User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20


A kitten for you!

Kitten in a helmet.jpg

I noticed a problem on your talkpage: not enough kittens!

Arcandam (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
MEOW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Note comment

Hello SoV,

Please note my comment here. Based on your comment on here it looks like you think James edited (i.e. altered) BG's RFC/U posting, but it was a straight-up undo. I'm not saying it was a good idea, just that it at least never said anything BG didn't say in the first place. I've excised BG's comments in the past and deleted whole sections of the talk page, but I realize that's a different (though still questionable) kettle of fish than actually editing content of comments.

My apologies if I'm mis-interpreting your message or intent. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While WLU has been preparing an RFC/U since March 2011[1], I'm having to prepare a response quickly, as a work-in-progress. Perhaps this was not the best approach. Since I haven't been preparing for an RFC for over a year, I wouldn't know. However, the opposition should not be able to dictate both sides of the argument by censoring my response.
I have an unrelated, full-time job, so today will be effectively my last day of preparation. When the RFC goes live Monday, I'll be represented only by that response ... or what the others left of it. BitterGrey (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I saw it as "Since BG is blocked it's not fair to continue discussing when there is no opportunity for rebuttal", but I suppose it can be read other ways. Won't replace. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. As I see it, banners like that are only appropriate after there have been declined unblocks, and not even then in all cases. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
One issue that concerns me is the unblock might not be appealed for months, and the RFC/U will languish or be archived. Is there any issue with resurrecting it if that happens? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
*shrug* Beats me, I don't do enough RFC/Us.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
'K, will play it by ear. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A fish for you

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Rather than snarkily bitch an editor trying to do the right thing wrongly [2], next time tell them right thing. Nobody Ent 20:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Trout accepted with thanks for the followup. I was working too fast and not explaining enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ronnotel (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sarek, thanks for your earlier response. I had a fairly important follow-up question and I'm not sure if you saw it. Basically, given the nature of the discussion, I believe the publishing of private details, while clearly inappropriate, may possibly have been well-intentioned. An editor had been accused of being a shill and in publishing the private details you mentioned, the intent may have been to help establish that the editor was not in fact a shill (which is something that I believe as well). However, this is all merely speculation on my part since the details have been hidden. Can you please confirm whether or not the private details that were published would fit this pattern I am describing? thanks. Ronnotel (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not able to do that at this time, because I didn't read them in detail before reporting them for oversight. You could try Special:EmailUser/Oversight to see if they would confirm or deny that interpretation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with this action. This is a long-time user with essentially a clean track record for the past 5 years. Since all the evidence has been scrubbed, it's now next to impossible to investigate whether the action was indeed a personal attack, as you have alleged, or more likely, a mis-guided attempt to help a fellow editor fend off accusations of being a shill. You admit that you didn't familiarize yourself with the situation before nuking the evidence. I respectfully suggest that you consider amending the block to "time served", or perhaps allow me to do the honors. If similar behavior reoccurs I'll be the first to reimpose the block. I'd be very surprised given the personalities involved if this was simply an egregious attempt to "out" someone. Ronnotel (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Talk to an oversighter. Taking action on the grounds of what you think might have happened would be a Bad Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one who took action based on what might have happened. In imposing your fairly draconian block, it seems to me that's what you did. Ronnotel (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And for the record, I'll note that you failed to even provide the standard block template, so this user would have a better chance of understanding how to contest your unilateral and extreme action. Ronnotel (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The template instructions aren't strictly needed -- see MediaWiki:Blockedtext. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
───────────────────────── Hello - as an oversighter I was asked to look over the (now suppressed) edits made by the now-indefinitely blocked user in question, and personally I think the indefinite block was the right call in this case. The user made it fairly clear they considered their course of action necessary in order to defeat someone else entirely in an argument and therefore, while what they were doing could arguably have been seen as a good-faith action, I believe they would not hesitate to repeat the act in future. I would advise the blocked user to consider what they have done while they are blocked and appeal the block when they understand that their actions were inappropriate. — foxj 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, foxj, appreciate your input. Ronnotel (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this very helpful message could be put on the blocked user's talk page where they are more likely to see it? Ronnotel (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I don't have this page on watch. I'll do that just now, good suggestion. — foxj 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Returning disruptive editor

Sarek, something popped up in my watchlist that caught my eye and that you may want to have a look at. I'm stuck using an iPad for the next few days, or I'd take care of it myself. See the deleted history here for the user you blocked a few months ago. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Definitely the same person, as far as I'm concerned, but I've filed an SPI for further opinions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, can you please let me know where you have filed the SPI on User talk:Skype565. I've blocked this user because he has gone rampant and is mass creating nonsense templates and implausible redirects. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, please seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Google6666. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks DoRD|. Odd, because he wasn't apparently blocked then. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification about unblock request

Hi Sarek, since you did the original block, I thought it would be prudent to let you know about WP:AN#Unblock request from Kmarinas86. Cheers, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


for protecting the VW Beetle A5, I don't know why everyone wants to move it around so badly.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


I rather liked it, but I shall do as you ask. Appreciate it if you throw a bit more muscle around though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:INVOLVED. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean admin muscle. I mean the muscle between your ears. The one that almost got everyone to compromise (except Thargor). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good faith, but mildly disruptive

Hi Sarek - I need your input re User:‎Vtr1781249 at List of Freemasons. His intentions are clearly to edit in good faith, but he keeps bumping up against either the consensus conventions on the page (such as requiring that the person have a bio article before we include him on the list), or various Policy/Guideline issues (MOS and things like that). I have had to either revert of seriously amend every edit he has made. I am going to back off from the page for a little while... because it looks really bad for me to be the only one to object to his edits (it could quickly become a "me vs. him" battle, and I don't want that). Perhaps you could step in as a less adversarial neutral party and give him some advice (and, as always, I would welcome advice as well). Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Good work dealing with Mamalujo!

I see that he has been edit warring in articles you have been watching. Mamalujo does the same with the Garrido and Red Shirt articles and I had reported him for this. The guy has a clear pro-Catholic bias and often reverts valuable edits that conflict with his biased views without even discussing them first. Many of the Catholic editors here do not let biases get in the way of truth and history, but Mamalujo does...especially in articles about anti-clericalism and Freemasonry. I just wanted to send a message to congratulate you for your moderation in regards to that member. The Mummy (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Your name is mentioned at ANI in the new section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_new_wrinkle_on_personal_attacks? that I just started. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Thanks to my wife's recent close, personal experiences with the material contained in this article, I'm sitting out Wikipedia disputes indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yikes! All my best to your wife (and you). As it happens, you were merely mentioned in the ANI item; it didn't actually involve you. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I did read it, I just don't plan on getting involved. She was only in the hospital for two days, and is recovering at home now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
My best wishes to your wife. I just hope you don't end up suffering from Bendii Syndrome, I'm sure it would eventually interfere with your ability to stay neutral and civil. Peace and long life, • Jesse V.(talk) 15:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, that might explain a couple of the ANI threads I've been involved in... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL. • Jesse V.(talk) 23:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Racist edit comment by Calton

