User talk:Spartaz

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

What again?

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

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

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

Useful Links:

• Deletion Review
• Articles for Deletion
• Unblocks

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

please stay in the top three tiers

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 21 as User talk:Spartaz/Archive20 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

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

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AElectronic_cigarette&type=revision&diff=696220209&oldid=696216561
You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

• Comment Please read through this discussion. My point of view is shared entirely with Canada Jack, and it's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 03:18, 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)

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)

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

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)

• shitty is as shitty does. Why don't you go look at the beam in your own eye first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The comment was a very poor choice on your part. Just as the above comments in response are poor choices -- especially for an administrator. It was appropriate for that poor choice to be pointed out to you, and I've done so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Begone from here spouter of sanctimonious nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 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)