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 than7 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10.

story ·music ·places

Thank you for Floc thanks! -My story today is about a composer and his ballerina wife, pictured as I saw them in 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoya DYK that pictures a person together with achievements in art. --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My 100th biography to the Main page in 2025 isSiegmund Nimsgern. --Gerda Arendt (talk)16:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to formally object to both the process and the outcome that resulted in this topic ban.

Procedural irregularity: The enforcement request was re-opened by an involved party (who is not an administrator) nearly a month after it had been auto-archived with no action. It is now explicitly acknowledged by an adminhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-SilverLocust-20250826030900-Result_concerning_Icecold that this should not have occurred and that only uninvolved admins should perform such reopenings. This irregularity calls into question the fairness of the ban and, I believe, should invalidate the re-opened proceeding and resulting sanctions.

Lack of clear consensus: The “consensus” for a full TBAN was, by the closing admin’s own count, divided: two for a TBAN, two neutral or for a pageblock, one opposed. This is not a traditional clear consensus, and I respectfully submit that the sanction is not supported by a strong enough majority among uninvolved administrators.

Multiplicative sanctions: I have already been partially banned and am now subject to a broader topic ban. I request clarification on why both have been imposed for this dispute.

Retrospective evidence: Edits made well after the original case closure have been interpreted against me in the reopened case. I am concerned that this "moving goalposts" standard is both unfair and discourages voluntary disengagement and good-faith editing.Icecold (talk)15:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If SilverLocust thought the unarchiving was problematic, they (or any other admin) could have rearchived it, and chose not to. The objection to retrospective evidence is irrelevant, as you are not supposed to edit disruptively at any time, not just when a complaint is active. Having additive sanctions is hardly unusual. And consensus != unanimity. 4 people thinking a topic ban would be helpful and 1 thinking a page ban is sufficient does not mean a lack of consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if procedure and rules are going to be ignored, what's the point in having rules. All this process has done is reward a user with a grievance against me who against the rules, reopened a closed arbitration, because in they wanted me to be banned and they didn't get the result they wanted. Why haven't they been sanctioned for this behaviour?

Me leaving a comment on a user's talk page warning them of their behaviour potentially leading them to get banned is hardly disruptive, and I don't understand why it's been seen this way. I stayed away from the topic apart from that one comment.

I don't think 2 for, 2 neutral and 1 against shows a consensus.

I just think this whole process hasn't been conducted fairly and in the rules.Icecold (talk)17:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and appeal it per the guidelines in the notice.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will consider doing so. I only came to your first because your comment said I could. Thanks for your timeIcecold (talk)17:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'm always willing to listen, I just disagree in this case.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you don't think I have a case, despite the arbitration being reopened by a involved editor against process?

Just to add to this, how can I go about requesting an interaction ban with GraziePrego as suggested here: [[1]] - I have felt like they have been constantly following me round wikipedia and they have used personal attacks against me (admittedly I have done the same against them), and think it would be better all round if we had a mutual interaction block, as suggestedIcecold (talk)16:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:NOTBURO, no, I don't think you have a case on those grounds. Worry about the interaction ban later - if you try to bring those both up at the same time, I predict that the community will decide that the simplest way to resolve the dispute will be to remove you from it on a more permanent basis. See alsoWP:NOTTHEM.SarekOfVulcan (talk)17:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SarekOfVulcan,

I was very surprised to find this AFD closed after being open for only 1 day as a "SNOW KEEP" when it only had the participation of 2 editors arguing to Keep the article. Typically for a SNOW close, we have 10+ editors all arguing for the same closure result and the status when you closed this AFD was just what we would expect from an AFD that had been open for one day. It was very far from a SNOW situation. I'm not going to ask you to revert the closure as I don't see that the nominator has come here filing a complaint but I will ask that if you start being active in AFDLand, that you raise your expectations of what you think is required for a SNOW closure, whether it is for Keep or Delete. Because with a low bar requirement of 2 editors arguing for one result, you could justify closing dozens of AFDs too early which would be a big mistake. Thank you.Liz^Read!Talk!01:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could have called it speedy keep, since it was playing at the Venice Film Festival within 24 hours and that invalidated pretty much the whole nomination, but I figured that SNOW fit better.SarekOfVulcan (talk)02:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –13:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've made a new comment atUTRS appeal #106432. I'm just letting you know because you have commented there; you may or may not wish to follow it up.JBW (talk)19:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. As for "uncomfortable with the idea that obfuscating something just enough that Google misses it is good enough", I agree 100%; I am indeed uncomfortable about this, and if I were 60% confident that was what it was, I would have just declined, without taking up your time or anyone else's. However there is a perfectly possible innocent alternative interpretation, and we have no grounds for assuming the worst. HerbertHoover is a different case, because the likelihood of somebody just happening to come up with a username like that, without intending a reference to the history, is virtually nil.JBW (talk)20:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Billinghurst
• Crisco 1492
• DarkFalls
• Spike Wilbury
• Valereee
• Ergo Sum

CheckUser changes

Vanamonde93

Arbitration

• Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.

Added a comment to the classical music talk page to discuss the edit that was reverted. Putting comment here in case you want to contribute to the discussion there.Onyxqk (talk)00:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:CityOfBrewerMaineSeal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Orono Maine seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Emily Neves § B-class/GA-class efforts.sjones23 (talk -contributions)03:32, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page