Jump to content

User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28

Banned member causing problems

Hello there Ad Orientem (talk)! I'm unfortunately having a problem with an IP editor, 70.54.53.237, & wondered if you could help since they appear to be a returned member you previously banned (86.1.199.26). This member is active under many aliases, some edits are okay but they frequently get reverted with more problematic edits. The problem I'm having with them is that they are going around & mass removing data-sort-values from filmography tables despite that being a desired feature to aid accessibility. I've been having to back-track & repair many such removals by them, which is quite disheartening. I posted on their talk page in an attempt to reason with them by explaining what data-sort-values do but seemingly to no avail as they again stripped out all data-sort-values from the very article I talked to them about (Kathy Greenwood). Also rather deceptively, they did not mention the removals in their edit description. Worth noting that this member also appears to be at least; Georgia76 talk, 72.38.51.152 talk‎, 142.126.248.30 talk‎ & many more. Notable editing features that mark them out are constant removal of data-sort values from filmographies without explanations, a propensity to edit Blue Bloods & the various versions of Law & Order & CSI. I'm not used to dealing with someone like this, I typically try to avoid conflict with other editors & prefer to just make constructive edits. Data-sort should be a non controversial feature. Should they remove data-sorting again from the Kathy Greenwood article, I cannot revert since that would cross over into edit warring. Thanks for any help on this matter. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck. Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank-you kindly for taking the time Ad Orientem (talk)! I note that under the guise of Georgia76, they have had a sock-puppet investigation. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Ping @Drmies, @Yamla @Girth Summit This looks complicated and may require a look from someone with access to the Magic 8 Ball. From what I have seen in my look, I think there is credible evidence of serial disruption, editing while logged out by Georgia76 and block evasion by 86.1.199.26, all of which may be connected. I'm not sure a formal SPI would be helpful and am reluctant to send this to ANI. Thoughts? (FYI ping @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm about to make supper, so would be happy to take a detailed look tomorrow. I'm hoping someone else has thoughts before then. :) CU users can't tie accounts to IP addresses, but we can still provide some guidance in cases like this. Still, it's going to be tricky to thread the needle. I have not yet looked at the CU data, but I think it's pretty much already assumed the 142.126 addresses are Georgia76 editing while logged out, based on the SPI? Again, that's not based on CU data and I will not be able to comment on this relationship if I examine the CU data. 86.1.199.26 appears to geolocate to Scotland while the other IP's geolocate to Ontario, Canada, by the way. Unlikely (but not impossible) to be the same person. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@Yamla Thank you. Enjoy your supper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank-you Yamla & Ad Orientem for looking into this! When I first noticed this Editor removing data-sort values en-masse, I just went about repairing & hoped it was some kind of quirk they'd grow out of. However the more I encountered their edits, the clearer it became that they were quite prolific. I'd hoped my friendly reach out to them on their talk page would clear things up but sadly not (I also further explained when 70.54.53.237 tersely replied on my talk page). A shame they can't put all that energy to a more positive use. I'm sorry to have brought such a tangle to you. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck No worries. It's why we get paid the big bucks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Like Yamla, I haven't run CU on the account, so what I'm about to say is not a comment on whether or not the account is connected to the IPs. From a quick look at the previous SPI case, I see that the conclusion was that it was likely the same person editing while logged out, which is not in itself a policy violation - we're not required to log in to edit. That said, logging out to evade scrutiny, give oneself multiple 'voices' in a discussion, or cause disruption that you don't want associated with your account is disruptive.
