User talk:Ad Orientem

User talk:Ceylon buddhist academy
You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cahk Done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Question about WP:PROXYING
Hello! I got an email a couple days ago from an indefinitely blocked editor who used to frequent Catholic articles. They advised me to be wary of what they perceived as possible disruption a novice editor. While I did notice a couple minor issues in this new editor's recent contributions (nothing significant), it did raise a question: if I independently identify problematic behavior not rising to blatant vandalism, but I only do so because of a tip submitted by a blocked editor, is intervening a violation of WP:PROXY? I've submitted a reply to the blocked editor to voice my concern regarding the limitations of PROXY, but I figured an admin with experience in the subject area might offer more sound guidance. My current belief is that I ought not interfere with the novice editor, given that their edits appear to be genuinely in good faith and aren't so significantly disruptive as to require more comprehensive intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pbritti I think that WP:COMMONSENSE should apply here. If a blocked editor is asking you to make changes to an article on their behalf or !vote a certain way in a community discussion, that would be a no no. On the other hand, if you get a tip about a problematic editor, even if it is coming from a dubious source, I think you are entirely justified in having a look. Preventing vandalism or other forms of obvious disruption takes precedence over questions about who "dropped the dime." If you believe there are concerns, but not enough to warrant any sort of admin intervention, leaving a friendly note on the new editors talk page is almost always a good first step. Thanks for the question and looking out for the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good insight, thank you. I don't know if I even need to drop a note on their talk page yet, but your advice inclines me to just keep an eye on things. I'll let you know if the other shoe drops and concerns linger. Thanks for always being helpful and quick to respond! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated
Just wanted to ask about what constitutes off-wiki harassment. If another editor has repeatedly posted on a well-known Wikipedia forum to attack me, does that violate policy? I can link the relevant portions via email. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Pbritti WP:OWH is a really gray are and one I have little experience with. As such, I couldn't give an opinion w/o knowing details. That said, and speaking in very general terms, I would say that anyone you have been in conflict with on the project who is doing any combination of the following could be crossing the line...
 * Unwanted private communications.
 * Personal attacks that go beyond mere criticism. Think egregious insults, slurs, casting aspersions, etc.
 * Doxing whether successful or not.
 * Soliciting others to lobby or harass you either on wiki or off.
 * If you have experienced any of these issues, we should discuss the matter in further detail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it here. I've been looking into what I should do and I think there's a "formal" channel this sort of thing is supposed to go through. You insight is helpful as always! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , Don't take it personal. They banned me and attacked me for my faith for condemning elective late term abortion. If your personal information has been leaked I would suggest going to WP:ARBCOM if they broke harassment policies. Badmouthing editors off-wiki alone does not violate any policies. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Relapsing vandal
Hi there. I decided to put this report here only because you already sort of familiar with the vandal in question...

A while ago you have blocked IP vandal for three months, after discussion at FOOTY Wikiproject. Well, three months passed and he's back the very second the block expired. In addition, I'm pretty sure he also edits as EmaisumadoDM, and previously was SouDiogoODidi (who's blocked for vandalism and sockpuppetry). BlameRuiner (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @BlameRuiner Oh, this is not good. I remember that case. It was a pain in the @$$. I am having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @BlameRuiner I've indeffed EmaisumadoDM as a likely sock of Paytchamanon. 2403:6200:88A7:8107:0:0:0:0/64 blocked x 2 years for disruptive editing (likely also Paytchamanon). The pattern of editing is too similar for this to be a coincidence. I am going to revert all of their still current edits.-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Drmies This isn't time sensitive, but when you have a few minutes could you take a look at the above users. I'm pretty confident in the block but it never hurts to get a confirmation. Beyond which, I would not be at all surprised if Paytchamanon has other accounts that have not been detected. I know you can't investigate the IP range. Their disruptive editing alone is enough for my comfort level in the block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK--what I can say is that 2403 is likely not the editor you just blocked, editing similarities notwithstanding. I have no qualms about the block. Sorry, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Drmies Ok. Thanks for the look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

