User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Another block evasion by MakaveliReed

2601:240:101:5032:8426:D915:839A:FB32 (talk · contribs)

Block evasion by blocked editor by MakaveliReed. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

209.42.149.244

Please block user:209.42.149.244 ASAP. CLCStudent (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Belated thanks for your note on the McAdoo talk page - I am not here too much so just saw it. I only popped by to say that I looked at your user page and it made me chuckle, especially the pets. :-) :-) Also, seeing as you are in FL I thought I should say: do be careful and stay safe and healthy! Cheers --gobears87 (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Time to close CFD

Hi, the Category:Professional wrestling jobbers has now been up for deletion for seven days. And since only one editor has voted to delete it and everyone else wants to keep it, then this certainly is a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Good job! Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

IP

Hi.

Back in April you blocked the IP editor 173.23.118.69 for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Since then, the IP has continued to make the same kinds of edits -- adding unsourced material to articles, primarily trivial cast members to film articles. They've collected 5 warnings about this from various editors, all of which have gone unanswered, and none of which have changed their editing one bit.

The IP is clearly static (same kinds of edits since January 2020), so I believe a longer block is in order.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC). 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.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

 Handled -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
There were three but you only got two. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: The third one is not a severe BLP vio. It's just a bogus/unsourced claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Clarified via another email. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Your right. I was looking at the wrong diff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan

Hi AO. I've come across a huge Taylor Swift fan, who is obviously a sock of Billiekhalidfan, and has been confirmed on the user talk page. 2402:1980:8315:DF26:29A7:70F8:668F:5521 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

That probably needs to go to WP:SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Names and titles of God in the New Testament on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of ANI that mentions you in passing

Greetings, FYI I filed a request at WP:ANI titled "CIR-based community-imposed site ban re: RTG". In providing a basis for my request I mentioned you and your prior dealings with this editor. Your input at ANI is optional, i.e., invited but not specifically requested. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Miss World 2021 AFD

This is a no consensus to keep the page? Only one editor said keep. The rest, six editors plus the nominator (me) were delete or move back to 2020. Keeping the page at 2021 goes against a strong consensus to keep it at 2021. Do we have to go DRV?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Having a 2nd look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: Ok, I've taken another look and I agree that there does appear to be a consensus against keeping the page. Not sure what I was thinking but in any event I need a clarification here. The page that was nominated now appears to be a redirect but there have been a confusing number of page moves here. Is the redirect still the page that was the intended subject of the AfD? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
A redirect to Miss World is fine. I'd SALT the 2021 page for now as TOO SOON. (Note there are editors making changes like a postponement has happened, but nothing is referenced) I got these pages on my watch list. If the 2020 pageant is moved to 2021, I'll message you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: I can't salt a page that exists, even as a redirect. But as I understand it, the current status quo is acceptable to you. If you have any further issues drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Newest Brockhold sock

Ad Victoriam2077, SPI filed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge

So, yeah. I blocked that IP yesterday. They seem to travel between Kentucky and Indiana; this is the same person. Yesterday it was here. I left a note on User talk:General Ization, who had been reverting them. What we really should do is write up an LTA page--maybe it's there already--and combine knowledge and forces. EdJohnston pointed out they were editing from Panera, which is SOOOO sad and middle-class, and I remember last year they were editing from Louisville libraries. Come to think of it, that was more than a year ago, and last time I was in Louisville I went to the public library, just for the hell of it, but saw nothing suspicious, haha. It think it's some brutalist building with lots of wood and light inside. Anyway, yes, I approve of the indefinite semi-protection. Plz note also that the Louis whatever article became unprotected and BOOM they were on it. In other words, they're also compulsive and they keep records. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Hmm Cleveland in Ohio, coming through the crazy Y-O Y-O. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

the U.K. is a democratic republic

Better accept that. Windsor figureheads w/o power notwithstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.0.132 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So... what's the weather like in your plane of reality? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

This person baselessly and repeatedly accuses me of racism and misogyny ([1], [2], [3]), and you give me the warning? isento (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I also left a general warning on their talk page. But for the record...
Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. isento (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points? isento (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
... is not defensible and is certainly an abuse of NPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Ohhh. Okay. isento (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Hello im a dude

You have blocked this editor last month for disruptive editing. It appears the editor is back and still being disruptive. The editor in the past add unnecessary categories in the charts section for unexplained reasons, like this here. And it look like the editor is evasion their block by using multiple accounts, doing the same thing again as before [4] [5]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock account indeffed. IP blocked x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Religion in the European Union on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

user:203.100.7.98

Given we are looking at only a couple of vandalism sessions per year I don't see how a three year block of a university IP is justified.©Geni (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geni: I am basing it on a long history of vandalism despite four previous blocks, the last of which was for a full year and only recently expired. Under the circumstances, I do think it is justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Geni: P.S. Thank you for your note. I don't want you to think I am being dismissive. But vandalism from universities is a pervasive problem and long term blocks are not unusual. In this case the vandalism goes back quite a while, and as I noted there have been four previous blocks, the last of which expired four days ago. You can read their block log here. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Fair I hadn't noticed the previous blocks.©Geni (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Reporting Calvinopus

