This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ad Orientem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Maybe it's time for the user Damntcsarg to be blocked
I have reported this user or brought them to your attention multiple times now but you have taken no action. Damntcsarg has continued editing without consensus, disruptively changing content on Selena Gomez's articles to remove a song from being a single multiple times now (as recently as several days ago). They even took to removing my and another user's comments that they disagreed with from Talk:Look at Her Nowhere. They have contributed nothing to Wikipedia besides disruption and are largely a WP:SINGLEPURPOSE account. Ss11217:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Blocked x 48 hrs, although that's cutting it a bit close to being stale. But I do agree that they have a pattern of behavior that needs correcting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
I'm officially barnstar-avoidant, but, doggone it, I've had a really long day, and it was really nice to be able to sit down and look at my watchlist and sigh, "Ahhh, good ol' Ad-O blocked that disruptive tube-sock" (a favorite epithet of Wikipedia widower Alphadeltafoxtrot). Thanks for all you do. Julietdeltalima(talk)03:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You're a gem, AO. What a mess! I'll have to reopen the SPI. Too bad no checks were run on the first slew of blocked accounts. Too late now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia editor who has now been blocked said that when voting to keep an article at an AFD you are not to put your vote on top of of someone else's vote which sounds strange to me. Does it really matter where you place your vote at an AFD? Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Davidgoodheart. At WP:AfD the custom is to place your comments (or vote if you prefer) at the bottom of the discussion. This is to ensure a chronological flow in the discussion. It makes the conversation much easier to follow. An exception is if you are responding to a specific comment by another editor farther up in the discussion. In that case you would indent your reply and insert it directly below the comment you are responding to. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ad Orientem. Could I ask for a review of this close. I believe a reasonable consensus to merge into a constituency article emerged from the discussion; four editors supported a merge in some form or another, compared to only the creator being insistent on keeping (I am ignoring the obvious meatpuppet !vote). Cheers, Number5702:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping Dennis Brown for a 2nd opinion on this. I am not comfortable that there is a sufficient consensus here, but I will admit it is close. I also don't think there were any more edits after your relist. Thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem. My fear is that given their hysterical section to the suggestion of deletion (there was a good deal more on my talk page), the creator will see the outcome as justification of their stance and the potentoal for further articles in this vein (or belligerence if a merge is attempted). Perhaps it could at least be made clear that there is consensus that the article in its current form is unwarranted, and suggestion for someone to do something bold? Cheers, Number5702:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I relisted because I did not see a clear consensus at that time. Since no one else participated after the relist, the close is consistent with my opinion at that time. I might have opted to relist again, but articles like this often do not get participation outside of a few editors, so it is always a tough call, and an additional relist may have been just a waste of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me add, that doesn't mean merging is a bad idea, or that someone else might see a different outcome than "no consensus". It is only saying what I saw when I relisted. Dennis Brown - 2¢07:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis for your input. @Number 57: I am going to stand by my no consensus close. However, that is not a "keep" and the close is w/o prejudice to a future renomination. So if you still feel strongly about this in a few months, just send it back to AfD. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
The article has been redirected without any further discussion. I never will understand why some people have a problem with consensus.BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: It looks like they actually moved the article leaving a redirect and subsequently heavily edited the article in a manner that I suspect may prove controversial. @Number 57: Given the recent closure of the AfD as "no consensus' you may be pushing the boundaries of WP:BOLD with your recent edits. I'm not going to interfere, for now, but if there is an objection then you will need to revert all of this to the last stable version per WP:BRD. That would include your move unless the objection explicitly excludes that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I appreciate it was pushing the WP:BOLD boundaries, but I did let the article's creator know what I'd done and they haven't objected or moved the articles back (which I wouldn't have reverted had they done that). Number5721:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I was working with [Skeletor3000] to establish the pages notability as I have over 20-30 album reviews from various media outlets that reviewed our most recent album and promotional videos that will/should establish this. I was collecting links from our publicist that got us many placements and was ready to start adding. I do feel that the page deletion was slightly premature and am respectfully requesting to be relisted so that I can show this. Thank you for your time and assistance Tyreal13 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[Tyreal13]
Hi Tyreal13. The discussion had already been relisted once and consensus was pretty clear. We generally don't accept promotional announcements as counting towards establishing notability. That said if you and Skeletor3000 think you have enough to ring the WP:N bell the article has not been salted. That means you can recreate it. However, I would encourage you to do so as a WP:Draft and then submit it for review at WP:AfC. That way if there are still problems you can get feedback from experienced editors that may save you from another trip to AfD. Please be sure when submitting your draft to AfC that you declare any connection that you have to the subject of the article. See WP:COI for guidance on potential conflicts of interest. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The person behind an IP vandalising beauty pageant articles is back. Now using IP 197.232.249.131. The previously blocked IP was 41.215.133.146. For example at Clémence Botino. I might be wrong but doubt it. Regard.BabbaQ (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this user is back, using multiple IPs and making the same, exact edits they once made across multiple articles. All IPs come back to the same general location in Ohio, and it is abundantly clearly they're not accepting this block lightly. The latest comes after their IP was blocked last night for a period of several months. See Paula Abdul: Forever Your Girl for most recent use of abuse. livelikemusictalk!16:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Livelikemusic: Sorry but I am extremely busy this week and don't have much free time. I suggest you contact another admin or drop a request for help at ANI. Please include all of the suspicious IPs. I only saw the one on the article you linked. Apologies for any inconvenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
hello, you can create a consensus on Look at Her Now so that the song is called "promotional single". Very few users believe that it is a single and when you edit the page they block you. Please, I don't know how to do it.
