User talk:SarekOfVulcan

Thank you for your intervention with . I have felt obliged to comment further in as restrained and polite terms as I can, but delivering a somewhat robust message.

It may be that the article should survive (I am undecided), but certainly not with the mistaken content that exists. This is one of those areas where Wikipedia tends not to have good solutions: a content dispute on a subject without a large number of interested editors. I am mentioning it to you as the comment that you corrected is typical of the sort of stuff that happens with the problem editor on article content: perhaps "forgetting" something that most would expect you to remember, misrepresenting an issue, etc. It is a huge amount of work to prove that an editor acting in this way is actually misbehaving. You will note that others in the deletion discussion have questioned whether references are adequate. This is a common situation with past interactions. I have no idea whether the root cause is a genuine lack of ability or the intention to "prove" a point by fair means or foul.

Like others in this situation, I have backed off in the past. But it seems wrong for the Vezo people who build and sail these craft to have something central to their lives so badly explained. (Studying all the references has left me with a strange sense of identity with them.)

At this stage I am not looking to raise this matter anywhere else. If you had any advice, I would welcome it. If not, that's fine. Just posting this here is part of a solution for me. Ultimately, I have braced myself for a rough ride (like the edit summary on  – yes this is the same picture with the same misidentification of rigging components.) Thank you for your patience if you feel you have done your bit already. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 23:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi SarekOfVulcan! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 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!

---

No idea if I'm the only one who is misreading it this way, but this change makes it seem, to me, anyways, that the proposal is to ban the editor from editing templates. Looking at the opening and the first few commenter's !votes, however, reveals that it's a proposal for a full site ban. Anyways, I'm not sure how much it matters for this individual discussion, but I thought you'd like to know about the ambiguity. Maybe a different disambiguator, if you had a second choice, might be nice? Hope the rest of your Wednesday is going swimmingly! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it again. CBAN is clear enough, and "template editor" was an attempt not to put their name in a header. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AREYOUNOWORHAVEYOUEVERBEEN has been misunderstood, again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:AREYOUNOWORHAVEYOUEVERBEEN. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:SarekOfVulcan and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Happy First Edit Day! Hi SarekOfVulcan! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

---

I'm confused. I made several corrections to assertions made on the page that have no supporting source or reference. For example, the subject does not meet any professional standard to be considered an "epidemiologist." He never even enrolled in the appropriate type of school, much less earned a degree in the field. I replaced this material with strong sources and references including the subject himself as the source. I then explained these actions on three related Talk pages to be sure the explanation reached the relevant parties. Despite this, the same person keeps reverting the page to its unsourced content without explanation. Doing so, places the page in violation of the WP-NPOV as the unsourced claims are entirely one-sided--not to mention false. The result: The false, unsourced material is in place, and the strongly sourced accurate data has been labelled "persistent vandalism." Clearly, the person who seems to be protecting the false information on the page by deleting the accurate, well-sourced data is the one committing "vandalism." Please explain. ~2026-21832-15 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons applies just as much on talk pages as articles. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

---

Sarek, do you think it is appropriate and worthwhile to make a report of Whiplash's conduct (repeatedly trying to demand inclusion of GUNREL material, bad faith, just to start) as disruptive editing to some noticeboard? I am not very experienced with making reports (I don't recall ever making one) but I am becoming more and more convinced that is what they is doing. Slomo666 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer not to answer that at this time. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok? I was just asking for advice. I certainly don't want to get you in trouble or anything. Thanks for your reply. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)