Please look at the edit comment linked here:,_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=507868911

it reads: Not your call, Buckwheat. I'm restoring the comment. If you hae a problem, file a complaint. --Calton | Talk 18:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time user Calton has referred to another editor as "buckwheat" which is clearly racist in tone. Can something be done about this? (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I found another instance:

Revision as of 00:13, 29 May 2012 (edit) (undo) Calton (talk | contribs) (Status quo until you get consensus, buckwheat. And your confusion of "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" is hereby noted.) (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello SarekOfVulcan; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


You recently blocked Sabah due to edit warring. The two editors have continued, and even passed 3RR it seems. I suggest some sort of block would be useful for both, so others can sort out what on earth happened on that page. For disclosure, I have had run-ins with Omdo before, who continually adds what seems like primary source based synth to articles where it does not at all belong. I also have encountered the other editor before, although I can't remember what happened at that time (I've been offwiki for a week or so). Cheers, CMD (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Without noticing the above, Sarek, I also recognised the potential violations of the WP:3RR in the history of the Sabah article, and responded to your request at ANI for suggestions as to whether the dispute warrants intervention. Mephistophelian (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC).

Page Curation newsletter

Hey SarekOfVulcan. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC assessment request

Hi SarekOfVulcan, as an administrator can you please have a look at the following Request for Comment and provide an assessment of it and close it. Whilst I know that admins aren't required to do so in regards to an RfC, I think it is best to avoid any possible misunderstandings. Mabuska (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!
Ada Lovelace color.svg
Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields.
Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either.
00:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Martin, Jr. needs some attention in the interest of balance

His opponent is in the press heavily lately because of the bizarre World of Warcraft thing; but surely more can be added to an article about a person who is actually a sitting legislator? I want to be fair to the guy, whatever I may think of his politics. Can you help, Ambassador? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


I just found and used your Template:Newsbank after struggling to reduce a very long URL.[3] Thanks for figuring that out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Hey, when was the last time you looked at Wikipedia:ZENBURN? It looks like a good start but could use some tweaking.. but I don't know the first thing about CSS. Was hoping you have a more updated version somewhere :) --causa sui (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-criteria speedy-deletion request: Natural marriage

Would you be tempted to apply speedy-deletion to the article "Natural marriage"? The articles was created [4] [5] (the 16 April 2009‎) technically in violation of the creator's pledge (the 06 February 2009) [6] made in the course of his un-blocking request [7] – of " .... not to make controversial edits on Jewish issues" [8] [9] – with at least two references to Jews and Judaism, in two separate paragraphs, with one a disparaging one [10]. I thank you. -- KC9TV 02:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Starwood Festival

Dear Sarek, You protected this article about a year ago, so I expect you have an interest in it. An editor named Qworty has deleted all the references and much of the rest of the article, and within the last 24 hours has gutted about 15 other articles I work on, including the one about the organization that runs this event, Association for Consciousness Exploration. He/she claims I have no right to edit it at all, contrary to an arbcom and statements made by related administrators years ago saying I can as long as the edits themselves are proper. Bibliographies of authors with proper ISBN numbers are being deleted as "unsourced", whole sections of references and citations are being deleted, then the editor deletes large sections that depended on those citations, and in some cases nominates the article for deletion as "non-notable" once everything that supported notability is gone. I was hoping you might look into this, and perhaps advise me. I would be very grateful.Rosencomet (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation update

Hey all :). We've just deployed another set of features for Page Curation. They include flyouts from the icons in Special:NewPagesFeed, showing who reviewed an article and when, a listing of this in the "info" flyout, and a general re-jigging of the info flyout - we've also fixed the weird bug with page_titles_having_underscores_instead_of_spaces in messages sent to talkpages, and introduced CSD logging! As always, these features will need some work - but any feedback would be most welcome.

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi there. Good news: you're up next for a free JSTOR account, since you signed up Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me ( with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so ASAP or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. We're waiting to deliver access to everyone until we have the 100 recipients collected, so the sooner you reply the quicker everyone can start using JSTOR.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)

You are getting this alert because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Rescue_list_(2nd_nomination) is now up for deletion.

Per Wikipedia:Canvassing:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:
...On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics...The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. (emphasis my own).

Thank you. Spoildead (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of CRYSTAL?

Out of curiosity, what policy does CRYSTAL refer to in this this update to the Terrafugia article? Thanks. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to WP:CRYSTAL -- No Crystal Balling. That reference supported that it would appear at the car show, not that it already had, so I changed it to one confirming the appearance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The WP:CRYSTAL ref answered my question to a tee. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth Control


I made an edit the "birth control" page (subpage "religious views"). The person is citing textbooks and other books to represent a religious view, however, this is not in conformity with — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talkcontribs) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, edit warring is not allowed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on edit warring, I didn't even know what that was. I will make sure not to delete other people's stuff repeatedly in the future. Now I'm not saying I haven't made any mistakes due my own ignorance and failing to read all of the policies (I'm new here), but perhaps I could clarify something with you. What is to stop people from constantly deleting an unpopular view until it becomes an edit war, and then refusing to communicate. For example, now that the page is blocked, it is the same as when it started, none of my comments have been represented, although the citations that Jim1138 posted are there, even though I am the one who edited the page first and had my content repeatedly removed. Jim1138 has not responded to my last post to his talk page. I do not understand why his citations stand, but everything I contributed got deleted? Take a look at the history of the abstinence section (of this same page) and look at what I posted on Ben Ben's page. I do not mean for this to come across negatively, but it seems like people can just edit (and by this I mean delete) my posts and there is nothing I can do about it. I feel like I am missing something, or should people with unpopular opinions just not participate in Wikipedia even when they use excellent sources to back up their posts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talkcontribs) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You can make your case on the talk page, and if you're convincing enough, you'll gain consensus for your wording, and other people will support that wording. (Which is not an invitation to tag team -- you have to establish consensus clearly on the talk page before that will "work".) If other people are edit warring, you can report them at the edit warring noticeboard -- but you have to make sure the BOOMERANG doesn't come back and hit you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talkcontribs) 04:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


I just saw your name on AN/I. Coincidentally, I was just thinking a few days ago that I hadn't seen you around recently, and was wondering what had happened to you. I'm glad to see that you're back (that is, if you've been away). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've been here, I've just been determinedly staying out of things. I weakened, though.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I know how that goes. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment

There is a new note at WikiProject Freemasonry/Assessment.
kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 02:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your threats at AT

The entire edit war was over whether it should be removed; how can your revert possibly not be considered involved? Don't charge into an edit war with guns blazing and then act self-righteous on the talk page threatening anyone who disagrees with you with a block. Why didn't you just protect the page or something? Or just leave the warning without your edit? You were warned about this in your RFA closure, and I'm warning you here: don't block anyone over this matter. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, it was a "clear and unambiguous warning," as required by WP:Discretionary sanctions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It feels like a threat, since you appear to have taken a side. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the warning. I don't even care which version it's at. But you explicitly took a stand for one of the sides of the edit war before issuing the warning, and you shouldn't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
It was all part of the same action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here, per WP:FOC and not there. I do not see that the edit nor the warning were inappropriate. The inclusion is moot because the list is far too long anyway, and in a week or two the draft will be dropped in and it will go away. Please note what it says at the top of the talk page: "Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic." As I commented elsewhere, none of the examples used in a policy carry any mandate whatsoever, which is the false assumption that was used in adding comet Hale-Bopp, to try to pretend that it being in a policy could be used as an argument that it was spelled correctly with a hyphen or a dash. Apteva (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarek, you plainly took sides on a matter of content when you led with this rationale:

"Since this is about common names, rather than hyphen usage, I have replaced HB with Halley."

The threat with which you continued is a threat to abuse admin powers, issued in a way that favours one side in an editorial dispute over another side. I therefore request that you withdraw your edit and your threat, and then explain that withdrawal at the talkpage WT:TITLE. This is a serious matter. It is possible that the current round of disruption (perpetuated by a tiny but vocal minority) will end up at ArbCom, where everyone's involvement and actions will be subject to scrutiny.
Best wishes,
NoeticaTea? 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Noetica, but I don't see it the way you do, so I decline to withdraw it. In my opinion, that content edit was a necessary part of the discretionary sanctions I placed on the participants in that edit war.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) Spare us all Noetica. "This is a serious matter. It is possible that the current round of disruption (perpetuated by a tiny but vocal minority) will end up at ArbCom, where everyone's involvement and actions will be subject to scrutiny." in other words, it isn't a serious matter, and Arbcom will doubtless just chuck it out as usual. Noetica's substantial escalation of hyperbole is typical (new to me, but increasingly obvious that's it's tactic) and shockingly boring. My advice, whether you take it or otherwise, just ignore! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's just get on with trying to expand the encyclopedia and leave the prose police and grammar utopians to their own pseudo-existence. Funnily enough, they need to be treated as vandals, block (out), ignore and move on. We can make this project work without them, not a problem. Building content is the key, polishing the turd can be left to the anally retentive when necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
RM, I note your unargued assertions about hyperbole, and your gratuitously hyperbolic remarks about the concerns of a substantial sector in Wikipedia development: the MOS development work undertaken by "prose police and grammar utopians". Unfortunately, you have no idea what are talking about, and it ill becomes an admin (and a bureaucrat!) to hold forth on matters that he cares or knows so little about. MOS is not about "policing" anything, unlike (heaven help us all) your own activities. MOS offers consensually developed guidelines, and I for one hope to get the widest possible participation to accommodate all views in the community. As for this: "Funnily enough, they need to be treated as vandals, block (out), ignore and move on." Yeah, hilarious. Then we could examine the behaviour of censorious and bullying admins and bureaucrats, right? Teflon-coated though many of them are – unlike their hapless victims.
NoeticaTea? 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, Noetica, did you actually say anything there? I'm talking purely as an editor (not in any other capacity, just to clear that up for you, so you can stop beating that particularly dull drum), and there's a whole heap of us sick and tired of the MOS-police trying to ruin the project. Now then, time to head back to your own mini-project, while the rest of us build content. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention "lurk", "snipe", "pathetic", "contributors" (in scare quotes), and "piss". [11] Oooh! and "spank". —Neotarf (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The intention may be good here, but the effect is chilling. In view of the fact that section 8 of Standard discretionary sanctions specifically says that "Discretionary sanctions should be used with caution where the community is already dealing with the specific issue through dispute resolution processes" and that there is already an open RFC/U on User:Apteva with regard to disruptive editing of comets and dashes, it is really counter-intuitive to reinstate Apteva's disruptive edit and threaten the rest of the editors who are trying to deal with the disruption. Blanket threats to unnamed editors on an obscure talk page don't sound to me like "due warning" either, but come off as bullying. (See also my comments at WT:Blocking policy.) If there is any misconduct, it would be more appropriate to address the issue on the individual's talk page. Again, I think the intention behind this was good, but the end result has been to encourage the disruption and fan the flames. Neotarf (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is not an appropriate dispute resolution process. No one re-instated my edit, which was clearly not "disruptive" as it was simply reverting an undiscussed, and inappropriate, addition. My edit will, however be reinstated by whoever drops in the new list of examples. Apteva (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding references to "polishing the turd" a violation of our WP:CIVILITY policy, and a caricature of the way any professional publisher operates. Tony (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you placed any discretionary sanctions at WP:AT?

Hello Sarek. I noticed the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Halley. If you believe you have taken any actions under discretionary sanctions pursuant to the article-titles Arbcom case, it would be sensible to log your action at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Remedies. If you want to sanction an individual, the person should have been notified first using a notice something like {{uw-sanctions}}. If you have placed an 'article level sanction' you should say what it is. Examples of some article-level sanctions are at WP:ARBEE#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions and at WP:ARBMAC#Article Level Restrictions. If an admin takes action under any Remedies clause, their action can be appealed at WP:Arbitration enforcement. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, Sarek has taken a side in an edit war at WP:AT and was also named as a party to that arbcom case (probably without any good cause, but still), so perhaps it would be best if someone else took over from here; would you be willing to take a look? While at one point protection or warnings were probably in order, I think things have calmed down there enough to the point where this isn't necessary, but like Sarek I am arguably also involved, so I'm reluctant to take any action myself. Thanks Ed, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope Sarek will respond first and explain his thinking. It seems early in the game to be talking about discretionary sanctions. I can't even tell what the misbehavior is supposed to consist of. EdJohnston (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
There was some unseemly edit warring involving whether to include a particular example of something—trying to calm that down was a noble goal, at least. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sarek was not just named as a party to that Arbcom action, he was the filing party in that case; a personal motive is hinted at here. —Neotarf (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh you're right; that's why Sarek is on the list. I note Sarek's evidence there is generally against the editors that Sarek sided against in the edit war today; while this is fine in itself I'm sure it would be best if Sarek wasn't the one to mete out any blocks here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The issue was edit warring over the inclusion of a 21st example at WP:COMMONNAMES. I reverted the undiscussed inclusion, and then a passel of editors edit warred over whether it should be included, one suggested avoiding the controversy by using Halley's comet instead of one with a hyphen, and when the hyphenated one, spelled of course with a dash instead, was reinserted for the fourth time SarekOfVulcan said "Since this is about common names, rather than hyphen usage, I have replaced HB with Halley. The next person to change it gets an Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement block." In my opinion both actions, the warning and the replacement were warranted but were not at the level of requiring being logged. It is certainly within the sanctions to warn everyone of the discretionary sanctions, and if anyone was blocked, however briefly, it would certainly need to be logged. To think that someone could replace it a fifth time and not get blocked is ludicrous. Apteva (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you review something?

I need a reality check, because I am once again becoming concerned by User:JASpencer's editing on Masonic topics. Some of his recent comments boarder on accusing the members of the Freemasonry wikiproject of being a "cabal". And there has been a spurt of problematic (I would not quite call them "disruptive") edits on his part recently. I don't want to escalate tensions... just a review of his editing pattern and substance, and if warranted a mild warning (note... issue one to me as well, if you think it justified... I got a little too involved in some of the recent disputes, and I know I am not pure as snow here. I am always open to constructive criticism).