I would recommend one of two courses of action. Ad Orientem, looks like you've already blocked an IP for this activity. If you are persuaded that it's all the same person, then its within your discretion to block the account and any other IPs doing similar stuff for DE and/or block evasion. If you're not confident (whether that's because you aren't persuaded by the evidence, or because you don't have the time/inclination to look at it in sufficient detail) then I'd suggest that an SPI case be raised by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, with evidence in the form of diffs that (1) demonstrates that it is the same person, and (2) makes clear how the activity is disruptive/deceptive. Hope that's helpful - I'm off out for a very wet walk with the dog. Girth Summit (blether) 09:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I hope the dog enjoyed the walk. :) 86.1.199.26 remains blocked, but based solely on the IP geolocation, appears unrelated to Georgia76 and to the IP addresses listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgia76/Archive. All other IP addresses geolocate to the same area and based solely on IP geolocation and the SPI are probably Georgia76. I'm not convinced this rises to WP:LOUTSOCK; the case could certainly be made. Perhaps someone should remind Georgia76 to stay signed in while making their edits. I think there's nothing here that requires a CU at this time. Both of Girth Summit's courses of action are open. Happy to weigh in on an SPI if one is filed, though I'm not sure CU data would give me more than what I've said here without looking at the CU data, and I'd probably be allowed to actually say less. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the available data, I don't see any reason to doubt the geolocation associated with the IPs, so absent some strong behavioural evidence I would be inclined to agree with you Yamla that on the face of it the IPs are unlikely to have been used by the same person. The original post in this thread does not really spell out why the OP thinks that they are connected - any report would need to be accompanied by some specific evidence. (If you haven't done this before, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases is a useful read, and be aware that Twinkle can actually fill in the paperwork for you in the options under ARV.) Girth Summit (blether) 11:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Girth Summit! I originally connected the various incarnations of Georgia76 with 86.1.199.26 when looking at the edit history of Blue Bloods season 10, multiple accepted aliases of them appear just on the first page. So I checked a few of the other IP Editors listed & 86.1.199.26 editing pattern matched very closely. Same editing of CSI, Law & Order, Blue Bloods & other crime based shows. All the same kind of edits, with lots of reversions as they clashed with other editors. The only thing missing from this accounts editing style, that the others I mentioned include, is the editing of filmographies to remove sortname/data-sort values. I assumed this was simply down to them now adding another string to their bow. Use of a VPN would easily mask geolocation of course. I would concede I may be wrong about 86.1.199.26 being the same as the others, it's easy to start getting paranoid when you've spotted multi account use. :) Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
So, I was about to ask you for specific evidence that makes you confident that these are the same person - you can't just say that you saw a matching pattern of editing, you need to present the diffs and demonstrate what the similarities are (you've already noticed the pattern - spell it out for us, rather than giving us a page history to look at and asking us to join the dots for ourselves). Having said that, and potentially contradicting everything I've just said, from looking at some of the pages they've edited, this smells for all the world like Mickeydee15... Girth Summit (blether) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Yamla - I've looked at the CU data now, and the editing behaviour. CU data would be consistent with historic data for Mickeydee15, and editing pattern is a match - I've blocked. Re the IPs, policy prohibits me from linking specific IPs with blocked accounts - as someone who has not looked at the CU data, would you be willing to look at the IPs from a behavioural perspective and determine whether any long-term blocks are necessary to prevent ongoing block evasion? Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
(ec) Girth Summit, my understanding is that you'd like me not to look at the CU data (because that limits what I'm allowed to say) and instead, look at the IP addresses and determine if we can block as suspected block evasion from Mickeydee15. Is that correct? Alternatively, I could use my CU tools and hand out a slew of blocks for WP:LOUTSOCK on IP addresses or ranges, without mentioning which accounts are involved. I don't think that's what you are asking, though. Either way, happy to do so later today! I do wish the ranges were smaller so we could easily just hand out a slew of range blocks. :( --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Either works for me Yamla - you don't need to disclose whether or not you look at CU before imposing any blocks as you see fit. Girth Summit (blether) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Will do, later today! --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Girth Summit! Sorry, I thought I had joined the dots. The pattern is mentioned in my first post & is pretty straightforward I felt, they edit a pretty set selection of articles that I've listed & tend to get reverted as they butt heads on those pages, which in-itself could certainly be shrugged off as coincidence. However the addition of editing filmographies to strip out all sortname/data-sot-values in combination with the pattern of articles edited makes them rather obvious. I think it's pretty clear that Georgia76 talk, 72.38.51.152 talk‎, 142.126.248.30 talk are the same individual by this identical editing style. Only the banned 86.1.199.26 lacks the data-sort-value deletion behaviour, as I've mentioned above. But I still think they are likely the same. Can I prove it beyond doubt? Nope, which is why I came looking for help from those more experienced. Sorry if the details I've provided are not enough, I'm finding this all rather overwhelming. I much prefer to just quietly edit & was rather pleased that, until this, I'd manage to make only main-space edits this year. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Girth Summit! I know I'm the novice here, but I took a look Mickeydee15's Contribs &, for what it's worth, I agree with you that this looks like the same individual. Same selection of crime shows, I originally crossed paths with Georgia76 as they edit a lot of Murdoch Mysteries as well as the actors who appear in it & I see it's prominent in Mickeydee15's history too. Same kind of edits & clashing with other editors, they love tweaking rowspan=. :) Only thing missing is the sortname/data-sort-value removal, just like 86.1.199.26, so I think that is just a fairly new quirk that they have acquired. Seems like they've been here a while. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Yamla! Honestly I'd just be happy if we could convince them to stop mass removal of sortname/data-sort-values. Some of their edits are actually decent. Their filmography edits are a bit sloppy & often break the layout, I've had to fix a few like here & here. But it's the mass unexplained removal of sortname/data-sort-values that is the real problem, hundreds of bytes of sorting info (& often references too) are deleted like here, here, & here. That's the only reason they came to my attention, I was noticing that often the edits I made to include the rather uncontroversial data-sort-values was being undone with no reason being given. Adding data-sort-values is time consuming but worth it to aid accessibility, but becomes utterly pointless if someone is just going to bin it soon after, especially with no apparent reason. :( Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Girth Summit, @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck,@Yamla It looks like this is under control now. The assistance is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Girth Summit, @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, @Yamla FYI I will be off wiki probably for the remainder of the day due to an issue unrelated to this discussion. I need to step back before I end up saying/typing something I will regret. Right now I am so steamed I could swallow molten lava and shit ice cream. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I think I know what you're referring to - certainly don't feel you need to pay attention to this thread, we've got it covered. I recommend a wet walk with a dog followed by a beer (but it might be a bit early for that latter where you are...). Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Girth Summit If I had pinged everyone who has expressed opposition to, or reservations over these types of essays, and then dropped a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, I'd be desysopped, probably by the end of the day, and I'd be lucky to avoid being blocked or worse. And the community would be right. That was damned naked canvassing or there is no such thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
This is, I'm afraid, one of the perennial problems when dealing with Wikiprojects. Local consensuses, skewed discussions - it's a slog, whether you're dealing with capitalisation issues amongst sports fans and milhist editors or undue weight/notguide issues amongst the airports fraternity. Personally, Without the active discussion on the project talk page, I would probably have agreed with you, but if a bunch of folk are actively talking about something in a relevant venue, it's a stretch to say that mentioning that it might get deleted is inappropriate. 'People who have talked to me about similar stuff' doesn't quite meet the same threshold, IMO, but FWIW I don't think that a post at the conservatism Wikiproject as a counterbalance would have been out of line.
I believe that you and I come from very different places, politically, but I agree with you on this call (possibly for different reasons). Things are kicking off right now - I see an emergent move war - but I'm making dinner so will step back. When the dust settles, I may try to start a discussion about merging some or all of these 'no ...' essays into a central location. Cool heads and some thought required. Nothing is on fire though, it doesn't need to be done tonight. Best wishes. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank-you kindly to all involved, Girth Summit, Yamla & Ad Orientem! I really appreciate how you've swiftly looked into & dealt with this. I'd have preferred to have interacted with you all over a more positive issue, perhaps next time. :) Ad Orientem, I'm really sorry to see you've been embroiled in a rather hot topic below. Please definitely take a break for the evening, Wikipedia needs all the level-headed Editors & Admin it can get & can't afford to lose the ones we have. :) Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

