that you linked on consensus, "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." The points that I have presented are based entirely on Wikipedia policies and are completely valid, why are you saying that the points that I have presented are not "true"? Also, I am looking for the article to be relisted for further consideration under deletion review, which is why I came to the user who closed the discussion's talk page. Please realize that what I am doing is in effort to improve this encyclopedia; my repetition exists because of my good intentions. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
                          • There reaches a point where you just need to accept that, right or wrong, your point of view has not persuaded anyone. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
                            • It isn't about persuading other users; a unanimous consensus was not reached, so, as the closing admin, it was your responsibility to weigh the arguments while making a final decision. I was just wondering why you to came the decision that you did, which is why I came here; I realized that more people favored deletion. When closing the discussion, you decided what is "right or wrong", as you said. I'll work on a draft of the article for now. Thank you for your time. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vahvistus/Socialist Alternative (Malaysia)

You were the deciding editor when this article was deleted. I have since found a couple of independent references to establish notability. Will you let it in. Vahvistus (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed most of the sources on the Help Desk. Or rather, listed the ones that didn't mention the group at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
thank you for that. On that basis, I think the answer has to be no. Perhaps, Vahvistus should consider comparing their sources with those used in mainstream political articles and retread WP:GNG - that might help clarify what we mean by reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The additional sources are : http://theklreview.org/yuva-balan-nabi-sosialis-alternatif/ http://www.roketkini.com/2014/08/12/utam-anjur-pesta-ilmu-hujung-minggu-ini/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahvistus (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear Spartaz I have had another go at editing an article on Socialist Alternative (Malaysia). I have noted the point made by @Ian.thomson: and added the synonym CWI Malaysia to the article. The Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On Line has updated its entry to show Socialist Alternative and Sosialis Alternatif. There are two other sources that are completely independent of anything socialist. The KL Review, an on-line magazine and Roketkini a website of the Democratic Action Party which is the largest opposition party in the Malaysian parliament. Please have a look and consider allowing it. The latest version is in my sandbox. User:Vahvistus/sandboxVahvistus (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Dark Tower series film adaptation

Hi again. Thank you for letting me work on that deleted article again. I now was able to bring it to a much better state, I think. Instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review state I should bring this up with you as the one who originally deleted the article, to see if it can be reinstated quicker. I feel it's a much better article right now than it was in 2011. A lot of time has passed since it was deleted, and many different things have happened with the project that the article describes. As I wrote to you before, this article does fall within the Wikipedia:Planned films policy. Also, it's not so much about a film as the ongoing process to bring that film to fruition. If the project does materialize in the future, the article could then be simply transformed into the general background section of the main film or series article. But I feel strongly that this is a very interesting saga that has gone on now for eight years and it deserves to be chronicled as a piece of Stephen King and film history. And it's been extensively covered in media by numerous sources, which I've liberally referenced. I hope you can take a look and agree to put the article back up into the mainspace. Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if you've had a chance to take a look yet. Jmj713 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit confused by all the added links, which two links you added most closely meet the GNG? WP:NFILM suggests this goes back up when actual filming starts. Do you not agree with that policy?MichaelQSchmidt can you help with this? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well Spartaz, WP:NFF is a guideline which allows the common sense occasional exceptions allowed under policy when the topic being spoken of exceeds WP:GNG, and contains so much properly sourced information that the possible merge target would be over-whelmed. As a guideline it is not the more impervious standard of a policy, and we do have and do allow articles on unmade future films. The questions to consider are: 1) does the topic exceed WP:GNG and 2) could the section at The Dark Tower (series)#Filmed adaptation contain the information without being overwhelemed. Looking it over, I'm inclined to agree that this could be returned to mainspace as a discussion of a possible future film IF the citation formats are brought into line. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Formatting and ongoing improvements can and will be made, this was created more to show that there has been persistent and wide media coverage of this event. Whether or not it comes to fruition shouldn't really matter at this point, in my opinion, as it's already had a sizable popular culture impact and should be documented as such. As the "nutshell" note at Wikipedia:Planned films says, "Through consideration of policy, sometimes even a "planned film" might have enough persisitant critical commentary over an extended period of time so that the topic of the planned film might itself be determined as worthy of note. In this same vein, even a film that failed to be made could be found notable through coverage of its failure." Jmj713 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
moved back to main space. My summary stipulated that G4 should not apply. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Jmj713 (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Akhtar Raza Khan

Hello mr.Spartaz as I saw that the article with name Akhtar Raza Khan has been deleted because of copyright problem.I think someone who dont have any knowledge of the rules on wikipedia would have created that.

Now, I decided to creat the article again abiding by the rules and laws.But it says only an administrator can creat it.Therefore I am requesting you to please restore the article I will improve that article.I will take out the contents which violates copyright rules. Or you may simply creat a new article with that name with a few lines I will thereafter improve that adding more words and sources...

It will be your kind favour on me If you accept my request.

Thanking you for reading my request.

Ejaz92 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping the nomination of so many porn related articles for AfD for some time? There aren't many editors who work in that particular area and to flood the system with AfDs is unfair to them. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

None of the articles I have listed have struggled for participation so I'm not following your argument. Who specifically are you talking about? Spartaz Humbug! 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm talking about the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography. There are only a handful of editors listed and not all of them are especially active. There are currently 13 articles and templates in the porn category that are up for AfD according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. And that doesn't include some of the articles that you just posted today. So, would you mind sitting back for a week or so while the current list works through the AfD system? That will give those editors some time to possibly do some research and try to save a few of those articles. Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 09:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikiprojects do not have a right to participate in AfDs of articles in their subject area, you do not own the articles. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if it hadn't become nearly impossible to use the WP:PROD process to for what prove to be thoroughly uncontroversial deletions of non-notable porn performer bios, there wouldn't be so many taken to AFD. So long as one or two users are allowed to roadblock the PROD process because they don't accept PORNBIO and the GNG, there's going to be more porn AFDs than there ought to be. The solution is to do something about disruptive users who deprod articles indiscriminately and without explanation, not to create further obstacles for the removal of substandard BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't claim that anyone owns the articles... You know what, fuck it. Just carpet bomb every article in all the porn cats. I guess this is what I get for asking for some reasonable amount of time. Dismas|(talk) 20:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have is that with the exception of the listings that are there to test boundaries, I'm not sure what any delay will serve. There certainly in no precedent for wikiprojects to slow down the usual community processes and participation in my AFDs certainly appears satisfactory and reasonable consensuses appear to be emerging. . How much time as you asking for and for what purpose? I'm not going to delay simply to maintain substandard BLPs so I need to know what encyclopaedic purpose this will serve before I decide whether to agree to a pause. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Russian Hamster Cabal

I actually DID want the pages put back in my user space, not article space. Thank you very much for doing this! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I love you for what you have done. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Margotta deletion

Since you have made the decision to delete that article, it might be good for you to know someone has posted a project with the following content at a freelance platform: “We have a client Daniel Morgotta and his wikipediia.org page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Daniel_Margotta was deleted. We need someone to get the page back up and live…” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.68.208.247 (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Romsey Town Rollerbillies again

Would you please put the most recent copy of Romsey Town Rollerbillies in my userspace? DKBaps (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Spartaz. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 15:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan

User:Timtrent (aka: Fiddle Faddle) pinged you on Draft:Akhtar Raza Khan and marked the draft as under Review.The review is in proccess.I messeged him and asked him to complet the review.He adviced me to consult you.Kindly help us and review the article.Ejaz92 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:AZBilliards/doc

