User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Usedtobecool. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't need to and I shouldn't have but I commented on your actions, so I am letting you know. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the thread is winding down and I'm not seeing any need to add to it. Thanks for the notification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your advice at WP:AIV

Regarding this - IMO you have to ping a person when placing AIV|sp}} adivice: I don't think occasional poster keep WP:AIV on their watchlist or notice your response during many fast changes. I did it for you. - Altenmann >talk 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging them. However it is not customary to ping every user who makes a report on a noticeboard. I do so if I have a specific question or concern that I think needs to be addressed. But otherwise decline message typically stand on their own. When an editor posts on a noticeboard, it's kinda their responsibility to keep an eye on the board for any relevant replies or actions. I think that is pretty much normative for most admins who patrol the various boards. That said, if I think they are a new user I have been known to ping. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User acting like they WP:OWN an article

Hi AO. Might you be able to tell the user Mirrored7 to stop the reverts of me and other editors on Ariana Grande discography? Their WP:OWN-like behaviour concerning this article has been going on since 2020. Here's the earliest thread by another user on their talk page concerning the article: User talk:Mirrored7#Ariana discography. A thread I made in December 2022: User talk:Mirrored7#Ariana Grande discography and separating "holiday" singles. Already today they've made three reverts on the article [1], [2], [3], with the last being a manual revert of what I added. Their most recent revert restored hidden messages directing users not to do things, in violation of WP:HIDDEN, because "the messages have been there for a long time". This was after I removed said comments directly linking to and quoting the guideline. I told them age is not a valid reason to keep things, and warned them about edit warring, but this sort of pattern looks like it will continue without admin intervention. Their block log for edit warring is concerning as well. Thanks. Ss112 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 I've left a note on their talk page, but do not see enough for any formal intervention at this time. They have not edited the article since you posted your warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor doesn't seem to understand "do not post here again"

Hi AO. I reverted an editor who left a message about commas after MDY dates [4]. I thought this made it pretty clear I don't want messages from them. They came back a minute later telling me "Correcting your mistakes is your responsibility" or some such. I said I thought I made it clear I don't want them to post on my talk page, and directly told them not to in the revert summary here. They came back again, after my summary telling them not to post there, saying "no you didn't" and some paragraph I didn't read [5]. Can you please ask this editor to respect not posting on somebody's talk page (WP:USERTALKSTOP) when they have been asked not to do so? Clearly I can't get through to this person. Ss112 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive football/soccer editor

Hello. Re the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Suspicious editing and your subsequent range block on 2403:6200:88a7:8107::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). About 100 edits so far today since the block expired, along the same general lines as before: reinstating previously reverted edits; adding or changing people's roles; adding unsourced lists of officials to club pages. All unsourced and without edit summary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Struway2 Have you identified anything that looks like bad faith editing, or are we mainly talking general disruption? If the former, I will reblock them. If the latter, I suggest a final/only warning on the talk page of the most recent IP they have used with a link to the discussion concerning their behavior. In either case, this needs to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting to think it might be a competence issue. There's nothing I've seen so far today that's blatant bad faith (although I've still only looked at a fraction of their edits and spent far more time than I should have) and I've started to wonder whether they're finding their content from out-of-date sources, maybe from other language Wikipedias that haven't been updated recently, or from unreliable sources. I'll give them a warning, but I'm not going to be around for the next few days, so there's nothing more I can do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Struway2 I just saw they have added more unsourced claims, and have blocked the /64 range x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Ad Orientem,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Contributions/74.88.40.40 & 68.195.10.222

Special:Contributions/74.88.40.40 has been asked to back up changes to a couple of articles. Have reverted myself but getting in edit-war territory. You've blocked once b4. Mind to have a look? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.195.10.222 Same story; same pages. Djflem (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Djflem I've protected the page x 72 hrs. If this starts up again let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thnx. List of tallest buildings in Newark, too, please? Djflem (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Djflem  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Newark/s/qcDwqZPAir 74.88.40.40 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. Reddit is not a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You may propose changes on the article talk page. But you will need a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Requesting feedback on proposed update to W:ZP

Hi, I have a major proposed addition to the W:ZP essay. I have put this proposed change on the talk page and would like some feedback on it as it has quite a bit of use as you are the original author. Subanark (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to WP:ZT? I have replied there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Height for 744 Newark nj building

![img](rat7ohkykdrc1)

Apparently 744 Broad elevation is 515ft, they did a drone test to figure out the height of 744. I don’t know how but ig they followed what the HPC said. 68.195.10.222 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You may propose changes to the article on its talk page. Please be sure to cite a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Lou Conter

