User talk:SarekOfVulcan
Note: if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks.
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10. |
| Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. |
|---|
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 22:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC) |
Nomination of The Theatre Times for deletion
[edit]
These updates are delivered by SodiumBot. To opt out of these messages, add {{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}} to your talk page.
Administrators' newsletter – August 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2025).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, G15, has been enacted. It applies to pages generated by a large language model (LLM) without human review.
- Following a request for comment, there is a new policy outlining the granting of permissions to view the IP addresses of temporary accounts. Temporary account deployment on the English Wikipedia is currently scheduled for September 2025, and editors can request access to the permission ahead of time. Admins are encouraged to keep an eye on the request page; there will likely be a flood of editors requesting the permission when they realize they can no longer see IP addresses.
Technical news
- Administrators can now restrict the "Add a Link" feature to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders get started with editing. Administrators can configure this setting in the Community Configuration page.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Indian military history has been closed.
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
All pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
- The contentious topic designations for Sri Lanka (SL) and India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (IPA) are folded into this new contentious topic.
- The community-authorized general sanctions regarding South Asian social groups (GS/CASTE) are rescinded and folded into this new contentious topic.
- South Asia (WP:CT/SA) is designated a contentious topic. The topic area is specifically defined as
- The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 31 July.
- The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 11 August.
Miscellaneous
- Wikimania 2025 is happening in Nairobi, Kenya, and online from August 6 to August 9. This year marks 20 years of Wikimania. Interested users can join the online event. Registration for the virtual event is free and will remain open throughout Wikimania. You can register here now.
Saw the removal from ANI-
[edit]While I obviously don't need details, is anyone helping that user somewhere off the drama-board?
While ANI didn't seem to be the right place, it sure looked like someone in crisis. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- thanks! MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Lkcl: disruptive subject matter expert. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
TBan
[edit]Hi SarekOfVulcan, if I understand correctly, your TBan applies until ArbCom reaches its conclusions on WP:ARBTRANS. Once that decision is final, an RfC on "GET=CT" will be possible. If that is the case, I think it's reasonable. I had also considered seeking advice on the timing, the "chilling effect" of an open arbitration case, and possible suspicions of strategic behaviour ("they want to influence ArbCom" or "they waited for user:XY to be banned") before opening an RfC. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if you could explain the rationale behind this time-limited and highly specific ban. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- You raised the question on the article talk, which was reasonable, and met with strong resistance, part of which pointed out that there was an Arbcom case running that had bearing on the topic in question. You then declared your intention to start a full RFC on the same topic, with no indication that you were going to wait to see what Arbcom said, just that "if you weren't convinced by the arguments" there. Since you had been demonstrating IDHT tendencies in the discussion and appeared about to do something that had the potential of being disruptive to the community both because of the topic and because of the possibility that an Arbcom decision would shut it down mid-stream, I decided that the best way to avoid that was to keep you from starting until it was clear what the shape of the larger editing environment would be. Having it be as broad as GET/CT but not as broad as GENSEX seemed the best way to restrict your editing as little as possible to avoid disruption while not leaving room for rules-lawyering about whether a particular discussion qualified. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- You are, of course, welcome to appeal to AE if you don't want to just wait it out for 2-4 weeks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, as I said, I'm happy to wait until ArbCom makes a decision. However, I don't expect that to resolve the contentious issue, since it's clearly a matter of content. Am I missing something, or when you say the ArbCom decision "would shut it down mid-stream", are you referring to something more specific that I'm not seeing? In any case, I agree that it's probably best to postpone the RfC until the ArbCom case is concluded, so I see no reason to appeal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's going to be contentious no matter when it gets filed, that's why GENSEX is a contentious topic. But at least this removes one easily-foreseeable point of disruption. If it's clear that nothing in the proposed decision would actually affect the course of your proposal, I'll lift the ban early. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- My 2c, I was a little surprised to see the arb case as a reason for the TBAN. I think the behavior was disruptive, and a ban called for, but not at all because of the case.
- I think continuing a 1-v-many argument, saying a roughly 10-1 consensus on talk doesn't count, engaging in IDHT, pushing SEGM commentaries, and saying they'll start an RFC at NPOVN (despite FTN / NPOVN already being notified) is disruptive regardless of an arb case
- Since ARBCOM famously doesn't focus on content, I'm incredibly doubtful it'll affect anything
- If they TBAN all parties, the consensus is still something like 5-to-1
- There's almost no chance they'll invalidate the SEGM RFC, given it was 3-1 with meatpuppetry and 6-1 without.
