User talk:Spartaz/Archive25

My long lost sock!
You might be interested to know that I ran https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Ladsgroup/masz on my account. You popped out as the closest match, with a score of 0.8894824329147366. Apparently you're my sock. I guess our secret is out? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, that is just too funny. ! Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Paperwork
Since you put "Arbitration enforcement" in Chesdovi's block log you need to log it at Arbitration enforcement log/2021. This is not needed if enforcing a DS topic ban as a regular admin action, but it is if you are doing it as arbitration enforcement(higher standard for unblock).

The job is great, but that paperwork is annoying am I right? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Thanks for the reminder. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I would hate to see you run afoul of arbcom. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 14:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Greg Brockman & Draft:Greg Brockman
Dear Spartaz, sorry to disturb you, I even don't know if I'm at the right place. I have recently written a well-structured article about Greg Brockman with a minimum of three qualified sources in use but see that the only administrators granted the right to publish it. It's been 5 years since the last article was deleted (by you) and I'm kindly asking you to give me a chance for publishing. I truly believe that this article may help people who can be interested in AI or related projects. What do you think? Katyborsh (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)katyborsh
 * That is a trully impressively formatted article to put into your sandbox in one go for an occasional editor. I doubt I could have done that myself so well done! I have to aak however if you have aany personal or commercial interest in getting this published bearing in mind what an obscure individual this is.
 * In terms of sourcing pretty much everything is either about his company or his representating his company and the rest is smalltown local stuff. Maybe I'm being unfair. Perhaps you can list below What you think are the 3 most distinct and decent sources that are about Greg Brockman and I can have another look. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Spartaz, I know it's hard to believe that some people may not have a commercial interest as so do you and me. Briefly about myself, I'm a Ph.D. student and guest-lecturer at uni and I believe in the importance of the things that I do in my free time as a hobby because it helps fight the ignorance of others. I just followed Brockman for a while and I really like the things that he did such as implementing transparency as a part of the corporate culture at Stripe company so everybody could read the messages because they were public and then capped profit innovation at Open AI. I usually put it as an example in ppt for students when talking about corporations building in modern democratic society. About three sources that you may find convincing: 1)Helen A. S. Popkin (2017-11-14). "30 Under 30 In Enterprise Tech: Reinventing Business With Artificial Intelligence". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-02-17. 2) "Artificial intelligence: Elon Musk backs open project 'to benefit humanity'". The Guardian. 2015-12-12. Retrieved 2021-10-17. 3) Karen Hao (2015-12-12). "The messy, secretive reality behind OpenAI's bid to save the world". Technology Review. Retrieved 2020-02-17.

There are much more. As a scientist myself I know about the importance of relevant sourcing, so I tried to do my best. Thank you for your compliment. I'd be delighted if you could have a look by any chance. If not, then thank you that your dedicated time to read my message. Katyborsh (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)katyborsh
 * THe problem is that there are 18 sources but very few of them are actually about Brockman himself, and some of those are passing mentions or lists of prizes won. The only superficially good one is from Business Insider, but it's very brief and BI is not a great source anyway per WP:RSP. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Forbes lists are rarely particularly notable. The guardian source is not about brockman and he literally just gets a name check. The tech review article is about the company not him and the amount of brockman related bio is not in-depth and clearly human interest filler for the wider article. To my mind this does not add up to sufficient sourcing to make him independent from the company he works for. I have removed the image as it appears to have been created in contravention of the licence that allows reuse but not modification. I have nominated it for deletion at commons. Basically, there simply isn’t anywhere near enough coverage to meet our inclusion standard for biographies of living people. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point of view but at the same time, it shows the opposite 'A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds', it'd be strange to write purely about a person if he or she hasn't done anything... or everybody would write just about a person's life. Sometimes I find it strange that basically Victoria's Secret models that catwalk almost naked get more media publicity than people who create things for a better life. What are your thoughts about it? Katyborsh (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)katyborsh
 * I’m old fashioned. I don’t think we should host any biographies of living people unless they are very solidly sourced. I have personally nominated 100s of pornstar bios for deletion for precisely that reason so you are barking up the wrong tree with that question. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Debrahlee Lorenzana
Wanted to inquire if you'd be willing to drop the protection on this before I actually try and write an article on this; it's 11 years later, and the gap is... well, not the most important gap in Wikipedia, but one that I was reminded of recently. Here's some ongoing coverage:, , , ,. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hmm I looked through the old discussions. Pretty awful stuff even by the standards of those days and appalling for today. I don’t see the enduring sourcing and a lot of your sourcing is either clickbait or short sections in articles about other stuff. Possibly a section in a relevant article about misogyny or sexual harassment could come from that. At the time we said take a draft to DRV and I think that is how I would prefer you to take this forward thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. There is a lot of sourcing from 2010 proper that was rehashed in the various DRVs, some of it by clearly preferred sources, but would obviously be part of a comprehensive article. Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Post 1992 US Politics T-Ban Question
Hey Spartaz. I got a question about the Post 1992-US Politics T-ban which I am currently under. So I recently found out about Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, which is an essay someone wrote. While working on a stub article about the Taliban, (Taliban foreign currency ban), a PROD was used with that essay with a “(Same logic)” comment.

What am I allowed to do in this situation? I am the creator, so if I understand the PROD system correctly, I am the only one who can remove the PROD. A discussion has been on the talk page between other editors with some in support of keeping the article and some wanting to merge/delete it. Since the article is not actually about a US Politician, am I allowed to remove the PROD without violating the T-ban, or would removing the PROD be a violation?