On 3 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lou Conter, 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. PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Lower protection of Mobile Legends: Bang Bang

Keeping the page extended confirmed protected 4 years later makes no sense. It made sense back then, but not now. I don’t know how much vandalism it would get if you lowered it but all I know is this is overkill. I suggest maybe pending changes if you’re still wary about it but deprotection seems like the best thing to do. CharlieEdited (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi CharlieEdited. That page was a magnet for disruptive editing. From 2017 to 2020 when I finally put ECPP on it, the page was protected a total of 15 times, with many of those being EC due to disruption from auto-confirmed users. I am willing to drop the protection level to semi on a trial basis. But if the problems resurface, I will move quickly to return to the current protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright. Sounds good. Edit: Why was there even disruptive editing in the first place? What were the edits about? CharlieEdited (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@CharlieEdited You can take a look at the protection log here. You can also go back and look at the page history from the time frames in question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
There has been a single edit to the page since you lowered the protection and now, and it was an extended confirmed user fixing a date. Do you think it’s good to be fully deprotected or at least pending changes or are you still wary about it? CharlieEdited (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
@CharlieEdited I've downgraded the protection to Pending Changes and set it to expire in one year. If we don't have any further issues, the page will be fully unprotected at that time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok. CharlieEdited (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please help me stop editors who are edit warring

User:Trailblazer101 is edit warring here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Penguin_(TV_series)&action=history and making grandiose claims that I have already clearly disproven. Now User:Favre1fan93 has taken to shouting at me in all caps. That is not appropriate. These users are continuously "undoing" all of my edits even though I have provided clear arguments for why they are correct yet those users have not provided any good arguments for why they are undoing them. Please make them stop it. They are being bullies. Nicholas0 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, now they're threatening to get me blocked instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion. Bully tactics again. Nicholas0 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nicholas0 I have fully protected the page for 24hrs. Everybody needs to stop edit warring and seek consensus on the article talk page. Courtesy ping @Trailblazer101, @Favre1fan93. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please block this IP wide-scale vandalizing

Hi AO. I think 1.145.104.250 needs a block. This is wide-scale vandalism: an IP editor blanking all Australian chart positions from sets of articles over a two-day period. I don't know what their deal is but this is a problem. I've seen Australian IP editors do this before and I don't know why but it's a recurring issue. Ss112 15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 I've blocked them x 60 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Genre edit warring

Hello, there is a user by the name of Laylaluvalog who is edit warring. They have recently went on a genre editing spree and it is causing issues. This user's main problem is that they are misinterpreting sources to form their own opinions; this user has even admitted to misreading the sources (reviews).

This user is continuously listing multiple genres for various albums when those genres are merely elements/influences. For example, on Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) a review labeled the album as a "POP Album", yet they are adding other genres to the info-box that are merely elements/influences. Me along with another user who goes by @Lil-unique1 have both tried to explain to them the issue with their additions yet they are not listening. Now Laylaluvalog is reverting edits instead of discussing the changes. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@OkIGetIt20 I'm not seeing any edits since you posted your note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
In the midst of me posting a note on their page they have reverted edits on Fear of Flying (album), Case of the Ex, and Age Ain't Nothing but a Number. They are continuously misinterpreting sources and I have tried to explain that to them. Maybe you can explain the issue better to them? OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
AO, I would guess Laylaluvalog is MariaJaydHicky. This looks like what they've moved on to doing now that they can't edit Cowboy Carter. Maybe @Ferret: can confirm. Ss112 18:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@OkIGetIt20 @Ss112 Yeah, I was just looking at their contrib log and was thinking they are some kind of sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem, @Ss112: Essentially confirmed. There's two LTAs operating on these ISPs. With the behavior, MJH seems obvious. Even if its a joe job by the other LTA... well that's still evasion. Clean up on Aisle R&B, I guess. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please ask this editor to stop edit warring?