User:damntcsarg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Mail
Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, sorry to bother you again. But I have a hunch that the accounts Vladimir Zolotuhin and Pr12402 are the same person. When I checked their Global account editing I noticed that the two accounts have an almost identical editing pattern on several Wikipedias. The accounts also shows the same interest in Khayat (singer), and has the same editing pattern with their Sandbox. I would appreciate it if you took a look at least. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.
Technical news
Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.
An RfC is still open and needs to be properly closed by someoneone not WP:INVOLVED. Dropping out of a discussion is not tantamount to withdrawing previously stated opinions. Clearly there are still objections to the proposed edits so WP:BRD applies pending WP:CONSENSUS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2020 (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.
I hope you don't mind me coming directly here, but both pages are having problems with date vandalism, and I was wondering if we could set a semi-protection? See also WP:KIDSTVDATES. The latter page is already semi-protected after I filed an RFPP request yesterday, but I don't know if that's going to be long enough, unless you think it is, at least for now. Amaury • 15:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
JDDS insists on removing those parameters from the infobox and references guidelines within Template:Infobox television, despite guidelines being just that, guidelines. They are not top-binding rules that must be followed to the letter all the time. Even policy pages can have exceptions. While what went down there on the talk page isn't my proudest of moments, this user has a habit of riling people up to the point of that level of frustration and then tries to get them in trouble when they blow up, at least that's how I see it. I won't state anything as fact. Admittedly, we don't run into each other that often, but when we do...
Before they even reported me to ANI, I walked away from the whole thing to cool off and haven't commented since other than on the ANI a couple of times, the latter to assure another user that I would just avoid them as best as possible for the time being, but now they are still edit warring on the page and going back to their preferred version, insisting that they're right and going against both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO on the basis that because IJBall and myself are no longer commenting that our previous votes are invalid and therefore don't have to wait for the RFC there to close, which I don't think should be the case. Our votes still count, so there's no unanimity and so the changes shouldn't be made. I would actually support removing those crew for other reasons, but I'm not going to support it the way the user in question lays it out and especially not when they can't follow proper procedures.
I of course would never ask you to pick a side, even if you weren't an administrator, all I am requesting is for you to read this, take a look at respective areas, like the article talk page, and then form your own opinion. My only complaint is, regardless of what I said, it doesn't excuse them continuing to edit war. Perhaps the best course of action would be to return to the article to its STATUSQUO and fully protect it so more discussion can take place without disruptive edit warring. While there's been no 3RR violation today, it's all part of the same edit war for them, so... I really don't know what to do here, but I refuse to interact with them in any way, shape, or form, and it's why I haven't reverted them after they reverted again today and why I am requesting outside opinions from yourself. And, again, I know some of this may come across as me trying to "recruit" you, but that is not my intention at all, I again just want an opinion from a fresh set of eyes. Amaury • 07:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The point here is that they are editing to their preferred version in the middle of an WP:RfC that they opened. The RfC has not closed, and for JDDJS to revert to their preferred version in the middle of an RfC that they are so clearly WP:INVOLVED in, is massively problematic. Doing this in the middle of an RfC which has not even closed is both out-of-process and disruptive. At the least, JDDJS needs to be warned on their behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. If consensus ends up being to remove them, that is of course completely fine, but people in general need to let RFC closures happen first before attempting to make the edits they want to make if there's support for them. Amaury • 17:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@IJBall: You actively refuse to actually participate in the discussion, and even snapped at me for simply @ you in the conversation, but yet you still care enough to complain about me to an admin without even letting me know? You and @Amaury: were the only arguing to include and both made it clear that you were leaving the conversation, and neither of you ever even made a policy based argument. All both of you did was use the RFC to attack me. You both made it clear that you weren't willing to have a good faith discussion, so there was simply no reason in keeping it open in my opinion. Also, Amaury baselessly claiming that I have a "habit of riling people up to the point of that level of frustration and then tries to get them in trouble when they blow up" shows that he learned absolutely nothing from the ANI report. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