Thanks for the help because this seems like a weird situation for my t-ban. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can remove the prod if you wish and contribute to an AFD if the prodder takes it that far. This is an analogy rather than activevAP. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. If I somehow do come across this essay being used in a PROD or discussion, would I be able to discuss in that discussion as long as the talk does not go into US Politics? (Sorry about the questions.  I just don’t want to violate my t-ban ever again.) Elijahandskip (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * best to ask on a case by case basis. No need to leave you at risk so you can always point to something recent and specific if someone challenges. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey Spartaz, I got 1 more question related with my t-ban. Even though my t-ban directly was imposed for "Post-1992 US Politics", I discovered through talks with another admin that apparently, all "COVID-19 misinformation" also falls under that category.  I have been working on a very large COVID-19 article list with the Current Event WikiProject and I wanted to get permission to list COVID-19 misinformation on that large COVID-19 article list.  I feel dumb having to ask about it since I know (and everyone in the world knows) not all COVID-19 misinformation comes from the US, but another admin without words said it does, so I now have to ask.  Elijahandskip (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can make that edit but I wouldn't edit the actual article as covid misinformation is politicised in the US. Spartaz Humbug! 08:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for nominating Devon (actress) for deletion
I want to thank you for nominating this article for deletion. Reviewing the last deletion, it is amazing the truly rude and unkind and baseless and failure to assume good faith things people get away with saying against me on Wikipedia. I am so glad that we have gotten rid of at least some of the guidelines that caused us to have undue coverage of some topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

== There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Super (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC) ==

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Super (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Undeletion request
Can you please undelete Os Barões da Pisadinha into draft space or even better, into User:Muhandes/Os Barões da Pisadinha? I believe with this amount of certified sales in Brazil they might actually be notable now, so I may give it a chance. --Muhandes (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Userification request
Hi Spartaz. My previous request might have been overshadowed by some vandalism on your talk page so I am requesting again. Can you please userify Os Barões da Pisadinha into User:Muhandes/Os Barões da Pisadinha? I believe with this amount of certified sales in Brazil they might actually be notable now, so I would like to give it a chance. --Muhandes (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Spartaz , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


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

ANI query
Hi Spartaz. Hope you are well and happy new year! Incase you missed my ping, I've asked for your opinion here regarding a recent closure at ANI. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Hermy" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hermy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Numerical preponderance and closes
Do you really think it was a good idea to close a DRV on a close against preponderance of !votes... against a majority of !votes? I guess there's really two parts to that question 1) are DRV closers supposed to weigh !votes, assuming nothing is completely out of left field, and 2) do you think the numerical level of AfD vs. the close should be considered in DRVs on such closes? Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you really think its only vote count that matters. My closing statement was very clear in showing how I weighed the arguments against policy. Broadly I don't agree that the number of votes is more important then the argument and that is consistent with ROUGHCONSENSUS.. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 15:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that on the basis of that interpretation, two like-minded admins--one closing the AfD, one the DRV--are essentially allowed to determine whatever they want regardless of numerical consensus of editors. I think that's a bigger problem than one particular article. I think the pendulum has swung too far from admins ignoring completely non-policy-based-arguments like GHITS or something like that, which we both saw plenty of a decade ago, to now admins are taking sides amongst policy interpretations, which is entirely contrary to WP:NHC. Regardless of how well articulated and thought out your closing statement was, would plus-or-minus 2 !votes have changed your decision? 5? Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t deal in hypotheticals. I just assessed what was in front of me. Two admins reading a similar consensus with similar arguments in two different discussions doesn’t seem that harmful an outcome even bearing in mind that you clearly disagree with both interpretations. Spartaz Humbug! 08:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

