User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Avanu block

Note: if I've made a clearly bad block, such as something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but actually has a good explanation, please unblock without waiting for me to come back online. If it's something less clear, please at least get consensus on AN/I first. Thanks.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

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

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 14:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not receive your ping at AE. A ping does not work if you alter the format after you have completed the post – you have to do it in a new post. But I am, naturally, watching the page. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarek. I don't think you should be removing {{now commons}} tags from files where copyright status is unclear. Now we just have files sitting around with no maintenance tags that may or may not be copyright violations. I think the proper course is to nominate the file for deletions at commons and use {{nominated for deletion on Commons}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can make a fair use case here, where Commons isn't allowed to. Once I delink it from Commons, it gives us time here to make that argument, where I'd someone nominates it on Commons, the person who'd make the fair use argument might not notice until too late.

Agreed, it might be better to make the full evaluation on both sides at the same time, but doing it this way at least gives us time to evaluate it by our policies. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the tag should stay there so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. No harm keeping it in the category. I've nominated some of the ones you removed tags from for deletion on Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.

Technical news

• A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
• History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

I note you posted a topic ban notification for User:Flavor of the Month from 'American Politics post-1992' on their talkpage, timestamped 21:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC). I also note that Flavor of the Month's last two posts at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner occurred well after that time, at 22:09 and 22:22. While maybe a little leeway might be allowed for a contributor failing to see a notification, this has to require a stern warning, at minimum, I'd think? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the topic ban literally 60 seconds ago. I don't post "contrafactuals." I post facts as I understand them. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone would care to claim that I post "contrafactuals," this looks like a great place to discuss the facts that I post. I am candid and blunt, which often angers people when their sacred cows get slaughtered, but lying would be counterproductive. I stand ready to defend every post I've ever made on Wikipedia. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't a 'great place to discuss the facts that I post'. That would constitute a further violation of the topic ban. The only things you should discuss here are those lain down at WP:CTOPAPPEALS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. The notice about the topic ban instructs me to discuss it here. Thanks for revealing your vendetta, Andy. You're free to leave. Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal the ban here, with SarekOfVulcan. That doesn't however extend to suggesting that others (i.e. 'anyone') engage with you here in debate about the 'facts' that your topic ban excludes you from discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facts really aren't subject to debate, Andy. They're facts. But go ahead, if you choose. And if I can't discuss them, how am I going to defend them? Nothing I've ever posted on Wikipedia is "contrafactual." Flavor of the Month (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to debate your 'facts' here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I thought I made that clear: (A) you're free to leave, (B) facts are not subject to "debate." And judging from your list of blocks, I doubt that such a discussion would be productive. Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask what 'go ahead, if you choose' meant then, but whatever. And I'll leave if and when I consider it appropriate, unless SarekOfVulcan suggests otherwise. Meanwhile, I'll again advise you to confine your remarks here to matters directly relevant to a topic-ban appeal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with this one [1] since Sarek singled this one out as the reason for my topic ban. What part of it is "contrafactual"? Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about starting with your claims about J6, which you blame on the FBI? Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about not? This discussion is for appealing the topic ban, not violating it. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Sarek. What part of this [2] is "contrafactual"? BTW, thanks for recognizing on the Talk:Jared Lee Loughner page that I was being baited. The words "hectored" and "badgered" also come to mind. Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Sarek, I'm appealing the ban to you first. The gist of my argument is already laid out above. I post facts, as I understand them, not "contrafactuals," and I'm fully prepared to prove it, with reliable sources. Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you aren't allowed to discuss recent American politics on any page, I am not going to engage on the accuracy of those statements. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then please lift the topic ban for this page only, as well as the rest of the administrative appeal process. The ban can still apply to every other page on Wikipedia, for the duration of the administrative appeal. I am 100% confident that I can prove that everything I've said is not only true, but well sourced. Entertain the possibility that I might be right -- and you, as well as the three editors hectoring, badgering and baiting me on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner, just might be mistaken. Flavor of the Month (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're going to be able to present an appeal like this under the WP:Contentious topics regime. The goal will be not to prove that you're right, but to establish that you can edit undisruptively in a difficult topic area. If you intend to continue with the arguments that you've been making here, that you're 100% right and everyone else is various degrees of wrong, you should continue to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Bear in mind that you're not banned from anywhere else on Wikipedia - if you want to take the slow route and establish that you can edit collegially out of the contentious area, and then appeal, it might go better for you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Catch-22 to me. My defense is that the topic ban is wrong because what I'm posting is verifiable fact, but it's a defense I'm not allowed to present while the ban is in place. Also, take a look at my editing history, spanning more than four years. Absolutely zero blocks. Finally, I was being baited by a guy with an extensive history of blocks for being contentious. Please lift the ban. Flavor of the Month (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing. The topic ban covers an immensely broad area: not just politicians, but any article where political beliefs, or media coverage of politics, is mentioned. I count three editors on Talk: Jared Lee Loughner who could be following me around, construing the topic ban even more broadly. Looks like a minefield to me. Flavor of the Month (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it would be a good idea for you to learn how to edit on less-controversial pages, where you will not fall victim to the urge to right great wrongs.