ANI is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Hi AO. I have come into contact with the editor AlNahyan whom I warned for edit warring and then had a discussion with on their talk page; see here. We disagree on personal preference on how to write the leads of articles as they appear to prefer separate sentences between introducing the topic and the release date/record label. I thought we had come to a mutual agreement that they would stop making these kinds of reverts/edit warring (their most recent message), and if they have been reverted, to follow BRD. Instead:

I also created both of those articles, and what I am reverting to is the way it was in the first place. They are not understanding that if they have been reverted, to just let it be because there is no "one correct way" to write the lead of an article. They are not respecting BRD and don't even appear to care that I reverted them for this exact reason on those articles earlier. If you could have a word to them, it would be appreciated. This is far from the first warning for disruptive behaviour they have received and it's also not the first warning for restoring these types of changes (separating sentences) that they have been reverted for: [6], [7], [8], or just see their talk page history. Thanks. Ss112 09:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Pinging Serge as Serge has in the past been pretty good at trying to let editors know that unnecessary wording "tweaks" like this don't need to be made, and especially if the editors have been disruptive (edit warring) about such changes when there's been disagreement, to stop before it ends up at ANI (although that would not be the first time this editor has been brought to ANI). Ss112 10:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@AlNahyan please do not edit war. In all but very rare cases (vandalism and the like) once you are reverted, the next stop should be the article talk page for a discussion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Since we're here, let me bring up what User:Ss112 has been doing.
At the beginning of our conversation, he ran into my edit history and tried picking it all apart just to find an error he could revert. Then, once the conversation was over, he once again went into my edit history and reverted my edits on Peggy Goy articles and then proceeded to cite WP:BRD as if that's a good justification.
What I want to know is why he thinks his preferences should take priority on articles, and why now he's preventing me from editing basically any Peggy Gou article. This behaviour is genuinely just petty and not only is it petty, it's showing serious ownership issues and hypocrisy. AlNahyan (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@AlNahyan You both need to discuss any issues you have on an appropriate talk page. Neither you nor Ss112 want this to escalate. Trust me when I say that 98% of the time you are better off sorting things out without going to ANI or requesting admin intervention. Start with a conversation based on WP:AGF. Remember that we are all trying to build a better encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem The thing is, Ss112 has been engaged in drama with me before over another petty thing (false titles) which eventually culminated in an ANI report and the person who made it got told by an admin exactly what I told them.
It's becoming a pattern from Ss112 to resort to petty tactics, hypocrisy and hostility when it comes to reverting my edits and what not. So I think it'd also be appropriate for you to warn him about assuming good faith. AlNahyan (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
AlNahyan, I created those three Peggy Gou articles I reverted you on. They are on my watchlist. I didn't need to "go back into your edit history" to see them. Besides, you can't expect to manually revert people, in effect edit warring, and expect people not to notice. You have been warned by multiple editors now, including @Your Power and Dxneo:, to stop edit warring and to stop splitting sentences needlessly. You are just moving around to different pop music articles repeating the same behaviour other editors have asked you to stop. The problem here is you and edit warring when people revert you. You apparently can't handle being reverted and feel the compulsion to repeatedly reinstate your edits. Learn to respect BRD and move on and make other kinds of edits. Stop edit warring. I am not having another discussion on Ad Orientem's talk page. We did this yesterday; you just need to learn to stop doing trying to make the same edits when you've been reverted. @Ad Orientem: this is the last reply I'm making here in this regard. But this response on their talk page doesn't bode well for your warning of not edit warring. Ss112 20:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • AO, speaking of edit warring, AlNahyan just returned to manually revert me two days later at One of the Girls here. I don't think they care about your warning not to edit war. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but the history of warnings for edit warring and disruption over matters like these on their talk page is approaching block territory. Even though we can see from AlNahyan's talk page, @Askeeaewiki: has just informed me that AlNahyan has received warnings for this exact type of behaviour from seven other editors in the past few months, and it is far from the first time they have edit warred or manually reverted somebody. Because they haven't faced any consequences for their actions, AlNahyan hasn't stoppeed, apparently doesn't want to stop so I don't see what else will get them to. Ss112 06:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Ss112, @AlNahyan As much as I dislike ANI, I think this is heading in that direction. Unless you can find some way forward, I suggest that a discussion be opened there for review by uninvolved experienced editors and admins. This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    AO, they are edit warring. That is disruptive. You seem to be missing that this is not a "me versus them" thing. As I just said, seven+ editors have warned them and asked them not to make these kinds of edits, and to stop edit warring when they've been reverted. It's no longer even just a content dispute. I'm not going to ANI about a user who has been warned repeatedly for the same kind of behaviour. I have little confidence in the decisions made there and I don't see why it needs ANI involvement. While it's your talk page, I also dislike you tagging them, which just prompts them to come back here to throw more potshots at me like I'm at equal fault. I'm uninterested in discussing with them any further. What's there left to say on my part? They just need to stop this kind of editing when this many editors have asked or told them to stop. You even gave a formal warning and they disregarded it. This just emboldens AlNahyan to keep repeating the same kind of behaviour, repeatedly reverting anybody when another editor disagrees with their changes. Why are we enabling edit warring? @Sergecross73: for his opinion now that the user has edit warred by reverting again. Ss112 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. - This sums up exactly how I feel as well. Like always, you're free to look elsewhere for a 2nd (3rd?) opinion. But this is simply not that big of a deal. This is the sort of thing hashed out by consensus building, and then intervention happens if editing against consensus occurs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Sergecross73: So this editor can keep reverting editors, getting away with edit warring and causing disruption, because there hasn't been consensus established at a talk page...? Because that's what happening. They have made these kinds of grammar-type edits across many different articles. It would be pointless to try to establish consensus at one of those talk pages—a local consensus is not going to apply to all the pages they edit, and the MOS doesn't specify that one style is preferred and never will because it'd be WP:MOSBLOAT. As I said, inaction by admins just emboldens them to continue edit warring. I know consensus isn't established at user talk pages, but hell, if seven+ editors warning someone for disruptive editing and a few of them bringing up this exact kind of thing and disagreeing with it isn't some kind of consensus... Ss112 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Datagod