±== Pete_Vainowski ==

In WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 11 you note that you were drawn "to the language in NSPORTs that the GNG takes precedence if an article fails the SNG but passes GNG". Perhaps I'm being blind - but I can't see that language. Can you point me to it? I do see the bolded text at the top that says says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". I also see similar text at the top of WP:N (A topic is presumed to merit an article if: .... Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * second para of applicable policies: Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How does that give GNG precedence - when the SNG (WP:GRIDORON) has been met? I'm not as much concerned in this particular article (because of their extraordinary brief career), but I'm now seeing editors quote your DRV closing comment as a precedent in other AFDs. Nfitz (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It shows that GNG overarches an SNG failure. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it does, as it also says a different SNG overarches an SNG failure. Also it says GNG or SNG. Not GNG and SNG. There's other spots that say either this or that. Nfitz (talk) 23:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is NSPORTS as a whole which must apply to each section. It clearly shows that if a subject fails the SNG but passes the GNG then it should be kept. No ifs or buts so the clear conclusion is that GNG takes precedence over NSPORTS. Spartaz Humbug! 08:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The guideline template at the top of Notability (of which GNG is a section) states that "occasional exceptions may apply". The administrator who closed the AFD has allowed consensus at AFD to override copyright policy (which doesn't say anything about exceptions) by deleting a merged article at Articles for deletion/Squad (app), and history of the merged page was only restored after deletion review found there was no consensus against a redirect. On that occasion, two policies (Copyright and Consensus) would have produced conflicting outcomes; at Articles for deletion/Pete Vainowski the conflict is between Consensus and the Notability guideline, and could be resolved by allowing an exception as permitted by the guideline. A865 (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What previous accounts have you been using mr Sockpuppet? Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ikip just got globally banned for something or another (see my talk page) so one would be on reasonably safe ground attributing any hyper-inclusionist sock to him, but it's entirely possible this is someone completely different. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lowepro (2nd nomination)
Hi Spartaz. I do not see consensus in Articles for deletion/Lowepro (2nd nomination) that "an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR". There is no original research in discussing in an article about a brand the products that make up that brand. There is no original research as the reviews say the products are part of the brand. Please revise your close from "delete" to "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I don’t agree. You explicitly referred to GNG but the argument was that either NCORP applied or that this was a brand and an editor specifically raises the risk of OR. So either NCORP applied and this fell to be deleted as the standard for NCORP is higher or this was a brand and sourcing needed to be about the brand and not individual products, otherwise the article becomes Synth, which is a form of OR. Spartaz Humbug! 23:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this for review at Deletion review/Log/2022 February 6. Cunard (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin
Can you explain how the !votes at Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin were "canvassed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * non neutral notification to a location where editors can be relied upon to come and vote keep. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) I re-wrote the notification very shortly after posting it, and (2) the CANVASS page says An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. So I do not see it as a violation, and neither can I see it making sense to just disregard all "keeps" because of it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I voted "delete" but disregarding "keep" votes on canvasing grounds is IMO insupportable Cbl62 (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As an example, I came from that forum (where Beanie posted) and voted "Delete". So, in fairness, you should have ignored my "Delete" vote as well, I'm guessing that Mackensen, Gonzo, and The Catalyst (three more "Delete" voters) also came from that same forum and voted "Delete". Your presumption that only "keep" voters respond to a notice is simply baseless. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have struck the comment, I accept its not a valid argument if votes for both sides arise. I still feel the consensus remajns delete as the GNG must outrank the SNG. There is language about GNG taking precedence to save an SNG failure and it can’t only apply one way and that is consistent with what we do elsewhere. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing your close. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for STANLIB
An editor has asked for a deletion review of STANLIB. 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. Park3r (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Get the L Out" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Get the L Out and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 16 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Query
Hello, Spartaz,

I hope you are well and looking forward to spring!

I am new to working in the AFD/TFD/RFD area and even less familiar with the fun world of Deletion Review but I was discussing tracking down redirects of Naveen Jain article that had been deleted when the article was deleted on an editor's talk page. I noticed you overturned Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination) at Deletion Review but when I looked at the AFD, there is no notation there about the overturned decision so it is still listed as "Delete". I'm not sure what is normally done when closing discussions at Deletion Review but when I looked at this other AFD there is a tag linking to the Deletion Review discussion. If typically that is not done, then I'm sorry to bother you about this but it seemed like there should be a notation or something. Any way, take care! Liz Read! Talk! 03:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's another example where an admin tagged the page differently. It seems like there isn't a standard way of handling this. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a working DRV closing script (I really miss having one of those) we have no standard way of closing discussions. Historically one of the DRV regulars goes through and links the AFDs to their DRVs. There is no requirement in the admin closing instructions to tag theAFD and I have never done it. All is always clear in the article deletion log. Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A question about your close
I looked at this AfD several times, wondering how I might close this. Would you mind engaging briefly? BusterD (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically its about the standard to apply. If it was GNG then it would be a keep but there was no argument against NCORP applying, and that is a much harder standard to help us deal with puffery and promotional editing. Once we have the standard we just look at the arguments against it and none of the keep arguments really didn’t engage with that standard and saying it passes GNG kimd of suggests that they weren’t arguing it passed NCORP. On that basis the delete arguments best engaged with the standard being applied and were well argued and demonstrated decent source analysis. Hope this helps. Spartaz Humbug! 07:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm a former NYC resident and while I'm sure there's a big-city bias in customer-facing business articles, I'm a sort of a sucker for nice city stories like the one Mikey presents. I found myself writing a delete assertion, then changing to weak keep while writing it, then not making any change on the page, awaiting someone with a better closing experience. I have largely stayed out of AfD closes, but yesterday started making some AfD assertions to get back into the rhythm. I find it interesting that NCORP is a SNG which acts as a filter, keeping routine business news to a high standard, whereas FOOTY tends to be an objective SNG bar allowing (what I consider) easy entry to the subject area, using routine sports news. Appreciate the finer points made...  BusterD (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Sydney Smith (photographer)
I went ahead and made Sydney Smith (photographer) a redirect to the museum that houses his work. Can you restore the underlying edit history? Cheers! BD2412 T 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn’t the consensus of Articles for deletion/Sydney Smith (photographer) Spartaz Humbug! 20:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There wasn't really a clear consensus there. In any case WP:ATD supports considering alternatives to deletion – even by the closer, where these have not been considered by discussion participants. The redirect is valid irrespective of the discussion, and restoring the underlying history can provide information that can be used to expand Beck Isle Museum. BD2412  T 21:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree and I don’t understand why you nominated it for deletion if you didn’t want it deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 07:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have expressly stated in the discussion that I thought a redirect would suffice, but I did not see a clear consensus for deletion developing, so unfortunately I let it slip. At the time that I nominated the article for deletion, it looked like this, and I could not easily find sources for further development (largely due to the rather surprising commonness of the name). Over the course of the discussion I was pointed to possible routes for expansion, and the article developed into this, which made me less certain that deletion was the best course. By the way, I am not saying that this was a bad close. It is a permissible outcome, but not a great outcome, given the existence of an article for which this subject is a subtopic. There is not, in Wikipedia, a process separate from AfD for nominating an article to be converted into a redirect. BD2412  T 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rajen Sharma XfD.
Please give your rationale for your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajen Sharma. Please also confirm whether or not you have salted Rajen Sharma. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to give a rationale for obvious XfD decisions. I have now salted it, I think enough of the commuity's time has been wasted. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for saling.  Please refund Rajen Sharma to draft.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK: I've read the top of the talk page and can understand a waste of time to ask for the refund here. Thnakyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Jones & Lawrey
I'm not sure how WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 16 is an Endorse, as it looks like both WP:Articles for deletion/E. J. Jones (rugby union) and WP:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey had no consensus and the closer super-voted. Surely you are judging here the lack of GNG case, while ignoring NOLYMPIC is met - and perhaps another supervote? I don't see how a relist wasn't an option, or does any harm. That aside - a redirect seems appropriate, given as Olympic medallists, it's a reasonable search term. Can you expand the closes to opine on the redirect prejudice? Thanks Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. I also have a question of your rationale for A Lawrey: ...its comments against policy that count and the keep arguments advance no sources and don’t really address how GNG isn’t an option Which comments were against policy? It seemed that the arguments were one guideline vs. another i.e. WP:N vs WP:GNG vs WP:SNG vs WP:NSPORT. Was the "Endorse" close based more on head count or strength of argument? To be clear, I'm OK if AfD participants !vote to delete when an SNG is met. For example, Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) met NSPORTS, but there was a majority supporting deletion (including myself). My contention is that the !voters should decide when to apply one guideline (GNG) vs. another (NSPORT). The top-level Notability guideline makes a simple either–or statement: It doesn't mention SNG with a caveat about a demonstratable path to GNG. !Voters can apply it that way, or the community can reword the guidelines. I have no problem if the !voters stipulated that and say delete per GNG. I just don't see WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS giving closers leeway to weigh one notability guideline more than another.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the above is anything but IDHT. That failing GNG overrides meeting an SNG which itself explicitly requires GNG (and which explicitly says that an article which meets it does not necessarily need to be kept) is widely accepted and supported by the guidelines as written; and this has been pointed out to the above multiple times (including at the DRV); and seems to be getting community support as well in the ongoing RfC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, EJ Jones could be E. J. Jones (American football) (whose notability however appears rather borderline, fwiw) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