112.205.188.57 and Manila Montet FC
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the editor apparently registered to discuss. There also appears to be a conflict of interest, calling Manila Montet FC "our club". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skywatcher68 Glad they are discussing. "Our team" is something that could very easily just refer to a fan, which would not rise to the level of being a COI. Although in some cases, it might make it difficult to edit in an NPOV manner. Let me know if problems persist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

PepeBonus

 * Hi again. I hope you're doing well. I only ask you this because you have previously interacted with the said user. So, this first started at the article Mephisto (song); there was confusion over what the standard edition cover was. At the time, they used the argument that the digital edition cover is more well-known than the standard edition, so it should be placed first. Now i explained this in the edit summaries and later on on the article's talk page. They didn't reply, and i took it as they now understood it, except that they didn't. Now there's a similar issue at Idol (Yoasobi song). They have yet again used the same argument here and here before later slightly rewording it to this and this. They partially dropped the argument of well-known covers going before other covers but are now using google translation over common sense and the reliable sources i linked to on the article's talk page. Acknowledging that they were at least discussing it now, I again explained it on the article's talk page. I had hopes that they would now understand it, but they don't. I had reverted them again, a third revert in total, and have not reverted since, but could you please ask him to stop that? Obviously, they have reverted in return, and they don't talk. The discussion is not very long, and i have already provided the relevant sources on the talk pages, so it wouldn't take much time to cross-check. Thank you if you do find the time to look into this.
 * Oh, and if you'd recall the discussion friendly user, Ss112, who previously brought up a discussion regarding me on your talk page, apparently, they now see fit to provide an insight for the discussion after the fuss they created last time and what we were suggested when you closed the discussion. Not to mention the absurd reasoning they are using—to me, at least. I believe what I'm asking is not very out of the norm or complex. All that i ask is that the standard physical edition cover be placed before the digital-only edition. Not to mention how Pepe is not even acknowledging that a standard edition exists despite the reliable sources i linked and the clear-cut explanation i have provided. ／talk 04:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunar-akaunto This sound like a content dispute, which should be handled in the normal way. I know very little about music as a subject matter and so do not typically get involved in those discussions. If you believe PB is edit warring or editing against consensus then a warning might be justified. That's where I would start. You might also ask for input from experienced editors in that subject area. Sorry, this likely not as helpful as you would prefer. However, at the moment I am not seeing enough to justify admin intervention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I see. I have already tried to solve this the normal way, but what can i do if he's just contradicting himself and refusing to talk? Leaving this aside, I believe a gentle message to respond when questioned about his edits wouldn't hurt. Communication is necessary, right? I don't specifically know any guidelines that restrict doing this, but he often alters existing reference headlines, and in doing so, he also changes the access-dates of the same to that of the day he edits on; surely that's not appropriate, right? Again, all of this could be solved easily if he just communicates. I feel bad bringing this up elsewhere other than his talk page as well, but again, he just doesn't talk. He's been around here for more than a decade, so I don't understand why he does this. Perhaps it's a language barrier? ／talk 18:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunar-akaunto I left a note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ／talk 02:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Barney Phillips
Here, were you intending to add the link you added, or the link you labelled? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it's the latter. ／talk 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Lunar-akaunto Good catch. I obviously added the wrong link. Thanks for fixing that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a problem at all. But it was reverted anyhow, so… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ／talk 18:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's not anything I'm going to get worked up over. Since was cremated there is not much useful info there anyway. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1217783182
FYI, might be helpful to check global contribs (as linked at the bottom of the contributions page) in such cases; user appears to have been confused since they were using the translation tool between two wikis. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of BenSchmidt6666
Thanks for blocking BenSchmidt6666. Can you also look at User:RobloxPlayer63941? Their account was just created and only made one edit, which was to the Endemic COVID-19 page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Helpful Raccoon Indeffed. I've changed the page protection to pending changes and bumped it to six months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege and gas chamber
Move-warring on those pages were orchestrated by non-extended users. Since you were the last user who changed protection settings, my suggestion is to downgrade move rights from full protection to ECP for both pages and see how things go.197.2.26.194 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ Does someone want to move either of these pages? Why would they? Both of those page names are unlikely to ever be changed for constructive reasons. The vandalism that prompted the protection was exceptionally offensive and there have been sporadic nazi attacks on these pages despite the ECP. Sorry, but this is a hard "no." Out of curiosity, what prompted this request? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A bad reference to Richard Kollmar’s radio career — in his wife’s Wikipedia article
Does this count as an RS by Wikipedia standards? Possibly it can support the fact that the husband of Dorothy Kilgallen, Richard Kollmar, portrayed Boston Blackie in that radio series from 1945 to 1950. Dorothy’s article has the wrong years. On that website, scroll down until you see airdates of episodes that span 1945 to 1950. Is it a blog? Brent Brant (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Brent Brant. That's a private website, not much different from a blog. We have no way of knowing what, if any, level of editorial oversight and fact-checking there is. As such I am afraid it would not pass muster as a reliable source. I suspect that it is likely accurate. But I can't be sure. We would need a better source. Perhaps an obituary? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This New York Times obituary for Richard Kollmar mentions Boston Blackie but does mention a time frame for his participation in it. The version with him was not the first radio version. To access another obituary for Richard Kollmar, I must go to Newspapers.com. When he died, two New York City newspapers existed aside from the NY Times.  Newspapers.com has one of the two. When his wife Dorothy Kilgallen had died, the New York Journal-American had gone into great detail about her career.  She was employed by them.  They considered her death to be very, very newsworthy.  The Journal-American survived her by five months.  Richard Kollmar was a widower, then remarried.  When he died, the Journal-American was not there to provide exact years for this radio show and that radio show. His death was not very newsworthy. Brent Brant (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Brent Brant I think you could make a general statement that he was involved in the show using the NYT obit as a reference. Dates would have to be omitted pending better sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