Content dispute with possible COI issues. All concerned are to discuss this on an appropriate talk page. Any connection to Patrick Patterson MUST be disclosed. Editing where a conflict of interest exists is not allowed. See WP:COI, WP:EW and WP:DR. Any and all edit warring is to cease. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Addendum OP now blocked x 3 months.-Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


you recently put a 30 hour block on my IP for alleged problematic editing. but what i was doing was reverting vandalism by user Datagod. User Datagod is using his well documented personal beef with Patrick Scot Patterson to remove his name from as many wiki articles as he can get away with doing. he claims Patterson entered the info himself but with no proof and edit logs show the various bits of info vandalized by Datagod were entered by a variety of other people. some of them have been in wiki for many years.

u are free to do as you see fit of course, but i think it is a bad decision here. Datagod is targeting information about a specific person and deleting it from wiki. I was fixing his vandalisation efforts. You need to look into him for problematic edits and targeting. he is not working to improve wikipeedia, he is looking to hurt a person he has a personal grudge with 35.135.179.48 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Datagod, and 35.135.179.48; I don't know what is going on here. But I advise you to find a suitable talk page, and work this out. Otherwise, this is likely going to end up at ANI which is not a place well known for happy endings. (See my thoughts on ANI over on my user page.) Edit warring, POV pushing and the like are disruptive, and will get you blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem, thank you for taking the time to respond. My only interest is improving Wikipedia. I was removing unsourced claims and links that have been added in obvious self promotion. The anonymous IP addresses used over the past few years always trace back to the same neighborhood where Mr. Peterson resides, and the links are always to articles that he wrote himself. The anonymous IP addresses always claim to know Mr. Petersen's inner thoughts as they are close friends, but deny actually being him. That is still an undisclosed conflict of interest. I will take your advice however and move the discussion elsewhere. Thank you for your patience and your assistance in this matter. datagod (talk) 🍁 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I never say I was a friend or knew him at all. Datagod knows Patterson and how is that not conflict of interest? He is going into wiki to delete any mentions of Patterson claiming self promotion even though wiki edit history clearly show metnions of him were put in at different times by different sources.
Datagod's socilas clearly show he has a negative opinion of Patterson and he is vandalizsing wiki in the interest of removing his name while lying about it. He is removing additions to articles made by various other people while claiming it to be self promotion without prooof and while ignoring or denying his own conflict of interest.
Datagod should not be allowed to edit mentions of Patterson due to hsi personal beef and relationship with him. clear conflict of interest 35.135.179.48 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@35.135.179.48 Discuss this with datagod. You do not want this to end up at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
i do not know what that means but why am i warned and him not?
he is vandalising wiki
he is removing mentions of a specific person that he knows personaly without disclsoing it to wiki. He made those removals because of his personal feelings about a speific person. that is a conflict of interest
wiki mods are scolding me for undoing his conflict of interst vandalism but not him for violating wiki rules. we are discussing this already but i wish to file a complant about his violations of wiki rules 35.135.179.48 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@35.135.179.48 I do not know how to be more clear. Discuss this with @Datagod on an appropriate talk page. This is a content dispute. Edit warring is disruptive. You need to seek WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:DR for other suggestions. You both need to work this out or it's going to end up at WP:ANI. If either of you have any connection with Patrick Patterson you MUST disclose this, and you may not edit any page where you have a conflict of interest. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
AO, sorry to butt in, but do you object to me taking action? I've found a long chain of disruption going back over 7 years from the IP's geolocation and ISP, spanning numerous articles and clearly operated by the same individual behaviorally, always in support of the BLP in question. Disclosure: I'm aware of this dispute from my watchlist and other user talk pages as well, but it was most active here. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
ferret I've been digging through their editing history in between the endless posts here and am not happy with what I am seeing. If you feel a block is in order feel free to act. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Ferret Holy bleep! I've had more traffic on my talk page in the last few hours than the L I E at rush hour. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It just means you're doing something right ;) I found over 4-5 IPs all editing in favor of Peterson, from the same geolocation, since 2017, coming back repeatedly to restore their own edits as various editors removed them. Perhaps I'll give them just a bit more time to come clean and maybe something productive can come of this? But if I see any more of it, I am definitely blocking. -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That was quick!