118 Reunion
Hi, can you please email me a copy of the deleted article. I just want to merge a paragraph, noting the nominator has said he has no objection to a merge, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Naveen Jain article undeleted
Hi Spartaz. Thanks for closing the DRV for. I've never paid close attention to situations like this where a deleted article is restored, but I'm seeing talk page archives that are still deleted. Is there are bot that cleans these up or do they have to be done manually?

Hmmm. Looks like was working on it, but didn't complete it. --Hipal (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

restored the archived talk pages that I noticed. I there a way I can help to search for other pages? --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Struggling to understand this AfD close
Hi Spartaz,

Could you perhaps leave a short reasoning as to why you closed Articles for deletion/Vithoji Rao Holkar as no consensus? I'm a bit puzzled, because I was hoping for a qualitative assessment of the discussion, and not just a numerical one. Thanks in advance. Pilaz (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Its NC because there wasn’t one and a delete close would never have stood scrutiny as the discussion was tainted by socks from the outset. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Close of Articles for deletion/The Given Town
You closed the above AfD discussion as "merge", which was reasonable. Yesterday, I performed the merge to Theresienstadt Ghetto, but the merged information was reverted (diff) by User:Buidhe as WP:UNDUE which is not an unreasonable opinion. Unfortunately, we are left with the anomalous case that the information that was at The Given Town has been functionally deleted even though there was no consensus for deletion at the AfD discussion and with a redirect to a target article that no longer contains any information on the redirected topic. Respectfully, my suggestion for a resolution would be to consider changing your close to "no consensus" and reverting the redirect, thus preserving the information, and allowing any further merge discussions to go forward outside of the AfD process. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The Given Town could be redirected to Theresienstadt (1944 film), where it's discussed in the historiography section. If I had been aware of this deletion discussion I would likely have !voted keep as there is probably enough coverage for a stand-alone article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, do you have a view on how to resolve this? Thanks. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of litigation involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation
You edit conflicted me with a relist while I was in the process of closing this one, but I went ahead and closed it anyway. I'm willing to revert my actions if you find that objectionable. SpinningSpark 18:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Drane Scrivener
Hi Spartaz - Last year, you closed as delete an AfD on Drane Scrivener. It was a close case IMO and the first (and still the only) instance in Wikipedia history in which an article about a first-team All-American football player chosen by one of the official selectors was deleted. Another editor (User:BeanieFan11) and I have been working on the topic, and we have created an improved version of the article in draft-space. See Draft:Drane Scrivener. Examples of SIGCOV include   and. Before moving it to main space, we wanted to see if you have any concerns with that plan. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally these sources are very thin and probably suffer from being a bit local and are effectively short sections in match reports or press events. Are they new sources or were they considered during the AFD? Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * These are all new and represent the SIGCOV that was found lacking during the AfD. And even without these, the voting was 6-6 at the AfD. Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah Ok,I'm not a fan of what you have but the policy is clear. You have the right to put this back in mainspace and it's not liable to speedy as there are new sources. I'm perfectly happy to leave it to other editors to start a new discussion if they wish to challenge the new sources. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for your reply. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Where
is the personal attack at Articles for deletion/António de Menezes? MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case accusing JPL of not doing a before in a dismissive way. Lugnuts had a warning about not assuming good faith about the comment and just removed it demanding an IBAN rather than taking the opportunity to adjust his edit. That's what the third time I gave called him out about this kind of thing. When you are on thin ice the best thing to do is be on your best behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My experience with JPL is the same. A week long block is WP:PUNITIVE not preventative. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As L found sources JPL clearly did not perform a before search. I don't find the tone dismissive in the least. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It means nothing of the sort. Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * When a user has a pattern of accusing other editors and knows they are on thin ice then you would expect them to avoid casting aspersions. You might note that I have repeatedly warned Lugnuts to avoid doing this and warned them when I blocked them for the same thing a month ago that the next block would escalate. I also noted that an editor warned Lugnuts about their comment but instead of adjusting the edit they removed the warning with a demand for an IBAN. seems to think that a week is not enough so it's clear I can't please everybody. Obviously the solution is for Lugnuts to simply stop commenting on other editors and focus on content and source evaluation instead. No one has ever been blocked for evaluating the sources... Spartaz Humbug! 21:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there an official topic ban for Lugnuts that I am unaware of. The escalation from one day to one week is still punitive. If you and feel the need to chase off another content creator who is prickly when aspersions are cast on their work than there is little that I can do about that. I'm probably not putting this well and I know that you and B are good editors and admins. I am just tired and venting. Please feel free to remove this after reading it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read Lugnuts' talk page and see how many warnings he has had. Don't make this an admin vs editor conflict when the bottom line is that Lugnuts needs to stop attacking other editors during discussions or are you suggesting that he should have a free hand to abuse other editors? You might be better off encouraging them to stop it rather then enabling the behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * a) I've read it for years and b) I did not make this an admin v editor thing. Why are you now casting aspersions on me? BTW I have had actual abuse heaped on me numerous times over the years so I know what that is like. Saying JPL did not perform a before comes nowhere close to being abuse. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are likely to close the gap between our positions. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