Calvinopus (talk · contribs)

This account is only made to add spam in articles and has been warned earlier this month for it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: Editor indeffed. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Impeachment trial of Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

User's continued incivility

Hi there! I'm really sorry that I feel the need to involve you in this again, but I don't see how this issue will rectify itself and I really don't want to let it escalate any further. The user Isento (if you remember from a couple weeks ago) continues to be incivil and is sending ridiculing and condescending message to editors, such as here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Isento is also starting edit wars instead of following BRD and resolving the dispute, such as here, here and here. He also put a generic template message on my talk page here in order to aggravate me. I wrote messages on his talk page twice and responded to his message on mine in order to engage with him, but he refused to engage in conversation and continued with the incivil replies in each. He is succeeding in his goal of trying to cause me distress and annoyance and in preventing me from enjoying editing on Wikipedia. I am at a loss for what to do. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

@Bgkc4444: I'm sorry, but the diffs you posted are not actionable, either individually or collectively. The article talk is in fact where discussion belongs when dealing with content disputes. This allows other interested parties to join the conversation. If you think they are edit warring, you can take it to WP:3RRN. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This requires us to work with other editors and handle disagreements w/o taking differences of opinion personally. Finally, please be restrained in posting on their talk page as I asked them to refrain from commenting on yours. (Templates are a generally recognized exception to such requests.) I strongly advise you to discuss disagreements on article talk pages and be sure to cite sources along with the appropriate policies and guidelines. Thank you for your continued contributions to the project... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Shinzo Abe

On 28 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Shinzo Abe, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 16:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dhimmitude on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tom Seaver

On 4 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tom Seaver, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. P-K3 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Dubious edits

Don't know how to send a message, Wikipedia is bizarrely and needlessly unintuitive in this regard so I apologize if this is the wrong area. Polling at the time DID reflect that the majority of African Americans want MORE policing, and this info IS very constructive to the Live PD cancellation section because it puts A&E's choice to cancel the show into perspective. The idea that you thought it wasn't constructive is a dubious partisan idea that has no place on Wikipedia which is supposed to be as objective as possible. The fact that an edit like that was undone is a serious thorn in the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LunaGOGO (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi LunaGOGO. I apologize but I'm not sure what I have done that you are taking issue with. Could you provide a link to the edit(s) so I can take a look. As far as I can tell, none of my recent edits appear to have involved any of yours. Am I missing something? -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe he's talking about this edit here, in which he added a bunch of unsourced POV. I removed it and notified him on his talk page, using a template, that I had reverted him. However, I have no idea why he came to your talk page about it. Andrew Englehart (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Involuntary commitment on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

DanielZu

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification from Samarkand State University

Hi Ad Orientem! My names Javohir. I am the administrator of Samarkand State University. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samarkand_State_University I rewrote this article. But it has returned to its previous state. Allow me to rewrite the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haqberdiyev Javohir Isrofil o'g'li (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Haqberdiyev Javohir Isrofil o'g'li, (talk page stalker) you have a confidence;ist of interest Please see WP:COI. Thank you for declaring it. There are ways of working when you have such a conflict. Many editors can give you the advice you need. I have not yet looked at the article and your edits to comment on that. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
These edits were reverted precisley because of conflict of interest. I will address this on your own talk page Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Haqberdiyev Javohir Isrofil o'g'li. Due to your conflict of interest with the subject of the article, please propose any changes on the article talk page per WP:COI. Thank you for your contributions to the project and welcome to Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Wildfire image protection

You had File:File:... ;) Stephen 02:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Face palm. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're still at keyboard, I could use some help

Several vandals at once. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Where? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Per my last two reports at AIV, and most recent reversions. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
180.150.59.50 (talk · contribs) is just off a three month block. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Blocked x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Help Desk

Sorry about that. I shouldn't eat whilst on Wikipedia! —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

LOL no worries. We've all suffered from the fat finger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi Ad Orientem. Just a quick question if you don't mind. Unless I'm mistaken, non autoconfirmed editors shouldn't be able to edit a semi-protected article, yet Ll86lll (new editor who is now blocked) managed to do just that to the article that you protected. Is this a software bug? M.Bitton (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It appears that the editor was auto-confirmed as they registered on August 30 and had more than the ten edits and four days tenure required. The bar for AC is a fairly low one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
My bad. Instead of checking the registration date, I looked at the date of their first edit. Many thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
NP. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Just as expected, the vandal is back using the same modus operandi (they registered a new account the day their previous account was blocked, made ten "edits" and jumped onto their favourite article). M.Bitton (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeffed. If this continues I may have to consider bumping the protection level for the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The semi protection will expire tomorrow, we'll see what's going to happen. Many thanks for dealing with the matter. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I have extended the page protection for three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 NASCAR Cup Series

Re: 2021 NASCAR Cup Series Schedule.

Could it be noted that the dates are also subject to change since the schedule has not been officially released? Thank you.