Trying to keep finding ways to put conspiracy theory stuff into WP will continue to be frustrating, it's pretty good about resisting that. If you learn how to edit on a subject you don't feel emotionally involved with, you'll end up with a reputation and record of edits that support having the topic ban removed, especially if you make time to read up on the policies that people have been mentioning to you.

In any event, it is explicitly not a Catch-22, because you've been correctly advised how to appeal. You've *gotta* start reading all the links people are offering you. Note that they are also included on the notice on your Talk page.

Here's is the relevant appeal template. I understand templates aren't always clear to new users, if you have questions about filling it out (or how to use your sandbox to work on it first) feel free to ask on my Talk page (or here if Sarek is okay with continuing the discussion on their Talk page). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, AE is probably your best next step.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm appealing the topic ban. This is your official notice. Bear in mind that your Talk page is being patrolled by three editors who were involved in an edit dispute with me and, as you yourself observed, were deliberately baiting me. So don't believe a word they say that isn't backed up by my diffs. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SarekOfVulcan,

I edited the link because as it stands, when clicked in the Wikipedia app, it does not lead to the proper page. As it happens, I was going to revert the edit myself so that the recipient of the feedback email that I have sent could see the problem that I was talking about. The text of that email follows:

"I have noticed for some time now that links in the app to pages on Wikisource that have more than one word in their titles (and so more than one word in the relevant part of the links to them in Wikipedia) do not lead to an actual page. This appears to be because the links are, in the app, generally formatted so that the target appears like this

A Visit from St. Nicholas

and when clicked in the app such a link appears to pass to the browser an address like this:

en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/A

which of course leads to either a non-existent page for "A" or, as in this example, an irrelevant page for "A". However, if the link in the app is formatted like this

A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas

then one is taken to the expected page on Wikisource. Making the change that I have suggested does not appear to affect adversely links on the web version of Wikipedia to Wikisource."

Best regards, Animadversor Animadversor (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works correctly for me as it currently stands. If the app is displaying it incorrectly, the app needs to be fixed rather than breaking the article.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering why the page 2025 Mobile mayoral election needed something as extreme as full page protection? The page protection log just says "edit warring/content dispute", but, looking at the revision history, it doesn't seem to be edit warring so much as just one IP editor being persistently disruptive. SI09 (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).

Administrator changes

NuclearWarfare

Interface administrator changes

L235

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
• WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.

Miscellaneous

• The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
• Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!

---

Hello. Since I'm probably INVOLVED, I figured I'd bring this to your attention, since you blocked them recently for personal attacks. See this and this. Pretty unconstructive stuff, particularly right after a block. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If Daniel hasn't just given final warnings for those edits, I'd block for them. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, make sense. I was originally just going to warn them myself, until I saw they had essentially done it twice. But Daniel gave him a final warning after both, so you're right. At least its on your radar. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Sorry to be a bother, but FYI. And as if it wasn't obvious enough by some of his other edits, there's this too. Sergecross73 msg me 02:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]