This is the weakest block I've ever seen, the length is totally unjustifiable. Beeeggs (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been my long-stated position that it is editors who repeatedly get away with attacking others because create content and they tend to attack "the right people" that drives editors away. My essay on the subject was quoted by Slate (magazine) back in 2014. I tend to think that once someone has three or four block for something and then does it again anyway, an indef is in order. I'm aware not everyone feels that way and I think Spartaz acted within the accepted standards of administrative discretion, it's just probably not what I would've done. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If that António de Menezes comment is all that Lugnuts did, I think this block is ridiculous, especially considering that he is one of our best sports editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the only. For example, see this recent interaction I had with him, where he choose to cast aspersions and edit war rather than discuss whether a link to Olympedia belonged in the external links section. BilledMammal (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (moving this here because Lugnuts does not want it on his talk page) This looks to me like an appropriate response to avoid further disruption from an editor who was previously sanctioned for casting aspersions at AfD. An editor who lets their frustration get the best of them should take a step back to cool down.
 * I also notice Lugnuts mentioned that there must be some presumption of notability based on being an Olympian and flag-bearer, when they're well aware that NSPORTS is based on significant coverage, not participation. Editors accusing others of not doing a BEFORE and citing obselete/nonexistent criteria (NFOOTY, being an "international player") has been an ongoing problem at AfD lately and I'm glad to see that someone is finally handing out blocks. I'm seeing similar comments from others at Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan and Articles for deletion/Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) that should likewise be addressed by an admin. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

an AFD you closed got redone less than an hour later
Articles_for_deletion/Don%27t_Leave_(Simba_Tagz_song) you closed as no consensus on 07:26, 3 April 2022. One of those who said "delete" started a new AFD for it on 8:15, 3 April 2022. If they didn't like the results they shouldn't mention to you why or gone to deletion review, not repeat it again like that.  D r e a m Focus  06:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Brother Paul Brown
Hi, I see you deleted Brother Paul Brown's article in 2018. Why was that? Johnalexwood (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I don't remember what I did last week so there is no chance I can remember a deletion from 4 years ago. What did it say in the deletion log? Spartaz Humbug! 19:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the answer can be found at Articles for deletion/Brother Paul Brown. If you think he now meets GNG then you can consider recreation. Let me know if you want the article draftified. Spartaz Humbug! 19:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I'm just the messenger and I've already told the OP the answer is no, but they re challenging a decision of yours so you should obviously be informed of it. Administrators' noticeboard Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you rethink your relisting of this discussion? There is unanimous consensus not to keep and it seems to me quite unnecessary to extend the duration to nearly a month. I've seen other administrators default to a delete closure if no consensus is found on a redirect target, and then have the issue deferred to editorial discretion or RfD. Avilich (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Bruno Wang
Hi! Did I miss a step in yesterday's relist? I saw you just relisted it and wanted to be sure I didn't miss a step that triggered a need for another relist. Thanks! Star  Mississippi  23:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found it through the old afd log so I assume the bot didn’t update for more than 24 hours or the old log wasn’t cleared by your script. I personally wouldn’t participate in an AFD if I relisted it as a relist assesses the state of a consensus. Relisting and then participatimgnor participating and them relisting feels a bit INVoLVED to this old admin… Spartaz Humbug! 10:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks re: relist info. Hope it was just the bot and not yet another issue with the closer script. Definitely not taking a position or voting, just wanted to clarify for NeverTry who is a new-ish editor why his sources didn't really answer the query. If you think that's a step too far, others probably do as well and I'll be mindful of that. I think the only times I participate and relist are cases where a close was challenged and I reopen/relist and convert my priot close to a !vote, but I don't always do that if it doesn't feel it fits. Usually I put the note of my prior close and link to challenge in a note. Thanks again! Star   Mississippi  22:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