And absolutely none of that is relevant to the fact that you refuse to follow the rules of the very RfC that you yourself created. And, once again, there was a mutually agreeable solution available here, which both Amaury and I explained to you, but you have shown no interest in pursuing that, and instead seems obsessed with "proving that you are right". WP:SOFIXIT seems to be a concept that is completely lost on you. And, no – Amaury's claim isn't baseless, as you do indeed have a habit of aggravating people exactly as he described, as I myself have found when you continued to hound me after I backed out of that discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
One @ is not hounding. Two instances is not a habit anyway. And even when dealing with bad faith editors, personally attacking other users is not acceptable. Your "mutually beneficial solution" involved another article, which AussieLegend, who you conveniently have failed to mention here possibly because it doesn't fit the narrative of me being some rouge editor, agreed with me was outside the scope of the RFC. You try to portray me as unwilling to cooperate, but you were the who raged quit the discussion when AussieLegend and I both agreed that the scope of the RFC should only be the article in question and that the state of another had no bearing on the current conversation. (For the record, we both did mention that we would support what you wanted to happen on the other talk page in general). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
We didn't ping AussieLegend because what was brought up here isn't about him, it's about you. You and AussieLegend oppose including those crew. That's a fact. IJBall and myself support including those crew. That's also a fact. There is no unanimity here, despite what you claim. In other words, it's 50% yes and 50% no, and just as administrators shouldn't block users who they are involved with, RFC creators shouldn't me closing their own RFCs, let alone trying to make their changes without an official closure. We need more comments to break the tie, one way or the other. Amaury • 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
We do not need another user to break the tie because Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You two have yet to even try to make policy based argument for inclusion. Your argument consists of claiming we don't have to follow guidelines, which is technically true, but there needs to be an actual reason for not following it; claims that it's dependent on the state of another article which is generally not how Wikipedia works; and of course complaints about me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)18:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
We aren't getting anywhere and are just clogging up this innocent administrator's talk page, so I'm done here. If we could actually get somewhere, I'd discuss more, but you'll never get it, either because you refuse to or can't. Amaury • 19:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth and read what I actually said?! I told you that there was a mutually agreeable solution to this issue, but you've ignored it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
What is your "mutually agreeable solution"? Is it the one that you mentioned on the talk page that involved the episode article? Because like AussieLegend and I said, that's outside of the scope of the discussion. Is it something else? Then why didn't you mention it during the discussion instead of rage quiting? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)18:53, 6 March 2020 (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.
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.
All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.
The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org
Hello. A vandal user GabrielDirrty (talk·contribs) has moved the page The Xperience to Christina Aguilera: The Xperience which is totally wrong and not the official name of the concert whatsoever and then the user copied and pasted the article under the name of The Xperience too! therefore I cannot revert the undiscussed move because of the technical issue (The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists) since you're an administrator and you've had contributions to the article, I ask for your help. With regards Bionic (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I truly apologize, I am not at all sure how this works. I did not know I did anything wrong seeing the page had the same information on it for over a decade. I thought removing one thing, wasn’t a big deal.
I looked at other band members and they have a personal life section- can’t we add that for the facts. I meant not to break any rules. Like I said. The Wikipedia has been the same for well over 10 years. So I thought putting it back to how it was wasnt a problem and I do apologize. I have no clue at all how any of this works. Or if I’m even responding to this correctly. Someone named FlightTime was rude. And I find it wrong to be so rude when we are simply tryinARealRapperg to add what was there for over 10 years. And see all the other band members now deceased have a section listing their personal lives.
Why should it be different for Danny’s family? And his personal life.
Due to Danny’s manner of death. It is important that people know he did have two loving sons, a wife, siblings, nieces nephews etc.
his manner of death and nothing about his personal life is hard to read. It makes many feel he had nobody when that couldn’t be further from the truth.
If this is an “encyclopedia”. Those are the facts of his personal life.
Can someone else edit this for us? I don’t know who yet. But I can certainly find out. Unless someone who has been involved would be willing to help. We also have any proof necessary that would be needed. (Just would need to get it from the son of Danny Rapp).
