User talk:Spartaz: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 * Archive 2 * Archive 3 * Archive 4 * Archive 5 * Archive 6 * Archive 7 * Archive 8 * Archive 9 * Archive 10 * Archive 11 * Archive 12 * Archive 13 * Archive 14 * Archive 15 * Archive 16 * Archive 17 * Archive 18 * Archive 19 * Archive 20 * Archive 21 * Archive 22 * Archive 23 * Archive 24 * Archive 25 * Archive 26 * Archive 27

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

I'm a long term user (first edit 2006) and have been an admin on or off since 2007. When we first started there was so much idealism and we really had no strong policies about inclusion except a desire to have some level of sourcing. As time moved on we became more structured and around the time I became an admin in 2007 we were grappling with the concept of collapsing non notable articles into lists which I was at the forefront of as a regular afd closer and constant presence at DRV. I had a lot of patience once and for that reason was regular DRV closer for a long time after GR Berry left the project. Sadly, my patience was degraded over time and getting involved in the PORNBIO wars pretty much washed out a lot of the good faith that policy and courtesy quite rightly requires us to show. This was again a major change in our approach to content and one of the first SNGs that was deprecated in favour of a more rigid approach to proper sourcing. Since then our content in this area has become much better and we are seeing similar struggles now in the sports arena where SNGs are slowly giving way to GNG level standards.

I have always taken a very legalistic approach to closing discussions that I recognise does not fit well to the current community standard, where low participation level allowing more brigading of votes or allowing more non-policy based arguments. For this reason I'm not really closing discussions but will still happily review old closes. Otherwise I mostly review and nominate unsuitable content as a BLP is a serious matter and needs to be properly sourced.

i am willing to userfy deleted articles for improvement as long as there is a reasonable likelihood that they can be saved. If you are challenging a deletion, do you have three good sources?

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

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

I hate the bearer of bad faith, but it appears that you didn't read that ANI before closing. I know it was long and somewhat convoluted, but the OP said it all. This wasn't just about "commas", but the user's disruptive behaviour in the persistent removal of those commas. A user that just came of a page-move ban and an indef block by way of standard agreement, that included avoiding controversial mass page moves. One editor commented that this user, during the time of the ANI, moved 50+ pages, just to remove a comma that doesn't need to be removed. This user's talk page has numerous complaints in regards to these page-moves and edits. I first encountered the user when he page-move-warred a stub 3 times in just a matter of minutes to remove the comma. An admin had to lock the page. At the ANI, several editors commented on this user's behaviour, including statements that he violated he indef block return and should be again banned from page-moving. Yet you closed the report without addressing any of that. This user's behaviour continues, essentially enabled, if not encouraged, by your actions. This editor has partnered with another, and the two are basically tag-teaming (seen at the end of the ANI), and deliberately adding endless nonsense to extend the report past the point coherence in hope that some admin, like yourself, would come along, take one glance at the length, and close it with no action. No wonder they call ANI a cess-pool.