Could you please bring back its /doc page? That was non-trivial to write.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Margotta

Hi Spartaz! It seems that you are the closing administrator for the article Daniel Margotta. I want to discuss the deletion process that occur in this article. I feel that consensus was not reach during the process. I kindly ask to undelete it or we can bring to deletion review. Cheers! --Janbryan (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me on what basis you think this should be restored? Consensus looks pretty solid to me. By the way, has anyone paid you to pursue this? Spartaz Humbug! 20:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the vote was 2-2. Two votes each for delete and not delete. FYI, I was not paid to pursue this and I was just curious how the process turned out. Cheers! --Janbryan (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
so this recent advert for a paid editor to do a puff piece has no bearing on why you suddenly decided to look at an article outside your usual sphere of editing? What sources has your paymaster given you to tout? Spartaz Humbug! 22:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Janbryan I was hoping you might have responded to my question by now. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not trying to engage a fight about this. I went here to only clarify this matter and that's it. Just like I said before, the vote was 2-2 unless you're counting yourself in the vote. Then, it's 3-2. I don't fully know the rules in deletion so I don't know if an unsigned user counts a vote. Janbryan (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
So you haven't been paid or offered to do this for pay? despite the recent advert for the job, that this isn'rt your usual field, that this is a really obscure individual to suddenly take up and your deleting your draft as soon as I raised the issue? This all seems an unlikely chain of events that makes no sense without the advertised job. Your comments on this are eagerly awaited. Spartaz Humbug! 12:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You have no proof whatsoever linking me to that advertisement you're talking about. Janbryan (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the most unconvincing non-denial I have ever seen. Can you tell me what other paid editing you have done? Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Do what you gonna do. You have no evidence whatsoever that clearly shows that I was paid to edit articles. Janbryan (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wandering by, so my 2 cents... Deletion discussions are not straight-up votes; the participants must make arguments grounded in project policy & guidelines, while also demonstrating that they are actually here to cntribute to the project in general, and not narrowly-focused on a single topic with the sole aim to proselytize for that topic. As the two posts to keep the article were by accounts that had few edits in the WIkipedia beforehand, and both made claims that were not supported by WP:NACTOR, thus those "votes" were weighted next-to-nothing, so the consensus to delete was actually unanimous. Finally, seeing how this article was deleted almost a year ago, and you just happen to shift from Filipino soap operas to working on a draft a non-notable American actor 7 days after it was posted to upwork.com, it is rather clear what your motivations are. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

I have left a message at c:User_talk:Spartaz#RFA. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing RFA

What is "eud"? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Move of Brenda Gerow

Did you intend to leave a redirect? It seems to me, if it's entirely OR, we shouldn't even have that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Saryu Usui

After some (lots of) thought, I must apologize for the rash close I did there and the pushy defense I made in the name of my pretense - there were convincing arguments that (soft) deletion was the best option and I completely rejected them (again in the name of my pretense). Thanks for taking your time to write a calm response to the DRV. Esquivalience t 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

note

re:closing. I didn't realize it was that obvious. I guess I'm more transparent than I realized. Oh well - you (everyone) can count on me being a PITA til I get dragged to that last day. :/ .. lol — Ched :  ?  11:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban experience

Hi Spartaz, I see you've written the brief Wikipedia:Reporting interaction ban violations and have also made a number of comments related to Ibans, including a recent AN/I close. I read the relevant policy, but it has not answered my questions about how Ibans play out on wikipedia. I am an interested (and peripherally involved) observer to the current arbcom case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop and raised a question there about the ramifications of an interaction ban a few days ago that has gone unanswered. Could you provide some insight into how ibans are enforced? Do they effectively lock one editor out of an article if the other has edited there?Dialectric (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Brianne Siddall

Recently someone asked for the restoration of Draft:Brianne Siddall per G13, since they wanted to assert notability for her as a voice actress. However looking over her roles, it looks like she's had several major, major roles in the anime community in several highly notable series.

The problem with voice acting is that most of the time there's no coverage except for database listings or con appearance announcements. However this doesn't mean that they can't pass notability guidelines via other outlets, specifically that they've taken part in major roles. It looks like she passes notability guidelines on this basis for the following roles:

  1. Al Izuruha from Mobile Suit Gundam 0080: War in the Pocket. This is one of the central characters in this OVA series and Siddall voiced him in all 6 episodes.
  2. Rina Takamiya from Saint Tail. This is a secondary character, but she participated in 15 episodes, which makes her a more visible character than a one off role.
  3. Myōjin Yahiko from Rurouni Kenshin. This is one of the major characters from this series and Siddhall voiced this character for the Samurai X dub, for 24 episodes. She was later replaced with another VA for subsequent episodes and the re-release, but the Samurai X episodes were a major release at the time and this is still a lot of episodes.
  4. Young Elk from Arc the Lad. This was also a major role and Siddall voiced the character for all 26 episodes.
  5. James "Jim" Hawking from Outlaw Star. This is one of the major protagonists in the show and Siddall voiced him for 26 episodes.
  6. Salt from A Little Snow Fairy Sugar. Major secondary character, voiced for 24 episodes.
  7. Tsukasa from .hack//Sign. This is the main character of this anime and Siddall voiced him for 25 episodes.
  8. Tommy Himi from Digimon Frontier. Another main character, voiced for about 50 episodes. Siddall also voiced Calumon, Kumamon, and Korikakumon for an equally large amount of episodes, but the role of Tommy is the one that would be most easily identified as a major role.

So basically what we have here is someone who has performed several major roles in several notable series. I didn't include the times she's VA'd for video games, where it looks like she voiced the same character for multiple games. There is an issue with a lack of overall sourcing, but that's more of an issue as it pertains to biographical data like saying where she grew up, what schools she attended, inspirations, and the like. As far as her roles go, we do have sourcing to back that up via sites like Behind the Voice Actors. There's also some limited coverage of her as a whole via news sources like this one, although this article from ANN was from this year.

She's a fairly well known voice actress and she's named in several articles for the various series and us not having her puts us at a disadvantage here. It's very, very difficult for VAs to gain coverage and while Wikipedia isn't here to make up the difference, I don't think that this is a situation where we should delete based on a lack of sourcing given the evidence to prove notability via the heavy coverage for the shows she's taken part in. I was wondering if you'd be willing to restore this article to the mainspace. The draft article needs a lot of work because the table is a little messed up, but she is notable.