(Dummy Edit to prevent imminent archiving)

Un-Withdraw Your MfD Please

Hello. I strongly encourage you to un-withdraw and un-strike your original MfD nomination. Productive discussion is occurring there regardless, and it seems the issue has gathered a momentum of its own. I think you raised some very salient points as well. Cheers. Durchbruchmüller 02:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Durchbruchmüller Sorry, I can't do that. People have been citing legal arguments for why it's perfectly OK to send out notifications to editors and noticeboards (at least 2 that I know of), where conservatively (pun intended) 90% of the respondents are going to take their side in the discussion. This was brazen WP:GAMING. If I had notified editors who have expressed reservations about all of these NOT... essays in the past and dropped a notification on the talk page of WP:CONSERVATISM, I'd have been desysopped before sunset, and been damned lucky not to end up blocked. And the community would have been right. This entire affair has been absolutely scandalous. I refuse to have anything to do with it. And just to be clear, I am not implying bad faith here. I am stating it unequivocally. Anyone who is offended can haul me in front of ARBCOM or open a discussion to have me recalled. This was the most brazen attempt at rigging a discussion that I've seen in years and by far the worst that wasn't shut down with people getting blocked. My confidence in the capacity to have a fair discussion on Wikipedia about sensitive and hot button subjects has been severely shaken. CC @Girth Summit, @Drmies, @Yamla, @Acroterion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I strongly agree with your sentiments regarding WP:CANVASS & WP:GAMING whether it's being done intentionally or not, but I still feel this is an endeavor worth pursuing, and urge you to reconsider. That said, I understand wanting to disengage from contentious topics on Wikipedia. It tends to bring out the worst aspects of the site and its userbase. I know I certainly have my opinions regarding this project, the climate it has fostered, and its bureaucratic functions. I wish you well whatever you decide. Durchbruchmüller 03:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem You're not alone, I know exactly what you are talking about. I see it too, sir. I wish you well. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Girth Summit, @Drmies, @Yamla, @Acroterion. A quick clarification to my CC above. I am not requesting anyone join in the discussion for obvious reasons, and having pinged you all, would actually prefer that you did not. I was hoping for some advice on how to handle this disaster on wheels. I should have taken this to ANI right away. Both, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and MikutoH probably should have been sanctioned for GAMING and CANVASSING respectively. Unfortunately, it is far too late now. At this point it would be pointless and arguably punitive. The damage has been done. At the moment, I am thinking the best option is to just take this to DRV the minute it's closed (assuming it's not procedurally closed as FUBARed by the breathtaking GAMING and Canvassing). I can't think of anything else to do.
The really sad thing is that it's not just this discussion that has been wrecked, but the essay itself is now effectively bullet proof. Most of these canvassed editors will have now watchlisted the page knowing that it has been challenged. So yeah, they won. Whoever said "cheaters never prosper" obviously had little experience with Wikipedia. On a side note, I am not usually online during Holy Week, but between this and some unrelated personal matters, I probably will be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Durchbruchmüller & @Philomathes2357 Thank you both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Practically speaking, I think the best option is to unwatch that page and just not engage further. I think that's the path that is most likely to lead to... well, not happiness, but perhaps less frustration for you. I think this is the path you are already trying to take: "I refuse to have anything to do with it." That said, I took this approach recently with a particular problematic editor and they just got louder, including on articles I watched. So, this approach may not work, even if you want to try it. Still, what other option is there? Not trying to silence you; I just think there are better battles outside this particular MfD.
More generally, and this particular MfD aside, I think there are two fundamental problems here. The first is whether we-the-community should be trying to roll up all of these essays into one or if we-the-community are okay with having ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred of them. I think this was your point behind the MfD, I think people saw trees instead of the forest. The second is how we-the-community can have discussions on contentious topics without it degenerating into massive drama. I'm not sure how to solve either problem. I'm not sure the second is even solvable in the current political climate of the U.S. and the world. Still, I think both problems are worth solving on Wikipedia. I have specific thoughts around ArbCom, but they aren't well-reasoned enough to post here.
So, I give no path forward on the two fundamental issues, and an... only vaguely useful... path on the particular MfD. Still, I think your week would be more improved by going for a walk than spending the same time on Wikipedia dealing with this particular MfD.
None of the above should be read as me taking a political position or passing judgement on anyone's actions here. I also more than occasionally miss the entire point, and hope that's not happened here. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Since you pinged: I agree with Yamla that it is probably best to disengage. All of those essays have a way of evolving into convenient hangers for particularlized concerns and POVs, straying from the original concise intent of describing why there is a sentiment to deny participation in the formation of the encyclopedia to people who do not want certain kinds of people to exist, and who want to make sure that happens, using Wikipedia as a tool to that end. Nowadays when I encounter an actual Nazi or similar fellow traveler (roughly every couple of weeks) as evidenced by blatant bigotry, I just block them for bigotry. We don't need essays to formalize a reasonable response to obvious hate. Acroterion (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Acroterion. Thanks for the message. FWIW, the essay itself is not the issue that I am upset over. I have already withdrawn my nomination. What has me highly ticked off, is the brazen abuse of GAMING and CANVASSING which effectively killed any chance of having an honest community discussion. I don't like most of these "NO..." essays, but it's not a hill I am interested in dying for. What gets me bent is cheating to get the desired results of a discussion. And, with a few exceptions, the response to this has been a collective shrug. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
So I gathered, but I can't say I'm surprised there was canvassing. But I think any action on hot-button issues like that can' be solved by one person alone, or even a few. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Acroterion The answer can't be to only invite one side to a debate. How can anyone seriously suggest that any close for this discussion will have any legitimacy as community consensus? It's turned into a farce. The hostility around here to anyone who doesn't tow the right (read "left") ideological line is getting steadily worse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to imply that canvassing was a solution, I was really meaning that the solution for the canvassing needs a broad action, supported by a cross section of the community. More or less echoing your dismay about the collective shrug. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Acroterion Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I misread your reply. BTW I indeffed Arnida0210. I noticed the thread on your talk page and they looked pretty dodgy. Their contrib log screams NOTHERE, but they clearly have been before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, I would argue there is nothing wrong with notifying Conservatism, although I do think it's more of a stretch to say editors there would necessarily be clearly likely to be interested in this essay than with LGBT studies, and since there's no corresponding Project Liberalism, I guess you'd have to notify Politics, which seems like a similar stretch, so then you'd want to notify Sociology, which is at least as likely to be interested in this essay as Politics would be...
It's possible my take on it would not be typical, but the fact an editor has a project's talk watchlisted does not mean that editor is partisan w/re presenting the project's editing areas favorably, and I think when it comes to contentious topics it's highly likely there are many who are there to make sure those topics aren't presented in what they see as a non-neutral favorable way. But at any rate, I don't see the neutrally-worded notification of any reasonably-likely-to-be-interested project as canvassing. I certainly would absolutely object to any discussion of desysopping or blocking for it. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

