| Revision as of 21:42, 28 September 2013 editModernponderer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,992 edits →The Dating Guy← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:22, 28 September 2013 edit undoSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,777 edits blahNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:Spartaz/Blah}} | |||
| I'll be back when I feel more able to deal with all the shit and nonsense around this place. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
Revision as of 22:22, 28 September 2013
 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:
- 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.
The Dating Guy
I'm quite certain there are older revisions of the talk page for this article - could you restore these as part of the userification?
- I'll have a look. Spartaz 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can you check I got them all back? Spartaz 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard for me to check that given that I can't see deleted revisions. All I can say is that it seems you now deleted the latest revisions (the ones that were there before I made this request). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see any deleted revisions at either your user space or the original location so they must all be restored. I dunno what date the stuff on the page was at but it must be somewhere in the history now. Spartaz 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're probably right - I now think what was there before was simply an old revision that had been restored by the other administrator, not a new one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I can't see any deleted revisions at either your user space or the original location so they must all be restored. I dunno what date the stuff on the page was at but it must be somewhere in the history now. Spartaz 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's kind of hard for me to check that given that I can't see deleted revisions. All I can say is that it seems you now deleted the latest revisions (the ones that were there before I made this request). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can you check I got them all back? Spartaz 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, I would like to clarify that I wasn't attacking anyone - merely stating my opinion (perhaps a bit harshly). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You labelled everyone you disagreed with in a way designed to devalue their opinions. This is utterly unacceptable and won't be tolerated the next time if I'm around DRV. You can disagree with someone without calling them names and you are lucky I was on a wikibreak as I would have closed the DRV out of hand. Please don't do it again. Users who challenge XFD outcomes need a neutral supportive place to work through the deletion and if we haven't lost them after the XFD we will have after an agreesive DRV. Thanks. Spartaz 21:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- While there isn't much point in arguing about this now, I would like to note that I did not in fact call anyone names at all - the so-called attack that was referred to on that page was something else entirely. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Some of your labels - "the delete crowd" * "deletionist bias" * "You're clearly a deletionist" * " you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Misplaced Pages policy" - All of these are polemic statements that add no value to the discussion and just make you look strident and agressive. You can surely express yourself as clearly without needing to be so dismissive of those you disagree with?? Spartaz 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Given the number of essays on the subject, I thought calling people "deletionists" wasn't considered an attack at all (and the latter statement obviously isn't an attack). If there's some policy against this that I'm not aware of, I'd appreciate you providing me with a link to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are right about that and in retrospect I shouldn't have used the term attack on the close. I have therefore removed the comment with my apologies. That said, it was labelling and that can be just as bad. I firmly believe that labelling people you disagree with isn't acceptable as it cheapens and coarsens the discussion and raises the temperature unnecesserily - and frankly adds no value. Spartaz 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I appreciate the removal of that statement. I do see your point despite not fully agreeing with it, and as I stated below, I will try to be less aggressive in similar future discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are right about that and in retrospect I shouldn't have used the term attack on the close. I have therefore removed the comment with my apologies. That said, it was labelling and that can be just as bad. I firmly believe that labelling people you disagree with isn't acceptable as it cheapens and coarsens the discussion and raises the temperature unnecesserily - and frankly adds no value. Spartaz 21:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Given the number of essays on the subject, I thought calling people "deletionists" wasn't considered an attack at all (and the latter statement obviously isn't an attack). If there's some policy against this that I'm not aware of, I'd appreciate you providing me with a link to it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Some of your labels - "the delete crowd" * "deletionist bias" * "You're clearly a deletionist" * " you can see that anyone who doesn't want this article restored doesn't want to follow Misplaced Pages policy" - All of these are polemic statements that add no value to the discussion and just make you look strident and agressive. You can surely express yourself as clearly without needing to be so dismissive of those you disagree with?? Spartaz 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll definitely try to be less aggressive next time, though. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Pleased to hear it. You will get a better discussion too with users more willing to chip in. Spartaz 21:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- While there isn't much point in arguing about this now, I would like to note that I did not in fact call anyone names at all - the so-called attack that was referred to on that page was something else entirely. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just found out that the userified page is still protected. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll fix that. I didn't know protection moved with a page. Spartaz