Hi Casino196. Welcome to Wikipedia. I protected this page as an uninvolved administrator. As such I am not going to edit the page directly. Requests for edits on pages that have been protected can be made on the talk page of the article. There is a tab near the top of the article page that will take you to that page where you can discuss with other editors how to improve the article. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

NYC area vandal

Can you extend the block of 69.117.12.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to two years as well? It's the same sockpuppet as 71.246.25.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). (Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Train Master/Archive). Cards84664 04:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

LB2001

After the warning you gave to LB2001 on their talk page back in January, I believe this response to User:Akhiljaxxn deserves your attention. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Time to close AFD

I think that it's time to close the Dasha Nekrasova AFD. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft:BrazyXay_(entertainer)

Hello,

You recently requested for the article I created to have speedy deletion. It has been updated and I've added the references to confirm that the statements were true and not "promotional". Please revisit the article.

Already handled by another admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Rev delete request

Could you please delete this revision? Someone (I presume a student) is posting something very inappropriate about another student here. The source doesn't say what the editor is claiming. The IP editor may need to be blocked too. [6] Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Some help

Hi Ad Orientem; we need a block of 75.174.132.126 (talk · contribs), revocation of talk page privilege, and rev/deletion of personal and racist attacks and edit summaries. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

In progress. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Much obliged. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Should I ask for history merge?

Hello, should I ask for the merging of User:The Riddle of Epicurus/Marcion hypothesis to Marcion hypothesis? Veverve (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Veverve Did you check with the author before copying their work into the mainspace? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I did, and I still have not got any response. It appears he or she has apparently left WP so I reused his or her work and credited them on the talk page. Veverve (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Veverve It would have been better if you had just moved their page into the mainspace and edited it directly. That said, I suggest the best way to fix this is to copy the current page somewhere safe, then delete the page. I will then move the original user page into the mainspace with its history intact. You can then paste your copy of the updated material into the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the draft here. I leave the admin actions to you. Veverve (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I now realize you asked me to save the article somewhere, not to move the draft. Sorry, could you undo my move please? Also, should it not be better to simply merge the history of the draft instead of doing all this? Veverve (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Veverve Apologies. I don't think I was clear. Please copy your page currently in the mainspace somewhere where you can retrieve all the edits you have made. I will then delete that page (yours in the mainspace) and I will move User:The Riddle of Epicurus/Marcion hypothesis into the mainspace. This will ensure that they get appropriate credit for their work. You can then paste your version into the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't know the first thing about history merges.[7] -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I was a bit distracted. The thing is, I am not the only one who has worked on the article in the mainspace, this is why I believe a history merge would credit properly both those who worked on the draft and those who worked on the mainspace after I copy-pasted parts of the draft. Veverve (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I suggest you post a request at WP:AN. Sorry I am not able to help here. And to be honest between the real world and various dumpster fires I am dealing with here, I am busier than a one legged man in an Olympic track meet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I will, thanks for your help. Could you simply undo my pagemove? Veverve (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Margot (activist)

I'm pinging you about this, as requested. You may also look at the several editing war participants, including a single-purpose account [8]. They are way over the top, and as much as I dislike blocking people, I think, in this case, your admin. hammer might be due, unfortunately. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that was ugly. One editor blocked, two others warned, and the article now extended confirmed protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Request from a nobody: Due to the rant about why you hate gay (Edit, okay I reread you hate all institultionalized) marriage you left on the village pump you should probably step away from admin duties in the LBGQT area less people think you're letting your bias effect it. Like how lenient you were on Subtropical man. Valeince (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valeince. You need to reread my "rant." It was directed at government involvement in marriage. I pretty clearly stated that people's private lives and their relationships are nobody elses' business. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
That's fair, and perhaps I misstepped here a little, though I did edit to state I see that you disagree with all institutionalized marriage. I was going to start a discussion about that worldview with you, but I don't think it matters right now and sorry for the implications above. To me the optics didn't look great but who am I to judge? Thanks for your time. Valeince (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Valeince: No worries. I saw your edit after I posted my reply. And we all have bad days. I am used to being an advocate for the rights of people to hold unpopular ideas and that has not always been to the advantage of my reputation. My social/political views are complicated, sometimes even contradictory, and do not fit neatly into any of the boxes people like to use. I am an Orthodox Christian, a monarchist and a social libertarian who believes people should be left alone as far as possible within the limits of an orderly society. To some degree I suspect that may be unconsciously reflected in how I approach adminship. I have a hammer, but you are not the first person to note that except in obvious NOTHERE situations, I wield it very reluctantly. On the subject of marriage, you might find this interesting. Feel free to drop by anytime. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Time to close AFD

I think it's time to close the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsolved deaths (before 1900) AFD as it has been listed for seven days. Nobody has voted to keep it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi David. Sorry, but I am WP:INVOLVED and thus cannot act as an admin. I would expect somebody will be along to close it in due order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


Retired?