An
Didn't expect you to take it that personally. Only reason I even went there was because I didn't expect you to log in for the next couple of days, judging by your contributions pattern. Apologies either way, but no need to get all worked up and shout 'rude. Avilich (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Katie Nixon
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Katie Nixon. 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. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Please respond...
...to my message I left you last year:. 13:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When you are subject to a bright line TB you need to either respect it or appeal it. There is nothing else to discuss. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts ANI
Could you please provide a link to the ANI you mentioned at my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Waleed Shahid
Should this article be revived from deletion as this Democratic Party strategist is in the news again and published in detail about in recent books?
 * Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC) Tradesman90210 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I am tired of false accusations of hounding deletion
I am tired of the false accusations of hounding deletion nominations. It is very frustrating that people are using the ANI to attack my deletion nominations, even though those people are clearly not notable. The rudeness and incivility of the false hounding accusations is hardly being recognized at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now someone is proposing banning me from nominating any stub created by Lugnuts, which would be a victory for lugnuts and would reward him for being so rude that I brought this issue up to other people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am really frustrated by this whole ANI. People are trying to use Lugnuts falsely accusing me of houding him as grounds for limiting my ability to edit Wikipedia. This would reward him for falsely accusing me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now another editor has falsely accused me of hounding Lugnuts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It gets worse. Now Lugnuts is trying to broaden the scope of the ANI, to make it an even broader attack on my editing in general. I did not even start this ANI, I am not liking how it is being turned into a feeding freenzy of hate against me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now we have the odd claim that half the articles I created are stubs. This may be so, but it also shows why claiming " a stub is a stub" is a very odd claim. There are stubs that are one sentence long. Then there is R. Stephen Humphreys which is multiple paragraphs long with multiple sources. Yes, I am sure that article could be developed more, but it says more by quite a margin than it seems we will ever be able to say on many Olympic competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the two way ban is likely to gain consensus and frankly this feels like a massive mess that will be unresolved. I honestly think you have said everything you need to in the discussion and would advise you to find something else to edit while this works it's way through. We need to encourage more independent editors to contribute and that is less likely while there is so much noise. The best thing you can do is stop adding your own noise. Spartaz Humbug! 16:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the activities of User contributions for 166.151.186.237. It is very interesting to me that this editor chose to refer to me in the exact way I have asked I not be refered to in a discussion page. I am trying to not be over reactive, but is there any possibility that this was an established editor using an IP address to hide their harrasment, or is it probably just a random person who likes to harrass others?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does this work User contributions for 166.151.186.237.
 * OK, I do not know how to attack a link. If you look on Benjamin Sonnenberg you will see the revets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant reverts. Maybe I am overreacting. It was not nice to face such specific harrassment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it that when Lugnuts behavior become so out of line against me that he is taken to AFD, there are people who try to use this as grounds to argue I be fully banned from AfD, that I be banned from interacting with Lugnuts, and Lugnuts have no consequences at all for his rude behavior. This is very frustrating. That someone else can go around attacking me, be brought to ANI for it, and yet some proposals there let him off scott free for violating community rules and instead suggest I be punished because someone is violating community rules against me. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I wish you had never opened that ANI. It has now turned into an attempt to block me from any participation in deletion discussions at all, period, at least if I understand the current nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now Lugnuts is using the existence of the ANI as grounds for continuing the very accusatory behavior that caused the ANI to start. I wish there were clearer rules on when ANIs would close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now someone is suggesting because of the ANI and my nominating articles created by Lugnuts after the ANI started for deletion I should be indefenately blocked from editing Wikipedia at all. If this was a reasonable outcome, I think people should have at least posted on my talk page when the ANI started "An ANI about Lugnuts's treatment of you is now open. This mainly relates to his claiming that your nominating articles created by him for deletion is harassment. Any further nomination by you of articles created by Lugnuts will be used as evidence against you. You must not nominate any articles created by Lugnuts for deletion until this ANI is resolved." If that is the way things are, people need to at least say this before hand. Especailly since when I nominated the last article, it seemed that everything had slowed down and the ANI was about to close. This is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts stub creation t-ban clarification
Hi, I know that Lugnuts is T-banned from expanding redirects into stubs, but could you clarify whether that extends to creating new redirects from scratch such as these ? Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 16:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't, as you can see here - "Lugnuts is subject to a community sanction that they are indefinitely banned from creating articles that comprise less than 500 words. This includes converting redirects into articles." Redirects are not articles.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Evidence submission at an Arbitration case
An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission here. Thanks, firefly  ( t · c ) 15:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to hear
While I disagree with your "kangaroo court" assertion (especially because I noticed specifically your absence from the case and Wikipedia more generally) but I am genuinely saddened by this comment. Know I will be looking at the evidence again as I consider my votes but beyond this case, I really hope you find your way back to Wikipedia. We're a better place with you here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do I always mess up?
I guess because I never fully understand how comprehensive bans are. I suggested to a nominator who was reviewing pages related to Olympians, that he have a look at a specific page. It is now being said this was trying to nominate an article by proxy on my part, and I am looking at being banned for a whole month. The whole process of Wikipedia is very frustrating these days. I wish I could go back and not make that suggestion. I was trying to find a way to have conversations with people on Wikipedia that were less confrontational, but I clearly chose the wrong way to do that. I am feeling very down.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou
I appreciate your various actions on Wikipedia over the last few months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Then there is where someone complains about my comment, admits they do not feel like it is a violation, but are still complaining for no good reason. Wikipedia is a wearing place at times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ever expanding topic bans
Now someone is proposing the ban be extended to all discussion of notability. This is so frustrating. There is not even any clear allegation that I did any disruptive behavior there. Just that I voiced oppisition to changing guidelines on sports notability seems enough to punish me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Baegeni
With 3 previous relists, and what appears to be a lack of consensus, and strong policy arguments on both sides, can you please provide a more detailed closing statement? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you do the same with Articles for deletion/List of heirs to the Portuguese throne - that looked like a clear keep to me; if not, why relist it, only to get more keeps? You say the sourcing hasn't been dealt with - but the final keep notes that there are sources in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have done both. Spartaz Humbug! 07:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! I think the close of List of heirs to the Portuguese throne is quite poor. We had 5 keep votes (including mine) who did acknowledge it needs editing and suggested some, and deletion is not a replacement for improvement. Then there were 4 delete votes, 2 of which are invalid (deleting because the throne does not exist anymore would mean we should delete every article about any not currently existing subject). The "strong argument threading through the discussion" is one user repeating the same argument. I think it should be a no consensus keep. I also think it is not enough to be overturned, because I accept that it is mostly a judgment call. We shouldn't have most decisions made by a single admin at a time, but that is another issue. (I am an admin, I am not criticizing admins). I will link "TNT" in your explanation because we don't have to know all abbreviations and the explanation is harder to understand without that. Please, feel free to revert that without further warning. Although disagreeing, thank you for your time. - Nabla (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just popping in to note that this material in general -- on successors to/heirs of defunct thrones -- has a very strong precedent for deletion. See the 40+ articles on "line of succession to the former ___ throne" deleted two years ago, which, as DrKay noted, included the one for Portugal. JoelleJay (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already at DRV but the nom is rude and has no manners so didn't even leave me a message telling me it was there. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not about *current* claims of succesion to a *former* throne. It was about who was the *then* successor for an existent throne when it existed. I'll rephrase, it is not who currently claims to be the heir to the former throne of XXX; it is who was the number one in line for succession *back when* the throne of XXX existed. Yes, the article about Portugal had both, but a bad section is no reason to delete the rest. Nabla (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC) PS: - Nabla (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the list in question is different from the ones on current successors; I was just explaining that the appetite for content like this (genealogy lists where heirs at any given time are OR'd from succession laws rather than individual sources calling them heirs) is very low among editors, and this is especially true for thrones that are defunct. 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC) JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Going back to WP:Articles for deletion/Clement Baegeni you note there detailed source analysis on offered sources. This is not true, for some reason the detailed source analysis only covered some of the offered sources (the first 4). The best source was the fifth source, for which there was no detailed analysis. A poster tried to claim that was an interview. There were zero delete votes in the ten days after this source was provided. Does that look like an interview to you, User:Spartaz? Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All this passion seems misplaced, to my eyes. For the record, it looks like an interview to me. The article by Simon Abana consists of twenty sentences. Ten of those are quotated. Five of the remainder characterize statements made by the subject. Only 25% of the article is clear of quotation and that seems to be routine game coverage. While the article does directly detail the subject's performance in a single game, it's 75% subject-provided material. Drop the stick, Nfitz. This is a reasonable close. BusterD (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize somewhat for my last comment; it was wrong, and unproductive, for me to engage User:Nfitz on the merits. The AfD was closed. Rationale was requested and provided. It seems to me we have either a good close procedurally or a bad close procedurally. WP:DRV is linked. I'll be endorsing. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that a press conference isn't considered an interview...? Not that it would matter, unless you somehow believe quotes from someone literally have to be in a written Q&A interview format to be disregarded as primary and non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaat
Hi Spartaz, are you sure that delete was a clear consensus from Articles for deletion/Jamaat? Although I !voted "weak keep" (i.e. without much conviction), it seemed to be more like the end result as it stood would be no consensus than a clear outcome either way. Despite one delete being just "per nom", even if you did a head count (which is not necessarily a consensus count), I don't think it was clear enough to judge a consensus on (I am not advocating it be kept as such, but I respect a clear consensus above what my own opinion may be). Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the policy based argument for keeping this as I couldn't discern what it might be from the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say above that the article should be closed a "keep", but rather suggested that there may not have been consensus either way. I don't think the delete consensus was strong enough to end that way, mind. I am not particularly against the article not being kept and as I say, I didn't express a view strongly (probably closer to being "on the fence"), but I don't think there was sufficient consensus to concur with the WP:PTM argument. You may have opted for a bold 3rd relist perhaps, especially as the consensus was no clearer following the 2nd one. I observe the discussion above too, so maybe elaborating on a closure where it isn't absolutely convincing would be something you should take into account moving forward. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravalcheny van Ommeren
You noted that "One subsequent source is possibly a press release and while the provider argues we should consider whether it is an agency report". Did you review the source (that I'd provided) - it's quite clearly that the reporter (or someone else) asked some questions of the player after the match. A post-match press-release with player quotes? Surely, that's such an unusual and almost (if entirely) unheard of. Source is https://web.archive.org/web/20200805012858/https://www.culturu.com/nieuws/sport/ravalcheny-van-ommeren-tekent-contract-bij-k-a-a-gent/ Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't review the source. Admins read the discussion and base the outcome on that. Assessing sources means you are more likely to end up substituting a personal opinion for actual consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 20:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What discussion? Someone claimed it was a press release, I pointed out that it wasn't, and no one else commented, all shortly before the closure! Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No one cared to discuss it because that source had already been discussed. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than you comment, User:JoelleJay, that it was a press release, and my refutation of that - there was no further (or previous) discussion about that source being a press release - or any comment at all! Have we got to the point where someone can say something that isn't true, and then that's used as part of the justification in the closing statement? User:Spartaz, does this look like a press release? Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in the AfD, that source was already covered by Dougal18 and Devonian Wombat in their !votes, and by me in my !vote, and BusterD and Andrevan agreed with my assessment. That's 5 editors who have looked at that source and determined it is not sufficient to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