If you feel you are involved... would you pass this request on to a non-involved admin. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Blueboar, I have to agree with your comments above. I also believe you need a reality check. I suggest that Sarek review the comments I made months ago regarding the addition of the Religion template based on the existence of an article on Freemasonry in the most highly regarded reference book on religion of recent years, and how another independent editor agreed with my statement that the Freemasony WikiProject was not interested in independent reliable sources, or, basically, more or less intentionally disregarding WP:RS. I have left a comment on JASpencer's talk page that this subject matter is probably already long overdue for review by the Arbitration Committee, and believe that the possibly rather clear and obvious POV pushing of at least some of those individuals who are directly tied to Freemasonry is at least among the matters which are in most need of attention.
Sarek, I honestly do believe that the behavior related to this topic would greatly benefit from ArbCom review. It seems to be one which for various reasons seems to attract attention almost exclusively from those who have strong beliefs, pro and con, about it, similar to Scientology and some other topics. I also believe that the behavioral problems exhibited by multiple editors would almost certainly be addressed by ArbCom, and that we would be able to possibly have significant improvement to the editorial tone regarding this topic if steps similar to those taken regarding Scientology and other problematic topics are taken here. I would welcome your opinions regarding the possibility of that step as well. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That looks dreadfully dodgy, Blueboar, even if you may not have meant it in that way. JASpencer (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I very much would appreciate some comment from you regarding the possibility of ArbCom involvement, as you have a chance to review the situation. Like I said, I rather believe that getting them involved might be one of the few ways to get a lot of the recent problems, including the complaints of JASpencer and MSJapan about each stalking the other, which recently caused MSJapan to request some sort of ban of JASpencer at ANI. Honestly, at least in my opinion, this has gone on long enough. And, FWIW, I am trying to get together some lists of articles in reference sources regarding this topic. I tend to think that they might be useful in perhaps determining what content we should have, and what individual articles might say. With any luck, I might be closer to done in a month or two. If we might have some sort of intervention before then, that might help improve the related content rather substantially, maybe. I do however acknowledge that some might see me myself as being biased, although, in all honesty, in recent times, my own personal activities in general are just finding reference sources and what they say about things. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no comment -- I've been involved with Freemasonry and its articles for so long that I don't have any pretense of a neutral point of view. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, based on what I have seen of your involvement, you may be one of the few people who both knows something about it and even comes close to being neutral regarding the topic. And, yeah, I acknowledge, that includes me, at least in my own early involvement. That is something rare, and I salute you for your efforts and neutrality regarding the topic. John Carter (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
*bows with right hand over heart* Thank you, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom submission

I need to learn lots more; I know virtually nothing about the process. Just curious: did you tell me this because of my request for help, or for some other reason? If the latter, don't bother explaining what your reason is; if the former, please know that it wasn't an attempt to get out. I really really really don't want to be a party (I'd much prefer to sit on the sidelines, knowing nothing of what's happening until the decision is announced at WP:AN), but I suppose that we've gotten to the point that something needs to be done, and I shouldn't force others to do everything. Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was because of your help request. I added you in the first place because your baseline on Doncram disputes was about as long as mine, and you'd either have valuable input, or Doncram would provide evidence regarding your interactions with him and you'd wind up as a party anyway. At this point, though, I don't think I said anything regarding you, so if you want to bail, now would be a good time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Mind if I copy this entire exchange to a clerk's talk page with a request for advice? I don't know who the clerks are, except for Lord Rome, so I suppose I'll ask him. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine with me. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks for some other names. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Zareh Moskofian

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I made some recent changes and edits and removed much of the issues. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits at Arbcom

I just wanted to let you know that I think that your edits at the Arbcom case here are inappropriate. I think you are too involved in this case to start wiping out comments like that. I am not going to put it back because I do not feel like getting into an edit war over something so petty but I wanted to let you know that I disagreed. My point in the case still stands. Regardless of wether someone can read it the RFC was deleted and therefore should not be allowed. There are several commenters there in the case that are not admins and that needs to be identified. Kumioko (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

Featured article collaboration.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley

Hi ya! Happy New year! Would you please ban User Japanoid? Same old stuff. It's not SRQ but some homophobe that doesn't have a clue what he is doing. It would be nice if we could protect the article again, but once incident repeated may times won't do, will it? Good to be back and see your name. Hope all is well and good on ya! Namaste 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please block DocofSoc- cyberbuly and has a similar personality to the subject of the article (Karel), being uncivil, narcistic, hostile and claims any change is POV or vandalism.

With some of the intricate knowledge this person has of Karel, I strongly suspect this person is Karel, and should not be on this page, period... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japandroids (talkcontribs) 03:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Open

Hello Sarek, regarding you nomination above, when your are the nominator it is unnecessary to vote in the discussion. Your nomination itself is considered a delete vote unless you specifically state otherwise for example: (a procedural nomination which you complete on behalf of another user & you state you are neutral). Your delete vote could be considered misleading especially seeing as you said "per nom". Given your good standing & the fact you are administrator (clearly trusted by the community), I don't think your edit was purposely misleading but it maybe best to remove or strike. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I actually said "delete as nom". I did it for the formatting, since I had those other entries in there and I wanted a clear place for people to start opining. I'll probably comment it out later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, you said "as nom", apolgies, I don't know how I got that wrong. I still feel however it's unnecessary despite the bundled pages, but I understand why you did it as sometimes people try to hijack AfD's by bundled pages when they are not the nominator. I'll leave it with you, Good day. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @805  ·  18:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Follow up to your recent comment at AN3

Sarek, You commented here.  The later ruling didn't provide sanctions, and has suggested the benefit of a third opinion at Template:Arguments.  Sarek, will you provide such an opinion, or initiate a request at WP:3O?  I am aware that you have other issues on your plate right now.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Studia Humaniora Tartuensia

Hi, I understand that after 4 relistings you conclude that there is no consensus to delete. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to keep either. Would "no consensus" not be a better close? I'd appreciate if you could have a second look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, no consensus and keep are synonymous, so I'm not going to bother changing it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are they synonymous? Often, people object to a "notability" tag after a keep decision, as keep is interpreted as "notability established". Similarly, at a second AFD a previous keep is often a motivation for people to object to deletion (not everyone bothers to have a look at the previous AfD). There were 2 opinions: mine (delete, as proposer, with policy-based arguments), and one (even though not explicitly expressed) keep from the article creator. "No consensus" seems better to reflect this situation than keep. But if you want to leave it this way, so be it. I'll take it to AfD again in a few weeks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You may be right. I've updated my close to better reflect my intentions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Sorry to be a pain, I fear I may have some compulsive tendencies... :-) Although that may help when editing/cleaning up articles... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1107 words and 45 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 00:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Action according to your ArbCom sanction

Sarek, please review this diff. I believe it meets the criterion you set for an immediate block. Nothing remotely resembling consensus had been established for upsetting the arrangement that you put in place.