I think that the best outcome here would be to overturn the prior AfD and restore the article, but leave a coda on the talk page that no biographical information can be added unless it is backed up with a reliable source. That way we will still have an article for the VA and not left lacking an article on a major person, but can still cover our bases when it comes to BLP stuff. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins can spit on people

"adults can't be trusted to behave like they are .. well.. adults. Sheesh Spartaz Humbug! 08:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)". Your innuendo personal attack has been noted. (Curious: Is it that you have no comprehension your derogatory remark qualifies as PA? Or you don't give a shit because adminship is for life and a PA such as yours is not going to get you desysopped at Arbcom? Whereas if I would theoretically tell you to go crawl back under the rock you came from, it is the kind of cat-fight and division you like to generate? I have no interest to dialogue with you so please consider my Qs absolutely rhetorical, thanks.) IHTS (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Kenner

Could you please change "Mike yenni's" name to his real name thanks. Nolaboi504 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Who I am

Spartaz, when I was in high school several years ago I was known by several names but was best known as User:LBHS Cheerleader. Please don't block me, I fully intended to reveal this fact after the community could see I have changed. I know I was stupid back then, and I know you have every right to block me, but I did most of that because I was mad cause my then boyfriend dumped me for a girl at another school, I was young and dumb. I just want to help improve the encyclopedia, and to apologize to the people I use to cause problems for. I don't even know how to log into my old accounts, and I can't reset the passwords because I can't even remember what email address I used. I know you have no way to know I won't be disruptive again, but I don't think I've done anything wrong in recent times unless you want to get me for sockpuppeting, and the vandalism was a long time ago when I was a teenager. I don't think I'm "banned" cause I remember a user almost got in trouble for putting "banned" templates on my user page when I wasn't actually "banned" but I was indeed blocked. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Spartaz, here's a list of the ones that were me: User:Tarpon Pride class of 2012, User:LB cheer, User:Jessica The Antivandalism Cheerleader, User:Jess Selders 2012, User:Hoorayforlemonbay, User:Hi maddie, User:Cheery cheerleeding captain, User:Brook2014, and User:Freaky Fishes. I actually started out messing around anonymously from my school back in like 2006. I know I made others, I don't remember the exact names, but these are the ones that were tagged that were me. The rest of the tagged ones were copy cats or just other vandals hitting the same pages I used to hit. I have made some good faith edits here and there as an IP, but I can't remember all of the IP addresses, sorry. Besides, I have reservations of revealing my IP address as LBHS Cheerleader to anyone anyway because last time someone had my IP address they complained to my friend's internet provider which got her in trouble with her parents, and I only even edited from that IP one time so I don't think that was fair, but that's what someone did. I know a little about policy because I have been reading the administrative boards here off and on for quite a while, and sometimes (but very rarely) chiming in as an IP. If you want to block me I understand because (pardon my French) I was quite a pain in the ass in the past, but really I just want to be a good faith participant in the project now. I don't know how I could disclose anything else though. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Spartaz:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISentia

You wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISentia:

Assuming that other editors did the same searches Cunard did then there is no consensus that his sources are sufficient. I'm drawn to this because most voters make it explicit that they researched and evaluated the available sources.

There is no indication that their searches for sources turned up the same sources I did. They did not "make it explicit" that they reviewed the same sources I did. Please reclose as "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No. Your sources were considered by another editor who found them routine which accords with the comments by the other editors who confirmed they searched for and considered sources. On that basis there is no reason to give your vote primacy over their's. Had your sources not been challenged I would have relisted to allow comment but that was not necessary as your evaluation was considered by another user. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

New Companies delsort category

Hi Spartaz: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work at AfD on Wikipedia. North America1000 16:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Devsena Mishra

Hi. I don't know if Vishalgauravjh1 has reached out to you regarding putting this article on their draft space, but their final comment on the discussion, as well as their comment on my talk page, seems to indicate they want it restored to their userspace. I've pointed them to the AfC process to help them along. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Spartaz, As suggested by @GoingBatty: and @Onel5969:, I would like to request you that I want to work on this article using my user sandbox, kindly help. best regards, vishalgauravjh1Vishalgauravjh1 (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work in relisting AfD discussions, which helps to keep matters in order. North America1000 07:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll come clean as you asked

I have a college degree, a husband, two kids, and a third on the way. I just lost interest in trolling and didn't think I'd be welcome if I created a new account until time came to pass, so I did some very sparse editing as IP addresses. I don't like editing from my phone either, and up until recently, my only internet was on my phone. Really I have nothing to hide. Not So Dumb Blond (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Spartaz, I'm not sure what you have in mind, but I am opposed to permitting this individual to edit under these circumstances. If she's "reformed", she can request an unblock through WP:UTRS (access to her original Talk page is blocked).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Children's Choir

Hello Spartaz, I noticed that there used to be an article for the Chicago Children's Choir but it was deleted in July by you for lack of citations/verifiability/neutral point of view/notability. I think it can definitely meet the notability guidelines (it's a large organization in Chicago with plenty of press and book coverage), do you have any objections if I take a run at re-writing the article with citations to address the other concerns? I'm a relatively infrequent editor (and formerly User:dschwar12 but forgot my password after a long absence, a whole different story...), so this is my first time asking about a deleted page -- sorry if I'm not doing this in the right way, or if there's other info you need, just let me know. Thanks, -Dschwar13 (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

About LibStar

Hello. I wish to thank you for your edits here and here. Unfortunately, I have some concern about the continuing behaviour of one those editors. I am sorry to bother you with this, but I do not know what to do or who else to ask, and you are an admin. On LibStar's user page (not his talk page) there is a section headed "Great irony", added to his user page with this edit on 8th July of this year, the content (including the heading) of which consists of negative commentary about me personally, together with a quotation of something that I said in a discussion elsewhere on this site that has been quoted at such length as to make it obvious that the aforementioned commentary must refer to me personally and could not refer to anyone else. I think it is clear from the nature of the content, and the length of time (more than four months) that it has been on his user page without being used, that it has not been compiled in preparation for any kind of use in any process elsewhere. Would I be correct in thinking that the content in question is prohibited by the second and third bullet points of the guideline called WP:POLEMIC? [The present text of the guideline forbids "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." and says "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed."] I don't keep negative comments about LibStar, or any other user, on my user page. When I asked LibStar to remove or rewrite the material in question, his only response was to blank my request and then very soon after go and revert an unrelated edit that I had made to AFDFORMAT and start a thread on the talk page criticising an unrelated essay I wrote. Is there anything that can be done to remove the content on his user page? Is there any point in trying? I apologise if I am wasting your time. Best regards. James500 (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Since the quote is not attributed according to our license, I have removed it. I have asked Libstar not to restore it. While his point was rather crude and it was unkind of him to just blank your request without comment, there is some truth that you would fare better if you could learn to make your point in less text. Brevity does give your commentary more influence. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I strongly agree that "there is some truth that you would fare better if you could learn to make your point in less text". LibStar (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Spartaz. James500 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#S Marshall

I condensed the information. Is it concise enough or is there other text I should delete? Is there anything else I should do? QuackGuru (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Critical Badger

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Critical Badger. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested userfication of T-Bull

Hi, can I get a userfied copy of T-Bull to my userspace a /t/tbull. For reference the AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/T-Bull, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Spartaz,

Thanks for the message on my talk page. The only reason I made this account was so that I could correct an error on the United States article. See my comment on the talk page about it. Would you mind doing that for me? Then I will change my username.

--SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother changing my username, you can just block this account for all I care, since I have no intention of wasting my time editing your website. I just thought you might like to know that article is wrong! So much for Wikipedia being reliable. --SenatorJesseHelms (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. What happened to WP:AGF?
I asked you nicely to change and linked the policy to explain why your user name was a problem. Instead of cooperating woth our system you tried to blackmail into making an edit for you on condition of following our requirements. is that not an accurate summation. Go changeyour name and then ask about the edit. I'll need a source for the number and then we can discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 07:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

New pages

Nigh-Omnipotence/Omnipotential i have the given definitions,examples,links, and other such things for these pages may i create them? Beyonder (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrikonam

comments on user pages

Would this be considered a personal attack [23]. Calling someone Javert. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), would you undelete Vu Digital and redirect it to C Spire Wireless, so I can do a selective merge of its content to its parent company, C Spire Wireless? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I honestly can't see how I could do that without ignoring the actual consensus of the discussion which was a slam dunk delete. I'd feel uncomfortable with a blatent supervote like that. No objection to your creating a redirect as an editorial decision but there is no consensus for a merge. Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This was a well attended afd where the vast majority of the voters said to delete. i have to close by the consensus and there is no policy or practise to justify putting your two votes ahead. I can only redirect/smerge by ugnoring the consensus and I can't do that. Spartaz Humbug! 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have taken this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hi Spartaz, I just wanted to come by to say Thank you for not only your contributions to AFD but for also deleting this AFD (To be honest I was expecting someone to Keep it so wasn't really looking forward to DRV!)

