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 |
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 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:
- 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.
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?
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5] 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 [1][2][3][4][5]? 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)
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/style/emily-mayer-waleed-shahid-wedding.html
- ^ https://forward.com/fast-forward/503246/progressive-jews-urge-adl-chief-to-apologize-for-calling-out-democratic-activist/
- ^ https://www.msnbc.com/ayman-mohyeldin/watch/early-lessons-for-progressives-in-the-2022-midterms-140498501778
- ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Take_Up_Space/GpQ8EAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22waleed+shahid%22&pg=PA119&printsec=frontcover
- ^ https://www.google.com/books/edition/Winning_the_Green_New_Deal/oIi2DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22waleed%20shahid%22&pg=PT159&printsec=frontcover