NoeticaTea? 10:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Karel Bouley Again

Ty Sarek for protecting above article for 1 week. It is comforting to know that some things don't change, much appreciated! However, when protection expired Japandroids jumped right in. If you check his history, he is only editing Karel's article. He appears to be a newbie but The other Doc and I suspect he may be a sockpuppet. Anything you can do is always appreciated and I trust your judgment as always! NamasteDocOfSocTalk 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


News to me. I'll file it for future use, but I'll probably forget anyway because everyone uses shorthand on WP. MSJapan (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy kept articles

Just wondering but is 2 votes really enough to speedy keep an article? Did you even look at them? They didn't have any inline citations and they were copypasted from the source. Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The sources were public domain and were properly credited in the first edit, so your claim of "unsourced" was disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok now how is AFD'ing 4 crap articles that were cut and pasted from a single reference and then given only a generic attribution template as "sourcing" dusruptive. If anyone was disruptive it was Fram who became immediately defensive at the AFD's. I even put our past behind and asked (I thought nicely) to fix them. Am I really that poorly looked upon these days? Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
They were sourced to the specific article, encyclopedia, author, editors, and years, so yes, "sourcing". I really have no idea how you're looked on these days, nor do I care; I just know that your rationale for deletion in these cases was prima facie invalid.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well for what its worth I still don't think we should be cut and pasting information from a source into an article even if the source is in the public domain. Its still bad writing and jeapordizes the credibility of the project. Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The place to have that discussion isn't on the AfD for specific articles. WP:VPP would be much better. I don't think you'd get much traction though, since there's so much public domain text that's already been incorporated...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and normally I might try that but these days opinions of me are so low that if I said water was wet someone woudl argue it wasn't just because I was the one that said it. Frankly I don't know why I even stick around, I need to just leave this place in the rearview and spend my time doing something else instead of spinning my wheels here. Kumioko (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Expanding wp:Involve

I am planning to expand notions of "involved" editors, so that admins will not be singled out for restriction by involvement, and rare involvement can be considered. I am thinking of essays, at first:

  • Regular editors would be classed as "co-volved" (wp:COVOLVED) in disputes or teaming with allies.
  • After perhaps a year, admins could be "un-volved" (formerly involved) as being now far removed from recent talks.
  • Plus other, similar extensions for partial involvement.

There is an unfair limit on admins, compared to court judges, where if a judge fines a person for "contempt of court" or directly orders officials to restrain an unruly, wild defendant, then the judge can continue to decide the case, even in "trial by judge" as well as "trial by jury". Otherwise, a defendant could pick fights with each judge to become "involved" to then demand another judge, another judge, etc. I think that a simple revert of an edit might be considered as "non-involved" in some cases, where obviously, an admin could revert (or neutralize wording) and block the editor, without being "involved" in the article's development. No wonder the whole topic has been confusing. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Joe Biden and gun control

This guy helped get the Assault Weapons Banned passed, he is the head of Obama's gun control panel, what does this guy have to do to be considered a gun control advocate? IronKnuckle (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, he has to do it because it's his own cause, not because his boss told him to meet with people and figure out what the best thing to do is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Well what about the 94 assault weapons ban too? About what about his boss? Obama has voted for handgun bans in IL, had on the whitehouse website that he wants to "make the assault weapons ban" permanent, stated in the 2nd debate he supports an assault weapons ban, and has made in a main push lately. Then I get told "Obama is not notable for gun control". My question is how is he not notable for gun control? Obama and Biden? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Obama is notable for being a politician. He may be notable for his anti-nuclear-proliferation efforts. Guns? Not so much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
He has discussed gun control alot more than anti nuclear proliferation and has stated he wants gun control to be a major issue in his 2nd term. I think he qualifies as a notable gun control advocate, and I am not the only one who thinks this. Also why did you get rid of the source about Ed Koch wanting to ban all guns? That is defiantly worth leaving in the article. IronKnuckle (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek Into Darkness

With regard to your closure of the ongoing discussion, I've reverted it as it was inappropriate. We are not suggesting added comments regarding the debate on the talk page about the title. What we are discussing is adding a comment about the confusion the unconventional title has caused, of which the wiki debate is a prime example, amongst others. douts (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I was reluctant to edit war, but commented supporting Sarek's close of discussion. Thousands of words of debate leading to, what, one or two sentences in the article about grammar? It doesn't seem fruitful and people need to come to their senses. Fletcher (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

He closed it prematurely citing a guideline that doesnt apply in this case which is why I reverted it. douts (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sarek - with all due respect, you are either misunderstanding what is being suggested, or you're not reading it. WP:SUBJECT does not apply as we are NOT discussing the wikipedia debate directly - that is merely being used a source to back up the FACT that the title caused widespread confusion and discussion - WELL BEFORE the debate started here. WP:SUBJECT also is not being violated since we are discussing the grammatical issues of the title of the film and as such is fully appropriate since there is in fact a title section in the article. douts (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


G'day SarekOfVulcan. TParis has you listed as an editor from whom he will accept a nudge that he might not be acting as an admin in the right way. I have been involved with him in a conflict for the past couple of weeks that he is prosecuting way too personally. The latest incident is particularly disappointing as it was essentially an attempt by him to restart the conflict after it had fallen into a lull (diff), and an attempt by two other editors on either side of the divide to approach a resolution (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#Discussion_redirect until TParis' attempt to close down the discussion, which was shortly followed by the diff above).

At the moment, I'd like to ask that you talk with TParis about the above diff, which was a clear attempt to restart the drama machine and probably WP:BAITING, and ask for him to back off. If he does not, then I'll leave it to your consideration as to whether this is now grounds for recall, but, personally, I have a high expectations of behaviour for admins, and, on top of everything else, WP:BAITING is a clear breach of that.

In terms of TParis' criteria:

  1. I have previously discussed the issue with him at his talkpage at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up and User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Your_actions.2Fcomments_at_RFC.2FU.
  2. The issues at hand have been extensively discussed at ANI, where TParis proposed a onesided interaction ban, which I view essentially as an attempt to silence me.
  3. There has been time to cool down since the issue started, but TParis can not let go.
  4. In terms of actions as an administrator, TParis closed my initial complaint against ANI with poor wording, that has been discussed at User_talk:TParis/Archive_9#Follow-up, where I repeatedly reject what I read as a suggestion that I follow Epeefleche around and fix his problems. I have since had to keep repeatedly saying that I'm not interesting in doing that at, for example, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche#TParis.27_concerns_regarding_.22wikistalking.22. The Wikipedia:ANI#Formal_interaction_ban_proposal made by TParis at ANI was also made from an administrative perspective.
  5. The key policy issue here is WP:CIVIL.

As I said, I'm leaving any decisions about whether TParis' behaviour is not what is expected of an admin in your hands. However, I would ask that you suggest that he consider stopping.