(edit conflict) Hi ARealRapper. No worries. Some of the messages left on your talk page were a trifle sharp given that you are a new editor and you should ignore the threats of blocking which we generally reserve for seriously disruptive or deliberately malicious editing. Like I said, there is a learning curve but it's not steep. If you have edits you want to make on that article I suggest you propose them at Talk:Danny Rapp. You can also ping other editors who were involved with the article to the discussion. If there is no objection within a reasonable period of time you can go ahead and make the edit. Additionally there are a bunch of links in the welcome template I left on your page that you may find helpful. Regards your specific questions... Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Articles worded like an obituary or a personal tribute are a no no as we try to maintain an encyclopedic tone. All claims of fact that are not obviously uncontroversial must be referenced with a citation to a reliable source. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. Personal knowledge is not admissable because it cannot be fact checked and verified. See WP:V and WP:OR. I hope this helps for now. Feel free to come back if you have more questions or concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I am a long time family friend. I knew Danny well, and his wife Gloria (nee Padlo) & sons Frank & Alex, they married in 1962, their first son Francis aka Frank/Frankie born in August of 1963, and not long after their second son Alex born in November 1964! Although the marriage did end in divorce they remained very good friends and in fact, spoke about remarrying some time in the late 70’s early 80’s! It was never a dull moment!! The memories are fond. Danny was a gentle person, he was so talented, always drawing, and he was a great artist in more ways then one. He had his problems, but his death was a major shock to all. His sons are in contact with cousins from Danny’s side. There’s many photos showing the great times and memories. I don’t know what would be required to add just his marriage and his children to his personal life, but I can contact his older son, and I’m sure he will have anything needed. I do know he has all the documents. I’m just not sure what is needed. Danny’s sister Mabel Cremeens, did add that he was born at home on May 9th, but it was registered the next day. So that information is correct.
Thank you so much for all of your help! This like speaking a foreign language for me I do not expect all I just wrote to be in the personal section! I’m just feeling nostalgic! I do think him meeting his wife, who he often said the song Dottie was about (but do not know that to be a fact! Since I am giving full disclosure here!) And his two sons, siblings, nieces and nephews should be mentioned. He was a big family guy. All tThe more reason we were so shocked. He had so many people that would’ve been there for him. It was a very hard time. Especially for his kids. That is why I don’t feel this should be taken from them. I know it’s a memorial site. We have a group page with a few hundred members and that’s used for the whole band. But I feel mentioning these things are important, as they were big and important milestones in his life. I will wait to add anything. Until I know what you need. And I will contact his son, and get whatever is needed. Thank you so much for your help. Again this is foreign to me. I just know to sign it now when I’m done! Other then that! I can hit the word edit! Please let me know what information is needed and I will wait before I add anything else until I get that from his son. ARealRapper (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
ARealRapper, thanks for your message. I wish you joy of the memories of your friend and only the best for his family. That said, this is an encyclopedia and we are catering to the world, not to relatives of any of the subjects of our articles. Claims of fact need to be backed by independent reliable sources. Generally we prefer secondary sources such as news reports, or articles in reputable publications that meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. What is included in an article should be based on the relevance of the fact to the persons biography. Familial relations, unless there is independent reliably sourced evidence of there being something unusual, normally gets a passing mention. See also WP:DUE. Again, while I am not insensible to the emotional issues involved here, we need to separate our editing from personal biases and emotions and confine ourselves to just the facts. Facts which need to be independently verifiable and which are of sufficient importance to merit a place in the article. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely understand, I am not sure if anything like that exists. I will ask his son. I know the family will be more then happy to just have it recognized that he was married and did have his two loving sons. Until I find the proper information (if I am able to) I will not make any more edits. I understand much more now. As I explained, my confusion was- why did it stay the same for over a decade. But I completely understand now. I know that There are of course original birth certificates, of Danny’s sons. With Danny’s name on them. I know his oldest son is his beneficiary. And has all the legal documents, but it doesn’t need to go that far. Now that I understand more how Wikipedia works, the family will be satisfied with how it is worded now. And thank you for that, especially on behalf of the family of Danny Rapp. If legal documents can be used to verify anything I’m sure his son has all of that. Due to their ages at the time of his death, and manner of his death, it wasn’t something back then that the family wanted everyone talking about. Again, I thank you tremendously for all of your help. I apologize again, for not understanding at all how this worker and I apologize to the other admins/moderators who may have felt I was being rude. That was not at all my intention. I thought it would just be simple to remove one thing, and have it the way it was for such a long time. But I understand now things get overlooked. I appreciate everything you have done to help. ARealRapper (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
P.S. you can indent your comments by using colons (:). Each colon at the beginning of a new paragraph indents that paragraph by one space. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to let you know I noticed that some new users and IPs are making genre changes in various articles citing books as sources. I think it is a new modus operandi of MariaJaydHicky who probably counts on the fact that books are not as easily available as web sites, so she can add every genre she wants (usually R&B) unless other users can see that the source doesn't confirm those genres. For example in these articles R&B has been added citing a book as a source [12][13]. This is a behaviour seen in recent Maria's socks [14][15][16]. Blueberry72 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring it to your attention it looks like user Bradley026258, who returned as several IPs you blocked later on, is now back once again as Wacky Windjammer. The user page descriptions are dead giveaways that this is the same editor, but so is their editing pattern of ignoring talk notices and inserting unsourced drop heights. Sorry you keep getting looped back into this, but if you have time to take a look, I'd greatly appreciate it! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Another Believer is refactoring my talk page comments
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.
There are no inconsistencies in how I behave. Thanks.