Thanks again and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please restore

You deleted Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) with a supervote, please restore it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • In what way was that a supervote? There is clarity that the sources for standalone are are inadequate for an article on that basis alone and the argument that because his family has a USS ship named after him then there is a degree if implied notability is at odds with any of our inclusion criteria. its certainly not under bio or GNG and do we have a WP:IHAVEASHIPNAMEDAFTERMYFAMILY? Apparently not. The policy based arguments were for delete so that was the outcome. You may disagree but that doesn't mean I have supervoted... just that I'm interpreting consensus by policy. I know that whatever I say you are going to go to DRV anyway so feel free to just go there... Bet you a fiver your nomination will be a personal attack against me rather than acknowledgement that there are different ways of looking at this and only 1 of them has a policy basis. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda_Patrick

Hi, Spartaz! I disagree with your deletion of the Rhonda_Patrick article. I'll state my case... which has two points, the first of which will speak to DGG's point which is the most important because you cited it in your delete decision:

1.) DGG argues that since the Boston Globe cover[1] story is talking about the science, and not the person, this lacks in notability. A career scientist is made notable mostly from their work, not their golf swing. The Boston Globe article itself features her picture prominently placed above it as the exclusive graphic used. DGG's contention seems to be primarily that the science can't be shown to be hers... yet she is the primary author. I would suggest it's especially rare, in fact, to find any science, a field that is inherently deeply collaborative, that can be said to be the exclusive work of a single scientist. Look at the recent patent contention of the CRISPR gene editing technology as just one example. So by what measure can we assume, then, that science is said to be BY a person, if not lead authorship?[2] It's the best approximation we have... Should they have only one author listed on the publication itself? This is not especially common and would probably not serve as a good standard to measure notability by, but even if a publication itself has only one author (rare), the ideas themselves will surely be materially shaped by materially cited within any given publication.

My second point is one that was actually championed thoroughly by SusunW (WP:GNG) and also somewhere Megalibrarygirl (relevance of "YouTubing")... 2.) Even if Dr. Patrick's work fails notability (I don't think it does), the case for general notability still stands. As a personality[3] she's been on the Joe Rogan Experience four times, and The Tim Ferriss Show once. In general, I wouldn't blame a person for generally dismissing "YouTubing" for lacking some of the qualities we might enjoy in more mainstream media, I think taking a hard look at what the appearance on one of these shows means is warranted: The Joe Rogan Experience, a 3 hour show, is estimated to get around 11 million (or 14 million, depending on who you ask) views or listens per month... if the show adds on 15 new episodes a month, that means that each episode is getting at least 730,000 listens[4]. This is just the Joe Rogan Experience because it's an easier example, but The Tim Ferriss Show is also in the top 50 and can probably be estimated to have similar numbers. Dismissing a show[5] that's getting a viewership that, on a per-episode basis, might even beat out more well-known traditional media names like ABC Nightline[6] seems... frankly, strange. If that's a Wikipedia standard I'd suggest it's a bit backward, and to the extent that I remain involved in more than the capacity of the occasional one-off edit I'd love to be a part of that evolving conversation that helps adapt to the changing times we live in while maintaining a semblance of a standard of quality.