List of cricketers
Hello. We do have a pretty extensive set of lists of cricketers, per your comment at the John West AfD (I find myself nearly calling him Fred all the time...). In that case, there is an obvious list to redirect to, for example. There are a few sub continent lists that probably need to be created, and the odd one elsewhere. What sort of list were you thinking about? It wonder if a central list of lists on the wikiproject would be helpful? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By decade and club would be my preference. Categories are better for navigation. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I'm not quite sure I understand how that would work - and the work overhead concerns me a little. I think I can see the point, but it depends on the format we'd be looking at. Can I throw three lists at you and ask you to think about possible formats and how you'd break them down? No worries if you don't have time, it's an idea that intrigues me.
 * List of Lancashire County Cricket Club players - a quite basic, traditional list
 * List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players - a stats table format
 * List of Kent county cricketers to 1842 - a tabular format
 * By breaking down by decade, say, (or, perhaps, period - e.g. 1919 to 39) would you look for more detail, stats or just plain lists?
 * Fwiw I disagree about cats, but then I've never really enjoyed using them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Been away so not looked at this yet but dropped Neil a line and will let you know what he says. Spartaz Humbug! 13:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ingane Oru Nilapakshi
The page was deleted in 2018. The film is a notable one and need your opinion here (Requests_for_undeletion). DareshMohan (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing very worthwhile to undelete. Just start a draft. Spartaz Humbug! 04:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"Square (financial services company)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Square (financial services company) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 02:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