(Dummy Edit to prevent imminent archiving -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC))

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible return of LTA

Hi, I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless is back. This was added by Bengali editor. Yesterday and today, two new IP added same text (see page history, also IPs editing history). I can request for CU but most likely will be declined. Their behaviour and editing preferences are very similar. Consider blocking those IP ranges (you can use this tool to calculate) or semi-protect the article so that IP cann't edit (they frequently edit those page). Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান I indeffed Bengali editor back on April 19. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I meant, block Special:Contributions/202.134.10.140, Special:Contributions/202.134.11.252 or their IP ranges or semi-protect those page: Al-Ikhlas, Mahishasura, Taqwa, Draft:Islam and Arabic language. -- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@আফতাবুজ্জামান I misread your message. After looking at the page history I am going to block the two IPs. Unfortunately it is not likely to stop them, so I am also protecting all three pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I think they are back again with Special:Contributions/202.134.10.142. The IP created Draft:Siddhacharya which Bengali editor edited. Book of Monotheism & Chapters on Indian religions was created by Bengali editor, later deletd but now this IP created Draft:Book of Monotheism & Draft:Chapters on Indian religions with almost same text. The IP added this, same as above two IP. Bengali editor edited Ziya-ur-Rahman Azmi and now this IP also. IP's editing interests are very similar. Pleas block the IP.
If possible, consider blocking this range as well (calculated using https://ftools.toolforge.org/general/ip-range-calc.html) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@আফতাবুজ্জামান IP range blocked and the two newly created drafts have been deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"!vote"

Hello, out of curiosity, I sometimes see some people using "!vote" or "!voting" (that is, with an exclamation mark). What does the "!" do? Asking you because I just saw an "!voting" on your user page... Thanks! RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi RodRabelo7. Most Wikipedia discussions are Not a Vote. However we do indicate our preferred outcomes in discussions and for want of a better way of explaining it, we sometimes refer to this with the word "vote," preceded by the explanation point as a way of nodding to the widely accepted corollary to WP:CONSENSUS. --Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet/User disruptive edits.

Hello, there is a user who I think is a sock puppet. The user in question is "BKeira930". BKeira930 is obsessed with editing composition sections in music articles. Their edits usually consist of them adding original or unreliable information. Administrators typically revert their edits, yet BKeira930 always reverts them back, which causes a disruption. Also, nearly each month BKeira930 is warned by administrators that they may be blocked for their actions yet they continue on with their behavior. Honestly this user should be looked into because they display sock puppet tendencies. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@OkIGetIt20 I have blocked them for 72 hrs for disruptive editing. However, I am not seeing any evidence that they are socking. Who do you think is the master account? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure! I might be wrong, but that account just gave me sock puppet vibes because of their edits. Either way that account is very disruptive and has been warned many times for their behavior. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@OkIGetIt20 I agree with the long running disruption. Hence my block. But I don't have check user rights, so unless you have some idea who they might be, I am afraid I can't do much in that department. That said, this is their second block for generally disruptive behavior. If it continues, they are likely to end up being indeffed. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dabney Coleman

On 20 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dabney Coleman, 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) 12:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Note

Just a note (see diff below) to explain that I replied to your apparent comment to me ("Really?") at the AIV. However, I don't think you got the message as another administrator removed it shortly afterward. Just wanted to explain why I reported a stale IP ([1]). Yours. Zenon.Lach (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zenon.Lach Well another admin has blocked them. Given only the 1 non stale edit, I wouldn't have. But it's done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision Delete Request

Hi there,

I asked @Hey man im josh already but it appears that they are offline. Could you delete the ones requested on their talk page and the ones on Dark skin? Thx! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh you just did it. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Myrealnamm Yeah, that was a bit over the top. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
And this? The edit summary, especially. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem There's a few more before ClueBot NG reverted. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm giving too many. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my wording was awkward. I meant that I posted two here. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
It's alright. The last one was kinda borderline but I zapped it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Ivan Boesky

On 23 May 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ivan Boesky, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

About your partial block of Factcheckworld212

2601:240:CF80:70:4813:EE43:9963:A91D ? Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skywatcher68. Apologies for the late response, but I've been out of town (and ill) for most of the last week. Not sure if your concerns have been addressed by another admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey, hope you're feeling better. I started a SPI while you were gone; results inconclusive.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Big article in need of help