AO, this is not the first time this has happened and I believe I've tagged you before when Another Believer has tried to "organise" talk pages and refactor my comments to where they please. It will happen again, and it was a pathetic attempt to try and get the last word or make my thread less noticeable. I'd like it to not happen again. Ss11219:09, 16 March 2020 (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.
Should this be called a murder or not?
Hi, I added a link to Greg Alyn Carlson as a 2019 murder in the Unites States as he was shot dead by the police, but I am not sure if this would apply as it was done in self defense. Should this link be removed and redacted? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi David. No, that would not qualify as murder. The term "murder" refers to the intentional and unlawful killing of another person which this was not. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just wondering how are adjusting and handling issues? This has me worried and I REALLY hope that this will get better as soon as possible, take care. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi David. We are living in an extraordinary moment in the history of the world. Books will be written about this and our descendants will ask us what it was like to live through it. It is a bit frightening but I am trying to remain philosophical. In my own life members of my family are unwell and I likely have the virus myself as I have had mild symptoms for more than a week now. I am self quarantining as far as humanly possible. The only one I am really worried about is my mother who is of an age where she would be vulnerable. But for now this is mostly an inconvenience in my life. So many are suffering though. The reports I have read leave me cautiously optimistic that a vaccine may be developed by the end of the year and made available soon thereafter. There are also reports that certain drugs that are normally used for cases of malaria have been showing good effect. But for now we must trust in the doctors and officials... and of course in the benevolence of Almighty God, who for reasons we cannot grasp, permits such things from time to time. I pray that you and yours are well and remain safe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Tanapot2001 is back using ChyFirstz. Editing Drake's discography and Drake articles, and also appears to have an interest in Thailand topics (where Tanapot2001/their socks geolocated to). Ss11216:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
That talk pages of disambiguation articles are not supposed to be created unless there is an existing discussion on that page? My creation of Talk:We Only Come Out at Night has been nominated for speedy deletion by Koavf. I must say, I don't know why the WikiProject Disambiguation template exists then. Ss11221:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ss112: I'm not sure of the guidelines on disamb talk pages, but this does not meet the guidelines for speedy deletion so I have declined the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Titanic II yet again
Hello Ad Orientem, it appears that there might again be some tension on whether Titanic II "is" or "was" a planned ocean liner. There is more detail on the article talk page but in a nutshell Deltamarin, on their official corporate blog, says that they are still working on it as recently as last month. When Palmer revived the project at the end of 2018 some editors thought that the article could not be frozen in time since - at least in publicized thought - it wasn't abandoned. Personally I would like to see it become a reality I don't think it will really happen. But Wikipedia is not an opinion forum. In this case an RS - the company doing the design work - says that the project is still active.BlueRiband►16:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Blue Riband: Fair enough. IMO this thing was never going to happen and is at best a pipe dream and at worst a hoax. But until we get an RS source willing to state the obvious, we can stick to the company line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
You are mis-quoting Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina. I am Slovenian and I read the passage in his master thesis where he specifically emphasizes that "there are SUPPOSED to be 18-20 Croats buried at the site" and he specifically emphasizes that none of the burial grounds have been excavated and so none of the presumptions about the dead people have not been verified. You are purposefully misquoting Daniel Siter!! Starangel19 (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
It is you who are quoting Daniel Siter, and only him, on a multitude of claims!!! And now you tell me he is not admissible? You are not Slovenian, you contradict yourself and you most certainly cannot expect anyone to presume your good faith. If I started posting about supposed crimes of the Americans against the disarmed Japanese soldiers in the Pacific on the wiki sites of American territories, I presume you wouldn't assume my goid faith. Daniel Siter clearly writes that the Nazi-collaborationists Ustashe together with their ministers and their leader Ante Pavelic had been retreating through Rogaska Slatina and that Ustashe were ravaging the local populace well after the end of the war. Starangel19 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Starangel19 You are mistaken (again). I am not involved in this content dispute and have something close to zero interest in the subject. I am an administrator whose sole purpose here is to enforce community policies and guidelines. You are free to disagree with those polices, but you are not free to ignore them. Take your concerns to the article talk page for discussion. See WP:DR for help in resolving your dispute. Your behavior in this matter has become disruptive, and you have already been blocked once. Please tread carefully unless you wish to be blocked again, or topic banned from this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, I don't know how my last contribution was disruptive. I didn't change a thing that other "editors" wrote,I simply added a generally known fact that Croatian soldiers on the territory of Slovenia were those of the Croatian Nazi-collaborationist Ustashe regime who were running towards the West to escape punishment for their crimes during WW2. In relation to their crimes, I quoted wikipedia, which you can see and read yourself. As to their presence in Rogaška Slatina and elsewhere in Slovenia, you can check Daniel Siter and search for USTAŠI-it appears 41 times. The "editor" of these articles on Mass graves is following as you can see yourself more or less one source (Ferenc Mitja, Kovačec-Naglič Senja) and systematically posting the findings of this one work under ALL Slovenian towns/cities/villages, even though hardly ANY of these burial sites have ever been excavated or analysed. How is that scientific? Also, he is purposefully disregarding the nationality and political afiliations of the buried, with the sole purpose of covering up that they were Ustashe killed during mid/post-war reprisals. Croatia is and was another country and Slovenian and Croatian are not different dialects of the same language, but entirely independent entities. Croatians didn't just roam on masse across Slovenian territory. I completely lost respect for this wikipedia community of "editors" based on this one example that I chose to look into. It all seems very unscientific and guided by very very dubious motives, with Nazi-collaboration apologist foreigners posting slanderous claims about one country. I suppose you don't know that history revisionism in Croatia is a very big thing in their country, whereby certain political currents are trying to re-write and somehow cover up the role of their Nazi-collaborationist Ustashe and their NDH regime. Again, it is all very disappointing.... Starangel19 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we got another account and multiple IPs following in the footsteps of User:Wacky Windjammer and User:Bradley026258. Free Fly Spinner also edits mall articles, similar to the user page descriptions of the other two from the past.