Wha wha what happened? Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I have lost confidence in Wikipedia's neutrality.[9] A nakedly partisan MfD containing more violations of CIVIL and NPA then I can ever remember seeing, and all in one place. Only a handful of people stood up against it. No reasonable person can look at that and not conclude that Wikipedia has de-facto taken sides in the culture wars. It's been a great honor and privilege. And I am going to miss it. But I can't in conscience carry on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I can't disagree with how you feel. There absolutely are double standards afoot, and we are much more willing to tolerate some forms of political speech than others. I'm sorry to see you go, but I do hope we'll see you again. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
And once again userboxes become a divisive issue on Wikipedia. That MfD did go off the rails, what wasn't highlighted much was that this was the 4th nomination of this userbox (the 1st & 3rd ended with "No consensus" and I couldn't find the 2nd discussion) and the discussion has happened before with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes. The debate has clearly evolved over the years but has always been controversial. And I don't think one article, discussion or page can be said to reflect the "spirit" of Wikipedia since this in an enormous place with millions of articles, talk pages & discussions and tens of thousands of editors.
I'm sorry that the discussion on this subject has caused you to retire and I hope you will reconsider, maybe at a less divisive time. You're always welcome to come back! Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, well that sucks. I hope you will reconsider after a well-earned break. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Say it ain't so! Cabayi (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I truly hope that you will reconsider. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I'm sorry, but it's pretty unlikely. I've had to swallow hard and look the other way at a lot of POV stuff over the years, because I knew fighting or complaining about it would be pointless and in the end I told myself, repeatedly, that no project was perfect. I believed that bias exists everywhere and that for the most part it was kept under a tolerable level of control here. I can't say that anymore. This was such a brazen bad faith nomination and abuse of the community's processes that it takes ones breath away. That so many editors lined up to vilify their fellow Wikipedians, with only a handful of brave souls vainly shouting "what the hell is going on here?!" was deeply hurtful. How is it possible that anyone here can say Wikipedia does not take sides when we just told around 40% of the population of the United States and conservatively 2/3 of the world, that their moral values are akin to support for slavery? I am staunchly libertarian in my outlook on most social issues and firmly believe people's private lives are nobody elses business. I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all. So I have no ideological dog in this fight. But this just gave the lie to an awful lot of things Wikipedia claims to stand for. Things that I believed in, more or less. I am very grateful to you for your friendship and support over the years and wish you long life and happiness. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
In all honesty, I consider userboxes to be trivialities that I rarely think about and it is sad to see editors on both sides of the issue fight so hard over them. They are entirely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Accordingly, I have removed all the useboxes from my user page. You will be missed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW I removed mine as well a couple of days ago. And I will miss you and the project. I am going to have a large hole in my days to fill. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I won't be removing mine, they're already hidden away in a place only I know the link to anyway. Best regards to AO during this period of divisiveness and I hope they return soon. ~ With best regards; AC5230 talk 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about your retirement. Hope you'll reconsider, but regardless whether you come back or not thank you for all the improvements you have made to many articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I, too, was going to comment at the MfD, but decided I, too, might die on that hill. Instead, I went back to my little corner of Wikipedia. Don't know you, but that seems to be my loss. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, I don't believe we've interacted much, but I'm sorry to see you go and thank you for all you've done for the project. I wasn't aware of this MfD but have thought for some time that we should not have any political/personal position userboxes at all except those regarding Wikipedia, the WMF, and editing philosophies and those on the model "This editor is a ... or is interested in ...", and should also strongly discourage ad hoc political, social policy, and religious statements on user pages. As I understand it, Jimbo did away with userboxes as divisive, and the community reinstated them on the basis that they should avoid such divisiveness as much as possible. I think in this instance Jimbo was right. I don't think being able to spot extremists faster through their userboxes justifies the divisiveness; many userboxes are quite hurtful, although some users may not realize it. And I don't believe pinning one's colors to the masthead aids in achieving neutral editing. But consensus seems to have crept on the issue. So I respect your stand on principle, and am all the more regretful that editors have learned so much about each others' attitudes. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ad Orientem, I hope you will come back someday, and before your sysop runs out. I have found that on Wikipedia, issues of political/religious/gender/free-speech etc. views can be very painful and one just has to suck it up when the tide (consensus) or citations or whatever doesn't go one's way. This isn't the real world, and we don't have control over how the crowd will decide. Consensus is imperfect that way. In real life, or social media, or outside of Wikipedia, we have more control over what we tolerate/present/control and can say. That isn't the case on Wikipedia, and due to the way WP is set up, the whim of the crowd in a week's span can hold sway. Anyway, I hope that you will someday decide that being a Wikipedia contributor and admin mean more to you than the things you disagree with or are disheartened about on this imperfect but clearly important and aspirational site. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I really hope you will return soon. Voices of reason like yours are severely missed these days. I only watched that unfortunate MfD (not enough courage to edit any politics-related articles/pages) and was impressed by your noble effort to maintain neutrality of this project. As someone who lived in a de facto one party state, I´m always worried when people try to suppress opposite voices under guise of fight on the side of absolute Good against absolute Evil. Although our views in these society-related disputes would be probably quite opposite, any honest person like you has my full respect. Pavlor (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ad Orientem Please reconsider your decision; there are numerous reasons as to why but I don't want to go into it now ... just please come back. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to echo the thoughts above. I briefly saw the MfD but stayed away, and was prepared to give input in your Village Pump conversation, and now i seriously regret not having done so yesterday. I have appreciated seeing your name/signature all over the place and felt that behind it was a Wikipedian i could trust. Please consider making your retirement temporary (however long it takes), and return one day. Unhappy days, LindsayHello 07:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment @Ad Orientem: You will be greatly missed. I only interacted few times with you, but it was always a pleasure since you are a great admin. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry to see you go Ad, You will be missed a lot, Thank you for everything you've done, I hope you do come back but in the meantime I wish you all the very best, Take care Ad, –Davey2010Talk 12:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your kind remarks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been forbidden from leaving and losing confidence in Wikipedia's neutrality for a period of indefinite for being needed here and for being a great administrator. Once the prohibition has expired, which is never, you are welcome to leave. If you think there are good reasons for leaving, please read the guide to leave, then add the following text below the notice on your talk page: {{permission to leave|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GizzyCatBella🍁 06:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not keen on this decision at all. Just take a break. Come back fighting for what you believe. All the very, very best. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ach, I'm sorry to see this. My opinion on userboxes is pretty much exactly the same as Yngvadottir's. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see you go. The double standard around politics on Wikipedia is glaringly obvious, and it's not going to change. It's sad that it's driving away valuable contributors. Natureium (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I hope you will take your time and then return.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I am very saddened to see you go. Please consider coming back after a break. Please dont leave permanently. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh no! I so hope you end up reconsidering. Your level-headedness has been such a fixture, its absence will definitely be felt. Best wishes, El_C 21:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for everything that you have done here, and very best wishes for your future. Stephen 22:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This hurts...and not just a little. Atsme Talk 📧 23:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Best of luck with your future endeavours. Sad to see you go. EH86055 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This is nothing short of a shock. I am sincerely sorry to see this. You were an excellent admin and I hope you will reconsider. This is not a hill worth dying on. Reviewing the discussion as an uninvolved observer, it looks like the community just weighed some content against a rule prohibiting "inflammatory or divisive" content, and uncontentiously came to the conclusion that it was prohibited per that rule. I think it was pretty straightforward case, whether or not you share the beliefs in question. It's not hard to comprehend how declaring your opposition to equal rights for homosexuals is "divisive" or "inflammatory", regardless of what your personal beliefs are. This was never going to be anything other than a lost cause, because the subject matter is inherently "divisive" at best, by definition. If you're worried about a left-leaning bias overtaking Wikipedia, don't quit. Stick around to fight another day, when there is an actual injustice that needs someone to take a stand. If not, however, I still respect your decision to draw a line and take a stand against something you perceive as a wrong. If this is really it for you, then I wish you all the best IRL. Regards, ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I was literally just going to report to you a copyright violation. Please don't go. You said that your reason for leaving is that Wikipedia is beginning to take sides in the culture war. If you leave any project because it is heading in a direction you don't like, you will make that transition happen much sooner. Your skills are needed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we have interacted before, but I am sorry to see you go because of the MfD. Like you, I am deeply concerned by the outcome of this MfD and the message it sends to the community. I have floated the idea of a DRV, but concluded it wouldnt be in the interest of the community to reignite the flames, and now I see this. As one of the few vocal users who fervently defended the userboxes, I haven't given up hope, and I don't see why you should. I echo the calls for you to reconsider your retirement --Dps04 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dps04. Thank you for your note. But to clarify, I was not defending the user boxes. In fact I agree that they violate our community guidelines. My objections were that the nomination was patently partisan, applying our guidelines selectively to boxes advocating one side of a highly divisive social political issue. The discussion included shocking abuse directed at Wikipedians who had the boxes on their user pages while asserting that there was nothing improper with editors displaying their support for the right side of this issue. That line of thinking continued on the discussion I opened at WP:VPI. I don't give a fig about user boxes. The issue is whether or not we are going to permit political advocacy. The answer I got was yes, provided it was of the right sort. That coupled with the outrageous vitriol directed at people for their honestly held beliefs, which was challenged by only a very few editors, is unacceptable to me. Political advocacy of any kind is inherently disruptive and should have no place on Wikipedia. I would be where I am if the editors being vilified had been progressive supporters of same sex marriage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't read through the discussion(s), but was the issue also, or rather, maintaining a welcoming environment on Wikipedia for all people, particularly those in minority populations? Because that is a rationale I can agree with concerning the non-use of userboxes that indirectly vilify minority users or their rights and privileges. (PS: I'm not trying to re-ignite or re-litigate the discussions, but I have thought about it a bit more [even though I didn't read through or participate in the discussion at either venue].) I think being a welcoming environment has been the paramount imperative behind a lot of these issues in the past few years, even though (oddly) there has been a considerable amount of roadkill in the process. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. And again, I agreed that the boxes violated our guidelines and needed to go. My objection was the partisan nature of the discussion and the vitriol directed at editors who do not share the sentiment prevalent in modern western society. If you are going to say no to political advocacy, which we should, then we need to do so evenly. The MfD was political, wholly one sided in its appeal to community guidelines, and contained some of the most egregious abuses of CIVIL and NPA that I have ever seen in a single place on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, the bottom line is that you can't leave over this. See how many souls are concerned with your decision; reflect on this also. The community needs you. Please do us all a favour and discard the retired sign from your talk page. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Softlavender, I still fail to appreciate how banning all userboxes opposed to same-sex marriage would be welcoming to users who honestly held such a belief (which comprises at least half of the world population), especially if, at the same time, the other half of the world is free to advocate same-sex marriage on their userpages. Anyway, you're right as this is not the time, nor the venue to re-litigate the discussions. As I said, while I am deeply concerned by the precedent set in this MfD, I accept this is the community consensus and any attempts to overturn or re-litigate the issue in the near future would not be in the overall interests of the encyclopedia -- Dps04 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Dps04 & all; I am touched by the various expressions of sentiment from my fellow editors. And as some have, understandably, asked for an explanation, I felt obliged to provide one. But I really don't want my talk page to become a forum to rehash this issue. It has been settled and I have acted according to the dictates of my conscience. I request that this be respected. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Ad Orientem, you're right, further debates on the issue here (on indeed anywhere else) generates nothing other than further unneeded divisiveness. Although I would have wished for your return, I respect your stand on principles, and I'll stop from this point onwards. Thanks for what you have done for the encyclopedia over the years. -- Dps04 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Please know that you are not alone on your views about that MfD. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia over the years. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I will definitely be sad to see you retire, but hope you are able to take some time to pursue something else you enjoy. In my personal opinion, I don't know why this project entertains userboxes that are nothing to do with an editor's work on this project. It should be treated the same as a U5 speedy. Agent00x (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Non carborundum, Bro. Take care. Qwirkle (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You'll be missed, Ad Orientem. Your insight at WP:ITNC will be hard to replace. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I echo what has been said above. I wish you the best with everything & any future endeavours. You will be missed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Although the only related box that I have created/displayed was about my interracial relationship, I sometimes considered removing some humorous ones, for the only reason that some people really believe I may be a nefarious agent, something I can only sarcastically mock. On the other hand, I agree that WP's main purpose is the encyclopedia rather than personal expression. Humans being humans, it's probably unevitable in some form... Such an AfD was not the ideal process to advocate for a general ban on such templates, but the fact that it was mentioned may still be an indication of good faith and promising future community discussions. I also hope that this kind of event isn't enough to permanently discourage from editing, and that I'll still see you around the project. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 21:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Your choice was a courageous one, and I wish you well. I wanted you to know I mentioned you here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to see this, and I hope you'll eventually find your way back. I think we should just ban all non-project-related userboxes; they're just stupid and in these types of cases they just tend to divide us. —valereee (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    Valereee, that's a big ol' second from me. Maybe I should make a userbox for "this user is opposed to userboxes"... GeneralNotability (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm one of the many people that has learned things and become a better editor due to reading your contributions. I hope you return soon. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  03:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the entire history of this, Ad Orientem. While it is sad to lose yet another experienced prolific admin I fully understand and respect your decision to put this circus behind you. While WP is a truly amazing project, with its petty in-fighting and wikilawyering, often from newbies to members of Arbcom, its back room is increasingly becoming more sordid and hypocritical than ever. I supported your RfA with more than one comment, and I'm reminded of this comment by Ritchie333: I'd rather have an admin who was straight talking than one who pussy foots around to be "nice" - you've joined the club. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ad Orientem, there have been several times where I have "quit" the project and at the time never thought about contributing again. I eventually came back because many people asked me to, and the encyclopedia had errors that needed fixing or articles that needed improving. You had a baptism by fire RfA that proved you can cope under pressure, and you stepped to co-nominate a now-prolific admin who probably wouldn't have passed without your encouragement. So rather than quitting permanently, have a sabbattical for a month or so and see how you feel then. If you want to talk off-wiki, you've got my email; otherwise take care. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sad to see you go. Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia over the years. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you go. You will always be welcome back should you feel inclined. Crossroads -talk- 21:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I am shocked and very sorry to see you go - you're a great admin and I always appreciated your work at ITN. I share Swarm's surprise that this one MfD discussion was a hill to die on, I don't myself think it will have the impact on the rest of Wikipedia in regards to neutrality that you do. I do hope you will consider returning at some point. P-K3 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of prolonging a discussion that AO might already be well through with, this was not a question of future impact; it was a realization that the impact was upon us already. Qwirkle (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know you, but it's clear from all the comments here that we're losing a level-headed and valuable contributor to the project. Personally I find userboxes of a political or personal moral nature rather alarming in an encyclopedia where editors are directed to leave their biases behind when they edit. 'This user is a Marxist', 'This user is a Conservative', hinting or just downright exposing an editor's activist bent when it comes to political articles. What possible relevance should these personal preference markers have if we're to believe that we're editing an impartial and objective encyclopedia? Worse, now, some userboxes are more equal than others by way of what amounts to mob rule and sanctimonious virtue signaling. RandomGnome (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