I am also posting this message to the other admins on TParis' recall list. Also, I am scaling back my involvement with wikipedia, so I might not see replies very quickly. If you have something you want me to respond to, I'd like to ask that you e-mail me at "". Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 14:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: You forgot to sign your post on my talk page silly!! Took me nearly two days before I thought to look at my edit history! lol. MisterShiney 00:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama and gun control

Hey, dude. Not sure why you are warning me. I'm nowhere near 1RR. Is it that or something else? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Did I miscount the indents? Sorry. I was responding to "not the first black president". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Haven't crossed paths with you very often in the last few months. Good to see you are still around :-) -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you're around,...

...this private information should probably be removed completely. If you don't mind? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

Christmas tree.svg Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Proof Obama is a gun control advocate

And if that isnt enough, just type Obama gun control into google news. I really think he should be added to that category of "American gun control advocate". IronKnuckle (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Discuss it on the article talk page, not here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

ARBATC fallout

Just FYI, see here. It almost seems with the current mood at AE that even this kind of thing might even lead to a warning, then to a block. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at 28bytes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TharkunColl block

TharkunColl is asking to be unblocked. I don't think he understands the gravity of the external link in question. Could you explain to him the problem with the link? I suspect he will probably agree not to use that EL again.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

TharkunColl has agreed not to use the EL and appears to be waiting on a response. Whatever you decide to do, could you at least give him a response? Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer to leave that discussion to others at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Sarek. Since you've decided (perfectly legitimately!) to take a step back from this situation, I've taken that as tacit approval for a considered unblock, and have thus implemented one. Cheers, Yunshui  11:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thoroughly-considered unblocks are always welcome on my indef blocks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. You have new messages at MisterShiney's talk page.
Message added 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MisterShiney 00:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Oh, I wasn't suggesting you had been too hasty (although I think we both know there are some admins for whom it's not too much of an exaggeration to say that they really do think every new account is a sock of someone), just trying to explain why I'm not taking his word for it that it was a bad block even though it can arguably be made to look like one.

For the record, after that last post of mine, I looked into things a bit more than I had and I, too, believe he's a sock of the Hackneyhound family. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. That clarifies things. I didn't have an opinion on who Martin was socking for, but it seemed clear to me that it was _someone_ who had been around the block a few times. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Notable works on Freemasonry

When I complete one of my current transcription projects at Wikisource, I was considering if I should add a suitable work on Freemasonry to English Wikisource.

As you are a member of a relevant Wikiproject, it would be appreciated if you could advise as to appropriate works for a general audience. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As an update to your response on my talk page -

which appears to be a 1921 revision of one of the works you mention. However I'm already finding some 'clipped' page scans, and so a review of the transcription attempt or reconstruction of the clipped portions by those more familiar with the material would be appreciated.

I am also all too willing to admit my failings in another area, as I could not be confident in transcribing specfic non-english words from the scans,and have so far omitted those, rendering the transcription incomplete. Perhaps you know of better qualified scholars and scribes that would be able to re-insert them?

I will try and transcribe as much as I can, but appropriate input from others would be greatly appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at it, but was a bit confused by the statuses. I'll read up later and see what I can do to help. Note that there are other transcriptions around on the web, which might help you with your cross-checking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I am sadly having to note some missing pages in the Volume 1 Scans, pages 445-456 appear to be missing from the scans, and as noted in the Index page, a number of pages towards the end of the work appear to contain clipped portions(marked as !bad! or !Bad!) , :( , I'll try and transcribe the 'good' pages, but unless someone can get new scans for the missing pages, I'm a bit stuck as the original source (Google Books) doesn't seem to list it for the UK.

At least I tried :(. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at AN3

Now that the ArbCom-case evidence phase is closing, can you please review User talk:SarekOfVulcan/Archive 19#Follow up to your recent comment at AN3?  I know from your involvement in the WP:V RfC that you are willing to take on tough problems.  Asserting that an outcome is "sweet" is an opinion without a foundation, so if you are still of that viewpoint, then I request that you lay the foundation.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Sarek, thank you for your support and counsel during my RfA. I appreciate your efforts to keep it on the straight and narrow, but I have no one to blame but myself for the ultimate outcome. I hope I did not disappoint you too badly as a candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hide Away (2011 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cite needed (GG approves, but it IS in jest)

citeGreenwald approves of the edit Bamage02 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I see, but I think it's much better left out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, SarekOfVulcan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Orlady (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


You don't get me on that one. If editors demonstrated juuuuust a little more WP:AGF and obeyed their own 'instructions', then we wouldn't need your quasi-impartiality; but obviously both me and your friends appreciate your input Face-wink.svg Cheers! Slán leat mó chara. Basket Feudalist 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) As someone who grew up watching the Brighton hotel bombing, the 1996 Docklands bombing and the Omagh bombing on the news, not to mention many more regular reports involving conflict in Northern Ireland, I would heed Sarek's warning very carefully, as you have just skirted WP:1RR with this and this. I would suggest you are in a hole and strongly advise you that you stop digging. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Good one. But, unfortunately, what you 'used to watch on the TV' is as about as relevant here as Airey Neaves legs. I am not likely to be bullied over ignorance. Mhaith thú! Basket Feudalist 11:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The point I was making is that conventions on naming and nationality in Northern Ireland is extremely sensitive to some people, and don't believe that Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley sitting down in the same room changes that. So to come along and make the change I diff'd above is inviting a revert, and a re-revert within 24 hours could have got you blocked for edit warring. I'm not bullying, just advising you not to do something that will get blocked. You do some good round here, but I just think you're a bit naive at times - sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi ... quick question. If I have an editor edit warring with me over a range of articles, most recently repeatedly deleting RS-sourced information, and I don't want to edit war, and discussion is unavailing -- if I don't want to escalate the matter to a board, what is the best way to address it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Reports history

You reverted some changes I made to the History section of the article on Crystal Reports. As I said in the comment to the change, I was there in 1991 - in fact, I was one of the 3 developers of Quik Reports for Windows. I've searched for an independent web page that corroborates what I wrote, but haven't been able to find one.

So how does wikipedia deal with a situation like this? The page has errors, I was there, I know what happened, but I can't supply references.

Rbc tn (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

When I reviewed the reference that had supported Mark Cunnigham's involvement, I saw that the original editor who added it had elided a bit too much, so I removed his name. Generally, removing references in favor of personal knowledge is a Bad Thing around here, so try to avoid it where possible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the indicee web site used to claim that Mark Cunningham was a co-creator of Crystal Reports; they removed that claim as a result of a request from SAP, which now owns CR. This shows that the indicee website is not a reliable source of info on the history of CR. Sadly, I cannot prove that I am a more reliable source. Rbc tn (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I would be tempted to remove it outright, as you're correct -- it's not a very WP:reliable source for our purposes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy Notification

I have made reference to your participation in the recent ANI you initiated against me in an inquiry to User:De728631. JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Randall Hath Spoken --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Contested PROD

Hi Sarek, do you know if any building photographed in HABS has inherent notability, such that AfD would be a waste of time? If not, I think I'll proceed there. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's that kind of presumption for HABS, as there is for NRHP. Feel free to file the AfD -- I probably won't !vote until I see if anyone can establish firm notability or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ernest Moniz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Durfee High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Your recent deletion of "speed of me" article

... So, please kindly let me know what I can do to make this article accepted again.