- Imo, the ban doesn't need to mention the arb case. Just my 2c, feel free to disregard! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- For the sake of accuracy, one editor agreed with me [1]. Contentious topics attract different perspectives, and I believe that the discussion we had highlights some of the challenges within the topic area. This is one more reason to broaden the discussion with an RfC as soon as possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I offered you advice to avoid this result in that discussion, and I'm here to offer a bit more. You're now dangerously close to violating the TBAN Sarek just imposed with this latest post, so please just go edit in other topics, at least for the time being. I know it may be difficult to deal with cutting oneself off from a topic of interest, but I've been operating under a self-imposed TBAN from American politics for many years now. It can ultimately be one of the best decisions you can make for yourself as an editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gitz6666, I don't agree with MP that saying that the discussion was 2-v-many, not 1-v-many is close to a tban vio. Discussing details might be, but you've been careful not to do so; thank you for that. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to that bit, I considered that fair game. I meant the following sentences. And I don't think they're a diet TBAN vio, but rather that they're steering the discussion in the direction of the content under discussion (which would be a vio). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gitz6666, I don't agree with MP that saying that the discussion was 2-v-many, not 1-v-many is close to a tban vio. Discussing details might be, but you've been careful not to do so; thank you for that. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I offered you advice to avoid this result in that discussion, and I'm here to offer a bit more. You're now dangerously close to violating the TBAN Sarek just imposed with this latest post, so please just go edit in other topics, at least for the time being. I know it may be difficult to deal with cutting oneself off from a topic of interest, but I've been operating under a self-imposed TBAN from American politics for many years now. It can ultimately be one of the best decisions you can make for yourself as an editor. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- For the sake of accuracy, one editor agreed with me [1]. Contentious topics attract different perspectives, and I believe that the discussion we had highlights some of the challenges within the topic area. This is one more reason to broaden the discussion with an RfC as soon as possible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- My 2c, I was a little surprised to see the arb case as a reason for the TBAN. I think the behavior was disruptive, and a ban called for, but not at all because of the case.
- It's going to be contentious no matter when it gets filed, that's why GENSEX is a contentious topic. But at least this removes one easily-foreseeable point of disruption. If it's clear that nothing in the proposed decision would actually affect the course of your proposal, I'll lift the ban early. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, as I said, I'm happy to wait until ArbCom makes a decision. However, I don't expect that to resolve the contentious issue, since it's clearly a matter of content. Am I missing something, or when you say the ArbCom decision "would shut it down mid-stream", are you referring to something more specific that I'm not seeing? In any case, I agree that it's probably best to postpone the RfC until the ArbCom case is concluded, so I see no reason to appeal. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
September music
[edit] | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for Floc thanks! - My story today is about a composer and his ballerina wife, pictured as I saw them in 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I enjoy a DYK that pictures a person together with achievements in art. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
My 100th biography to the Main page in 2025 is Siegmund Nimsgern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Block
[edit]I was wondering how long it would take before he got himself blocked. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Icecold Ban
[edit]I would like to formally object to both the process and the outcome that resulted in this topic ban.
Procedural irregularity: The enforcement request was re-opened by an involved party (who is not an administrator) nearly a month after it had been auto-archived with no action. It is now explicitly acknowledged by an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-SilverLocust-20250826030900-Result_concerning_Icecold that this should not have occurred and that only uninvolved admins should perform such reopenings. This irregularity calls into question the fairness of the ban and, I believe, should invalidate the re-opened proceeding and resulting sanctions.
Lack of clear consensus: The “consensus” for a full TBAN was, by the closing admin’s own count, divided: two for a TBAN, two neutral or for a pageblock, one opposed. This is not a traditional clear consensus, and I respectfully submit that the sanction is not supported by a strong enough majority among uninvolved administrators.
Multiplicative sanctions: I have already been partially banned and am now subject to a broader topic ban. I request clarification on why both have been imposed for this dispute.