Hey Ad Orientem, Split of Christianity and Judaism Is quite skeletal, and could use some support from interested editors :) Zanahary (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zanahary Yeah that does look a little rough. Have you posted to WT:Christianity and/or WT:JUDAISM? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Good idea—I just notified both. Zanahary (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

User will not abide by "do not post on my talk page"

@Lunar-akaunto I realize disagreements with other editors can be a source of frustration. However, please respect Ss112's request and refrain from posting on their talk page unless obliged by policy/guidelines. It would be best probably if you tried to avoid contact to the extent possible. If you do feel a need to communicate, I suggest requesting assistance from another experienced editor who can serve as an intermediary. @Ss112. I am going to strongly encourage you to reciprocate by avoiding unnecessary contact. As you both have overlapping areas of interest, this may not always be possible. But please do your best. Specifically, I ask that you refrain from reverting each other's edits w/o first discussing your concerns with an uninvolved experienced editor. I think we can now move on from this. Thank you both for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 5 June 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 previously asked the editor Lunar-akaunto to not post at my talk page three times. They still don't get it. This editor was blocked for close to two years and changed their username. I asked them on their old account not to [2], then when they were unblocked, one of the first things they did was post on my talk page again, even acknowledging in the post that I asked them not to post there. Now they see fit to answer others' questions for me. I know you don't like when editors ask others not to post at their talk page because it can block open communication or some such, but there is no need for them to post at my talk page. Could you maybe ask this user to respect whom I want posting at my talk page? Ss112 06:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Fine, fine, I won't post ever again. Be happy. I only ever posted because you reverted the editor in question and did not provide an explanation in the edit summary or on the talk page when asked. Clearly, it is not possible to read through all the templates, and not everyone's familiar with all the guides, so I thought it'd be helpful. Lunar-akaunto／talk 06:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Lunar-akaunto: Whether I choose to answer somebody at my talk page or not is really none of your concern. It's not something you need to intervene on my behalf for, especially when I've asked you not to post there for any reason. My revert of that editor was sufficient enough explanation. Now please leave me alone—that includes looking through my contributions or perusing my talk page. We don't even edit in the same topic area 95% of the time. I have only posted at your talk page to point you to guidelines and what is best practice on en.wiki because disregarding them is what you were blocked for (and an article you created the other day showed up as lacking an album cover in a tracking category before you uploaded the album cover, which is how I came across your file names). That doesn't mean what I said about my talk page no longer applies. Please take my talk page off your watchlist if it is on there. Ss112 06:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not intervene on your behalf; I did so for the project as a whole. Clearly, the user posting on your talk page even after your edit summary indicates he did not understand why you reverted them. I absolutely have no desire to look through your contributions or talk page. I only arrived at your talk page because you did not respond to the file names conversation you initiated on my talk page. I thought to post regarding that but changed my mind and happened to see the other user's message (if I did have your talk page on my watchlist, I would have replied 2 days ago, don't you think?). But if you insist, I'll let this be our last interaction in words. bye~bye. Lunar-akaunto／talk 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Lunar-akaunto: You have "absolutely no desire to look through [my] contributions", yet you obviously did look through my contributions to find that I posted here—I didn't ping you and you've never posted here before. To clarify: I felt that my response was enough. I didn't say you, they, nor anybody else found it sufficient, and again: whether I choose to reply to someone or not, including you, is my choice. It was not an obligation because it's not a serious matter. Ss112 10:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I got here because of your edit summary; this definitely implies that you would reach an admin for this. Anyone reading that understands that. Lunar-akaunto／talk 11:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you had to look at my contributions to find whom I went to. Anyway, I'm done here. If what you're saying is true, then responding for me on my talk page or following me to talk pages won't be an issue in the future. Ss112 11:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I never followed you anywhere. My earlier post on your talk page was quite literally an apology. My post today was never intended for you but for RuedNL2, but again, you have already displayed how you are on that.
But just for the record, above you mentioned that "even acknowledging in the post that I asked them not to post there" is incorrect; in my post, I was referring to the top message placed at your talk page; I did not even recall you asking me not to post because almost 2 years is a long time, and if you consider my memory human, I only ever disregarded your request to not post this once). Secondly, even before that, two years ago, I asked you only a total of three genuine questions on your talk page because of how overwhelming the templates and guides were to me. Yes, I was a little slow to understand, and it did get talking to circles in me a few times. I believe it would have been much better if you never reverted my edits and let someone else do it, because I am sure they'd be willing to explain to me without going "don't post at my talk page". I don't quite understand the hostility either, because I never disrespected you. A little kindness isn't explicitly stated in Wikipedia's guidelines, but it definitely wouldn't kill you either.
I just said this because I thought I should. You are not obliged to reply/justify any of this; in fact, I'd prefer you not to because I can already see what your answer would be. We're astray when we argue over this mundane thing; regardless of our pasts, the comment I originally introduced would bring anything but disorder, and yet here we are. I am ashamed of this and myself.
I have nothing more to add; I'll be off then.
P.S.: Apologies, Ad Orientem, that this discussion had to take place on your talk page and for any disruption caused. Lunar-akaunto／talk 13:49, 5 June 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.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