These diffs show similar edits: diff1, diff2The first shows an unsourced drop height, extremely common with Bradley026258 and the various socks. The second is the addition of a gallery, common with Free Fly Spinner. Also, earlier in the IP's edit history, they were editing shopping mall articles, again common with the Bradley026258 socks. While I don't have the tools to say with 100% certainty, it would appear this is the same editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Update: I just noticed that the diff2 I posted above (Beaver Land Mine Ride) is this IP inserting an image that was uploaded by Free Fly Spinner. No doubt now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you please leave on this article's talk page that this category
European Champions was nominated for deletion and kept. You may also want to leave on the articles page that the article a note that says AFD closed as keep, as that was not left there neither. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold a Arbcom RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. A draft RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC (Draft) and not open to comments from the community yet. Interested editors can comment on the RfC itself on its talk page.
Miscellaneous
The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Hi, I wanted to report the user "Udai Singh Joara" once again. He has made another account by the name of "Arvind Singh Marwar". His disruptive editing is going to start again. Gutriel (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gutriel. We don't have a user by name of Udai Singh Joara, blocked or otherwise, so I am not sure what you are reporting. If you believe an editor is engaged in sockpuppetry you should file a report at WP:SPI. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Midnight did nothing for me
This idea that soulless corporations and online hives could, would and did proclaim humour futile in the face of continuous mainstream despair still seems like a major frickin' turning point in the wider road to dystopia. Supports and opposes were tied, too soon to call, in my opinion. Not saying you should reopen it, because that would be foolish. But if messages of faith are frowned upon at Easter, or drunken revelry is deflated on Victoria Day, or rebellion is quashed on the Fourth of July, just give it a day or two to sink in, OK? The blurb and updates sucked this time, but that's never been unfixable in ITN/C time before. And yeah, "cancellation" is a "problematic" word, but it represents something completely different and genuinely newsworthy. Cheers to better phrasing, staying healthy and at least a little raging against this Dying of the Light Machine, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Range block request
Can we please get a range block on 94.204.192.187? It looks like the previous block on this range has expired, as is obvious. This is Orchomen again—see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen—who had two sleeper accounts blocked earlier, and is now using this IP address. The IP geolocates to the UAE, as is the norm with this sock. We've been dealing with this sock since late September 2016, so it's not really a surprise anymore. Thank you. Amaury • 03:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've blocked the 187 IP x 1 month. There hasn't been any other editing within that /24 range since January so a range block doesn't seem justified. Also there is no record of a range block on the /24 range. Do you know what range was previously blocked? If this persists alert me or report to AIV/ANI. I am about to go to bed as it is late here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Will do. If you're tired and need to get to bed, you don't have to over this right now, but here is a page I created a long time ago to keep track of this: User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. It hasn't been updated since December 20, 2018, but nothing really has changed in terms of what IP ranges he uses. A lot of those ranges I believe are still currently blocked for a few years, thanks to BU Rob before he sadly retired. Amaury • 04:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
If you are interested and would like some background on this, here are some of the related talk page discussions:
That last one is a really big discussion on the matter. Everything else after that is along the lines of "oh, here's another Orchomen or suspected Orchomen case." You can have a look through my 2017–2019 year archives on my talk page. Just do a CTRL + F for "Orchomen." Amaury • 08:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi AO. There's a user by the name of Timwikisidemen who has received numerous warnings from multiple editors, including a final warning last month, for adding unsourced material and original research. I have encountered this user numerous times, and they are very aware adding unsourced material is not permitted, but don't appear to care or respond to talk-page warnings very often. They have just added more unsourced material, as well as removing other sources needed to verify peaks. I was going to go to ANV, but it looks a bit backlogged and swamped at the moment. Can you act on this? Thanks. Ss11217:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Ad, my account Arcadegirl was blocked with no explanation because apparently "there are multiple blocks against my account and/or IP" which is very surprising because i do not edit using IPs and i do not recall doing anything that might be against the Wikipedia rules. Arcadegirl (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I logged on here and i tried to edit an article but I got a message saying I was blocked because there are multiple blocks on my IP. I tried to write on your page before I got unblocked and i got an error as a result of the block. I have never been blocked before so I didn't know that being blocked would prevent me from writing on your page hence i tried to write you again. I believe my block was a mistake or maybe an error but i didn't think that at first. I am sorry for bothering you. Have a good day. Arcadegirl (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
@Arcadegirl: No problem. I'm here to help. This sounds like a technical glitch. I can't find anything suggesting you were blocked so I wouldn't worry about it. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
[28]Special:Contributions/TpssrsWill BTW Mike Causey (his other edit) was the main witness against Lindberg, who Lindberg accuses in a lawsuit of libel (in his witness testimony!) and of lying to the FBI.
User:Green Beans 721 [29], then known as User:Sarah G Eli who started the article. "Sarah G Eli" reflects the then-name of the company "Eli Global".
On 7 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article George Pell, 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not having a pointless discussion with Koavf at your Switzerland page
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.
He's acting neutral at his talk page, while continuing to exacerbate a discussion with me at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 8#Queen for a Day (album) at the same time, the place where he followed me to and he wouldn't even know about if I hadn't been notified of it. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant. I have already accepted at this point he will not change, and so I'm not having a pointless bickering back-and-forth to attempt to "work out differences" at your Switzerland page. Thanks, but no thanks, so please do not initiate anything. I will not be responding there—I want him to avoid me. If you could close the discussion at RfD so he can stop, that would be great. It's been open for long enough. Ss11202:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ss112: Ok. That's your prerogative. But if you are not willing to converse with them then I am pretty much at the end of my usefulness here. If you continue to have issues your next stop should be WP:DRN or WP:ANI. My guess is DRN is unlikely to be effective since again, that requires communication. I am respectfully not going to close that discussion as I am currently involved in dispute mediation between you and Koavf and although consensus does look clear, I'd prefer to steer clear of WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Noted. Could you please ping an uninvolved admin to look into closing it if they believe it should be? Thanks. Ss11202:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It's in the queue. Somebody should be along to close it in the near future. If it's still open tomorrow evening I will drop a note at WP:AN. I really wish you would reconsider discussion. I honestly don't see any other way forward here unless you want this to go to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll reconsider discussion if he does not back off, and I continue to see him at discussions I've partaken in or at pages I have been notified of on my talk page (for the record, Koavf has been known to make undiscussed/contentious changes to widely used templates, so while I am aware of the avoidance going both ways, sometimes his actions have consequences on highly visible templates. If I have an issue with these changes, I will open a discussion at the relevant template talk page, regardless of whether he has commented there in the past or it's an "area of interest to him"). For now, it's a definite no—I don't need any additional stress. If he is implying through what he has said at his own talk page that he will un-watchlist my talk page and not peruse my contributions as an idea of what to edit, and this is not just feigning compliance and innocence because of an administrator's attention—as even the most experienced editors sometimes do here until the spotlight is no longer on them, then resort to the same old behaviours, like hounding somebody that they were just asked to avoid—then there is no need for it yet. Thanks. Ss11203:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if you both talked things over and agreed to some kind of boundaries to avoid future misunderstandings. You can't ban him from discussions in which you happen to be a participant. That is frankly unreasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The reason why I'm currently refusing is because we have tried some forms of that, and every time it just devolves, so while I understand why you want us to talk it over, it is a definite no for now based on my prior experience and sorry to be blunt, but I'm not changing my mind. I am also not saying he can't join discussions in which I have been a participant. I am referring to articles or discussions he has noticed from either my contributions or that I have been notified about on my talk page (like the redirects from today)—I thought this much was obvious. If he happens across them naturally and it's not blatantly obvious he's noticed them from my partaking in them ("obvious" as in he's commented right after me or after I was notified of them, or edited an article very soon after I have) or that he is referring to me in his reply or !vote, then that is fine and I can't stop that, nor do I want to. Please don't think from what I'm saying or my unwillingness to engage in further discussion with Koavf that I'm ungrateful for your intervention. I am thankful, but I think that's all that is necessary for now. Ss11203:15, 9 April 2020 (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.
Thanks
For leaving a note at Koavf's talk page and explaining. I'm not sure we've seen the end of him jumping into topics raised on my talk page, as he did not explicitly say he would un-watchlist it, but I know beyond this you've done as much as you can and anything further should be taken elsewhere. Thanks all the same though. Ss11223:22, 9 April 2020 (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.