Besides briefly pointing out that the AfD was leaning towards a Keep consensus before your deletion... That's all I've got. Thanks for your consideration, and for the tremendous work you put into Wikipiedia, like everyone else... for free! I love Wikipedia and appreciate it. All the best. Snazzywiki (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ I emphasize cover because it was a point of contention with Agricola44 that Boston Globe does, in fact, have cover stories and noted this one as one of them on the print
  2. ^ From the lead author article: "the lead author of a research article is typically the person who carried out the research, wrote and edited the paper"
  3. ^ I emphasize this because of the assertion that a BLP isn't warranted if notable coverage is of a person's work(?)
  4. ^ 730 x 4 episodes = 2.9 million downloads of 12 full hours of conversation
  5. ^ per DGG, Ireneshih, and JMWt (if less so in JMWt's case)
  6. ^ this source puts ABC Nightline at 1.824 million viewers per week (split between 5 episodes -- weeknights only)
Hi Snazzy, that you very much for the rational and well argued way that you have challenged my close. This is a rare thing on wikipedia and immediately gets me taking your points very seriously. I don't want to start off with policy alphabet soup but there are good reasons why the arguments you put forward don't fit the way that we assess inclusion and I do need to address them to respond properly. Firstly that issue about what the sources are about. For inclusion we normally expect to see multiple (i.e 2 or more) detailed (i.e not a mention) secondary (based on analysis of the subject not primary like interviews) independent (not from the subject or someone really close to them) reliable (published in a reputable publication that has a reputation for fact checking or peer review) sources that are about the actual subject (So a BBC article about ET that mentions Carl Sagen is not a RS for Sagen's notability). This all sits in WP:GNG and WP:RS. When I'm closing a discussion I have to badge the arguments against these criteria and see which arguments most closely reflect the policy. WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS means that if 8 people argue that Sagen is notable because of the BBC article and 2 say that actually its not about him, then the policy based voice is actually the delete one. This is how I got the delete close with that discussion. DGG is a good litmus test for academics because he used to be one, knows policy inside out and is a natural inclusionist so when he argues to delete his voice is more powerful. It may well be that is there is good sourcing on the scene then the right thing to do is mention this person on that article in the context of the research? I'm not saying all this to dismiss your concerns but to explain how I got the result I did. What I would appreciate is that you look through your keep argument on the basis of this and then let me know if you follow my reasoning. If you still disagree, I'd be happy to revisit this and see what can be done - especially as you were so nice in your disagreement....
Thank you for taking the opportunity to give me a lesson on community standards, I appreciate it! After your thoughtful explanation, I still feel that the prominent traditional media (RS) coverage of her lead author publications still warrants a thorough consideration of her inclusion. PS: I moved my footnotes under my argument... that may be bad etiquette on someone else's talk page. If it is, sorry! Also, thanks for the barnstar. Snazzywiki (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of simplicity, can you please highlight the two best sources you have an I will review. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to qualify best, but here are two good ones that stand out, I think: The Boston Globe, Fox 5 San Diego... actually, that last one is an interview but it's on the news? Maybe that's not RS... so here's another one that's an article also: ABC7News
In light of Spartaz comments about about the youtube channel, I'm thinking that could be enough to show notability.But, it seems to me, the page would have to reflect her status as a "medical expert on popular youtube channel" rather than as a researcher, IMO. I think I may support reinstating the page on that basis having heard that argument. JMWt (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I haven't commented about the youtube channel - unless that is the subject that has garnered the coverage? That certainly wasn't clear in the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that should have been "in light of Snazzywiki comments." JMWt (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I fully support the arguments presented by Snazzywiki above. In addition, I would argue that anyone who has received such wide attention for her achievements in relation to cancer research deserves to be included in Wikipedia, irrespective of the number of papers she has written or her current academic status. Finally, I do not understand why you prefer the arguments of the six people calling for the article's deletion rather than those of the ten who favoured keeping it. At a time when we are trying to feature the achievements of women scientists, this is a move in the wrong direction.--Ipigott (talk) 10:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ipigott - I most definitely am not going to apply a different set of criteria to female scientists than I am about male ones. Countering bias is about filling the gaps not preferential treatment. Exactly what is the wide attention that isn't a primary source or in a non-RS? Spartaz Humbug! 10:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to keep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I certainly do not expect anyone to apply a different set of criteria to female (rather than male) scientists. Unfortunately, however, I detected a tendency here for you and others to raise problems of acceptability based on a formal set of criteria rather than more obvious general indications of notability, especially those resulting from coverage in the media. The importance of the items from YouTube, including appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience and The Tim Ferriss Show, would probably have been sufficient for notability in their own right if the person in question had not also been an academic. In dealing with articles from new contributors, especially in connection with an editathon, there is ample room for constructive support. Instead, we have a comment from Ozzie10aaaa: "...whenever one sees few edits to an account direct at a specific article...one wonders". To me this implied he (like JMWt initially) assumed the article was written by Rhonda P herself or someone closely associated with her. As I commented in the assessment, there has been "ample coverage of academic position, published works and related media". I cited these three factors in combination, not to be taken individually but as a whole. Nevertheless, those who subsequently favoured "delete" concentrated solely on the academic status prompted by the comments from DGG. There are a considerable number of third party articles featuring Patrick's contributions to science: Causal link found between vitamin D, serotonin synthesis and autism in new study, Vitamin D – could it stop 'modern’ diseases?, Mutagens and Multivitamins, Why Vitamin D Could Prevent Autism, Dr. Rhonda Patrick, CHORI Scientists Identify Key Factor in Relationship Between Diet, Inflammation And Cancer, Scientists find first drug that appears to slow Alzheimer's disease and many more. Some may already have been included in the article but now that it has been deleted I cannot recall which. I monitor a considerable number of new articles every day. This is the first time I have come across a well-referenced article which has been deleted on its failure to comply with a number of criteria established for a limited area rather than its overall general importance to the field. I think it would have been far more constructive to try to build on the draft that was deleted, perhaps inviting those in support to expand the article. At worst it could have been maintained, given the lack of consensus. Now that it has been deleted, it is difficult to build on it further. A barnstar to the creator no doubt offers a modicum of encouragement but I am certain she would have been happier to see her article finally accepted. May I once again suggest that you restore the article and encourage further work on its enhancement.--Ipigott (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    I saved a few of these links down in case the article does get reinstead, but I thought this statement from Dr. Ames about Dr. Patrick's work stood out, which may speak to some of DGG's concerns as well (from the Mutagens and Multivitamins article): “The four papers Rhonda is churning out are as important as any that have ever come out of my lab.”
There was a fairly clear disagreement between those who think she met the WP:GNG and those who felt the news articles in question were relating to her status as a researcher who did not meet WP:NACADEMIC. I don't think there was a clear consensus in either direction. JMWt (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Forgive me Snazzywiki but I'm not sure creating a flash mob of users to come and complain about my close is the best way to get those sources reviewed. I'd rather look at your two best sources then spend my time responding to a bunch of similar talk-page messages. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 11:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not part of a mob. I saw the closure and wondered if there was to be further discussion. I then read further comments about youtube above and am reconsidering my delete vote. JMWt (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Only 3, I think... I reached out to SusunW, Megalibrarygirl, Ipigott since I thought had good points. Ipigott actually did link to a few sources that were even missed in the article, which is nice... I actually wouldn't have added to their talk page if I'd realized (which I now have) that simply linking their names in conversation meant they get notified. Still not familiar with all of the systems here. Maybe we can think of this as a flash tea party? Snazzywiki (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
At worst it would have been a "no consensus" closure. The decision to delete is clearly biased and wreaks of BLP paranoia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This was an incorrect close: there was no consensus to delete. Nobody is claiming the subject is notable as a scientist, but the majority of editors who commented consider the media coverage is enough to show general notability. What is the correct formal process to appeal the bad call? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, I reviewed the article and the refs. I reviewed the AfD, and the comments on your talkpage. If I had noticed the AfD discussion before it closed, I would have made a Keep or Strong Keep comment as the BLP meets GNG. Now, I'm not saying that my voice would have swayed you to close the AfD differently, but I do feel compelled to let you know my thoughts. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Frankly, I'm astonished that the proponents of this article continue to turn a blind eye to the extensive self-promotion machinery that Dr. Patrick runs, which undoubtedly plays a large role in the YouTube videos and human-interest articles that they claim renders her notable. The more I see of this, the more I believe DGG's original assessment at AfD was spot-on. Agricola44 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC).

DRV

Deletion review for Rhonda Patrick

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rhonda Patrick. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

AfD for FHRITP

You may want to amend your AfD close to redirect to List of Internet phenomena, as this is where the subject is listed and where I assume you wanted the redirect to point. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Point_FM

Dear Spartaz,

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the above AfD for the following reasons:

1. WP:BROADCAST implies, and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES explicitly states that "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios"

2. As @Bearcat: states in this other recent AfD of a community radio station: "As long as a radio station can be reliably sourced as existing, rather than relying exclusively on its own self-published web presence for verification, then per WP:NMEDIA the station does not need to make any further claim of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station. The volume of sourcing does not need to be spectacular — the station's existence just needs to be properly verifiable in at least one or two sources independent of its own self-published web presence."

3. The station has an OFCOM license to broadcast, which in-and-of-itself is a secondary, official, source of notability in the UK. There are only a small number of licensed radio stations in this jurisdiction.

4. There are various other secondary sources including books and local media coverage as I listed on the AfD.

I appreciate that these are not considered policy, however there seems to me a need to be consistent as to which are and which are not considered notable. As Bearcat states above, this should be based on a) having a license to broadcast and b) being mentioned in appropriate media as existing. A small community radio station cannot be expected to be held to a higher standard than this to be notable, otherwise no radio station of this kind would appear on wikipedia.

Thanks for your attention. JMWt (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (Sorry Spartaz hope you don't mind me replying.) - 1. As I said on the AFD BROADCAST means nothing here and is very very rarely followed,
2. Sources need to be better than one lined Mentions and you know that,
3. Having a licence to provide a service isn't classed as a source and certainly doesn't prove notability.
4. All again being mentions which aren't good enough.
Consensus was to Delete. –Davey2010Talk 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
These are all good enough for a very local community radio station. I am happy to have this discussion at a review if Spartaz does not review his/her decision to delete. JMWt (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said elsewhere even I don't expect sources to be amazing but they need to be somewhat better than just mentions (There's tons of community stations here that are either cited through their website or have 1 secondary source and that's it ....and I've not nominated it because I believe it's fine so trust me despite what you may believe I'm not trying to get rid of any of these at all but if a station isn't actually notable then I don't see why it deserves an article ? but then again we don't really agree on this so it's best we just agree to disagree, –Davey2010Talk 16:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Right. We don't agree, therefore there is no consensus and there was a basic disagreement on the policy basis for deletion. By the way, I often do agree with you on deletions of dead and/or internet radio stations, but I do not think you've ever shown a good reason to delete an OFCOM licensed British community radio station. JMWt (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
See I don't see it as a disagreement - I more or less see it as "Sources were provided but they're more or less mentions so notability isn't really met", I know you'll disagree with this but I don't believe having an OFCOM licence should mean it gets an article and I don't believe it proves notability, It'd be like saying all UK companies are notable because they're registered with Companies House if that makes sense? ... Meh we obviously disagree on this entirely so should probably wait for spartaz to comment. –Davey2010Talk 18:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