As for your AE notice... I read it. But I shouldn't have to file an AE case. I already did my part by filing the ANI. Plenty of admins are aware of this mess and it is about time some of you step up and deal with it. Drmies was involved with the RfC and this ANI. Since he had a part in creating the mess, I'd like to see him have a part in cleaning it up. Since you closed the ANI, the onus is on you as well to do... something... - ^theWOLFchild 08:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, its not my onus to do anything. The onus is on the person bringing a case to prove their point. ANI is a shit place to decide anything as its so easy to disrupt a discussion away from the point - especially when the discussion can be derailed into a discussion of the OPs own behaviour. That's why we have AE for areas under DS and why I left you a helpful note about how to use AE effectively with clues on what the reviewing admins will be looking for. Whether or not you use it is down to you, but don't expect sympathy if you ignore it (reverting my message without comment wasn't very classy) and then don't get your way. Starting your message with an assumption of bad faith - well I think you need to work on your collaborative skills. In the end, its easy to blame other people because your ANI didn't gain traction, but plenty of other complaints do and its the most visible place on the project and most, if not all, admins have it on watchlist and review regularly. Is it really the case that everyone who reviewed the thread misunderstood? Really? Really? Perhaps some internal reflection and self awareness would help you understand how to work in a way that will gain traction when it doesn't go your way? The first step would be to listen (well carefully read) the feedback you get and try to see how you might address the issue following the other editor's advice. That could be a really powerful way to improve your progress in persuading people to support your views. Down to you really, but, and I'm saying this as an admin, you seem to find yourself embroiled in a lot of disputes. Are you really a completely innocent party in this or could you perhaps improve your own interactions so the disputes happen to someone else? Food for thought? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "ignore and revert your message" on my talk page "without a comment", (talk about bad faith), I read it and then removed it, as I do with everything posted to my talk page (read the disclaimer). I then commented here. That said, while I appreciate the note about AE, (I really do), it's not really of much use to me. If I were to try and file a report there. I would immediately have a couple or so of these de-railers show up and scream "forum shopping!" and "canvassing" as soon as I link to anything as part of the report, and a bunch of other nonsense. The fact is there was actionable substance in the ANI-OP and some of the comments (with diffs) that supportive contributors posted. All I asked for was to have Dicklyon stop with all the page moves until comma-gate could be sorted out. By sorted out I mean, confirm if in fact this co-called consensus he claims really exists, and if so, what exactly did the consensus determine? Does it really support this project-wide comma eradication program? (Including dozens upon dozens, if not hundreds, of page-moves?) Did it really support all the changes written into MOS? Beyond a time-out on page moves, it seemed prudent to determine if Dicklyon violated his very recent standard offer, that allowed him to rejoin the community after an indef block. Did he violate the terms under which he was let off his recent page-move ban? Several editors claimed his pages moves were both outside of guidelines and without consensus, and therefore were controversial. There were calls for him to receive another page-move ban and even another block. These are the things an admin should be considering before closing an ANI. Like I said, it wasn't just about the commas. As for the last of your comments, well... like you said, it's ANI. center of the wiki-universe and all that. If the problem was really something about me as opposed to anyone else, I would've had plenty of boomerangs flung at me. I even expected a few, but strangely enough, there weren't any. There was however, enough editors complaining of Dicklyons disruptive page-moves that some kind of admin action was warranted, even if it was a informal request to lay off the page moves until the comma debate was worked out. Like I asked for in the first place... - ^theWOLFchild 13:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you--I wish the MOS said something about too-long paragraphs--maybe it does. I am having a hard time reading this. Wolfchild, I did not create that mess. If you wanted a different outcome, you should have canvassed some different editors, maybe. I think my close reflected what the discussion brought up. If you don't like, start a new RfC or whatever, or get it overturned. The ANI discussion is much less equivocal than you think, and every time there's a thread where two or three editors keep repeating the same thing and it's not gaining momentum, it's likely that nothing is going to happen. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: First, I would appreciate it if you would strike or otherwise rewrite your "canvassing" comment. I did not "canvass" anyone. I named you above because it was you that closed that RfC. That close did not lead to any improvement, if anything it's just fueling the current instability. There is nothing I alone can do about this mess, and it is a mess. The complaints and debates taking place at all these various forums show that there is not a clear consensus supporting the behaviour of a few editors pushing an agenda. Between all the ANIs, RfCs, MOS re-writes, RM-debates, and the countless page-moves, plenty of admins are already aware of this situation. It's been dragging on for a year and affecting dozens if not hundreds of articles project-wide. I shouldn't have to file an ArbCom request, or start yet another RfC (or "whatever"), some admins, or even arbs, should have already stepped in and addressed this. Why hasn't anyone that happened? - ^theWOLFchild 09:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your warning, and I'll try to 'cool it' as you say. TBH, I don't know if I'm even going to bother with this issue much more. The many, many complaints from all the other editors about this whole disruptive war on commas seems to be falling on deaf ears. If the very people selected to watch out for and safeguard the project don't care, why should I? But, that said, I'm not clear on what it is exactly you're threatening to punish me for. What is it about this comment of mine that merits such a threatening warning? Especially when I was responding to this? (and the same editor has since posted this, and yet you have still chosen to only warn me). This doesn't seem to make sense. - ^theWOLFchild 09:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Dickipedia" and "your mucky paws" are just gratuitous insults and added nothing to the conversation except to upset people. I have no idea what benefit you hoped to gain from that but in an area subject to DS it wasn't a wise move. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know that I should not be participating in that discussion. I saw Kautilya3's comment so I thought anyone can comment. Is there a policy governing who should or should not participate? I would be happy to comply with that, just direct me towards that please! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]