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.
A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.
Technical news
The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please emailMadalina Ana.
Arbitration
An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.
Miscellaneous
The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
Hi Akocsg I am not familiar the subject. Could you please identify the user(s) engaging in vandalism? I am not seeing any specific edits reverted in the page history. And the newer users don't appear to have received any warnings. Page protection is usually a last resort. If there are specific editors engaging in naked vandalism they can be warned and if necessary, blocked. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hurricane Ian
I'm happy to hear that you have evacuated out of harms way, and I pray that your home and community make it through the storm unscathed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
Hi. It seems my IP range has been blocked by yourself until 2023-4-21 for vandalism. After some effort (newbie at this) I've found a list of edits made from within this IP range and I can see that a lot of these edits were inappropriate, however this range covers a huge number of Vodafone and Lebara mobile internet customers in the UK and seems a bit disproportionate. Not a major issue for myself as I can of course make edits once logged in, but was wondering if there's any way you could target more specifically the actual IPs involved. Appreciate that you have a lot on your plate so will understand if you don't have the time. Glad you've weathered the storm relatively unscathed Padd13ear (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for your hard work and contributions as an admin. TBH, I can't count how many warnings and blocks you have posted. Sarrail (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I’ve posted my request to the administrator who issued the discretionary sanction notice. In summary, where may I find the review of my edit that resulted in its censorship and subsequent chilling notice? PursuingTruthNotPolitics (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@PursuingTruthNotPolitics Your edit was reverted by Discospinster. If you are concerned with the reasoning for the reversion you should open a discussion on the article talk page. The discretionary sanction notice is routine. We have had a long history of disruptive editing in certain controversial topic areas and the community via WP:ARBCOM has authorized discretionary sanctions as a response. The notice is intended to ensure that editors are aware of the sanctions proactively. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but we do have guidelines and policies regulating what may be introduced into article space that have been approved by the community. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I’m printing the 23 pages of guidelines to digest with the hope of elevating the specific post, and by that, Wikipedia if it’s allowed in/advertent error. Happy to read of your safety - St. Pete here. PursuingTruthNotPolitics (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I know, but like I said was strongly kept before and didn't warrant a deletion. And as it's creator I wasn't even informed that it was up for deletion. I think it should be restored. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I am really upset when stuff like this happens as it makes me feel like not editing. Please provide me when the people who were on the list. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Davidgoodheart I am sorry but when the category was deleted bots automatically removed it from all the articles previously tagged. I don't know of any way to recover that information. You should not be too discouraged. In the grand scheme of things this is a minor thing in life. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
An anecdote
I work with a lot of Cambodians, many of them older immigrants. To a person they all voted for Trump for the sole reason that he was the furthest from communism and socialism.
One of the women and I were discussing unusual food we've eaten, and she said she had eaten crickets and worms because the Khmer Rouge stole most of her village's food, and would kill anyone that stockpiled food. She then related, as anyone would discuss a story from her childhood, how her father and uncle were executed in front of her.
She still won't eat rabbit though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Ad Orientem! Can you help me remember something? You blocked this user in August as a sock (for which thank you!), but I can't recall his other username, which you don't seem to have mentioned in your block summary. Do you happen to remember it by any chance? Many thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Yes, a committed time-waster – I've just tagged a fresh batch of selfies from the Malikdelha account for deletion on Commons, wanted to check that the other account hadn't also been active. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Blocked ip
Hey, so I just signed up for Wikipedia 2 days ago and tried to edit today and it says you blocked my ip address but I never disrupted anything. Sooners01alt (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sooners01alt I count seven edits, not including the two you have made on my talk page. Clearly your account is not blocked. If your ip is blocked that will not prevent your account from editing. However, you should tread carefully. I see that most of your article space edits have been reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
@Sooners01alt I don't know what your IP address is so I can't check. But it is entirely possible it may have been blocked if someone was using it to edit on here and was doing so disruptively. IP address blocks do not typically affect already existing accounts. If your address is in fact blocked and you were to log out and attempt to edit anonymously, that is to say using your IP address, then you would not be able to do so until the block expires. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment about use of dozens precision-guided missiles being used to attack civilians
I am assuming you have a very limited knowledge of the history of war. This is all SOP for Russia and the USSR in its various military campaigns. Wars where international law is respected are the exception, not the rule. This is all fairly mild stuff compared to what went on in WWII.
This comment seemed a bit condescending to me. I then asked:
Wow, that's unnecessarily pointy, User:Ad Orientem! Sure, worse horrors have happened in the history of warfare. But Russia isn't using artillery or aerial bombings here, where stuff misses, or aiming at a military target, and there's vast collateral damage. They are using very precise cruise missiles, such as the Kh-101 which is accurate within a few metres. As far as I know, the simultaneous use of 80+ precisely targeted cruise missiles, hitting civilian parks, city streets, office towers, and apartment buildings (and admittedly some power facilities), in a way to maximize civilian casualties, and then publicly admitting to having done it in revenge for attacks on a military supply line, is completely unprecedented. But as you must know more than I do about the use of such precise cruise missiles, User:Ad Orientem, perhaps you can remind me of what attack I have forgotten.
However the discussion was closed shortly afterwards before you had a chance to respond (or even see it I suspect).
My knowledge of war is pretty standard, but there must be something I'm ignorant of. To what previous event are you referring to, that I'm not aware of. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The entirety of the Second World War, the carpet bombing of entire cities, Russia's war in Chechnya and Syria, the wholesale destruction of cities and use of civilians in terror campaigns. Nothing that Russia has done in Ukraine has been in any way exceptional. It is a clear violation of international law and barbaric. But it is simply par for the course where the Russians are concerned. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Back then, they didn't have much (any!) accuracy where things hits. Not only can they now land a missile within a couple of metres of the target, but Russia is using the very missiles that have this technology. It's the use of such precise weaponry in attacks on civilians that's unique here - unlike (for example) the Allied bombing of Dresden, where the prime goal was destruction of a manufacturing and transport centre, rather than killing tens of thousands of civilians. Sure, Russia has a history of this - but I'm aware of no other large-scale example where they've used weaponry designed to avoid such large-scale collateral damage - to actually target civilians. Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of maintainers of 5/3/2nm articles, and apparently editing of the 5 nm process article was disabled by you not long ago. Is it possible to either introduce exception for my IP range or re-enable editability, as by now the vandals might have moved on to other targets? After recent edits the article needs a bit of cleanup (remove duplicate ref etc). 188.66.32.155 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the history of disruptive editing in this subject area is too long and extensive. You may register for an WP:ACCOUNT and once you are auto-confirmed, you will be able to edit the articles as they currently have a very low level of page protection. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
But why not simply block the offending IP [range] instead in the first place? Isn't it ironic that as a result of page protection, less experienced editors are now allowed to edit in a sub-standard manner, whereas more experienced editors are now not allowed to fix their mistakes, while the vandals are probably having fun with unmaintained articles, where their activity is not noticed by anyone? I'm not too interested in making an account, that's all – always found it an indication that the person is interested in things like making a "career" on Wikipedia, or chatting in various discussions, or pumping up and boasting edit count, than dedicating oneself to work with content – especially such that a single short edit is a result of hours or days of work.188.66.32.155 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Page protection is only employed as a last resort. In this case the disruptive editing was pervasive and being carried out on a wide range of IP addresses. This indicates that either there were a large number of disruptive editors or a handful with access to multiple IP addresses across a range too wide for blocking. I am sorry that you are disinclined to create an account. You can still post your suggested edit on the talk page and see if an experienced editor who monitors the page would be willing to post it for you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm... You repeatedly mention long and extensive disruptive editing, but I keep track of 5/3/2nm articles for a long time now, and we never had even serious content disputes there, much less faced disruptive editing. When was the last time it happened? Any diffs or other pointers to relevant info?188.66.32.167 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey @Ad Orientem hope you're well. I entirely reworked the Rita Ora discography article and brought it to a good standard, which I later nominated for a featured list status. The article is currently being reviewed and I assume that it will pass the nomination. Although edit warring has been going on over the article for a long time. Despite various warnings given on their talkpages and attempts to find a solution, @Helptottt @Jakubik.v are persistently removing well-sourced content and reverting without any plausible reasoning. Is it possible for you as an admin to intervene? Many thanks in advance. Iaof2017 (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Iaof2017. This looks like a content dispute on a subject matter that I am not familiar with. As such, I am reluctant to get involved. That said, I have noted a lot of redactions of content in the contrib logs for the other two editors along with multiple warnings on their talk pages. So, as much as I dislike the drama boards, this could be a situation where you might want to request assistance at WP:ANI. Just be sure you have a clear record of the disruption and efforts on your part to discuss the issue on the talk page before going there. Be prepared to cite diffs and appropriate policy/guidelines. Tread carefully when reverting. Remember that 3RR applies to everything except naked vandalism, copyright vios and serious BLP issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Response re: Rita Ora discography
Thank you for your comment, but I hope you look into this issue in more detail. An editor (laof2017) has made a huge amount of questionable edits in the article and has, inexplicably, completely altered an already good article. Several other editors have pointed out the same thing in the revision history of the article and laof2017 has ignored it, undoing their edits each time. The editor in question, unfortunately, has a history of vindictive behavior towards other editors. Helptottt (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi AO, hope you're doing well. As you blocked User:Myxxd a few years back, the Westlife-focused editor who routinely added paragraphs of unsourced material and expanded all their articles to a ridiculously overstuffed degree, I'm letting you know I think they've returned using both Johnnyrickes and Didimilk. They've attempted to re-format and expand Westlife discography. Not sure this suspicious behaviour is enough to block them both outright, but they have been exclusively focused since registering a short time ago, and that was Myxxd's entire focus (Johnnyrickes initially edited a few other pages then began focusing on Westlife topics). I think Didimilk is Johnnyrickes as they registered the day after Johnnyrickes stopped editing two weeks ago. Should the article be protected? Ss11212:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
The things one can do from their phone. The two accounts really have nothing in common, though there’s a global lock under one of Johnny’s IPs—this may mean nothing at all. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Westliferforever was blocked for block evasion (but is stale of course). Both the accounts you mention share characteristics, particularly the lack of edit summaries and talk page engagement; the only recourse is to look carefully at behavior, at the very specifics of their edits. I don't know about semi-protection: there's not that much disruption or edit warring, but that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it anyway. I'll keep a look out and let you know if anything more happens. Ss11205:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Return of blocked IP
Hi, Ad Orientem. You recently (20th October) blocked the IP user 119.94.169.84, who was systematically changing 'death' to 'assassination' on multiple articles, without references, etc. They're back now at a new IP, 119.94.166.70, and doing exactly the same. Have warned them. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
@NEDOCHAN Page protected x 1 month. Unfortunately, I am seeing far too many good edits, likely by unrelated editors, within the 86.187.232.0/21 range for me to feel comfortable with a block. However I have blocked the individual IPs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks. I appreciate the difficulty with a range block and, if you don't mind, I'll keep an eye out and let you know if there are any other clear incidents of sock puppetry. Thanks again.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:58, 1 November 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.
Richard Morton Jack is the Nick Drake estate authorized biographer of Nick Drake. No one, I repeat no one, has more accurate information on Nick Drake. Yet his edits were rejected. Nick Drake’s sister — the source of most of the corrections (The are thirteen unambiguous errors in the Wiki entry.) has always been disappointed in the errors.
Morton Jack’s Nick Drake biography will be released in 2023. Hopefully it can then be used as a source to correct the errors.
Meanwhile, this is just one of those cases where the admin got it wrong.
I also second with this user. Richard Morton Jack is verified by Nick's estate, he has access to the Drake archives on his life, artifacts, and has interviewed many of the remaining friends of N. Drake. There is no contest, that his block should be removed. 104.182.120.217 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 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.
Question
First off, thank you for the quick response at AIV! I just wanted to ask though, (not being familiar with range blocks), will the one year block you added for that range also include 92.40.191.69? Because it's still only showing the 1 week block by another admin. Thanks again - wolf04:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I only added "suspended" to the Overland Airways as, in theory the airline hasn't operated the route in a long time
Tunisair had also suspended the Cotonou route and remains so.
I noticed that Camair-Co do not operate flights into Cotonou anymore. A quick check on Flightmapper, as well as FlightRadar24 confirms that the airlines operating the sector are Air Senegal & Rwandair.
I'm not sure why I was blocked for Vandalism? Maybe we just delete the Tunisair, Overland Airways and the Camair-Co entries then.
@ජපස Umm... what biases are you referring to? You are of course free to disagree with my close of the discussion, which appears to be a fork of ongoing conversations at the article talk page. But if you are suggesting my close was motivated by some sort of prejudice, that is not going to sit well with me. I find the imputation and the broader implications both troubling and offensive. In case I wasn't sufficiently clear in my closing statement, I am more than a little sympathetic to some of the concerns raised about the tone and neutrality of the article. If you believe I have abused my position or acted in a manner inconsistent with the trust of the community I respectfully invite you to bring the matter before the community at ANI. I am assuming that such is the case as it is generally considered bad form to revert an administrator's actions without the courtesy of discussing the matter first, except when you believe there has been some sort of abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The appearance of an action motivated by bias is all I am concerned about. You should be aware that this is an issue. jps (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I hope you aren't considering your close at WP:FTN to be admin action. If so, then I really think you are acting problematically. jps (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@ජපස Again, what bias are you alleging? I am neither Roman Catholic nor a religious skeptic. And when I close a discussion on a noticeboard where I am uninvolved, unless otherwise indicated, I am acting as an admin. While I am not sure I agree with it, your rational for disagreeing with my close is not completely unreasonable. But your reverting it w/o first discussing the matter with me, coupled with your rather accusatory comment above, strongly implies a belief that my actions were grossly improper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere is there listed "close Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion" as the powers invested into admins. You made that up. jps (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
As for the alleged bias, I think you've made your position clear that you think belief in "religious phenomena" should not be considered subject to WP:FRINGE rules. There may be nuance to that position, but I see a strong appearance of bias in favor of religious belief showing up in the action you did. jps (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@ජපස Several points. First admins routinely close noticeboard discussions. Secondly, if you are going to preclude anyone with an opinion on that subject from acting, then your own decision to re-open the discussion would by the same logic appear to be motivated by bias in the other direction. Third, I did nothing to preclude further discussion of the merits, rather only encouraging that the issues raised be addressed on the article talk page. Fourth, as noted above I made it fairly clear that I agreed there were legitimate issues being raised. Lastly I am growing weary of your continued abuse of AGF. I have made every effort to try and be restrained in response to your commentary, but am reaching the point where it is becoming difficult not to conclude that you are deliberately attempting to offend me. To which end, you are succeeding. If you believe I have acted improperly, abused my discretion as an admin or the trust of the community, WP:ANI is <<<< that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Anyone is empowered to close noticeboard discussions, admin and otherwise. I have done it and I am not an admin. Thus, it is not an admin action. It is a user action. There is no escalation of importance just because you happened to pass WP:RfA and I did not. Secondly, you are allowed and encouraged to contribute to the discussion as much as you want. I just don't like it when you impose your opinion on a matter in a way that shuts down a conversation. If you are going to shut down a conversation, there better not be any hint of possible bias here. That's simply not the case in this situation. Third, by putting an archive box around a discussion, you are basically saying "stop discussion here, please". Sometimes that is appropriate. In this case it was not. Fourth, I'm glad you acknowledge that there are legitimate issues here. We can leave it at that. Lastly, sorry if my discussion with you is causing offense. That is not intended. I believe you acted improperly. I implore you not to act that way again. I also wish you would recalibrate your discourse as to what constitutes an admin action and what does not... but that's as far as I'm interested in taking this. jps (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if you want to hear from me any longer or not, but there are two things that I think you misinterpreted here: 1) I think the problem with your close was that it argued that religious belief is not under the remit of WP:FTN. However, it is. It just is. The fact that this argument aligns with a theistic conceit is why it seemed to me that this was a biased move. Of course, I cannot know your intent, which is why I pointe out that it was the appearance of bias that I was concerned about. But... rather more concerning to me was 2) the later realization that you thought this was an admin action (it had not occurred to me that you had considered it such until you intimated it above). This is a fundamental misapprehension of what it means to be an admin on WP. It strikes me as being officious, to be honest. That actually concerns me somewhat more than (what I considered to be) a poorly considered close. Not sure if you care about this explanation, but there it is. jps (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 19:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks for your help reverting edits from 47.25.101.36
Thanks so much for helping me revert edits from that IP, it was a pretty big mess. So much so that my computer literally blue screened with a memory ran out error from the amount of articles I had opened that they fucked up which like never happens lmao. Thanks again! Zekerocks11 (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Ad, I love you. I love looking at my Watchlist and seeing "Ad Orientem has blocked yadayada" every single time. You are the best. You constantly keep that page clear like its a baby or something I don't know anymore. P.S. I will continue to try and make my block requests funny but legit at the same time to try and get you guys to laugh or to get you to roll your eyes in annoyance, whichever comes first. You have earned this one. Keep up the good work and keep getting those bastards that aren't here to build this place. Best, Zeke (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I was watching the discussion at ANI and wanted to ask for an advice related to your closure.
What's a correct course of action in a situation when:
Editor A removes content from the article without sufficient explanation in the edit comment or on a talk page
Editor B restores content
Editor A removes content again, this time adding a talk page post explaining the reasons
Explanation doesn't remove the controversy and no apparent consensus forms in the ensuing discussion
Should this be interpreted as a lack of consensus for deletion or lack of consensus for inclusion? What's the best course of action for editor B if they still disagree with the deletion? PaulT2022 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi PaulT2022. Thanks for your question. There are a variety of measures that can be taken to help resolve content disputes. WP:DR is a good starting point. You can also post a neutrally worded request for comment. Additionally you can ask for input from editors by posting a neutrally worded notice on the talk pages of wiki-projects that are associated with the subject. And etc. The important thing is to remain calm. Remember to assume good faith. We are all on the same team here. Avoid edit warring and making highly controversial edits that have been challenged w/o seeking consensus. See also WP:BRD. In the situation involving the two articles under discussion at ANI, I felt that the subject matter was sufficiently controversial that there was a real potential for disruptive editing in the form of edit warring. To which end I applied editing restrictions that have been authorized by ARBCOM as a preventative measure. I hope this helps. best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice Ad Orientem! Grateful for your help and efforts to improve editing environment.
Is there a reason why BRD is usually not enforced in this topic area? My impression is that most active editors learned to walk the line between slow edit-warring and sanctionable conduct. PaulT2022 (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@PaulT2022 Unfortunately, some topic areas engender strong feelings and people can get worked up over things. BRD is an important check on our tendencies to edit war. In extreme cases, after sufficient warnings, sanctions can be imposed if people don't cool it. That's one of the reasons why ARBCOM authorized discretionary sanctions for some of the more hot button topic areas. 1RR is basically a way of telling people to watch their behavior when editing in these high voltage areas and cutting short any impulse to edit war. As an admin I intensely dislike blocking people who are not engaged in obviously NOTHERE type behavior if lesser measures are available. That said there have been a few instances where I've had to drop the hammer. Happily, those cases have been rare, and most people take the hint when being cautioned or confronted with editing restrictions like 1RR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Backlog
Ad we could use your help with the backlog right now for AIV. Vandals are pretty busy tonight.
May I also ask that you keep an eye on 174.212.228.83 for me please. I don't know if I'm within guidelines, per se, to question them any further, but I honestly don't want to deal with them any further at the moment because I need a breather from them, starting to get on my nerves. Best, Zeke (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Zekerocks11 I'm not seeing anything that looks like a red flag. We do have a number of highly experienced and long-term editors who choose to operate via their IP. Sometimes I have walked away from situations where people were just getting on my nerves. Disengaging is far from the worst possible course of action when your temperature gauge is rising. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yup, that's why I opted for that option rather than going any further with that conversation. User contributions is what started setting off red flags though, as the user is currently on a static IP address and it shows that they have made less than 50 edits. Best, Zeke (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
@Zekerocks11 Could be some specie of block evasion. Ya never know. Unfortunately, unless you have an account or another currently blocked IP that you can link it to via behavior evidence, there is little that can be done. Check Users aren't allowed to run IPs through their magic eight ball. One of the things I've had to get used to, are the limitations on what admins can do. I've actually dealt with newbie accounts that I was damn near certain were socks, but absent evidence, my hands were tied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Then they tell me to AGF and coming at me all pissy. As much as they want to put me in the wrong, I'm simply not going to take it Best, Zeke (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah by "noone" I pretty obviously meant "noone other than the guy who complained" (and you apparently). I still don't get their beef with what I've done, but fair enough - guess I'll leave the "Sandbox" alone lol 175.156.197.65 (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.
Technical news
A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)
Arbitration
Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.
Miscellaneous
Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.
Hi Brian K. Tyler, what is going on at the bottom of your talk page? I am posting this query here so as not to draw any attention from a certain IP who is probably watching your page. I can't figure out what they are up to. But what I am seeing feels like you are being trolled. If I am misreading this please let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you must know, I've been having a long argument with an IP editor(s) who wants be to bring "present" back to Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck, even though it's been reportedly four years as I have researched, and also remove "present" from Bob Bergen's part as Tweety, even though it's been one year. They even went so far as to accuse me of disrespecting Jeff Bergman, and flat out called me a liar when I said I didn't. Would you say that's grounds for blocking for personal attacks? Brian K. Tyler (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Brian. First I don't want you to feel I'm sticking my nose into a private discussion. I happened to stumble on this because I have Bbb23's talk page watch listed and saw your note there. That said, no I don't think it is grounds for an immediate block. But it does sound like it is borderline disruptive. This has been going on for months and little if anything has been added of recent value to the conversation as far as I can see. IMO you would be well within your rights to thank them for discussing the matter with you, but state that you are at an impasse and it's time to move on. On that basis I think you can close the discussion on your talk page with the suggestion that they take any further disagreement to the article talk page and seek consensus there. If they don't take the hint, you can then ask me or another uninvolved admin to step in and have a word with them. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