A kind word
Spartaz, you and I have disagreed plenty over the years, both when we were both admins, and since. I have never once known you to say an inappropriate word to or about me, and there were plenty of occasions where one easily could have slipped in. I do not know that you're going to get an apology for the current kerfuffle, and I can't manufacture one for you, but I can say that I in no way believe you to have communicated hate speech in any way, regardless of how the recipient may have misunderstood your intent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go
Thanks for your work here. I won't say I hope you reconsider; the project is getting more and more unpleasant to work in. But all the same ... damn, I'm sorry to see this. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know if we've interacted in the past, but sad to see you go. I just wish when things get heated on Wikipedia, we could just give all involved parties some nice hot chocolate with whipped cream on top, to be to be enjoyed before the conversation is resumed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't say you were baited, but it sure feels that way. Hope to see you back soon. Hobit (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you felt driven away by less than a dozen AN regulars. I forget how many thousands of active editors we have who have no interest in AN/ANI etc. Safe to say that a small number of drama board enthusiasts in reality aren't "the Community" but unfortunately we don't have an alternative. Back in the real world, across the spectrum of mainstream media (aka WP:RS), that rhetorical device as you called it, continues to be widely used without anyone being subjected to the same sort out-of-proportion abuse that you suffered. Have a think about ignoring that clique and coming back. DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Take care of yourself. Enjoy a respite. You are trusted and the community is stronger when you're editing. Take as long as you like. If you need anything, please call on us. BusterD (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I primarily know you through the deletion discussions in re: WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, and I wanted to say thank you for your contributions to the AfDs, including as a nominator, and the debates around PORNBIO. When I first became aware of this corner of the encyclopedia, my thought was: what is this, Pornopedia? Much cruft was removed, but the biggest thing has been the deprecation of PORNBIO. Thanks again and all the best. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Deluded" is neither hate speech nor ableism, that's ridiculous. Here's another aging lefty who hopes you'll reconsider your retirement. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC).

Apology
I'm sorry that my use of phrasing upset you — I was very careful (or at least I thought I was) to ensure I did not call you ableist. I don't believe you are in the slightest. My intent was to highlight that we can all push offensive tropes from time to time. The word trope here was taken to mean "a figure of speech". As someone who has written extensively (both here, and elsewhere) about, and as someone who has episodes of, psychosis, being labelled "truly deluded" doesn't just cut deep. It causes a clinical trigger, a moment of having to stop and ground myself, before seriously reflecting on the thoughts I am experiencing to check for delusional thoughts. Delusional thoughts are scary, and to have someone "truly" believe that I am being deluded is terrifying. I know it was not your intent to cause this, but we must accept responsibility for what our words and actions cause regardless. I did not intend to upset you, or make you out to be bigoted — for this, I apologize, and I withdraw that wording. I hope you will reconsider retiring from Wikipedia, but if not, I wish you well in your future endeavours — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 09:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hoping you will return
Hi. I don't often respond to retirement announcements, and I didn't previously respond to yours because while I understood your feelings of disappointment, I hoped they might ease after some time away. That being said, the circumstances you faced would be hurtful for anyone, much less someone who showed dedication to Wikipedia for as long and as much as you did. I didn't think it necessary to say, but in case it is helpful I do say, that you clearly didn't say anything hateful, much less intentionally so. I know that you will spent as much time away as you wish, and I understand completely because my own participation has been very limited this year, but I hope that eventually you will feel comfortable returning here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - I missed all of what I see above which doesn't change anything in appreciating you and what you gave the world on this project. Up to you to continue or not, - best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)