I was just about to report another IPv6 that editor evidently was using: 2600:1006:B10C:94B9:E04C:CC40:C351:5540 has the same Happy Tree Friends/Nirvana fixation.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68 I'm not sure that one is actionable. They don't appear to have edited in the last 12 hrs so this is getting kinda stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'll report to AIV if I notice that one starting up again.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandal at 31.180.135.4

Hey, if you're still around, this IP is having a Rick Beato hatefest. Could you remove their edit summaries?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68 Blocked x 60 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

User is ban invading and constantly vandalizing articles.

Hello, I noticed you temporarily blocked Special:Contributions/165.214.68.110 for 60 hours due to constant vandalism, looking through the edits of Palm Beach County Fire Rescue I noticed there was a account called [[PBCFR]] that made the same vandalism edits as this user did just a day prior. The user [PBCFR]] was indefinitely banned due to this. I believe this user is ban evading and even coincidentally if he isn’t, I believe the 60 hours isn’t enough as every single edit made by Special:Contributions/165.214.68.110 has been reverted because every single one has been vandalism. Ryan Watern (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ryan Watern1. This isn't technically block evasion as PBCFR was not hard blocked. Their block was a soft block based solely on their user name. The level of disruption and infrequency of the IPs edits, coupled with their record of no previous blocks does not justify a longer block right off. If they resume their disruption, I will likely drop a block of at least a month. Let's see what happens. Thanks for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion on Elijah

Hey,

I think you maybe closed that discussion a tad early. Despite his statement that he will stop editing the articles, he's already back editing the article's talk page and has stated an intention to make a revert to the article itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th He hasn't been topic banned from any pages and is free to edit where he wishes. But he must use edit summaries when doing so. His failure to do so when deleting whole chunks of material was clearly inappropriate and borderline disruptive. I dislike having to repeatedly remind experienced editors of very basic policy and guidelines like that. Hence my decision to issue a formal caution on the subject. Hopefully he takes the hint. Any other disagreements can be handled in the customary manner on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Prior to your caution, he had already been warned by six editors, including once by you in February. In addition, while the lack of edit summaries are an big issue here, there are multiple other serious behavioural conduct issues that your warning doesn't address. While I agree with your final warning on the edit summary issue, I also think you've prematurely closed that discussion and as a result the other underlying problems haven't been addressed. Would you be amenable to re-opening that discussion so that the other issues can get some sort of resolution? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th What specific other issues do you feel need admin attention? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Content ownership, editing against consensus, and being unable to edit collaboratively with other editors. Driving off PMC also needs some sort of acknowledgement, even if it's part of the ownership and unable to collaborate problems. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th Alright. I will re-open the discussion. On a side note, none of my messages to EP were a warning. When I issue a warning to someone, it is explicitly labeled as such. My earlier message was mainly an expression of concern over their editing and a reminder of community expectations. My message today was a formal caution, which is akin to a yellow flag. That is letting someone know firmly that they need to make some adjustments in their conduct. A warning is so labeled (red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning) and is akin to a Red Flag. In other words, stop what you are doing or bad things will follow. I haven't reached that point, yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't really want to get into semantics about what is or isn't a warning though, though I disagree with the essay there's plenty of WP:DTTR adherents who'd strenuously disagree that all warnings need need either a template or that red label. There are multiple ways to warn a person beyond using {{warnsign}}, and if someone had made even one of those messages to me, I'd personally have considered them a warning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi Ad Orientem, thanks for notifying KomradeKalashnikov about that userbox discussion. The thread is actually at AN, rather than ANI, so I thought you'd like to edit your message to them so that they don't have a hard time finding it. DanCherek (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@DanCherek Ack. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem/Archive_26&oldid=1221993578"