JMWt what are the policy arguments for keeping this? the points you have raised don't seem to fall into any recognised notability guideline but I could be wrong so I'd be interested in seeing the basis for this argument to overturn. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BROADCAST and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NMEDIA are not policies, but neither should they be simply ignored. Simply stating that the page does not fit WP:GNG without taking account of the norms gives unwarranted weight to delete. There is a clear sense amongst people who care about these issues that broadcast radio stations operating with licenses by relevant national regulators are notable. In the case of the UK, there are a very small number of local community stations given a license. This radio station has been noted in local media and even a book, as well as getting a license to broadcast. It is, as shown by the established norms, notable. JMWt (talk) 16:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, just so I'm clear, these are not guidelines or SNGs but represent an opinion on how wider notability should be interpreted in this area? I'm not at all familiar with this area and would find it useful to understand how broad the support for these pages is? Are they maintained by a relevant wikiproject for example? Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That's my understanding of their status, yes. I think they were developed because, by their very nature, small-area broadcasters are unlikely to be noticed in national newspapers etc as we'd expect in other notability claims. There has been a long-standing discussion of these issues on the talkpage of those essays, but I agree it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of WP:WPRS. The NOM and I have had this discussion many times recently as he/she has nominated a large number of community radio stations for deletion - the majority of which he/she has withdrawn. JMWt (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I have been looking through the page history and talk page for NMEDIA. It hasn't been substantially edited since 2008 and expectations and standards have moved on considerably since then. That's reflected by a number of disagreements about the broadcast media criteria and we now have a settled position that SNGs are subordinate to the GNG and that its sources that win discussions not assertions. In this case we have a page based on 3 one-line mentions in articles/books about other subjects. There appears to be absolutely no detailed reliable sourcing that is primarily about this station. Is this right? Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No community radio stations have books or detailed news articles about them. That's a standard that cannot be applied to something like this. If they're recognised by the national licensing authority and are mentioned in local media as existing that has got to be enough - otherwise all community radio stations, without exception, would be non-notable. JMWt (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there can be a general exemption for community stations to ignore the GNG without a clear consensus that they are sufficiently special to justify not applying similar rules to those applied to all the other marginal subjects clamouring for inclusion here. . I'm afraid I cannot agree with your interpretation of where we should draw the line. This leaves you two options - raise an RFC to test current community expectations for broadcast media or go to DRV and tell them what an evil admin I am. You may or may not win a discussion at DRV but it won't address the underlying issue - which is the need for a fresh discussion/consensus on the subject. In the case of your raising an RFC, (which I think is the better option) I'd be willing to be bound by the outcome of that in this case. Spartaz Humbug! 17:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I agree, RFC seems like the way to go. I haven't been involved in one of those - do I put it somewhere and put notes on various noticeboards to publicise it? Where would be the best place to put it? JMWt (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I opened it on the talkpage of wikiproject Radio stations as this seems the most relevant place to have the discussion. JMWt (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you listed it at WP:N and NMEDIA. I have also added it to centralised discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A question about a ban you imposed

At AE you imposed a topic ban on QuackGuru for 6 months. Does this include patrolling pages in userspace on the topic? Not sure how to show patrolled so I took a screenshot. AlbinoFerret 21:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Blimey - your watchlist is far smaller than mine. I'm investigating but at first sight this is a violation. Spartaz Humbug! 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You can delete your link - the evidence of the vio is here. I have left QuackGuru a note requesting comment before I decide whether to block. Thank you for drawing this to my attention. Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Its removed, and this isnt the only thing, I let the other one slide, he thanked me for an edit in the Mystery Wolff AE section that deals with e-cig pages. 23:48, 7 December 2015 QuackGuru (talk | contribs) thanked AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) is in the thank log but the link to the edit thanked is to the Mystery Wolff AE section. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
he is now blocked for 24 hours for a topic ban violation. Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Spartaz, perhaps now he will stay away completely. AlbinoFerret 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
He is under no illusion what happens if he doesn't. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)

Did you not see the improved sourcing and expansions? I know, DGG is in favor of deletion, but I am curious to know if I did something improper. Valoem talk contrib 22:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To my mind there is nothing here that was not discussed in the DRV that did not find in favour of restoration. It therefore seems to be cocking a snook at that decision to just restore it with what I would consider minimal changes. I may be wrong, hence my pinging Sandstein for his opinion as closer of the DRV. I'm happy to defer to his judgement and apologise to you if he does not object to your move. Spartaz Humbug! 22:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Also fix the \ and move here User:Valoem/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863). Valoem talk contrib 22:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that ever since our disagreement at WP:PORNBIO, you've been hounding me. I still strongly disagree with how we've handle pornographic content particularly after the deletions of Ava Devine and Rachel Roxxx, the latter being essentially the new Jenna Jameson. I'll leave Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) to RAN or someone else, perhaps you've been interested at looking at something for me. I'd rather have you with me than against me. Valoem talk contrib 23:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears Sandstein (talk · contribs) has elected not to be involved, can we chose the relisting AfD method instead now? Valoem talk contrib 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done Spartaz Humbug! 12:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of Ashura

I need last revision of this article that you deleted. I want to merge its table in the article of battle of Karbala.Saff V. (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Saff V. Is there consensus at Battle of Kerbala to include a timeline? There seems to be active discussion on the talk page about what should and shouldn't be included on wikipedia around this subject and I'd be reluctant to undelete this if insertion actually frustrates efforts to improve the article. Please raise a discussion on talk and I will undelete for merger if the consensus agrees with you. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Your decision to topic ban an editor for 6 months as their first warning.

Spartaz, you have posted on my page that you have topic banned me for 6 months, for items you have characterized, but not have identified with any specificity.

Spartaz, you suggest that I have personalized something in something that is a matter I was in on an AE on other items. What is that? You don't even show it

I am familiar AE openned on me, for other items that what you are acting upon, however you say here that you are taking an inactive role these days. If you are inactive, how are you also the key decider on me. Is it simply for expediency, close it down?

You represented in the AE that I was "not editing", but were corrected on that. Only for you to return nearly a week later and without review or citation of what you are doing, and topic ban me for 6 months. And this was after you were upset at me for pinging. I don't feel this puts you in an unbaised place, which as an admin, I would expect you would have.

As an editor, I have never been subject to any violations, and sanctions, any edit warring or anything. And all of my edits on the ARTICLE are good faith have been well received. How did that factor into your decision?

Spartaz, I feel your actions to be gross overkill, and a reflection of perhaps you activity status, but are not a fair dealing with me. Because EdJohnston was an involved admin on the talk pages, requiring me to assert I was not a sockpuppet on those pages, to justify myself, I think you should at least have another set of admins take a look at it. Did you warn him? I do think it is a misuse of admin powers.

I think it unfair by alot.