possible blocked sockpuppet.
Hello Ad Orientem, I'm contacting you in regards to a possible sockupuppet. There is a user named "Darthnote" who primarily edits track listings in music articles. Their track record of editing is eerily similar to a banned user named "EmeraldWicket9947". Throughout the years "EmeraldWicket9947" has created multiple accounts that are now blocked/banned. Whenever this user creates a new account they target music articles and edit track listings/album covers. A few accounts made by "EmeraldWicket9947" includes "Friendlyhelper9949". I might be wrong but could you look into this and see if "Darthnote" is "EmeraldWicket9947" A.K.A. "Friendlyhelper9949" A.K.A "BeDefining", A.K.A "Walkesu" etc. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @OkIGetIt20 Handled and blocked by . Thanks for alerting me. On a side note, I don't have check user rights, so if you suspect sockpuppetry, unless it's just blazingly obvous, your best bet is to ask an admin with those rights or open an investigation at WP:SPI. If Ferret hadn't gotten to it before I saw this message, I'd have likely passed it on to one of our CUs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh ok I understand, thanks for the tip! OkIGetIt20 (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Long term history of vandalism from IP ranges
Hello. I had a question on if these IP ranges from Mexico should receive a long term block from Wikipedia. Since June of 2023, anonymous users from these ranges have been making disruptive edits to biography articles. These edits are usually: unexplained changes to birth years , addition of unsourced content  , and removal of sourced content. The page I have seen most targeted by these anonymous users is Brandon Peniche. Despite receiving multiple blocks in the past they have continued their vandalism and I believe it is the same person making these edits. I thought of asking you personally since I have seen that you were the admin who has issued the most blocks to these ranges. Thank you.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (This range is currently blocked until September 2024)
 * (The range where most recent edits are coming from)
 * (The range where most recent edits are coming from)


 * @Telenovelafan215 Ok. I blocked 2806:107E:15:0:0:0:0:0/48 x 6 months. 2806:107E:14:0:0:0:0:0/48 is already blocked. 2806:107E:1E:0:0:0:0:0/48 hasn't edited recently so I can't do anything with that range for now. I have also pending changes protected Brandon Peniche x 1 year. I hope that helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Kunto Aji
I would like to approve Draft:Kunto Aji, which shows no signs of being created by a sockpuppet. Mind rescinding the create-protection? Mach61 03:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mach61 ✅ Good job on the draft. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

BenSchmidt6666
I believe the above user that you recently blocked may be back? See the talk page messages at Username6394?. Knitsey (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Knitsey Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You got it, thanks. Knitsey (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They're back again at BenSchmidt7439.  C F A   💬  21:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 63, May – June 2024  Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One new partner
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Spotlight: References check