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.

Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Asilvering 119 0 1 100 09:15, 6 September 2024 4 days, 2 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Note to self

Check Cast recording redirects for CastAlbum.org info. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for the wrong reason, perhaps

Not sure if my ping reached you or not (it initially had a timestamp but no signature). If not, in short, I believe you made a mistake in blocking me for BLP violation rather than disruptive editing, edit warring or something else. I think I've presented clarity on my actual good intent and dumb error at my Talk Page and David Hogg's. If you could review it and alter the Block Log to reflect a lesser charge, I'd appreciate it. No hard feelings on your initial judgment (I can see how it looked like something it wasn't), but I regularly edit BLPs and don't want an apparent violation of such to haunt my permanent record. Any such possibility? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, March 24, 2018 (UTC)

WP:POINT

It would appear that EW, racist innuendos and disregarding policies on WP:RS, WP:CIV and WP:POINT leads to impunity and nobody caring, after all. Shameful, but predictable.

Cheers! Coltsfan (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They've edited 4 times since they were given the warning, and none of the edits were obviously problematic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess making insinuations about people's ethnic background and how that, somehow, affects who they are as editors is "not problematic". Bye. Coltsfan (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They were warned, they stopped the behavior. Blocking is preventative, not punitive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate block, should be lifted ASAP

Your recent block of User:BigDwiki was not appropriate. BigDwiki had not edited the article for roughly two weeks, made only a single edit incorporating a previously unseen, unquestionably reliable source, and at least attempted to address prior objections to the statement at issue. This is standard, WP:BOLD, editing. If BigDwiki had added the statement back after objection, that might have warranted an edit warring sanction -- but their actual content did not. In contrast, User:EvergreenFir summarily removed the content without any pretense of addressing the new and reliable source -- even though the reliability of sourcing has been a central element of the disputes over use of the subject's birthname. Your failure to apply a parallel sanction to EvergreenFir betrays a lack of evenhandedness. Frankly, as I commented at ANI, the discussion of this matter has been a gigantic clusterfuck, with several editors insisting on applying their own preconceptions to a situation where the article subject's own actions and statements demonstrate that those notions do not apply. Your precipitate, non-evenhanded action has only made a bad situation worse. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: There was absolutely no consensus on the talk page, despite BigDWiki's assertion. Further, it's a clear violation of MOS:BIRTHNAME. The discussion about the inclusion of the name elsewhere in the article is a different topic and being discussed on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The block you wanted lifted ASAP expired before you even posted this. I don't see how this could possibly be a BLP violation, but that's neither here nor there. Natureium (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals

The Portals WikiProject has been rebooted.

You are invited to join, and participate in the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system and all the portals in it.

There are sections on the WikiProject page dedicated to tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too), and areas on the talk page for discussing the improvement and automation of the various features of portals.

Many complaints have been lodged in the RfC to delete all portals, pointing out their various problems. They say that many portals are not maintained, or have fallen out of date, are useless, etc. Many of the !votes indicate that the editors who posted them simply don't believe in the potential of portals anymore.

It's time to change all that. Let's give them reasons to believe in portals, by revitalizing them.

The best response to a deletion nomination is to fix the page that was nominated. The further underway the effort is to improve portals by the time the RfC has run its course, the more of the reasons against portals will no longer apply. RfCs typically run 30 days. There are 19 days left in this one. Let's see how many portals we can update and improve before the RfC is closed, and beyond.

A healthy WikiProject dedicated to supporting and maintaining portals may be the strongest argument of all not to delete.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

Let's do this.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   10:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Toronto van attack protection

Hello, my friend. I'm just wondering why the protection?

Convenience link: History.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a request on RFPP, and an IP at 6RR+. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but it was a single IP (school IP I think) and it was blocked before the protect. Do you think it would be okay to unprotect now? It's pretty heavily edited and there have been good IP edits. Best wishes and great respect, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with above. The request at RFPP was misguided. At best it was a minor content dispute. Had this dispute been with an anonymous logged-in user the article would not have been protected and no action would have been taken. As Anna points out, and in common with nearly all other articles of this type, IPs make good edits but are invariably blocked by SP at some point down the line - for no good reason. 31.52.162.8 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Unprotected. Let's see how it goes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

208.123.149.179

I noticed that you block the 208.123.149.179 IP for being a vandal-only account, but IP adresses cannot be considered vandal-only accounts per this Wikiğpedia page.. --24.180.251.38 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I meant to just mark it as Vandalism, not Vandal-only. It's only a 3-hour block, so it should be clear what I actually meant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say:

You were very tough on me, but you were never unjust. I wanted to thank you for not merely putting up with me, but helping me on wiki and keeping an eye out for me, including my blunders. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

DePiep

I’m starting to think we've been had. It doesn’t take two days to work up a reply to an ANI thread. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Eh. I'm not going to make assumptions about what other people are up to in their lives. If they're not editing at all (short of those two brief comments yesterday), there could be all sorts of reasons. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted the website as reference to the recent edits I made for Medical Transcription if it looks "promotional" to you. Thanks! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnomalous (talk • contribs) 05:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Canned comment on my Talk Page

Sorry, but I don't appreciate your placing a canned comment on my Talk Page. The OP was deleting material without sourcing it. I would reference it, but I'm relatively new and don't know how. In any case, the person involved is dead. I don't see how WP:BLP applies. (LIVING persons, right?) 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the "canned comment", you would have seen that the policy includes "recently deceased" people. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had read the WP:BLP statement, you would have seen that the policy DOESN'T apply to ALL "recently deceased" people. Here is a relevant segment: "Applicability to deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons Recently dead or probably dead Policy shortcut WP:BDP Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly TO CONTENTIOUS OR QUESTIONABLE MATERIAL about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime.. [end of quoted material]. The material that was being added was in no way "contentious" or "questionable". It didn't have any "implications". He was not a suicide, nor was the incident a crime caused by him. (That we know of, of course.). 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No, but it's negative, it's completely irrelevant to the article, and it's not needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What is "negative"? I'd say it's "neutral", from the standpoint of the article. It doesn't reflect badly on any other person involved in the rail accident. It's quite relevant, because he's one of (only three people killed in the incident. As for "not needed": Please show me how do determine whether any given fact is "needed", or not. I would say that every given fact, in any WP article, isn't really "needed": The world won't end because a given fact was omitted. But the burden isn't on one side alone. The fact I (re-) posted is relevant, and factual. Sure, it wasn't referenced. I have nothing against it being referenced, and I would do so if I could figure out how to do that. I will insert a reference, but it won't look "pretty". In any case, this issue should be discussed on the Talk page of the article, not here. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)