Please tell me how to appeal this, and or whatever are my options to address your actions. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why on the surface you bypassed each and all of the steps found here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_requests I simply do not understand the basis and rationale of your actions, and by whatever process you dispensed a 6 month topic ban, as the first interaction with me. Mystery Wolff (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
You can appeal the TB to AE. There is guidance in the header. AE is outside the existing DR structure because the area is under arbitration mandated discretionary sanctions. I tried very hard not to sanction you as its clear that you mean no harm and are trying to help but your combative personalised way of advancing editing disagreements is not acceptable in a high tension area that is under DS. If you can modify your behaviour and learn to work along with other editors you disagree with in less contentious areas then its possible I would consider a request to shorten the TB, but the boot is now firmly on your foot. I'm also happy to discuss and explain the way we work further with you and even mentor/support you through an adaptation but before this can happen you need to accept that changing your interaction style is a necessary first step. Spartaz Humbug! 14:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Spartaz, I thank you for your reconsideration, especially at this time of year, and I accept your feedback.
Process wise I do believe the AE board is being gamed, and has become the option, of first resort, for some. My first take is the AE should be for actions on users specifically named or participating in from ARB outcomes. For generic discretionary sanctions they should have their own board to take requests. AE is probation violations. DS is in increased policing and special laws category. I take both yours and Kingsindian's feedback and am happy that I have finally gone through the full rabbit hole now.
Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not following policy?

[24]

You do realise that at the longevity articles I am trying to make sure that they fall in line with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE? Did you read this? What evidence do you actually have that I am "advocating in favour of the GRG" other than the propaganda spewed out by the anti-GRG campaign? Would you support bans for them too? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

December 2015

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Warning is in regard to this edit summary. Completely unnecessary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Ignore the questions below re: U.S. Politics topic ban

I have decided I will not appeal directly to you. but instead I will appeal to Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or ARCA. Thank you very much. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Thank you very much for the info re how I can appeal "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before..." To clarify, I would not be appealing to you instead of the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard, but rather before. I still retain my right to appeal to the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard, if I understand you correctly.

I have 3 questions:

1: Could you please advise me what, if any, effect me appealing to you and you rejecting my appeal, would likely have on the way the way Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard or ARCA looks at my appeal to them? i.e., would it be prejudicial against my appeal if you reject it first?

2: Please confirm if ARCA remains an option if I appeal to you first?

3: Realizing how longwinded my statement is at this arbitration enforcement request, I am wondering whether you were able to read the entire submission and accompanying statements?

This is not a mater of AGF but rather one born of practicallity as I realize how time consuming it would be to read the entire thing and think about it.


Thank you once again for your prompt notification of the ban and for taking so much of your time dealing with it.

Here is a nice Christmas card for you as a way of saying thank you. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Advice request re: E-Cigs Article" To bypass needing to create an AE request.

Spartaz, I do not know if you have time to answer this now considering the proximity of Christmas. I am pinging @Kingsindian: per his offer to look at items.
See the current remarks here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=696220209&oldid=696216561
You can read https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Smoking_cessation for context
It is clear that SM is attacking and taunting both myself and Quackguru. I do not know full history of QG. However he is topic banned, and I am aware that AF was monitoring him in his ban, and updated this page with a request. I certainly don't know the list of his edits in the article, and what is this list of items that SM wants to be removed. Clearly SM is attacking personally QG multiple times in multiple instances in Smoking Cessation. Considering QG is topic banned, I do not think this is fair to that editor. Considering it was the request by QG in AE to have action taken on SM....that ultimately got QG topic banned.....its seems untoward.
The comments at me I find diminishing, and a means to set me up to have a lack of ability to draw or build consensus. The presumption I would resolve an AE action on myself to go after SM, is very very wrong in fact, and decisive to be within the talk pages. In the section where I quote the objectives of SM....that is a quote, which can be found in Archive of Talk 27 search for "vulnerable".
Why this section is important and the history is, the unwordsmithed version of this was removed. "A 2014 randomized controlled trial examined smokers who were "not interested" in quitting, and found that after eight weeks, 34% of those who used e-cigarettes had quit smoking. In comparison, 0% of participants not using e-cigarettes had quit smoking. Participants in the e-cigarette group who continued to smoke, were found to have considerable reductions in smoking."

I reverted it back in, SM said he would not try again. I explained in TALK why this was an important study. I wordsmithed it, then Doc James took it out, and reverted it back in, because he found the spots in the Cite. Its an important study. Its something I found by looking at this article, and not PubMed. So I think it very important to keep. Its a common sense study.

Now in the Smoking Cessation section, a large set of stated as "very drastic" changes are being pushed for by SM. This will end up reverting out my edits and fight to keep the study in, which again has already been validated. Before I forget SM has been editing out "seems to suggest" and other functionally specific wordings out of MEDRS content, to put things in the Wikivoice? Seems has a medical study definition that should not be just removed

Bottomline I can either open up an AE, or I can try to talk it out within the page. But you can read where SM says he can not work with me. You can read where he will just go over my head. If I read what he says, its pretty clear he wants to have his way with the article and suggests all previous editors work is terrible. The last person that opened and AE on him, ended up Topic Banned. I have already been warned about boomerangs, and that promise was fulfilled by the AE on me. Thats about it....should I open an AE, Stand ground in TALK, wait for edits to happen and then go back to fixing?
To me I believe SM is asserting ownership and control over the article. Important information go away for the sake of brevity. How should I go forward? The article has slowed down for the Christmas....so hopefully it not an urgent requests. TIA Mystery Wolff (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • If you look at S Marshall's talk page, you will see that I dropped them a noted about interactions at the same time I rescinded your topic ban. His response suggested he might be done with the topic area. I'd suggest we gave this some time to see what the outcome might be. Spartaz Humbug! 21:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Alright thank you. I don't know if there is an official policy on this, but if editors go to ARBs and comment on AE cases, and the result is an editor gets Topic Banned.....I do not believe those same and informed editors, should continue to keep raising the TB editor in the TALK pages. The ARTICLE is the topic. It amounts to taunting, and IMO is evidence of gaming the system and spiking the ball. IMO YMMV. Have a toasty Christmas. Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mystery Wolff: I am responding since I was pinged. The main thing to do is to focus on content. Have a thick skin and ignore most insults and snide comments. Accept that you and SM aren't going to agree on most things. The talk page should not deal with user conduct, though we all slip up now and then and lash out at the other person. Also, keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. Don't feel compelled to respond to each point. Use WP:DR liberally, don't keep arguing endlessly. A lot of this comes with practice and experience. Hope this helps. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that Kingsindian, thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
In the section that Spartaz pointed me to in SM page, I see the following https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AS_Marshall&type=revision&diff=696639613&oldid=696584684 To me it seems like personalization, and canvassing, by the person who raised me into the AE, with two of the persons he notified on their talk pages, about the AE he created on me. I don't know what the rules are for this type of thing in talk pages of individual users, and if its the same as ARTICLE Talk pages. However, I can find that information on my own. I am not an obstructionist FWIW, I created an E-Liquid page, and then agreed for it to be merged into another page. This is just a note to close this entire thing down, in my mind, and I believe I already have the advice I need. Thanks. Over and out, to the next things. Mystery Wolff (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Spartaz: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Ollie's Longevity topic ban

Is asking another editor to comment on a Longevity topic ban a violation [25] or discussing the process to Longevity topic ban another editor [26] an issue after the editor is topic banned appropriate? Legacypac (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I was asked by another user to notify them if any similar discussions come up. In any case, how is it a violation of a topic ban to simply mention a discussion, on my talk page, about an arbitration discussion about another user who edits in longevity articles? That's a very tenuous link. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

I gave a very clear explanation as to why I have not violated Wikipedia policy but you did not respond to it. I will post it here again, and ask that you respond to it.