Thanks, Adila1360 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The commenters at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ have already let you know in detail what you need to do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have already read that comment. I don't think any other "speed test utility" related articles have been cited in any computer-science journals.

For example:

Adila1360 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's fine for you to add references to instead of working on the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ draft, if that's what you prefer to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is that why that one is accepted and this one is not. Adila1360 (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see! It looks like was created in 2008, when new articles didn't have to be submitted for review. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it or isn't it...

plagiarism? I'm not sure. I've discovered a "characters" article for a TV show where the text is lifted almost entirely from the show's Wikia site. The little that hasn't been taken from there was carried over from the show's main article. What I'm not sure about is whether text taken wholesale from a Wikia site is considered plagiarism, and if so, what the next step should be. My impression of the editor compiling the article is that he's young. Oddly, he's not inexperienced with 11K edits since early 2006 but still doesn't respond to posts on his talk page, or sign posts elsewhere. Thanks for letting me pick your brain. --Drmargi (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, assuming the content is CC-BY-SA, and you're sure it was copied from there, the simplest thing to do might be to add the site to the article references. If you think that's not likely to solve the problem, check with Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) and see what she thinks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips. I hate to create a stink until I know I'm on solid footing. It's definitely CC-BY-SA; our article on it lists Wikia as one of a number of exemplar sites and it says "Content is available under CC-BY-SA" at the bottom of each page. And it's definitely copied; I've watched that happen over several days to be sure. I'm not familiar enough with the rules to know whether adding the site to references is sufficient or not, but there are also quality control issues. The various articles have none of the oversight applied here, and are full of errors and speculation, so transferring content from a "let's have fun" fan wiki is problematic. I think I'll take your advice and have a chat with Moodriddengirl, just to be on the safe side. Thanks again! --Drmargi (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem with character/plot lists is that they're almost always cited to the episodes they come from, whether here or on Wikia, so it's not necessarily any worse there than here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
You may have a point. I've caught and fixed one glaring error that's widespread across similar sites. Of course, then there's the issue of how dismal the writing is; too much content is added as events transpire and reads like a list in rough paragraph format. --Drmargi (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi Sarek. Thanks for your input at the merge discussion. Just wanted to make sure I understood it (since the follow-on commenter had a different view). Are you supporting "Theater District," because the official name uses the "er" spelling? (Ignoring the fact that it also calls it a subdistrict, which RSs don't seem to follow). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- in other words, just because I'm opposing the moratorium doesn't mean that I disagree with the state the article would be locked in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


...They haven't figured out how to detect protection-conflicts? I mean, c'mon. (That is, sorry for making a mess of your neat protection of Cüneyt Çakır, but I think I've set it back to rights.) Writ Keeper 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, no worries. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeez... II

Sorry, but the heading applies here, too! Could I persuade you to peruse the rather rude editor's comment and give him a gentle reminder to AGF and be civil? His post is more than a little over the top. Thanks! --Drmargi (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping! --Drmargi (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

re: comment

If I simply add English text to it (while keeping the Japanese present), would that arguably be enough? (>.>;;) (i.e, to this: ハローリンク-Hello Link-) ハローリンク 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that should do nicely. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem :> ハローリンク-Hello Link- 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars

Regarding your notice of suspected edit war, I'm trying to get just one other person to discuss the matter on the talk page first before simply deleting text, which would be the better option before any mediation or dispute resolution. Only time will tell if consensus can be reached by the community. He has now taken the issue up in the talk page so we are discussing it there Wombat24 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when BLP issues are in play, deleting and then discussing is usually the better course of action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the category of "Put down the stick, and back away from the horse in rigor mortis" Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Threat_from_Administrator Fladrif (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

sound of music

Please explain why you removed the addition on the narrative theme? Jw2 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram closed

An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
  2. Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
  3. For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
  4. SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
  5. The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.

For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @277  ·  05:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this
In light of this, I've procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System — we can't have an AFD in which the nominator isn't allowed to comment. My opinions of what should be done with the article didn't play into this decision. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
As you perhaps noticed, you weren't the first person to object to my action. I've accordingly reopened it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System; I've copy/pasted everyone's comments except yours and Doncram's. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Resigning the bit

I haven't been much of a fan of you and your style, but you have earned my admiration through your resignation. It is a breath of fresh air from the 'job for life' and 'I'll resign over my dead body' mentality that is still regrettably quite prevalent amongst other admins. Hope you still enjoy a productive life without the mop, and all the best for the future. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

*bows respectfully* Thank you, sir. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Ohconfucius just pointed this out. May I second his sentiments. Now that weight is off your shoulders, you can enjoy the good things about being an editor! Please let me know if there are opportunities for collaboration. Tony (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This saddens me, Sarek. You were always one of the good guys -- helpful, accessible and firm but fair. --Drmargi (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Sarek, good job. I'm always pleased when I see things like this. However, can I recommed you choose to either do your reconfirmation RfA now or in May? Reconfirmation RfAs are quite indulgent and two in two months would be a poor idea. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    I had no intention of doing it now -- I was always going to wait until May, as that would be two years since the previous RFA. It was just my original plan to resign immediately before the new RFA, instead of taking a couple of months off.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    That makes sense. I hope you enjoy your break then! WormTT(talk) 10:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I support now. Why wait. I would certainly not oppose it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quite one thing for ArbComm to slap your wrist and say "bad boy"; it's quite another for any individual Arbs to call for the bit to be removed based on the Doncram situation. I wasn't 100% convinced of the "poison" that was ArbComm until now. Wow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Speechless... (almost)... I've already bookmarked this. You still are one of the good guys.  7  15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Very honourable action - I look forward to May. In the meantime, enjoy your break. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

just sayin

sorry to see this. You're a good guy. I appreciate what you've done, what you do, and what I hope you'll continue to do. — Ched :  ?  04:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Live long and prosper. — Ched :  ?  04:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you review something (again)

Hi Sarek,

Some time ago Blueboar left you a message:


I found that extremely troubling that he could suggest a custom made set of sanctions (including the two added measures of sanctioning Blueboar and going to another admin). I also found it troubling that you didn't rebuke Blueboar for clearly suggesting that you abuse process.

I grew more alarmed with the Doncram case. Firstly you originally got involved with Doncram after other Masonic editors grew frustrated not at his use of bots but the very idea that he name Masonic Lodges in obscure towns as their Masonic halls were on the NRHP, although I've not seen - or looked for - a suggestion from them that you get involved. I grew more worried when I found that you had implemented a dual sanction on Doncram and Blueboar which was suspiciously similar to the one that Blueboar had suggested with me.

You want to go in for another RfA in May, and there are a lot of people who say that you are a good admin. But I'm worried that you will not administrate without fear or favour, particularly favour.

Why do you think that Blueboar made his suggestion on your page and not on AN/I? Do you find the suggestion that Blueboar made at all troubling? If so why did you not rebuke him publicly?

