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.
Hi, I note that in April, you had blocked an editor seeking to right great wrongs on Katyn war cemetery. It seems the same editor has been trying to link to an outdated version of the page on Stalin (1992 film). I am not sure what exactly is going on here, but it seems rather pointless for me to ask for a block on ANI on a blockevading IP editor or seek page protection for such a minor matter. I considered explaining policy but decided not to engage after seeing the IP changed twice.
While I am fairly sure this is the same editor, I hesitate to ask the other editors involved on the war cemetery page to watch the movie page. I will leave this up to your judgement, thanks. Seloloving (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I saw you relisted today, but then closed as keep not long after? Why? And why no closing statement? None of the keep !votes that gave sources actually demonstrated independent SIGCOV per NSPORT (which explicitly excludes routine match recaps), and the other !votes had zero basis in the guidelines. Can you please relist again? JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay The AfD was actually relisted in error. I was looking at another one in the AfD que and accidentally clicked on this one when relisting. Consensus was pretty clear and any close other than Keep would have been impossible to justify. You are of course free to renominate the article, but given the recentness of this AfD I would wait at least a year before doing so. FWIW, I've lost some arguments at AfD as well. It happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Would you mind relisting it, then? Because at 5k 3d/r the consensus was not at all clear, especially considering the deficits in the keep arguments. The first keep had no basis in notability guidelines (NFOOTY having been repealed), the second keep just listed out a clearly unreliable source plus passing mentions in routine reports, the third listed the same routine recap plus a non-independent mention, the fourth gave a bunch of irrelevant personal opinion and a GHits defense before editing in a source containing just 2 sentences on the subject, and the fifth just cited the above invalid arguments. Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Cullen328 for a 2nd opinion. This looks like a Keep to me, but I am not opposed on principle to a relist if there is something less than a solid WP:PAG based consensus. However, this has already been (accidentally) relisted and then reclosed as a Keep. So I'd like a another set of eyes before I say yay or nay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Let me start by saying that I am an American and know fairly little about association football and even less about which sources are considered reliable for that sport. However, it appears that he plays in the highest level league in Australia, and has appeared in at least 24 games. I cannot imagine an article being deleted about a player who has appeared in 24 games in Major League Baseball, or the National Football League or the National Basketball Association. I do not see how any result other than "Keep" can be justified. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I would still prefer if you relisted. If it helps to bring in another admin who has closed probably hundreds of these NFOOTY AfDs, @Sandstein might be able to provide an opinion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328, NSPORT specifically repealed NFOOTY because it was such a poor indicator of GNG (which has always been ultimately required by NSPORT anyway). So any arguments that he is presumed notable based on having participated at the highest level of a sport are explicitly not valid at AfD now. There have been many, many, many deletions of such footballers due to no one actually being able to find SIGCOV. That is why in this AfD I have been asking for coverage that does not fail SPORTSBASIC's exclusion of routine reporting, rather than addressing the !votes that amount to "he plays pro football, he must be notable". JoelleJay (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I know all of that, JoelleJay, and I agree that there are far too many articles about lower level footballers. So why not focus on cleaning up all of that lower level crud instead of going after the articles about top level players? We operate on consensus and quixotic quests rarely get very far. I am a pragmatist. Cullen328 (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
We operate on a consensus based on argument strength, not number. And the consensus is that !votes relying on non-existent guidelines are given very little weight, which is why we've had literally hundreds of pro footballer AfDs closed as delete, many with the explicit statement that keep arguments of the type appealing to "having played at the highest level in their country" were disregarded. It is why many other AfDs with similar or higher keep:delete ratios are relisted with the administrator giving the weakness of such keep !votes as a reason. And giving leeway--despite demonstrable lack of SIGCOV--to a contemporary pro footballer from a large English-speaking country with heavy online sports reporting presence is absolutely detrimental to efforts to remove "lower level crud". JoelleJay (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
And in case you don't follow sportsperson AfDs, here are some examples of the closes/relists/invalid keep arguments I referenced above:
[1], [2] (relisting comment, at 7k 3d: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.), [3], [4], [5] (including three !votes calling The Football Sack unreliable), [6], [7]The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion.[8], [9], [10]...The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption..., [11], [12]Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to WP:GNG standards.[13], [14]. Note that some of these were from before NFOOTY was deprecated; those same keep arguments weren't even persuasive then. JoelleJay (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328, part of why I'm reacting so strongly to your comments here is because the few times I've encountered your !votes at sportspeople AfDs they have been very reasonable and guideline-based. So it's disorienting for you to be reading that discussion as "keep" when in other AfDs on footballers you've saidDelete unless someone can provide evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Ping me if you do and I will gladly change my mind. The closing administrator should discount any !vote that fails to provide rock solid evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Arguments that overtly or obliquely reference NFOOTY should be rejected out of hand, because that SNG is defunct. I am genuinely baffled how the exact same arguments you said should be discounted then are now valid for this particular footballer, whose SIGCOV should be orders of magnitude easier to find (but hasn't). JoelleJay (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
JoelleJay, the context is entirely different. When I comment on an AfD, I am offering my own personal assessment as just another editor. I choose to participate when I think that I have or can quickly develop an understanding of the topic, and can perform a credible search for reliable independent sources. As shown on my userpage, I often expand and improve articles I find at AfD. And my record shows that I do not hesitate to recommend deletion a large percentage of the time. But I did not comment on this AfD. I was not even aware of it until I was asked to comment by our friend Ad Orientem after the close. I have had no formal involvement whatsoever with this AfD. I was just expressing an opinion about the close when I was asked for it. Very different. I made it clear that I know little about association football and even less about the best sources for that sport. In 13 years of editing, I rarely comment on this sport because I am not a fan and am not well informed, although my two sons played at the lowest youth level in the US. I doubt if I have commented on more than a handful and usually when I see something disruptive going on. I remember commenting on one soccer related AfD years ago, but that had to do with San Francisco, which I have been studying for 50 years. If you or anyone else wants an informed opinion about mountaineering, please feel to ask, because that is the sport I know the best.
The role of an administrator when closing an AfD is to assess consensus without making a supervote or imposing their own personal notability philosophy on the debate. Administrators can certainly discount AfD "votes" that are untethered to policies and guidelines, but they should not be the arbiter when one editor says "this is significant coverage" and another editor says "no it isn't". To me, that strays into supervote territory, and that was the basis of my unofficial, after the fact comment.
I am well aware of the recent changes in the sports notability guidelines and support those changes. I am also aware of the stressful dynamics among editors who have a range of views on these issues, often passionately held. I truly think that it is advisable for editors who want to delete sports biographies to focus on the ample and abundant low hanging fruit, as it were, instead of choosing to go after biographies of young players at the very highest level of the sport. I think that approach provokes conflict unnecessarily. That is my personal opinion and I am entitled to express it when asked for my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328, I very much appreciate your reasoned responses here, so thank you for that. The part that I am confused about is why your instruction for closing at that recent AfD (The closing administrator should discount any !vote that fails to provide rock solid evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Arguments that overtly or obliquely reference NFOOTY should be rejected out of hand, because that SNG is defunct.) should not be applied in this case. All of the keep arguments "obliquely reference NFOOTY", and the sources these !voters produced were either not reliable and independent, or amounted to a few sentences combined in routine match reports, so, far from significant coverage.
The trend in sportsperson AfDs now that NSPORT has been revised, and especially with the deprecation of NFOOTY, is for those editors who used to !vote "keep meets NFOOTY" to now just claim GNG is met, regardless of source quality. However, even with that, only one, maybe two, of the keeps even indirectly invoked GNG; the rest, if they cited sources at all, did so without even claiming they provided significant coverage (instead using them to support arguments-to-avoid stuff like Google search suggestions(!) and to verify his inclusion on a list of "23 A-League Men's players under 23 to watch this season"). There was certainly no consensus that any specific IRS provided SIGCOV, which is what is now required by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Why not take action?
