User talk:Spartaz/Archive9 - Misplaced Pages

< User talk:Spartaz

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 23 July 2009 (Dating comment by Euwyn - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:17, 23 July 2009 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Dating comment by Euwyn - "")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

BARELY ACTIVE

This user is not very active on Misplaced Pages. Any actions with the edit summary OTRS must be referred to an OTRS volunteer before being reversed

Civility

Removal of a personal attack is allowed when the attack is not against the person removing the comment. And using strikethrough instead of complete removal allowed people to still read what you wrote.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack to call a snide and whiney complaint a snide and whiney complaint. More to the point don't you think it would have been better to discuss it with me or ask me to adjust the comment myself? Spartaz 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would have been better for me to speak with you about it first, but usually I find that people who make personal attacks are not very pleasant to deal with. And maybe it would have been better for you to discuss your removal of the strikethrough before you removed the strikethrough.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Well I'm generally receptive to feedback - can't speak about anyone else and I didn't see any reason to leave the strikethrough since it hadn't been discussed with me. Tell you what, I'll remove it entirely as a guesture of good faith. Spartaz 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Okay, thanks. Much appreciated.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions

Hi. I saw your link to your new essay WP:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions. I skimmed it and broadly agree. Having read and participated in the Chris Parmelee DRV, I agree that relevant guidance should be written somewhere. WP:AfD and mergers#AfD outcomes hints at the strength of the closer's statement and could/should be expanded, but a separate essay could be more comprehensive. Flatscan (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Extended content
Nice to know that editors can falsely accuse other editors and administrators of serious misconduct and suffer no consequences. Do you really think the project is served by allowing editors to hurl indiscriminate charges of "disruption" and "abuse" that are utterly without foundation? Good looking out, buddy. Maybe you should have left the issue open for more than ten hours.Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) You asked to have it looked at and several admins did and said there was no actionable conduct. case closed and I'd advise you to take a less aggressive tone in future if you actually want people to take you seriously. Spartaz 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Would the process have been damaged if it was left open long enough for the sun to shine on every time zone of the globe? So sorry if you find my tone "aggressive". I get disappointed when bad-faith acts are given a free pass. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) well you are doing a good job assuming bad faith on my part so I'm not sure exactly how you want me to respond to that. You forget to mention to me that you raised the close on Talk ANI while we were still discussing it. nice work. Oh, and I have no objection to someone uninvolved reversing the archiving but I cant really see this going anywhere except to generate drama. Spartaz 06:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I am not assuming bad faith on your part. I am stating flat out that you made a mistake. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC) And throwing lots of irrelevant nonsense around to obfuscate the plot too. You complain that im barely active but I'm still herre to discuss your issue with you so what's the relevance of that? Spartaz 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Noting bad-faith accusations that administrators are engaged in a conspiracy to impose an agenda on the project is obfuscation? Noting bad-faith accusations of abuse and disruption is obfuscation? Suggesting that an editor should be advised that making bad-faith accusations is a breach of civility and AGF is obfuscation? Otto4711 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Sigh. I guess we are done here. Spartaz 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Nice to know that editors can falsely accuse other editors and administrators of serious misconduct and suffer no consequences. Do you really think the project is served by allowing editors to hurl indiscriminate charges of "disruption" and "abuse" that are utterly without foundation? Good looking out, buddy. Maybe you should have left the issue open for more than ten hours.Otto4711 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You asked to have it looked at and several admins did and said there was no actionable conduct. case closed and I'd advise you to take a less aggressive tone in future if you actually want people to take you seriously. Spartaz 06:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the process have been damaged if it was left open long enough for the sun to shine on every time zone of the globe? So sorry if you find my tone "aggressive". I get disappointed when bad-faith acts are given a free pass. Otto4711 (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

well you are doing a good job assuming bad faith on my part so I'm not sure exactly how you want me to respond to that. You forget to mention to me that you raised the close on Talk ANI while we were still discussing it. nice work. Oh, and I have no objection to someone uninvolved reversing the archiving but I cant really see this going anywhere except to generate drama. Spartaz 06:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not assuming bad faith on your part. I am stating flat out that you made a mistake. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And throwing lots of irrelevant nonsense around to obfuscate the plot too. You complain that im barely active but I'm still herre to discuss your issue with you so what's the relevance of that? Spartaz 06:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting bad-faith accusations that administrators are engaged in a conspiracy to impose an agenda on the project is obfuscation? Noting bad-faith accusations of abuse and disruption is obfuscation? Suggesting that an editor should be advised that making bad-faith accusations is a breach of civility and AGF is obfuscation? Otto4711 (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess we are done here. Spartaz 06:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Arindamp