JASpencer (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

JAS, If you want to know my motives for writing something to Sarek, and not involveing AN/I... you might have asked me directly... At that time, I was feeling very frustrated with your editing at multiple pages that fall under WikiProject:Freemasonry. You and I have butted heads on similar issues before, and I wanted a third party to review the situation. I asked Sarek to review the situation for several reasons: 1) because I respect his opinion 2) he knows the subject matter well enough to know whether the edits I was concerned about were problematic or not, 3) IF admin action was needed, he would know what was appropriate... and 4) as far as I was aware, Sarek was someone who had worked constructively with both of us before... on several occasions he has stepped in and made suggestions that calmed troubled waters between us... and I thought he might be able to do this again.
Was the tone of my comment to Sarek "accusatory" towards you... Yes. At the time I wrote my comment, I was extremely frustrated with your editing at that moment, and that accusatory tone was a direct result of my frustration... However, you will note that I start my comment off by requesting a "reality check"... In other words, I was asking Sarek to review my editing as well as yours.
Why did I not go to AN/I? Because the confrontation you and I were engaged in at that time had not risen to a level where it was appropraite to file an AN/I report. I was not seeking some sort of "sanction". In fact, I was deliberately attempting to avoid having our confrontation escalate to the point of bringing it to the attention of AN/I. I did not want any kind of "official sanction"... I wanted a quick review and (if warranted) a mild and friendly "warning" - something as simple as a polite message on your talk page.
Now... having explained my motivations, let's look at Sarek's response ... He took no action. One of the things a wise Admin learns is when not to take any action. Sarek knows me well enough to understand that, once I express my frustration about another editor, I quickly begin to calm down. So... by not taking any action, he actually did the right thing... he allowed me to vent my frustration... but did nothing about it ... I assume he was waiting to see what happened next... assessing whether there was any need for him to take action, or whether the tensions between us would calm down without any action on his part (which is what actually happened).
As far as I am concerned, that is the mark of a good Admin... not something to complain about. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Blueboar, I know why you suggested such a breach of rules and procedure - but it's Sarek's motivations I'm more interested in. You see my problem with Sarek is not that he is a bad admin but that he will use his admin tools in violation of WP:INVOLVE. Having followed the Doncram case I am reasonably sure that he was initially drawn into that case because it touched on Doncram's listing of NRHP listed buildings linked to Freemasonry (particularly their titles), that he did so on the suggestion of other Masonic editors such as yourself and I am highly suspicious of the mutual block that he did with yourself and Doncram - particularly as this is almost precisely what you suggest two years later. I've not voted in either of Sarek's two admin approvals because I didn't notice them, and I didn't notice them because I wasn't worried about him as at least in the Catholicism and Freemasonry area he had shown some neutrality and a lot of restraint. I was shocked to see that he did not seem to feel so constrained in other Masonic areas. I won't ignore another vote, even if it has no effect.
Frankly you should have been slapped down for even suggesting such a flagrant abuse of process. You're an experienced editor. Even if no sanctions were applied you should have been told clearly and publicly "no". Instead you were ignored. And the fact that a move that externally looks almost exactly the same as the dodgy move that you were proposing was done to yourself and Doncram two years ago makes me more nervous.
JASpencer (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me... what "flagrant abuse of process" occurred? All that occurred was that I asked an admin to review a fellow user's edits and issue a warning if he thought one was appropriate. That's not an abuse of process... that IS the process. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Blueboar (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Suggesting an abuse of admin powers is not out of proportion. A mutual block that was decided by you, and is very similar to the mutual block that Doncram and yourself had would be an abuse of process, particularly when the admin who enforced it and the user who proposed it were involved on one side of the argument. JASpencer (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Deja vu at WT:V, and current business

Here is the edit in which SV reverts your close, with the valid point that the close was seven days early, and with the escalatory points, "In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus."  By the next day, you had turned in your admin bit.  SV's tactics soon included renaming the RfC and spamming unrelated discussion groups, supported by Viriditas.  As I soon said, "Instead of participation and collaboration, SV's MO, for changes to the lede of WP:V, is to wait until consensus has been established before becoming centrally involved, and such involvement is never with the goal of building consensus.  The current episode is the third such episode in less than a year.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)".

I think your decision today to return your bit until at least May was correct.  I don't actually know why you think you need to do an RfA.

Sarek, I am still looking for your analysis as requested here.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably won't be happening. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
So what am I supposed to do about thisUnscintillating (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Not editwarring would be a good start. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • If you wanted me blocked, why are you unable or unwilling to articulate your position?  Why did you use the word "sweet"?  If your reasons were not well founded, you could withdraw them.  If your comment was well founded, then where is the constructive feedback?  The situation has not gone away.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry

This is going out to all active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Filipe Melo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I'll See You in My Dreams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jack Abramoff

Hi SarekOfVulcan. Could you please deal with this and this. You already did back in May last year, to no avail. I'm not going to waste my time with an abusive one issue "user" stuck on Jack, as she calls Abramoff. As far as I'm concerned, the english WP can call Abramoff a second Shakespear and a liberal Democrat, but I don't think it is a good idea to encourage promotion of any kind. Thanks, Ajnem (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI only

Hi. I have mentioned your name here. I have made the same notification to Jayron32 and Ched. Not my place to request action, but just in case this User does ask you then you know the context. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Interac (Japan)

I need some help with Interac (Japan), could you check it and the notes I have written on the Talk page? Thanks.Taurus669 (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Note to talk page stalkers

Hey, all. I'm not going to request adminship back this month, despite my previous plans. Right now, I don't need it, and if I wait until I do "need" it, I might be re-applying for the wrong reasons. However, if someone else wants to file RFA3, and make a convincing case why I should pick up the mop again, let me know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you decide to pick up the mop soon. You are much valued! Namaste! DocOfSocTalk 18:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
SOV, I'm not one of your talk-page stalkers, but someone did send me a link to this section. If you don't need adminship, why invite people to nominate you? And actually, needing it yourself is never a good reason ... it's whether the community needs you to have adminship that matters. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The community will always need a few more admins, and I can understand that Sarek might have used the rather loose language of his "needing adminship" as a short form of "me [Sarek] seeing that there is a great deal of some input from an administrator in a broad range of topics I deal with, and that I personally, in all humility, might be the best person available to perform it." Honestly, I think we would probably be better off with Sarek as an admin again, and I sincerely hope that he seeks it again. We have had I think at least a few admins who have been up for recertification more than once who have been re-approved, and I believe Sarek might well join them. Alternately, if we do, at some point, like has repeatedly been proposed, have "lesser admins" or admins with only a few of the pieces of the mop, I sincerely hope that Sarek requests them. There are too many articles and topics as is that don't get the attention they deserve, and having a well-qualified person like Sarek to deal with some of them would help a lot. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Hey, Orlady, does this turn on the flag at the top of your page? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does. --Orlady (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. I miss the orange bar, but I can see how this will be a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I, too, miss the orange bar, but I think this will be a good thing in the long run. My biggest gripe so far is that I see most notification items (but not your "mention") in my watchlist before I notice the little red number. Then, after I've read the item, I have to go to the notifications area and poke around until I get the red number to go away. --Orlady (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)