Retrospective evidence: Edits made well after the original case closure have been interpreted against me in the reopened case. I am concerned that this "moving goalposts" standard is both unfair and discourages voluntary disengagement and good-faith editing. Icecold (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- If SilverLocust thought the unarchiving was problematic, they (or any other admin) could have rearchived it, and chose not to. The objection to retrospective evidence is irrelevant, as you are not supposed to edit disruptively at any time, not just when a complaint is active. Having additive sanctions is hardly unusual. And consensus != unanimity. 4 people thinking a topic ban would be helpful and 1 thinking a page ban is sufficient does not mean a lack of consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- With all due respect, if procedure and rules are going to be ignored, what's the point in having rules. All this process has done is reward a user with a grievance against me who against the rules, reopened a closed arbitration, because in they wanted me to be banned and they didn't get the result they wanted. Why haven't they been sanctioned for this behaviour?
- Me leaving a comment on a user's talk page warning them of their behaviour potentially leading them to get banned is hardly disruptive, and I don't understand why it's been seen this way. I stayed away from the topic apart from that one comment.
- I don't think 2 for, 2 neutral and 1 against shows a consensus.
- I just think this whole process hasn't been conducted fairly and in the rules. Icecold (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Then go ahead and appeal it per the guidelines in the notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I will consider doing so. I only came to your first because your comment said I could. Thanks for your time Icecold (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Of course. I'm always willing to listen, I just disagree in this case. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, you don't think I have a case, despite the arbitration being reopened by a involved editor against process?
- Just to add to this, how can I go about requesting an interaction ban with GraziePrego as suggested here: [[2]] - I have felt like they have been constantly following me round wikipedia and they have used personal attacks against me (admittedly I have done the same against them), and think it would be better all round if we had a mutual interaction block, as suggested Icecold (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTBURO, no, I don't think you have a case on those grounds. Worry about the interaction ban later - if you try to bring those both up at the same time, I predict that the community will decide that the simplest way to resolve the dispute will be to remove you from it on a more permanent basis. See also WP:NOTTHEM. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Of course. I'm always willing to listen, I just disagree in this case. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Okay. I will consider doing so. I only came to your first because your comment said I could. Thanks for your time Icecold (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
- Then go ahead and appeal it per the guidelines in the notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2025).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open on whether use of emojis with no encyclopedic value in mainspace and draftspace (e.g., at the start of paragraphs or in place of bullet points) should be added as a criterion under G15.
Technical news
- Administrators can now access the Special:BlockedExternalDomains page from the Special:CommunityConfiguration list page. This makes it easier to find. T393240
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Article titles and capitalisation 2 has been closed.
- An RfC is in progress to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Hello, SarekOfVulcan,
I was very surprised to find this AFD closed after being open for only 1 day as a "SNOW KEEP" when it only had the participation of 2 editors arguing to Keep the article. Typically for a SNOW close, we have 10+ editors all arguing for the same closure result and the status when you closed this AFD was just what we would expect from an AFD that had been open for one day. It was very far from a SNOW situation. I'm not going to ask you to revert the closure as I don't see that the nominator has come here filing a complaint but I will ask that if you start being active in AFDLand, that you raise your expectations of what you think is required for a SNOW closure, whether it is for Keep or Delete. Because with a low bar requirement of 2 editors arguing for one result, you could justify closing dozens of AFDs too early which would be a big mistake. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I could have called it speedy keep, since it was playing at the Venice Film Festival within 24 hours and that invalidated pretty much the whole nomination, but I figured that SNOW fit better. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 70
[edit]
Issue 70, July–August 2025
- New collections:
- Times of Malta
- Africa Intelligence
- Intelligence Online
- La Lettre
- Glitz
- Spotlight: Wikimania
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
(This message was sent to User:SarekOfVulcan and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
UTRS
[edit]I've made a new comment at UTRS appeal #106432. I'm just letting you know because you have commented there; you may or may not wish to follow it up. JBW (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. As for "uncomfortable with the idea that obfuscating something just enough that Google misses it is good enough", I agree 100%; I am indeed uncomfortable about this, and if I were 60% confident that was what it was, I would have just declined, without taking up your time or anyone else's. However there is a perfectly possible innocent alternative interpretation, and we have no grounds for assuming the worst. HerbertHoover is a different case, because the likelihood of somebody just happening to come up with a username like that, without intending a reference to the history, is virtually nil. JBW (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)