In answer to your above (admittedly possibly purely rhetorical) question, RandomGnome, I think such boxes are potentially very useful at reducing conflict, and thus aiding such objectives as editor retention. If such a box tells me what kind of editor I am dealing with, this makes it much easier for me to avoid such things as unintentionally getting into a fight with that editor thru lack of such useful information. The removal of these boxes will thus probably in practice cause more unnecessary distress for both supporters (of whom I am one) and opponents of same-sex marriage, and will thus make the environment more hostile in practice for both groups (over and above any immediate distress resulting from this deletion). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. Hopping on over to an editor's user page can often reveal much that may allay fears, though in some cases, quickly exacerbate them. My point is that I don't believe any personal political or social beliefs or biases should have any relevancy when the directive here is to impartially edit according to what the community currently sees as reliable sources. You said that you liked to know what kind of editor you're dealing with. I would hope that we strive to encourage one that leaves their personal beliefs behind and looks to the reliable sources when they edit. Revealing personal biases works against that directive by tacitly confirming that it's quite alright to engage in some activist editing according to your beliefs, (although in this case, those beliefs MUST be in line with the majority of outspoken and active editors, or face community censure). I'll save the worst for last. Political userboxes have a disturbing tendency to create tribalism on the project. Us and them. Believers and non-believers. 'Bigots' and Liberals. On and on, regardless if these labels are highly inappropriate. It was exactly this kind of tribal mentality that created the situation in which a long-standing and well respected admin had just had enough. I see that as a bitter loss over something that should not even have the slightest bit of relevancy to our core goal. RandomGnome (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but I also respectfully disagree. You seem to be confusing 'ought' with 'is'. People shouldn't let their biases influence their edits, but in practice they often do. However at least in my experience that is usually a much smaller problem than such problems as getting into arguments on talk pages, etc. Plus it's also a matter of courtesy and consideration to other editors to let them know roughly what kind of editor I am (I haven't used user boxes to do this, but they are often a convenient way for other users to do it). Of course they'll probably find out eventually, but the process will be more painful for both sides if they have to learn by trial and error. User boxes don't cause divisions, as the divisions are already there anyway, and they will emerge anyway. Furthermore advertising your tribe is not entirely negative, as it can, for instance, help a bullied newbie find like-minded editors to advise and protect them, etc. Some Yugoslavs observed that 40 years of trying to hide their divisions was precisely what led those divisions to explode into civil war, because hiding them ensured that nothing could be done to try to mitigate them. Incidentally there are usually a lot of powerful people who think they benefit from preserving or aggravating such divisions - the Romans called it Divida et Impere - Divide and Rule, and Karl Marx called it fomenting sectarian divisions to distract from class divisions. (I've never been a Marxist, but even Marx can't always be wrong about everything). Anyway I find it rather strange that when an editor leaves because of the deletion of some user boxes, you argue that he left because not enough boxes were deleted. That said, this debate could go on for ever, so I'm now quitting, and thus leaving you to have the last word if you wish to do so (provided any last word you care to write is not so provocative as to leave me itching to reply, and possibly even if it is). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
...leaving you to have the last word if you wish to do so (provided any last word you care to write is not so provocative as to leave me itching to reply... This was great and made me chuckle, as I have often found myself to be in this most agonizing position. Thank you for the civilized discourse. Always a pleasure to find someone with whom I can cordially agree to disagree. RandomGnome (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Only just seen this, when I got my monthly admin newsletter and was shocked to see your name on the list of desysops. Absolutely agree with your stance, and had I seen that MFD I would have !voted exactly the same way as yourself. For us to take sides in hot-potato political debates by banning certain userboxes and permitting others is just ridiculous. But I guess I resigned myself long ago to the reality that Wikipedia has always been like that to a certain extent - there are many things I dislike about the project (and many more things that I like, of course). Ultimately all we can do is to beaver away improving content etc. in our little corners, attempting to make a better experience for our readers. And like others, I really hope you'll be able to come back and rejoin us in doing that at some point in the future. All the best!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't remember if we ever interacted (my memory is bad), but I doubt we did as I generally keep my head down and stick to gnome work. I completely agree with everything you've stated and we definitely share very similar beliefs. I typically stay out of any political discussions because I've been flabbergasted by the visceral reactions to opposing viewpoints to any left-leaning opinions. This is not only by everyday editors, but by fellow admins, who are nowhere near neutral in their beliefs. I've also considered retirement a few times for the very same reasons that you have and this just makes me consider it even more. I don't know. Sorry to see you go, but I certainly don't blame you. In fact, I envy you. Best of luck. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It will be huge loss if we lose an editor like you. Please consider taking a wikibreak instead of permanent retirement. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • John, agree with you but sad to see you go and wishing you the best. SpencerT•C 15:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ad Orientem, as a Brit with a very limited interest in current US politics, and zero interest in social media, the Culture Wars thing has rather passed me by and I struggle to understand both what it is, and why it divides people so bitterly. Having said that, from the messages present on your pre-blanking user page, there are quite a few political and social issues that I suspect you and I would disagree on. I must emphasise that I have only ever got that impression from the declarations on your user page - I would never have picked it up from any of your editing, talk page comments or admin actions - to me, you have always been the soul of fairness, non-partisanship, and basic good judgment. In an ideal world, it would not matter what editors' political persuasions were, because everyone would put them to one side and edit entirely impartially and strictly according to policy (as I believe you have always done). Since this is not an ideal world, I for one value a diversity of opinion amongst our editors, and am sorry to see you leave. Please therefore allow me to say that, as a British-style lefty-liberal, I hugely respect and value the contributions you have made to this project over many years, and I hope that you find a way to square it with your conscience for you to return to what you have always done excellently. We may sit on different sides of a fence (or spectrum, or whatever we want to call it), but I salute you nonetheless. GirthSummit (blether) 18:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