  • Comment In response to this comment from Spartaz:
"Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is. I'll enact the tban tomorrow morning unless someone has objected by that stage."
Please let me quote from WP:NPOV:
  • "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
  • "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
  • "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements."
So, one of Wikipedia's core policies clearly states that Wikipedia's content in areas like longevity should be based on the most reputable authoritative sources available and that sources do not have to be given equal weight. So yet again I ask the question: what part of Wikipedia policy am I violating? Are your opinions based on the evidence presented and the arguments I am putting forward, or preconceptions? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

-- Ollie231213 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Hi, is it possible to get a reply here? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • The edits that you were brought to AE for showed a clear uncivil and tendentious approach to the editing area that is not compatible with Wikipedia norms. Your statement that you were advocating for these articles to be based on a sourcing norm outside our normal standard (RS like newspapers) means that your overall conduct was not compatible with our basic ethos. You can construe whatever meaning you like from bolding small sections from our policies but belittling other editors following our normal editing process because they do not accept your out of kilter belief in what we should accept is clearly a problem. You can either accept or not accept what I say but this is the reason why I went with the topic ban. Spartaz Humbug! 09:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that I could have been more civil. However, if we banned editors for being uncivil, we'd have no editors left. Regarding you view that I am not following sourcing norms: I have given you a very clear, logical explanation for my opinions which have grounds in policy. You can't just discount the arguments I've put forward as just "construing whatever meaning I like from bolding small sections from our policies". We can both agree that the New York Times would generally be considered a reliable source, but on the specialist subject of astronomy, NASA is a more reliable source than the NYT. In fact, any NYT articles about astronomy would likely reference NASA or a similar organisation. If the NYT wrote an article claiming that they had discovered an exoplanet, but the discovery was not recognised by NASA, would we add that Wikipedia on the basis that "all reliable sources are equal"? No (or at least, we shouldn't). Effectively that's what some editors - like the editor who reported me - are trying to argue at longevity articles. But the policy I've quoted above shows that not all reliable sources have to be given the same weight. Are you of the opinion that I am not following policy? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to open a new AE section?

Mystery Wolff is getting in the way of article improvement again and reverting, then basing his whole argument on his opinions. I and two others, one editor on the talk page, and one who edited the section names and then self reverted them back show consensus. Mystery Wolff is disruptive to any change. AlbinoFerret 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

A delineation was spoken to on Christmas Eve on the TALK page. With one comment, along the lines of "if that is possible", a subsection to Economics was placed for a slang or nic name of a select product category called "cigalikes". Making a distinction for the economic section that does not have citations. The Article is on category of all Electronic Cigarettes. Without data specific to "Cigalikes" the Economics would not be proper. Cigalikes is a fungible term. Without citations its currently "not possible".
I explained my reasoning in TALK, I explained my reasoning in the removal of the Cigalikes, subsection. And I did not change the text of the entry.
I am hard pressed to the frustration on this, to the level of where it is brought here, but I respond because I was tagged in my notifications. AlbinoFerret made this comment in TALK, which is a reasonable start of discussion. [27]
An active editor in the pages TALK DaleCurrie was the editor that AlbinoFerret is referring to that reverted my edit. They were part of the pile-on surrounding the AE. This user was identified as AttackOfTheSnailDemons by an Admin, and the Sockpuppet had their edits reverted. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:DaleCurrie
I honestly don't think I am even near the line, and certainly whatever the history of AttackOfTheSnailDemons and his puppets is not a reflection on me or my edits.
Without knowing the exact jargon, this seems like wikilawyering, batttlegrounding, canvassing, and not seeking consensus. This is also just one of many edits that pages has seen over the last week, and I see no reason why this is being escalated with angst.
At this point the single edit in question, which is removing Cigalikes as a subcategory of Economics....remains in. AlbinoFerret has not reverted it. To talk a single edit into a discussion of AE seems disproportional.
TLDR, sockpuppets reverted, edit still in place, no edit warring to date, AE canvassing excessively premature.
  • I would only suggest that if AlbinoFerret is finding this article so problematic for his style of editorship, that he may want to look at editing other articles, rather than creating ARB and multiple AE requests, and consuming the resources of Admins for the normal workings of this ARTICLE. Certainly an examination of the many items of Dispute Resolution should be sought and utilized Prior to Creating MULTIPLE AE Requests. would serve AlbinoFerret well, and would be better suited the concerns he is at least stating.
Lets bring it back to the ARTICLE's talk. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thats incorrect, I was refering to SPACKlick changing the names and reverting them back, and Johnbod agreeing on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 00:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
A. The Sockpuppet in question [28]
B. [29] Johnbod editor saying they would agree "if decent info on 2nd+ gen stuff can be found" Then AlbinoFerret saying that information would not be available, and AlbinoFerret then moving in the changes, shortly thereafter.
C. [30] AlbinoFerret battlegrounding and personalizing after the sockpuppets Revert corrected by the Admins.
D. Since I was pinged here by AlbinoFerret, I have responded. The sockpuppet who did the revert in question, and was opining on my editorship during AE has now been banned. Mystery Wolff (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • As a measure of completeness, I was going to go over to AlbinoFerret's TALK to give him some information on how to cite and source with Primary and 2ndary sources. (ie all things Primary are not bad, nor 2ndary good per WP guides) The very last entry on that Talk page is:
Callingdogsofthunder If you insert the WP:OR and weasel words again you will find a section with your name on it on a noticeboard. AlbinoFerret 14:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC) [31]
That is a line with the intimidation and rush to go to AE, just like what was posted on my TALK, before AlbinoFerret created the AE on me. I am not familiar with that editor, but regardless much like this OP by AlbinoFerret, it a rush to AE, with the absence of other means of Dispute Resolution, its a Rush to making a Federal Case out of it. AlbinoFerret escalates far far too fast to AE, and continual direct threats of such, I believe make WP needlessly a battleground. Thank you. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I am going to place this here for completeness: AlbinoFerret has reverted 7 of my edits in just days. I have not formally noticed it, but I placed a warning of Edit Warring on his TALK page here. [32] Afterwards he seemingly indicates if the does not break 3RR (technically) its not edit warring....and reverted another edit (7th) with a claim of MEDRS, without speaking anything else. My edit had a detailed explanation. The first revert replaced 5 of my edits, each with explanation, with one massive revert, of edits done over half a week earlier, which may be his ratinoale of why he is not breaking 3RR Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spartaz:---> AlbinoFerret, has now created his third recent AE request on the topic of Electronic Cigarettes, and the 2nd on me. If I may, can ask you to not archive this, until that review is finished? It would be helpful in my ability to just link to this entire sub-section. Thank you Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016 . . .

Spartaz, may you continue to make Wikipedia a better place in the New Year, while remembering those who came before. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost New Year (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Hello Spartaz:

Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.

North America1000 21:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Spartaz!

Happy New Year!

Spartaz,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Bah Humbug for 2016

Have a great one everyone.... Spartaz Humbug! 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Noizy

Hi Spartaz, I can see that the Noizy page has repeatedly been created and deleted and has now been locked off. I believe I could prove that the subject does indeed meet the required notability requirements, let me know what I would have to do to get the article unblocked. Also, happy new year! Oltianruci (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI

I stated it here, but I'll say it on your page as well in case you aren't notified: Either send me directly to ANI for canvassing (or whatever you think I did), show your proof against me, or retract your statement. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to take you to ANI instead for false accusations and a failure to assume good faith. Thank you. Lithorien (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spartaz/Archive20&oldid=1257819066"