I recently posted about an IP Vandal User:159.196.168.12 on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I followed all the protocols and the IP Vandal has gone past the final warning and continues to vandalise pages but no action was taken and the request was deleted. Can you please care to explain why no action was taken?. Whenever I put a foot wrong on Wikipedia, I am told off straight away?, why does this User continue to get a free pass?.Sully198787 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sully198787 Hi. Thanks for your note. I am not sure of the details here because I don't have a link to the original report at AIV. However, I will note that the most recent warning was issued at 18:51 on the 22nd instant. A look at the IP's contrib log showed they had not edited since 13:01 on the 20th instant. That's a gap of more than 48 hrs. Blocks are not punitive. They are intended to prevent disruptive behavior. Whatever this IP had done, they had ceased editing at least two days earlier. As such the report was stale. That is to say that there did not appear to be any ongoing disruption and no immediate threat of it resuming. Additionally, IPs are anonymous. We don't always know who the address belongs to. It might be a private home, in which case there are going to be a limited number of users with access to it, or it might be semi-public, such as a library or a school or work place computer. In that case any number of individuals could be accessing it. So we don't want to do something that could unnecessarily limit constructive editors from accessing the project. The bottom line is that blocks are a last resort, that are only used to prevent disruptive editing that is either ongoing or as a matter of commonsense likely to resume at anytime in the near future. A period of 48 hrs since the last edit is almost always going to be considered outside the scope of admin sanctions for that reason. I hope this helps you understand why your report did not result in any action. Please feel free to keep an eye on the IP, and re-report or drop me a line directly if they resume disruptive activity. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that as long as this particular user keeps vandalizing rugby league pages on a sporadic basis then they will never be banned. This particular user has been on other IP Addresses in the past and has been banned on those. I know IP's are anonymous but I am 100% certain it is the same person because their actions have been the same. My only option I think is to keep reverting anything they try to do because the chance of them being banned is very slim unless they actually create an account which I doubt will happen. Sully198787 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Sully198787 If the user is using other IPs to carry out vandalism, and those IPs are all in a close range, then they can be blocked. Otherwise, it's pretty much a game of wack a mole. If there are specific articles being regularly targeted, then I can protect those pages. But the disruption needs to be fairly heavy for that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
IP range block
You beat me to the block button for 2600:1700:3BD2:8C0F:0:0:0:0/64 by seconds. In view of the nature of the recent editing I was going to block talk page access, which you didn't. Having thought about it for a while, I decided to go ahead and change the block, but please revert if you don't agree. I am in two minds about adding a "block no talk" notice to the talk page of the last used IP address, and maybe even to the block notice. In general I think a blocked editor without talk page access should know how to request an unblock, but this time the editing is so very much 100% unconstructive that my guess is that the only effect would be for admins at UTRS to have to waste time dealing with trolling, so I'm inclined to leave it. However, let me know if you disagree. JBW (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I am replying on your talk page because I have a word limit on the Arbitration thread.
Since you are the first person who has asked the question, I would like to answer the question. I am a new editor. I have never edited Wikipedia prior to my first edit on this account.
I would like to provide an explanation for why it may seem like I am more experienced then a new editor.
I started reading Wikipedia regularly because of the current events page. I found that it provided a more global overview of the news on a given day.
One thing I later discovered was that each article on Wikipedia had a "Talk Page" where content on a page were discussed. It was quite interesting for me to see the discussions, since there were times when I felt the content on pages were not justified, and the discussions allowed me to see how the content had been decided.
After some time, it became a habit to just read the talk page with the main article, since it gave a degree of context to almost all articles. Over time, I started to pick up some of the abbreviations used, since they came up so much. That's why I've been able to use them sometimes when I edit.
Maybe you think what I've said is just a made-up story. I wouldn't blame you for thinking that, given my actions in the past few days. But if you use the technical tools that you detect sockpuppets and ban evaders with, you'll find that my profile will come up clean.
You may also consider the fact that I'd probably not have drawn attention like I've had if I really was trying to evade or avoid anyone, since that would have clearly been counterproductive. Carter00000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
You recently declined a block on an Indian IP range, rightly citing collateral damage. Besides the immense among of sockpuppet evasion from that range (which I brought up here and at ANI), I have monitored that range and noticed roughly two in three edits are other vandalism, unsourced contributions, and BLP violations. Many are reverted by monitors of those respective pages. I was inclined against a range blocked in my SPI and ANI reports, but request additional consideration as neither process yielded more than wack-a-mole blocks and protections. Perhaps a similar extension in blocks to specific pages would fit the bill? If that is still unsatisfactory, I will continue reverting the sock IP editor's edits unless requested to do otherwise. Thank you and I appreciate the single IP block you did earlier. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti I am sorry but there is too much editing in that range for my comfort level. So I have to again decline the block request. I do understand it can be frustrating. If there are specific pages that look like they are getting especially hard hit with disruption let me know and I can protect them. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok the editor just hounded my last 10 or so articles, just reverting any work I did. At this point, there is no point in my editing if it will simply contribute to increased vandalism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
If it is not much trouble, could you take some time to check the changes made to the page Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church by User:Pbritti in the last two months. All of his edits have no valid references/sources and these are all critical information about the church and the changes are mostly in the info box and leading section. After making all his critical edits he has asked you to lock the page.
Examples.
1. Founder of the Church : He has added the name of a Bishop , who is in no way regarded as the founder of the church. There is a discussion ongoing on the talk page , and no valid reference is still given. The current reference does not have the word "founder" nor suggest the church was "founded" by the said Bishop. This is the source/ reference he provided which is a private website which nowhere mentions a founder https://smiocbristol.org/vattasseril-thirumeni
2. Adding Foundation date as 1912 which is the date when "Catholicate" was established. After the establishment of Catholicate, the head of the church is designated with the title "Catholicos". How is a church "founded" when the church decided to establish a new designation for its bishop. Again the sources provided does not mention "founding of a new church" , but provides the date when the Catholicate was established.
When sought for sources, this is what User:Pbritti did in my talk page. User talk:Zoticus777#SPA/MEATPUPPET . How can an editor with over 7000 edits , edit a page without valid sources and argue over it with other editors? Is changing words from "remains in" to "claims to" a good faith edit? [[17]]
Could you please take some time and look at the sources , it wouldn't take more than 20 mins to verify the sources. Thank you. Zoticus777 (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Zoticus777. I am sorry for the delay in responding but I am rather ill. Everyone in the family has been stricken with either the flu or the Great Pestilence. Tests pending. I will look into this as soon as I am feeling a little better. If this is time sensitive, I would suggest asking another admin to have a look. Again, I am sorry I am not able to handle this right now and appreciate your understanding. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientum. Thanks a lot for the response. Sorry to know about the ill health of you and your family and will keep you all in prayers. This is not time sensitive and you could have a look at it when time permits. Thank you so much for the response when you are going through a difficult time. Much appreciated and Prayers. Zoticus777 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Zoticus777. I've taken a look at the issues you've raised along with the accompanying links. At present I am not seeing anything that is actionable as an administrator. This does not mean your concerns are invalid. It just means I am not seeing any vandalism or other form of gravely disruptive editing. It looks like a classic content dispute to me. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you are having difficulty getting participation in discussions regarding sourcing and the like, you can always post a neutrally worded request for input from experienced editors on the pages of related wiki-projects. You can also post a Wikipedia:RfC, though I'd do that as more of a last resort. Thanks for your contributions to the project and on a personal note, your patience while I am recovering from Covid. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Seeking your feedback on a possible case of UPE/COI
Btheweeknd creates articles about concert tours that have not yet taken place and adds “citations” that are ticket sales or festival pass sales sites. This seems like unambiguous advertising and promotion, and the “citations” seem like spam links. When I have removed these, the editor adds them back again. When I asked why they are creating articles on concert tours that haven’t happened yet WP:FUTUREEVENT, they responded they are “not the only editor” who does.
I’ve asked if they are paid WP:UPE, they responded no. Yet, they have uploaded multiple official photographs of artists as their “own work”. I left a message about COPYVIO, and they said they were “unaware.” Please see their talk history for the multiple warnings that were issued by myself and several other editors (including you, as the blocking admin).
It seems there may be WP:COI as both artists he is currently promoting (Kid Cudi and Post Malone) are represented by the Republic record label. The editor’s username is Btheweekend, and they state on their user page it’s because they are a fan of the entertainer The Weeknd, who is also, coincidentally, represented by the Republic record label.
I totally get it that fans are enthusiastic about supporting the artists they like, however it seems that they are here mainly to advertise, promote and sell tickets to concerts. WP:NOT, WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM may apply. Thank you in advance for your time, and please let me know if you would like to see diffs. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Netherzone Thanks for the message. I am keeping an eye on their contrib log. At present, they do unfortunately seem to be heading towards a CIR block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I've extended your block there to six months, because edits on that range go back quite a way ... hope you don't mind. It's a /64 so there shouldn't be any major problems with that. I would have just monitored the edits on that range myself but they edit very prolifically and there could also be time zone issues. Graham8703:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
There’s a user, Special:Contributions/73.246.31.164, who just decided that it’s a good idea to ridicule me over something that means nothing. I won’t go into detail, but I removed the stuff between me and this user as it was starting to get hostile. I’m not sure if what this user did is worth a block. I just want to stay safe on here. Dipper Dalmatian16:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi History Buff1239ubj. I am very sorry, but I don't have any familiarity with the subject or access to references that would permit me to meaningfully contribute to the draft. I would encourage you to ask for help at WT:SHIPS. Thank you for your work on the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2022 (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.
TO Ad Orientem ONLY
background I found an obvious error in how bio information form was rendering
i suggest emailing me if you can find my gmail. for an honest expansion
I give permission to search for my login via my IP. just don't give it to the elitist mod who belittled me three times and tripled down on the "our forms are perfect"
I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to discuss something with me in my capacity as an admin, this is where that discussion should take place for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2022 (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.
I'm just going through their edit history and it's all dates and tours and albums, and none of it sourced. What a mess! Anyway, cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Recent IP vandal
Hello, Ad Orientem,
We've been plagued today with an IP vandal from Indonesia whose been posting the same paragraph about child molesting on a lot of different articles. But I don't think Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:F86:D990:0:0:0:0/64 is involved. They geolocate to Canada and they had the bad misfortune of reverting once TO the IP vandal's edit which they thought might be valid information. But they seem really perplexed to be caught up in this mess and I think they are clueless rather than guilty. Just thought I'd speak up on their behalf. Hope you have a great weekend! LizRead!Talk!02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Theoder2055. Thanks for your note. It appears that MNWiki845's last edit on that page was two days ago. And while I have seen some notes on their page, none are higher level warnings. Also, most of their edits do appear to be constructive. At the moment I don't think any action on my part is warranted. But I appreciate your keeping an eye on things and alerting me to a potential problem. If this resumes, please let me know. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
MNWiki846 is my old account which is now completely inactive. And I'am adding jio Saavn as a source to Cobra (soundtrack) MNWiki845 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@MNWiki845 There are no rules against having more than one account. But they need to be declared. I suggest posting on your user page that you are also the owner of... and then list any other accounts you have. This should also be done on your alternate accounts. Regards your referencing, please be more careful. You have been around long enough to know that WP:CITE and WP:V are not optional. Unreferenced claims of fact are not just against WP:PG, they detract from the credibility of the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Provincial governors' names from Brazil (Years 1892-1933)
Hello, Ad Orientiem, this is 121.100.19.195 asking you to help expand the articles from the years 1892 to 1933 by adding the provincial governors' names from Brazil from the articles of the years 1892 to 1933, if you can't talk to me talk to another user to help the user expand the articles from the years 1892 to 1933 by adding the provincial governors' names from Brazil, please, thank you.121.100.19.195 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
To save you the trouble of searching through history, Ad O, Ridwan97 has posted copies of this message to each of three administrators who deleted spam articles on this subject in 2016. There shouldn't be any problem with re-creating the article if the topic is notable (which I haven't checked). JBW (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you declined an RPP/I from me regarding pages of my bot, User:ThePhantomBot, for being preemptive. I believe my request falls under WP:UPROT with previous vandalism toward me providing a point to protection.[1] Though I did not make it clear at all in my request, I also believe that at least part of the request should not be considered preemptive.
My user page is fully protected due to vandalism, with my talk page being a frequent recipient, (1, 2, 3) demonstrating a frequent intent from vandals to vandalize pages related to me. Recently, those attempts spread to my bot's talk page, which I don't believe would be negatively affected by protection due to it being redirected to my unprotected talk page. While protecting the bot's talk page would decrease some vandalism, if only the bot talk page is protected vandals may chose to target other unprotected user pages of the bot as they've shown a willingness to look for other pages to vandalize by choosing to vandalize the bot's talk page instead of mine.
aggressive response to a warning the Teahouse guys endorsed
Please take a look at this user's response to my reversion of his addition of a commercial link to a food article: [18]. I have pretty gosh-darned thick skin, and this was so inappropriate in an encyclopedic environment that I need to turn it over to others. Thanks for your thoughts. - Julietdeltalima(talk)15:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
About a month or so ago we spoke about User Talk:159.196.168.12 and how they have been vandalising rugby league pages but you said that nothing could really be done because the vandalism was not constant and it was also done through an IP Address. Well the vandalism has started again and despite two warnings they persist on doing it. I was asked by you if they start again to post on here.Sully198787 (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sully198787 I have dropped a final warning on their page. However, I need some clarification. Are they inserting factually false information or otherwise damaging articles? Or is this a case of inserting unsourced claims which either are, or may be, factually correct? The former would be vandalism. The latter would not, although it is clearly disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
They are changing names of teams and player information. For instance, the name of the club is the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs, they are removing the Bankstown part and putting Canterbury Bulldogs, which is the incorrect team name. They also do it on any Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks and Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles pages, they change it to Cronulla Sharks, Manly Sea Eagles etc.Sully198787 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Can you please put a substantially longer protection on the Joe Quesada page? Persistent vandalism on it continues, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop. Nightscream (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)
Arbitration
The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Assuming this is a long term issue, I will try to get more page watchers from some Wikiproject next. Thank you. Have a good evening! Seloloving (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Your return
Hello Ad Orientem, you'll notice I'm retired--I hung the "black flag" on my user & talk pages--though I still look in here and there. (I did some Wiki Gnome copy editing for a number of years, so you probably don't know me.) I watched the mess unfold from the sidelines when you retired several years ago, and I believe you had good reasons for leaving. (I hung it up soon after.) I've wanted to ask you why you decided to return. I don't believe Wikipedia is worth the effort anymore: the barely-disguised personal and political biases of editors, for whom we're supposed to "assume good faith"; rudeness and incivility tolerated because the editors in question were "long-time editors"; RfAs that were absolute farces (opposing votes practically shouted down, the supporters posting "don't worry, they're going to pass anyway"); a systemic bias that showed itself in your episode a few years back. You seemed to me an honest, level-headed editor. If you have time, I wonder if you'd feel comfortable sharing your thoughts. Thanks. Foreignshore (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has its issues, including systemic biases. But I ultimately decided that the project needs involvement from people of all perspectives. Issues are rarely fixed by withdrawing. In general I avoid the hotter article subjects such as those often covered by APL2. But the one way to guarantee that these biases remain unchecked, is to simply throw up my hands. The idea behind the project remains intact. The execution has been, and will always be messy, by the very nature of an encyclopedia open to almost anyone with access to the internet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
IP Vandal is at it again
A couple of weeks ago you did me a huge favor by blocking 159.196.168.12 as they were changing team names and information. They have now resurfaced as 159.196.168.218 and are doing the same thing. Whoever this is they have been doing it on multiple different IP Addresses for well over a year now. I thought I would just bring it to your attention. Sully198787 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I hope you are well. I just wanted to let you know that when you restore a draft or sandbox that has been deleted due to CSD G13, you have to make a minor edit to the page or it immediately becomes eligible for deletion again because it's been more than 6 months since the draft has been edited and the page restoration doesn't count as an edit to the page.
Hi, I've noticed you've blocked IPs in the 65.92.118.* range a number of times (I think most recently 65.92.118.198 in June for six months). It appears they're back as 65.92.118.137. I believe I've reverted their edits as of now but I figured I'd let you know since they haven't technically done enough for AIV yet, but I'm happy to report there if you can't get to it and they continue editing. I'm not sure if blocking the /24 makes sense, it seems they've been the only IP editor in that range since April 2020. See Special:Diff/1104640795 for one of their typical edits. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your message @Ad Orientem I am new at this and I think I need help. The information talking about key that happens in some countries in the caribbean is also the way we play in Haiti and maybe Puerto Rico but I don't know why this is not published as I did not see it and I don't know how to get to the page. I know what they call key is what we call Dekabès and what is called Capicu with an accent on the u in Puerto Rico. My source will be the fact that I grew in Haiti playing domino and this is how this game is played in the country everywhere. You can check the first blog I wrote about my game here which is one of the few game to acknowledge this way of playing domino. I would like to add that information in wikipedia's domino page and if there is a way that I can have full access to read everything on this page to make sure that everything I know about domino is there. Any way to meet and do some edit together will be greatly appreciated and will be used to add more information in wikipedia about Haiti mostly but also anything that I am comfortable working on. Dekabes Domino