    Girth Summit, the culture wars is really just a collective term for wedge issues IMO - and it's very US-centric. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America is an excellent primer. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ad Orientem. I was one of the editors that opposed you at your RFA and I had noticed over the years that you have occasionally brought that experience up as a stressful time in your editing life here. Since then whenever I have come across you in an administrative capacity I have found your administration of this site to be top notch. I wanted to say this to you a while ago, but never got around to it. Now it might be too late. You are a valuable part of this project and we are poorer without you. All the best in whatever future paths you take. AIRcorn (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • (Much of this originally appeared on my Talk page, but it's probably more useful here). I'm sorry to see you go, and I hope you'll reconsider, because I think Wikipedia needs more people like you, in spite of, or rather because of, the fact that, mainly because of our fundamentally different outlook on matters related to religion, we have been, and are liable to continue to be, on opposite sides on a number of issues (and indeed there are still 2 or 3 issues I might like to have taken up with you, except that presumably we both probably have better things to do with our time). But this has caused so little grief between us that you probably have no idea which 2 or 3 issues I'm talking about, and this seems to me clear evidence that you are precisely the kind of editor and admin that we badly need to keep.
It might be useful if you added on your user page a link to this section with a title such as 'Reasons for my retirement and discussions thereof'. I might eventually add it myself, but I don't feel comfortable editing somebody else's user page.
If it's not too much like hard work, you might also usefully consider creating a carefully thought out lengthier essay indicating why you disagree with the decision that triggered your retirement, and replying to the various arguments made there.
Please consider that by walking away you are seemingly giving another small but unnecessary, undeserved, and undesirable victory to those who see dissent as thoughtcrime that needs to be silenced, usually accompanied by seemingly bigoted, hateful and divisive denunciations of the dissidents for allegedly being bigoted, hateful and divisive (I was going to add a smiley here, until I started to wonder what there was to smile about ). I think it would be better if you deprived them of that victory by staying. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello Ad Orientem, I just want to echo the sentiments above. You were definitely one of the best administrators on the project and I am very sad to see you retire. I understand your reasons for doing so but I do hope you'll return one day. Thank you for all you've done. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking only for myself, I do not see the point of taking personally arguments about interface elements in Wikipedia. Where we deal with aspects of sexuality is in the articles, and maintaining NPOV is something we should indeed take very seriously; I would fully understand if someone who was convinced that we had departed from NPOV in an important area such as this, and who saw no prospects for restoring it, were to leave the project. But user infoboxes are not encyclopedic content. They're an artificial device from the beginning of Wikipedia designed to give some sort of human expression in a project based on anonymous editing, and permitting or not permitting particular ones should not be a major issue for anybody. Ad Orientem, come back and work on the parts of Wikipedia which are really important. There is sometimes pressure towards biased articles is some areas, and voices to maintain balanced presentation are necessary. (and, like some others here, I are so little concerned about infoboxes and individual's political or cultural views, that I did not know without going back to the beginning of this what side you may have taken.) DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I just read through the events, even asked your intervention in an other issue a few days ago...as I see possibly you were busy with this one...I agree with you in some cases neutrality greatly suffer, I'd add because of preconceptional views - even flooded by the mainstream media, even considered as utterly reliable here - which are many cases far from the reality, and the necessary details are ignored by lack of precisity and/or interest. However, you should not give up, since anything may change in the future, even if bad decisions are made recently, we all forming the community and without you we are weaker. Hope soon you'll reconsider to return, Best Regards'(KIENGIR (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC))
  • See you space cowboy. jp×g 03:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I've been inactive recently, but when I saw that you had handed in the bit in the admin's newsletter I wanted to stop in and say thank you for everything you have done for this encyclopedia. We've worked together a few times over the years and I've always admired your dedication to this project and greatly enjoyed my interactions with you. I wish you the very best and, should you decide to return one day, I look forward to the opportunity to work with you again. Mifter (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky

Hello AO, sad to see you have retired. Between you and Bbb23 both being gone, I don't know who to approach about this MariaJaydHicky sock. Would be awesome if you had the time to take care of it. Thanks.--NØ 06:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Sorry for the delayed response. I have resigned as an admin so I no longer have the tools. Also I have turned off most auto-notifications. So if for some reason you are trying to get hold of me I suggest email as I only rarely log in anymore. I have been forwarding admin related issues that still pop up to Drmies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Ponyo to the rescue... Drmies (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see you around, anyway, Ad Orientem. Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem/Archive_18&oldid=988200904"