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

Administrator changes

readded Graham Beards
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed

Oversight changes

removed Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your years of work in–among various other contributions–upholding NPOV. (In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing you more in the post-1992 politics arena again...) In any case, best wishes! Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Biohistorian15 Thank you for the kind words! That said I find the project's coverage of modern American politics to be a source of not infrequent frustration and prefer to avoid the topic except when dealing with obviously disruptive behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand. Now, since I already have your ear, I just stumbled over a major POV issue of a now desysoping admin as I was - litterally a min. ago - trying to add an innocuous biographical reference at Bryan Caplan: this ridiculous thread says it all. There seem to have been more than a dozen discussions regarding a removal of that link from the SPAM blacklist. Sorry for annoying you so immediately after you said not to bother with politics... but could you take a look? Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
@Biohistorian15 After reading through the discussion, I think the best course of action is to open an RfC. There is no consensus one way or another and not much participation. Hopefully that will get some more input. (I'm assuming you were not requesting I directly intervene on one side of the discussion, being mindful of WP:CANVASSING.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not even all that sure what I was asking. Thanks, I'll look into that. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war at Mary Martin's article

Can you, Ad Orientem, please visit the article for entertainer Mary Martin and do something about an edit war there? Editors already have started a topic on Mary's Talk page, and they can't resolve the issue. If you don't have time, can you please suggest another User Talk page or page for Arbitration where I can make this appeal? Thank you for reading this.YemeniKaras (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@YemeniKaras I have placed a low level of protection on the page to prevent IPs and brand-new accounts from making changes without review. Hopefully that will slow things down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

user:SashaHaza

Thanks for that block. I was in the midst of writing an ANI report, so you saved me the trouble. I don't know whether that was trolling or just new user incompetence, but it reaches a point where it does not matter. Meters (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Meters I tend to agree. It might be a really bad CIR fail, but they filed a blatantly false report against you at AIV, which suggests they are not a brand new user. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

James Coco

Thank you for doing something about the edit war at Mary Martin’s article. You might want to check out a possible edit war at the article of actor James Coco, who passed in 1987. Brent Brant (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Brent Brant It looks like the sourcing issue has been resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user

Hello! back in May you blocked a user named "Bkeira" for disruptive editing. Their disruptive editing has worsened til the point another user has complained to me on my page in regards to them. I think that it's time for "Bkeira" to be banned permanently. "Bkeira" is obsessed with editing composition sections on music articles. Their edits usually consist of original research, and when users revert their edits they engage in edit wars. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@OkIGetIt20 Are you sure you have the right user? There is no record for a user named Bkeira. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@OkIGetIt20 Never mind. I figured it out and have blocked them for a week. They are on notice that this is the last stop before an indefinite block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The 92.53.17.0/24 saga continues...

Hi Ad Orientem,

In December 2022, you blocked the 92.53.17.0/24 range for one year for disruptive edits (block log). Their changes are typically made under the "New changes" edit summary.

While there has no longer been any more disruption from that IP range since the block expired, unfortunately they have still been at it with other addresses/ranges, resulting in them getting blocked as well (e.g. 31.11.96.0/19).

Right now, they seem to be using the range 46.123.240.0/20 for the most part. However, Binksternet on this AN/I report recommends blocking two smaller ranges, 46.123.241.0/24 and 46.123.248.0/21 instead.

Just wondering if you could look at it and decide whether to block the larger encompassing /20 range, or those two smaller aforementioned ranges; asking since the AN/I thread hasn't received attention for two days.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 I've blocked the /20 range x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm sure Binksternet would appreciate it too! — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Uncterchud

Please also revoke TPA from Uncterchud and Bonefrag as they are likely socks of Pœnis, whose TPA has been revoked, based on behavioral evidence: lewd images of women and harassing me on my userspace. Air on White (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Air on White Done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Saw you blocked my IP address recently for disruptive editing, but wasn't sure why. I'm assuming it wasn't for something I did, since all of those edits are still live (and, as far as I can tell, properly sourced). The one closest to the block date was an edit to List of 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup controversies (the most recent edit, made June 7th), which was a to correct a spelling error (the only change). I assume that the block isn't for that edit, and it's the only edit made by that IP.

