User talk:SarekOfVulcan - Wikipedia

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

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 (swalling wikimedia.org) 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Thanks! The WP:CRYSTAL ref answered my question to a tee. sn‾uǝɹɹɐʍɯ (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbumDomini (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

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 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

I know how that goes. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

It was all part of the same action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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,

Noetica^Tea? 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

(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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

♥!

Noetica^Tea? 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Not to mention "lurk", "snipe", "pathetic", "contributors" (in scare quotes), and "piss". [1] Oooh! and "spank". —Neotarf (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply