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.
Looks like there is a discussion currently underway. And you should refrain from engaging in personal sniping. I have locked the article for 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
Ad Orientem, NickCT apparently thinks your admonition to them at AN/I was a joke since he doubled-down on it with another snarky comment as soon as he saw it (Geez..... I try to tell someone they're good at something and this is what I get.).[1] Can you please do something about this? Stoarm (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
I saw that but I don't think that the comment in question is actionable. I am not going to defend snarky behavior, but I will note that there are all kinds of people that edit around here including some with abrasive personalities. Sometimes it's best to just let the small stuff slide. If you take offense at every backhanded comment you are going to find editing here deeply frustrating. I did warn them about their behavior when addressing you directly. I think that is sufficient for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
But it clearly wasn't suffiicent because he effectively laughed at your warning and immediately did it again as soon as he read it. And, boldly, did it for you to see. For the record, I always let the small stuff slide. I've never reported at a noticeboard, until this. I did so in this case only because it was becoming an ongoing pattern. I know it's not your intent (because you seem like a very nice person), but inaction against editors like this is what enables them to keep doing it. Stoarm (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
See the most recent discussion on their talk page. Hopefully that will be the end of it. On which note, I am going to strongly advise you to avoid unnecessary interaction with NickCT. Obviously, some is unavoidable given the ongoing content dispute. But I'd stay off their talk page unless you are required to make some communication per P&G. That also applies to shadowing their edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
My AN/I complaint had absolutely nothing to with the content dispute. ScottishFinishRaddish was dealing with that. My report and request for your help was solely about the editor's pattern of insults. Yet, for some reason, you didn't say a word to him about it after he immediately repeated the behavior after seeing your warning. If a new editor had done the same thing, most admins would have blocked them in a heartbeat. Also, why are you even mentioning "shadowing" (e.g. stalking) to me? The only page we've both edited is the article in dipsute. Please be careful with comments or implications like that unless you have evidence to justify it. No need to reply. It's time to move on from this silliness (of the overall situation, not you). Stoarm (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
RfC corrupted
I just noticed, three days after the fact, that NickCT made a highly inappropriate edit to the Scott Adams RfC. Amazingly, in the ninth day of the discussion (April 6), he actually changed the RfC statement to add two new options labeled ALT1 and ALT2 (based on alternatives suggested by other editors in the discussion). Other than a legitimately minor fix, the core of an RfC statement obviously cannot be changed once it's begun, other than to remove anything that clearly jeopardizes the RfC's neutrality or otherwise violates its fairness, such as this bold edit by Rhododendrites about an hour earlier. But in this case, NickCT took it upon himself to change the statement options than were presented at the start. As a result, any new readers or participants in the discussion after this change will see a different RfC statement and options than were there originally. These alternatives presented in the discussion, as good as they may be, simply should have been left for the closer to review and evaluate. As Rhododendrites alluded to in their bold edit, the original statement was already problematic because of the confusing "fake !vote" examples that NickCT included, but now we have the equivalent of an election ballot on which the names of new candidates were added long after voting already began. Now what? Stoarm (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
It is not especially uncommon for people to propose alternatives, or for those alternatives to wind up in the heading of the RfC. What would be problematic is if Nick changed the wording of options that people had already supported, but that wasn't the case. He just moved the proposed alternatives up to where they were more visible. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Stoarm. I concur with Rhododendrites. RfCs are not a legalistic proceeding. They are a collegial discussion among editors trying to find the best way to improve the project. It is quite common for proposals to be added or amended during the course of a discussion as it evolves. That said, I think it would be ok to ping any editors who may have commented or !voted before the two Alts were added as a courtesy to let them know that new options have been added. I'm not seeing anything that would fatally compromise the integrity of the discussion here. But FWIW as of right now, I'm not really leaning towards an early close as there is not anything that looks like a clear consensus at present. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the feedback. I just think it's highly unusual to effectively "add names to the election ballot after voting has already begun". And as you pointed out, AO, the fact that these new options were added unilaterally to the statement, without notifying any of the participants, is concerning. At the very least, a note could've been added to the statement about why and when those new options were added. Stoarm (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I'm fully aware that it's not an election or vote, thus the "!" in !vote. That is why on March 31, when NickCT said in the RfC, I count 7 for the alternative wording, 5 for Option A, and 0 for B and therefore determined that one option should be eliminated, I replied by saying Well, we don't simply count "!votes". Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight. Per WP:!VOTE, the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important. While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important. A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration.Stoarm (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I guess our comments there were germane considering her aspersions. Hard to accept sometimes that your draft was deleted through no fault of the deleter or the rest of the Community. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The IP from earlier
The IP whom I had sent to ANI earlier (163) and whom you asked to calm down has just wrote a 10000-character wall of text at ANI about my years of editing history and how it apparently show that I have CIR issues. Although they had apologized for their rudeness over atwith respect to the April Fools RfC, I still hope that you can talk to the IP again. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka I have re-opened the ANI discussion for further input from experienced editors and other admins. The IP has presented concerns with diffs. The problem with ANI, i.e. "the drama board." is that it is not a place typically associated with happy endings. It would have been better if you had reached out and discussed your issues with someone before going there. For future reference see my thoughts on ANI over on my user page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The Swan Princess
Could you unblock this page? I want to add a detail or if you can't can you write "Rothbart's goal is to marry Odette so he can rule William's kingdom legally, but Odette refuses."? Animelover96 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello Animelover96. You may request edits on protected pages on the article talk page. Please be aware that you will be required to cite a reliable source in your request. The page is currently protected due to a long history of disruptive editing. Once you have been around for a little while and have done some constructive editing you will be automatically allowed to edit semi-protected pages. I apologize for any inconvenience. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi David I have almost no experience in DYK myself. I suggest you pop over to the talk page and ask for help from a more experienced editor. Unfortunately, I have some ongoing issues in my life that are keeping me from spending as much time here as I would like. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Is there some hold up on this? This RfC is pretty obviously in the "apparent that consensus won't be reached" category. Frankly, that was pretty clear when you made this comment and I can't see that anything has been gained through delay. I appreciate that you're busy with adminly activities, but I really wish you'd simply said you didn't have time so I could have requested close from someone else. By sitting on this, you've effectively maintained wording which, according to the vast majority of RfC respondents, isn't right. Acknowledging WP:NOTNEWS, I think you can appreciate the importance of moving faster on articles that are in the news. Inability to effect timely change on this kind of thing makes the project look incompetent.
@NickCT I looked at it a few days ago and came to the same conclusion. This is a no consensus. Given the weight of P&G arguments I don't think I can say much beyond that there is a very rough consensus against option A. So I'd likely have to pick one of the others. I will look at it in a bit and try to figure it out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok. Well thanks. At least, at long last, we got rid of the nonsense language. Would have prefered if you'd outright selected one of the alternates or option B. You know how childish behavior persists if you provide opening for people to get pointy. NickCT (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Conceding some unusual exceptions, I don't see my role as making a decision for everybody else in a heavily fractured RfC. If there were some gravely flawed arguments that were being floated, I might have had to weigh in on that. But this was just one of those situations where solid editors were all looking at the same policies and guidelines and reaching different conclusions. None of which IMO were really unreasonable. Sometimes Wikipedia can be messy. Sigh. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Risantana I'm sorry but I do not have administrator rights on Wikimedia Commons. You will need to request assistance from an admin on that project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Request for admin help by someone familiar with LTA
Hi. I've read your description so please don't worry if you haven't the time or space to deal with this. You helped a while ago with an LTA via an IP block. Said editor is a prolific sock who abuses multiple accounts (very easily more than 20 imo). Anyway, there is an SPI here and the admin involved has asked for someone more familiar to assist. I'm happy to help. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi NEDOCHAN. I took a look at the SPI but am not really comfortable going where a check user is not. (I don't have that tool.) You might post a request for other opinions at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The (albeit understandable) necessity of spending so much time on socks is what makes me so contemptuous of them. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
All of the stuff submitted by that IP on Tejashwi Yadav's page was defamatory and threatening. Kindly delete all revisions of the IP from that page. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
By the time I wrote to you about it, you had likely gone offline. I then asked NinjaRobotPirate to delete those revisions. Later on, at my request, NinjaRobotPirate deleted those revisions. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
both clearly imply they believe the work (The Poem of the Man-God) is of divine inspiration, and its writer (Maria Valtorta) divinely inspired
both are very adept of producing walls of text to defend their position
both are extremely motivated in pushing their POV (I feel it as a form of attrition forcing me to always be there otherwise they would push their POV, I mean just look at their answers, my good faith and energy is wearing thin...)
neither understand what a POV is, nor what the WP:NPOV pillar is (they insist on making a false balance)
neither understand what a reliable source is, nor what makes a source reliable
both have preconceptions on what the article should contain or not
None have edited the article very recently, but they are planning to do so in the very near future.
Full disclosure: I have an ANI opened against Arkenstrone (which, as always for my ANI requests, have not received the attention of an admin willing to close the case in a few days; this is not a request for you to intervene at this ANI though). Veverve (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@Veverve Have you notified all of the editors involved in these disputes of the ANI, including any previously involved admins? That should be done as a matter of form if it has not already been done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Arkenstrone was noticed. I did not think a warning to the other admins should have been done, nor did admin Deepfriedokra who commented at the ANI and was loosely part of the content at the ANI request. I did not think any of the admins I mentioned at ANI were involved. So, do you think I should warn all the admins mentioned in my ANI request?
The ANI thread only concerns Arkenstrone, and its matter is unrelated to the POV and lack of COMPETENCE I described to you.
@Veverve An ANI notice is not a warning. It's just an FYI. You can always leave a note as a opposed to the template. But I have always operated on the belief that where ANI is concerned, anyone who has been involved with the dispute, especially admins who have a history with any of the parties, should be given a courtesy notification. I am loathe to get involved in a dispute that involves subject matter with which I have little to no familiarity and where other admins have already been involved before me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, the matter I am asking you for advice – and if you deem so intervention – is unrelated to the matter discussed at ANI. ANI only concerns personnal attacks. The crux is: I cannot get through those two users thick skulls that all their behaviour I described above is problematic, I tried everything, it is like they do not read the links to policies I send them. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, judging from what they both have written recently, they still have no idea what a RS is. They have not edited the article to push this opinion I oppose, so technically they are not POV-pushing (at least, not yet). I am tired of those walls of texts, my words have been falling on deaf ears with those two SPAs for weeks now... Do you have any advice? Veverve (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to raise a procedural objection to the decision process for Tina Turner's death on ITN. The discussion was closed in literally one hour, giving many people in a good chunk of the world extremely little opportunity to voice their opinion (support, oppose, or concerns). Consensus could have easily changed in the span of 24 hours, I'm not convinced that enough time was given for others in different regions to give their opinion. This approval was far too quick, this doesn't seem to be a good way to run this discussion. Please let me know if this is a good place to discuss or not, the ITN voting page says "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page" but I'm not sure where that is. Thanks, QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I actually think it unlikely that consensus would have changed in 24 hours, and I don't think the decision to post was wrong or premature. It is a little unusual to close the discussion that quickly, normally it is left open for objections/requests to pull, but again I think it is unlikely that consensus would have developed to pull and it would have not been a productive use of our time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not sure if consensus would have changed - maybe it would have stayed at post, maybe it would become a mixed bag, maybe entirely oppose, not sure. But this isn't about the outcome (post vs not to post), it's about the timing and the procedure - I do think the decision to post was premature (even if ultimately correct). I also think it is productive to have a lot of people voice their opinion over the span of 24 hours (or however much time seems reasonable to you, the number is not so important), even if it ends up being basically entirely support. Especially so that we can have more confidence that ITN is more global in perspective and captures the preferences of the wide-reaching English wikipedia readerbase. That confidence is lacking if the item gets posted only one hour after the discussion starts. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@QueensanditsCrazy You could open a discussion at WT:ITN if you wish. That said, I concur with Pawnkingthree. Normally, I prefer that RD nominations, and especially death blurbs, not be closed before the subject has had a chance to reach room temperature. However, in this case I saw no realistic grounds for opposing. The discussion, albeit brief, was pretty close to unanimous and had plenty of input. In order not to post, we would have to see a virtual avalanche of oppose !votes with few or no additional supports. Realistically that was just not going to happen. Keeping the discussion open purely to allow for pile on supports, and/or tributes is not what these discussions are for. Once consensus becomes clear, with no reasonable likelihood of it being overturned, it's time to close the discussion and move on. Out of curiosity, what reasons were you planning to cite for opposing the nomination? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Main crux of my argument was that consensus was not clear if it's only been an hour. I agree the discussion was substantially unanimous, but perhaps further discussion could have elucidated some changes to blurb (eg. due to new information) or concerns with article quality (eg. citations, or concerns with high traffic) etc. I actually think it's okay to have a "virtual avalanche" - i mean it's not like a large number of people read that page. If the commenters are not providing useful feedback (isn't that every blurb nomination these days, haha) then I would say that's a symptom broader than just the Tina Turner article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Layah50 Sigh. I have dropped another note on their talk page. I dislike blocking editors that are obviously well intentioned. But they are collecting warnings the way some people collect stamps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I have posted a note on the talk page of the article. Further discussion regarding disputed content and sources should be handled there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2023 (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'm requesting you do something about the edit history mess of this article. One user keeps claiming a "consensus" was reached on the talk page, when none ever was. (I don't believe he knows that that word means). thanks SurferSquall (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I've manually changed some things around on that page to meet the consensus on the talk page. here's hoping it doesn't get reverted again for no reason SurferSquall (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi.. Thank you for looking up the disputed article. The issue is SurferSquall, (relatively new editor on air forces inventory pages topics), recently come and make edit IMO, based on "World Air Forces 2023". Aircraft inventory is not really subject to recentism, as it hardly changes each years. Therefore, older reference can be still relevant.
Throughout years of editing using previous edition of "World Air Forces", we (other long-time air forces inventory editors) learned that "World Air Forces" is not always correct, and there are instances that we agreed to not use that source. However, SurferSquall insist to use "World Air Forces" simply because it is "newer" without trying to understand the context why newer source is not really necessary better source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ckfasdf @SurferSquall I am not going to take sides in a content dispute over sourcing. My post on the article talk page was intended to remind everyone to avoid edit warring and to seek consensus on the article talk page. If a consensus exists from an earlier discussion, one should not edit against that consensus. Consensus can change. But until it does, the previous one must stand. Beyond which, if there is a dispute over contradicting sources, you may request input in a talk page discussion and post a note at WP:RSN. You may also post a nuetrally worded request for input on the talk page of relevant wiki-projects such as WP:MILITARY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The "previous one" is before the drama or before SurferSqual edit right? Because my, FOX or Evo revert are reverting back before SurferSquall's edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
WAF is used as a source for every single air force page on Wikipedia. Newer source = updated information = takes precedent over older source, You have yet to enter a single source into the article that is newer than WAF. SurferSquall (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (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.
Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
I see you've had dealings with the "Best known for IP" previously. I think I may be dealing with another of his IPs, but I'm not 100 per cent sure. The IP is 142.105.134.196(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), and his previous suspicious edits include
this, this and this (all removing the 'best known for' phrase). This IP has also personalised the matter quite early on (this was after one revert), which suggests they have interacted with me previously, and the talk page thread suggests a rather combative approach which I really don't want to have to bother with so early on a Tuesday morning. Any advice would be welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I had reverted the user and posted a note at WP:AN here, as I was suspicious. Their contacting you directly confirms this wasn't their first rodeo. Is there a better noticeboard than WP:AN that I can use in the future for this sort of thing, or would that have been sufficient in time? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@BilCat Usually if someone is behaving disruptively, I would say WP:ANI is where to go. Exceptions for cases of naked vandalism or spamming where WP:AIV will usually get a pretty fast response. And suspected sockpuppetry should usually go to WP:SPI unless it's glaringly obvious. Then you could go to either ANI or AIV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I didn't file an SPI because I had no idea who the master was, and these were the user's first edits on this account, so no real evidence. Fortunately, they gave you some themself! BilCat (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah sometimes a NOTHERE account will give a tip off that they have been around before. If it's obvious they are up to no good, you don't need to know who they were originally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't mean to gripe, and I haven't been updating for the glory of it, but in crediting the updaters of the boat sinking in Greece, you seem to missed several key editors (I am but one), while crediting other with less engagement. Perhaps there is some sort of nature of the beast thing at ITN that I am simply not well enough acquainted enough with as a process, but at the time of the posting I was rather too busy updating the actual page at the time, and I am rather cautious when it comes to hijacking other people's nominations simply to credit myself. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
No worries and thanks. The nom was already so littered with updaters that it's understandable that anyone looking at it would have thought that it must already have covered all the bases. I'll be more diligent in adding myself in future! Iskandar323 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi.. regarding ANI case that I submit about SurferSquall and since now the case is already archived. Also since you were the only responding admin. So the what's the result? Is he placed under '1RR editing restriction'? Ckfasdf (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ckfasdf Due to a major computer failure, I was mostly offline for the last week and only got back yesterday. So unfortunately I could not deal with the matter. At this point, I'm inclined to say that the matter is stale unless you believe there has been further disruptive editing. If you think there has been some ongoing problematic editing over that period, I would say the best course is to restore the discussion to the noticeboard in the correct place chronologically and reopen the discussion with updated diffs etc. Otherwise, I don't think the matter is actionable at this point. I realize that is probably very unsatisfactory, and apologize for the inconvenience. All I can say is the last week has been extremely disagreeable here as well (to the tune of near $700). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. During your time offline, he didn't make any changes in article that I have disagreement with him, he also stop responding in its talk page. However, there are still some disagreement (revert and revert back) on airlines pages between him and other long-time editors but I dont think it's 3RR (he would breach 1RR if it was implemented). So I dont know if its valid reason to restore the discussion, esp since majority of his edits are reverted. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a more generally understood phrase would make sense here? I like the list, though you say nothing on the sphere of bigotry (I know one otherwise respectable admin who has a serious blind spot to that in themselves that IMO affects their admin role, but your list would not penalize them.) —Quondum13:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the French Army article. This prolific SP has developed a fixation on me and has been harassing me for a while. If you don't mind me asking, is there a reason why the personal attacks by Reidinfors haven't been rev-deleted? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@M.Bitton Sorry. We have a bit of a crime wave and I'm playing wack-a-mole with multiple vandals and protecting pages. I've revdeled the remaining edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help at Lloyd Bentsen but I thought I would ask: given all the persistent vandalism history on the page going back more than three years and given the protection history of the page (see the page's protection history) why you didn't just go indefinite semi-protection? Money Slot (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz Thanks for the note. I went back and double checked the page history and protection log since MS has been blocked as a sock. I still think the PP is justified given the history of long term disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, it's not the only article he's had indefinitely protected. I'm just pointing out that it's all his disruption, and that this request on this page is so typical of his MO. Mainly the latter. -- zzuuzz(talk)15:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz The history of vandalism on that page goes back years, with a half dozen protections before I got to it. Even if it is all him, it's still an unacceptable level of disruption. As much as I dislike rewarding trolls, in this case my guess is that if I lifted the protection the page would just fall under attack again, probably from his next sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Pair of smelly socks
Greetings. These two are socking at Jimbo and the Jet-Set, inserting credits where none existed:
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW has been closed, and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedy has been enacted:
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, AlisonW's administrative user rights are removed. She may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Ecuador 2023 General Elections Poll Section Vandalism
I have been unblocked on the English Wiki but I'm still banned indefinitely from the Spanish Language by Librarian Ruy under request from David C. S.
Can you help unblocking me in there too?
In a brief synopsis, the case is as follows, as can be seen on the Page History:
1. On June 20 23:13 TBKR Chicago 101 inserted the first Pool, Comunicaliza, with the Oficial Candidates, nevertheless it was grossly inacurate , I deleted then and inserted the corrected percentages rates : Topić [2.6% from the stated 10.3%],Yaku [10.3% from the stated 11.2%], Otto [11.2% from 6.2%],Hervas [6.2% from 2.6%].
I ,also, ordered the columns according to percentages rates.
2.On June 23 17:52 TDKR Chicago 101 inserted the first "Data Encuesta Poll".
The Reference given, the Facebook's Diario Opinión page states the research was made between June 5-9 .
On June 25 12:19 I deleted it writting a note explaining that the Poll was, obviously, fraudulent: it named Luisa González as Candidate , but she was proclaimed on June 10 and no one could know it beforehand.
Shortly after, he reinserted this Poll that had been proven false.
3.Davis C. S. then, introduced a trird data pool dated July 3 were the percentages of each candidate and the number of participants were blatantly fabricated.
He gaves, as reference, a Facebook page, the Pollster does have other name, but the Poll is actually the same one that already had been published on June 22, he just invented the preposterous percentages out of his mind.
4.At 7/14 9:48 Number 57 deleted the Poll but, shortly afterwards, David C. S. reinserted it, giving another reference: a Facebook page of 'La Posta" , a Blank page with a broken video of just 1 second
David C.S. have been doing many others acts of vandalism and waging a Ediction War , deleting all my edictions viciously.
@Dirceu Mag Sorry, my standing as an admin applies only on the English Wikipedia. You will need to post an unblock request on the Spanish Wikipedia and follow whatever procedures they have in place. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The Librarian Number 57 posted a request to Ruy saying that, apparently, it was David C. S. that was supplying false data , not me.Ruy unblocked me and I made my first correction , deleted the most blatant fabrications : a dated 7/3 "Data Encuesta" that is, ,actually,the same one published on 6/24 with the data completely fictional, as proved by the refererence given, a Facebook's page. Shortly after I was banned and David C. S. reinserted the false Poll.
I corrected the English Language version and made 11 explanatory notes for each Ediction act.
Shortly thereafter, David D. S. , as usual , without justifying anything, began targeting the English Ediction and by now , already reinserted his version three times.
Please check my notes on the Page History Section , there is no point in restauring David C .S ' Junk Ediction'. How could Ruy let him do it and on other hand, 🚫 me, I can't figure out.
For not replying to your query at Dirceu Mag's talk page. I somehow just missed replying to it. Hope you don't take it otherwise. Warmly, Lourdes03:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