Reason I wasn't logged in, was because I keep getting logged out, and I can't be bothered to log back in just to fix a minor issue.

Just would like some clarification as to what exactly the block was for, so I can avoid making the mistake again (assuming it was something I did, and not someone else in the household). Jaydee Richardson (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jaydee Richardson. I'm not sure what the specific reason was because I cannot see the IP address associated with this account. However, over the last few days I have imposed several range blocks because one or more users within those ranges were IP hopping and causing a lot of disruption. It's possible your IP was caught in one of those blocks, though I can't state anything with certainty without knowing the IP address in question. That said, please don't post your IP here as that can be used by people with malicious intent. If you want a more definitive explanation, feel free to email me privately with your IP and I will have a look at the blog log. Editing anonymously is not prohibited generally speaking. However shared IP addresses are vulnerable to these kinds of blocks for obvious reasons. I see that you have recently signed up for an account. That is almost always the best way to edit the encyclopedia and it also over time will allow you to contribute to areaa of the project that are protected from anonymous editing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
This is my first account. I have another one, but forgot the login info, since I barely used it. If you need to know the IP, you can see it in the last edit to the page linked in my message.
There's a chance that my dad might've edited something, since he got me to do that a few months ago. He doesn't have an account as far as I can tell.
I'll remember to be logged in from now on though. Jaydee Richardson (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jaydee Richardson The block log only shows a single page block for that specific IP and no current site blocks. So if you were blocked then it was almost certainly a range block and it has since expired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Says it expires July 15th.
Well, doesn't matter, I'll just stay logged in now, so I'll still be able to edit things if need be. Jaydee Richardson (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jaydee Richardson Ok. I see the issue. You were caught in a range block for 2a02:c7c::/32. You can see the editing history for that range here and the block log here. There has been a very long history of disruption within that range. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. And most of those pages were relating to football/soccer, which might explain why my edits got caught up in it the block. Jaydee Richardson (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about an edit summary

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extrajudicial_killings_in_the_Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid=1230328998

Did I do something wrong? Did somebody else? Or is that page protection just routine for anything on the topic? (tag me in the reply to make sure I see the notification please) MWQs (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@MWQs That page is covered by discretionary sanctions authorized under Contentious Topics. In this case the Arab Israeli conflict. Articles dealing with that subject broadly construed are routinely protected because there is a long history of vandalism and ideologically motivated disruptive editing within that subject area. That said, you are an extended confirmed user and should be able to edit the page w/o any problems. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. MWQs (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Jack Walker

Thanks for the block on that IP address. You might want to semi-protect the page for awhile as well. It recently came off of a semi-protection as well. 73.67.145.30 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

List of all-time NBA win–loss records

this page is competely ok, and some same link should not have more. 2001:B011:E000:15D2:1090:2BC8:8D23:C344 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Concerns were raised at WP:RFPP. Please discuss any issues on the article talk page. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Discussion have been posted in talk, so it is ok. 111.254.25.210 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

TP Revoke request

Hello @Ad Orientem. User:Epicsams9 who you blocked just recently is messing around on the talk page. Could you resolve this? 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick followup over Herrenvolk democracy

The IP you banned has put some stuff on their talk that's almost identical to the edit summaries of the other IP I reverted a few times on the same page so they can be pretty much confirmed as a sockpuppet now, I'd recommend watchlisting all of the other articles they've touched and investigating any new IPs that pop up. Thank you! Orchastrattor (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Orchastrattor The IP I blocked seems to be the only one that has edited recently, and the clear focus of this editor is the Herrenvolk page, which is now protected. If you see this user hitting other pages, let me know. Unfortunately they seem to be moving around a bit, so blocks are likely to be just a form of whack a mole. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Legende Legende Legende saga continued

Hi Ad Orientem,

Back in May this year, you blocked the IP range 109.37.128.0/18 for disruptive editing and possible block evasion of User:Legende Legende Legende.

Well, they are back again using other IP addresses/ranges since, but based on many recent edits I have seen, most of them now come from the IP range 109.36.128.0/19. I highly suspect it is the same person as the previously blocked range noted above – see evidence posted by me and others in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Legende Legende Legende.

Since SPI seems to be awfully slow and heavily backlogged these days (with that particular report going by 12 days and still getting no action), I am bringing this to your attention and wondering if you could deal with that 109.36.128.0/19 nuisance range here, maybe giving it the same treatment as you did to the previous IP range.

Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 109.36.128.0/19. blocked x 6 months. SPI closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem/Archive_27&oldid=1234203913"