Hello,
Could you add semi-protection to The Phelps School page for a period of 2 days? It has been the subject of a lot of vandalism from IPs and a two day semi-protection would help tremendously. I didn't want to put it on the request page because this is not a matter I want to be broadcasting to the public per se. Happy Holidays Editor940 (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: That is not a violation WIkipedia policy in any way; I can request page protection as many times as a wish. I think blocking me would not be fair.
@Eagles247: It is not admin shopping; more edits have happened since my last request and this is the only admin I have asked since the new edits a couple days ago. Again, everything I do seems to be resulting in you having an issue. I think it is best to not harp on every little thing. Editor940 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Editor940: That last message was from me, not Eagles247. That aside, there has been no disruptive editing in several days on the article. The previous disruption was mostly centered on one IP that was blocked. In short, there are no grounds for page protection. I think it is time to drop this and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (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.
Disruptive editing
There is some editor who is using multiple accounts by moving album credits for unexplained reasons. In the article Astroworld, the editor has been moving credits for no reasons and after another editor Binksternet reverted the edits, the editor keep restoring them by using another account. Here are the edits [30][31][32]. The editor also been adding unsourced content in articles such as recently in I Am > I Was but also with another account [33][34][35]. I don't know who this editor was but the editor is being disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
2600:1700:1113:B80:0:0:0:0/48 blocked x 2 weeks for disruptive editing. These IPs are not accounts and its very possible that the editor has a dynamic IP address that changes regularly. That said far too many of their edits are disruptive and they have been warned repeatedly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The editor is now using 2600:1700:1113:2C40:650C:44A6:6422:694D, and just like as before the editor keep going back to the same articles to make unexplained changes [37][38][39][40]. Most of these edits have been reverted by Binksternet multiple times. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Our Frisco friend is evading the rangeblock by pulling out a previously inactive registered username FortniteRishabS0122. At the song "Yosemite", the Frisco IPs were adding stuff and getting reverted,[41] but after they were blocked FortniteRishabS0122 made substantially the same edit to restore the material.[42] A lot more of this parallel behavior can be seen in edit histories. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I have a thread about this at WP:ANEW and a report at WP:AIAV, but I hope it's fine if I come here as well. Just wondering if semi-protection would be appropriate yet or if blocking the block evading sockpuppet is the better choice right now? Amaury • 20:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey AO. Hope you're doing well and keeping on in self-isolation. I've come across Dojazervas, who is obviously a sock of the now-blocked User:Billiekhalidfan. Most of their edits are from mobile (like BKF's), the topics they frequent are all the same, the edit summaries and way they talk is also the same, and to top it all off, the naming scheme (combining two singers' names) is a giveaway. Ss11205:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Found a sock of Tbone49: Saint Josh. Editing all the topics Tbone49 would, including OneRepublic's latest album (which they previously tried to make an article for) and editing topics relating to coronavirus in Canada, which is where IPs they previously used to evade their block geolocated to. Ss11207:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, a while ago I created the article called "Disappearance of David Guerrero" that was deleted. A Wikipedia administrator said that if I was to ask for an undeletion it might have a chance of being restored. Do you think that you could restore it? It would be great if you could do so. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi David; as the article was deleted via strong consensus at an AfD discussion, you would need to make a persuasive argument that the subject now passes our notability guidelines. This would require some evidence not available at the time of the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
If you check it out you will see that there was news reports on it. I think it was notable and don't agree with those who wanted it deleted as I believed that they were misinformed, that's my opinion though and it's all relative perhaps. I think it also said this was a major missing persons case in Spain as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@Davidgoodheart: We live by WP:CONSENSUS and the discussion was closed with a strong one favoring deletion. Your dissenting opinion in the discussion was noted, but it is not enough to for me to restore the article. I am sorry, but absent some new evidence that was not considered in the earlier discussion I have to decline your request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I understand and will respect your decision, but one thing that I have truly learned is that even though sometimes the majority of people seem to believe something, sometimes it is only the minority of people who are right. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
There is a editor who is using multiple accounts for disruptive editing. In the article Beerbongs & Bentleys, the editor keep adding PartyNextDoor in the infobox. ignore that the fact that he is not credited as a producer on the album. This is not the first time this happened and has ignored my responses. 2800:810:465:81C0:FD98:D997:7788:DE4. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, I just want to bring to attention. There wasn’t a rule violation edit war going on. If you look at the edit chain different topics were being addressed. First one user wanted better sources. I included them. Then another user came in and had a different issue. I reverted as it was not violating a balance issue. It seems to me the user is using a page lock request to have their say. I will take it further to the talk page as your recommendation. But wanted you to be aware. Cheers!PortalTwo (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Tamilpedian Please make your request at WP:RA. Unfortunately I am completely unfamiliar with the subject and don't have access to the kind of quality sources that would be needed to write a respectable article. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Resolved