Hi dekabesdomino our guidelines do not allow editors to cite personal knowledge or experience, see WP:OR or self-published sources, see WP:RSSELF. You are however free to cite sources in languages other than English provided they meet our standards outlined in WP:RS. Unfortunately, sometimes this can represent an obstacle. If you are unable to find sources that meet our requirements at the moment, then you should hold off adding your material, until that changes. Again, this is done in order to protect the integrity of the project. See the welcome message I left on your talk page for more useful links and tips. Happy editing! -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey AO, I was wondering if you could clarify the wording on something. In 2020, you posted to the AE log: Das osmnezz is released with immediate effect from all editing restrictions originally imposed on 20 November 2017 and subsequently renewed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 1:03 pm, 3 July 2020, Friday (2 years, 1 month, 19 days ago) (UTC−4)[reply], the 2017 ban was for only a year and you imposed an indefinite ban on BLPs without approval from another editor etc... in 2019: Das osmnezz is subject to the following editing restrictions indefinitely, " You may not directly create any article about a living or recently deceased person as defined by BLP in the mainspace of the project. Any proposed new pages must be submitted as a WP:DRAFT to WP:AFC for review and approval. You may not make any edit to any article about a living or recently deceased soccer/football player without first having the edit proposed on the talk page of the article and then reviewed and approved by at least one editor with extended confirmed rights. When making an edit to a BLP article subject to this restriction you will name the editor who reviewed and approved your edit in the edit summary." -Ad Orientem (talk) 3:11 pm, 16 November 2019, Saturday (2 years, 9 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−5)[reply]. Does this mean that only the 2017 restriction was rescinded or all of the restrictions? PRAXIDICAE🌈18:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Praxidicae. I originally imposed the editing restrictions for one year. Later I extended those restrictions. If my memory has not failed, I did so indefinitely. However, in 2020 I released him from all editing restrictions that I had imposed on him based on substantial improvement in his editing habits. I am sorry to say that recently I have been coming across periodic cases that have caused me to question my decision in that matter. But the answer to your question is that yes, he has been released from all restrictions that I placed on him. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The reason I ask is because of this section I started on their talk page, especially given the recent ArbCom case. I know that per policy prods can be removed for any reason but bot like editing (ie. removing 50+ prods in about 10 minutes yesterday) with not even an edit summary, many of which are to living people, seems disruptive. In any case, I just wanted to check in because the wording wasn't clear to me. Thanks for your time! PRAXIDICAE🌈19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in - I only noticed it because of the flood in a filter/channel I have set up to follow CSD/prod/AFD and it got flooded. Hopefully he listens. Thanks for your time. PRAXIDICAE🌈19:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
You're killing it with the anti-vandal work. I see you all over the place, always making a difference. You deserve a break after blocking that last harasser, and luckily one of my dogs is throwing a pool party. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Do you know the name of the lta 72.215.144.104 is, so in the future I can refer to that instead of "that disruptive editor I saw Drmies revert once, noting in the edit summary it was a long term disruptive editor?" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I do not. Unfortunately some LTA use IPs and are mainly known for their modus operandi. This one has been around or they have a cousin with similar interests. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The page was persistently being moved by an editor who has now been blocked as a sock, away from the long-term stable title. WP:RM has a clear instruction that controversial page titles be left at their original titles unless and until a discussion at RM is closed otherwise, and my prior moves were simply to revert to that longterm version, reversing the sock's actions, so I don't see it would be left otherwise for now.
After your protection of David Plummer (programmer) expired, the very next edit was the same vandal (posting from iiNET Limited in Adelaide, Australia). Is it possible to block a range of IPs from editing a particular page or is that just for registered users? This one looks like he isn't going to stop posting accusations regarding Plummer any time soon. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Guy Macon Alternate Account Looking at the different IPs involved I don't think that a rangeblock is a viable option. I am going to watchlist the page. In the meantime if any serious BLP violations are posted let me know and I will reprotectect the page for an extended period of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
RMS Umbria
Please do not revert an entire edit that includes many amendments, just because you disagree with a couple of them. Have the decency to change just the items with which you disagree, without deleting all the other improvements to the article. Please re-read what you have done to RMS Umbria and sort it out. Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Motacilla The only edit that looked passable was the expansion of barque to barquentine. But you should maybe take a deep breath before snapping when the only other substantive changes you made were not consistent with standard MOS for ship info boxes and in one case historically inaccurate. I will fix the barquentine for you. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I will double check but I think you linked to United Kingdom of Great Britain Norther Ireland. But I will look again in case I misread it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Thankyou. Please restore all the other changes I made to the article, except the one about Govan if you violently disagree with it. WP:SHIPS did have a discussion about how much detail to include about the location of shipyards, and did reach a consensus on it. Please let me know if I was incorrect. Motacilla (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't been able to locate the discussion in the talk page archives, which are voluminous. Frankly it's not worth getting into a snit. I am content to leave it unless someone else objects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