Hi :) Nice to see you're still around. I have taken the liberty to undo your decline, for after checking the CU logs I don't think the block was CU-based. I feel the user is right: the SPI was not related to him directly. -- Luk 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Spartaz, please remove or strike this comment from the Workshop page. The Workshop is intended for the proposal and discussion of elements to the remedy of the case, not for unfounded speculation as to the motives of parties or other users. Such comments are inflammatory and not conducive to determining a solution to an issue that is clearly very contentious to begin with. Thank you. Hersfold 21:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

there. Happy? If not feel free to redact it further yourself I'm going to bed . Spartaz 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

about my evidence

I have finished it. I got it down to 1088 words (according to OppenOffice word count), which is still over the 1000 words limit, but clerks might decide not to touch it anyways (I notice that Abd's evidence goes to 1409 words using the same tool, and that he is cheating by linking to diffs with more evidence, lol). The tool used by clerks may give a different count, I recall a clerk explaining how he counted but I didn't think of bookmarking his explanation, such a pity.

If you put some of the sections under your name then make sure to read it first and check that you completely endorse what it says, since it will be under your own name.

Btw, I think that I found that diff you were looking for, I posted in my talk page. I have to say that reading so many long posts written by Abd almost felt like a punishment :-P My workmate asks me often to read aloud comment made by Abd and others so he can marvel at what outrageous stuff people posts in wikipedia..... --Enric Naval (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I have been told by Ryan in the workshop's talk page that I can move the evidence to subpages in my userspace if it gets too big, and that arbs will read it, so I'm going to try that path for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my proposals

If you think that my having previously used another name has any relevance to my proposals perhaps you would care to explain it on the appropriate talk page (mine for example). Otherwise please explain to the ArbComm why you are trying to intimidate one of the contributors while you are acting for one of the others. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Its obvious that you have edited under a different name and we need to know if you are really a banned user. There is already a prohibition preventing established users from editing policy pages under alternative accounts. All I did was raise the issue and ask someone to look into it so I'd suggest you either use your main account or disclose your previous identity. Your contributions scream matured sock.... Spartaz 11:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop

Thanks for the display of good faith. For what it's worth I'm not a sockpuppet, but feel free to go open an SPI. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, the clerks can handle it I'm sure. There are enough CUs who frequent the case. Clearly you are not a new user and this isn't your first account and thanks for your own bad faith in mentioning me too. That was much appreciated. I do have to say you are a much nicer sockpuppet then the last one though. Spartaz 08:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cabals

Re: your denials: Well, you wouldn't be quick to admit your cabal membership, would you? You're just trying to hide its very existence as always, but there are those who know the truth! While we're on the subject, can I please join? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are just tryng to trick em into giving the game away, :-D Spartaz 04:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice to all users involved in Abd/WMC

This is a general notice to all users involved in the Abd/WMC arbitration case that further disruptive conduct within the case will not be tolerated and will result in blocks being issued by Clerks or Arbitrators as needed. More information is available at the announcement here; please be sure to read that post in full. Receipt of this message does not necessarily imply that you are at risk of a block or have been acting in a disruptive manner; it is a general notice to all that the Clerks and ArbCom are aware of issues in the case and will not be tolerating them any longer. If you have any questions, please post them to the linked section. Thank you. Hersfold 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wokai

Hi Spartaz. Just created a draft at User:Euwyn/Sandbox. Would be able to help me with the next steps? Am fairly new to Misplaced Pages'ing, so apologies if I sound clueless. —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC).