User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 26

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Usedtobecool. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't need to and I shouldn't have but I commented on your actions, so I am letting you know. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like the thread is winding down and I'm not seeing any need to add to it. Thanks for the notification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Your advice at WP:AIV
Regarding this - IMO you have to ping a person when placing AIV|sp}} adivice: I don't think occasional poster keep WP:AIV on their watchlist or notice your response during many fast changes. I did it for you. - Altenmann >talk 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pinging them. However it is not customary to ping every user who makes a report on a noticeboard. I do so if I have a specific question or concern that I think needs to be addressed. But otherwise decline message typically stand on their own. When an editor posts on a noticeboard, it's kinda their responsibility to keep an eye on the board for any relevant replies or actions. I think that is pretty much normative for most admins who patrol the various boards. That said, if I think they are a new user I have been known to ping. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User acting like they WP:OWN an article
Hi AO. Might you be able to tell the user to stop the reverts of me and other editors on Ariana Grande discography? Their WP:OWN-like behaviour concerning this article has been going on since 2020. Here's the earliest thread by another user on their talk page concerning the article: User talk:Mirrored7. A thread I made in December 2022: User talk:Mirrored7. Already today they've made three reverts on the article, , , with the last being a manual revert of what I added. Their most recent revert restored hidden messages directing users not to do things, in violation of WP:HIDDEN, because "the messages have been there for a long time". This was after I removed said comments directly linking to and quoting the guideline. I told them age is not a valid reason to keep things, and warned them about edit warring, but this sort of pattern looks like it will continue without admin intervention. Their block log for edit warring is concerning as well. Thanks.  Ss  112   13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ss112 I've left a note on their talk page, but do not see enough for any formal intervention at this time. They have not edited the article since you posted your warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor doesn't seem to understand "do not post here again"
Hi AO. I reverted an editor who left a message about commas after MDY dates. I thought this made it pretty clear I don't want messages from them. They came back a minute later telling me "Correcting your mistakes is your responsibility" or some such. I said I thought I made it clear I don't want them to post on my talk page, and directly told them not to in the revert summary here. They came back again, after my summary telling them not to post there, saying "no you didn't" and some paragraph I didn't read. Can you please ask this editor to respect not posting on somebody's talk page (WP:USERTALKSTOP) when they have been asked not to do so? Clearly I can't get through to this person.  Ss  112   23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ss112 ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive football/soccer editor
Hello. Re the discussion at WT:FOOTY and your subsequent range block on. About 100 edits so far today since the block expired, along the same general lines as before: reinstating previously reverted edits; adding or changing people's roles; adding unsourced lists of officials to club pages. All unsourced and without edit summary. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Struway2 Have you identified anything that looks like bad faith editing, or are we mainly talking general disruption? If the former, I will reblock them. If the latter, I suggest a final/only warning on the talk page of the most recent IP they have used with a link to the discussion concerning their behavior. In either case, this needs to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think it might be a competence issue. There's nothing I've seen so far today that's blatant bad faith (although I've still only looked at a fraction of their edits and spent far more time than I should have) and I've started to wonder whether they're finding their content from out-of-date sources, maybe from other language Wikipedias that haven't been updated recently, or from unreliable sources. I'll give them a warning, but I'm not going to be around for the next few days, so there's nothing more I can do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Struway2 I just saw they have added more unsourced claims, and have blocked the /64 range x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).



Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kbdank71 · Kosack · NrDg · TLSuda

Guideline and policy news Technical news Arbitration Miscellaneous
 * An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
 * The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes.
 * An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
 * Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Contributions/74.88.40.40 & 68.195.10.222
Special:Contributions/74.88.40.40 has been asked to back up changes to a couple of articles. Have reverted myself but getting in edit-war territory. You've blocked once b4. Mind to have a look? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/68.195.10.222 Same story; same pages. Djflem (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Djflem I've protected the page x 72 hrs. If this starts up again let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thnx. List of tallest buildings in Newark, too, please? Djflem (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Djflem ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/Newark/s/qcDwqZPAir 74.88.40.40 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Reddit is not a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You may propose changes on the article talk page. But you will need a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk)

Requesting feedback on proposed update to ZP
Hi, I have a major proposed addition to the ZP essay. I have put this proposed change on the talk page and would like some feedback on it as it has quite a bit of use as you are the original author. Subanark (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You are referring to WP:ZT? I have replied there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New Height for 744 Newark nj building
![img](rat7ohkykdrc1)

Apparently 744 Broad elevation is 515ft, they did a drone test to figure out the height of 744. I don’t know how but ig they followed what the HPC said. 68.195.10.222 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You may propose changes to the article on its talk page. Please be sure to cite a reliable source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Lower protection of Mobile Legends: Bang Bang
Keeping the page extended confirmed protected 4 years later makes no sense. It made sense back then, but not now. I don’t know how much vandalism it would get if you lowered it but all I know is this is overkill. I suggest maybe pending changes if you’re still wary about it but deprotection seems like the best thing to do. CharlieEdited (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi CharlieEdited. That page was a magnet for disruptive editing. From 2017 to 2020 when I finally put ECPP on it, the page was protected a total of 15 times, with many of those being EC due to disruption from auto-confirmed users. I am willing to drop the protection level to semi on a trial basis. But if the problems resurface, I will move quickly to return to the current protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. Sounds good. Edit: Why was there even disruptive editing in the first place? What were the edits about? CharlieEdited (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @CharlieEdited You can take a look at the protection log here. You can also go back and look at the page history from the time frames in question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been a single edit to the page since you lowered the protection and now, and it was an extended confirmed user fixing a date. Do you think it’s good to be fully deprotected or at least pending changes or are you still wary about it? CharlieEdited (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CharlieEdited I've downgraded the protection to Pending Changes and set it to expire in one year. If we don't have any further issues, the page will be fully unprotected at that time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. CharlieEdited (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Please help me stop editors who are edit warring
User:Trailblazer101 is edit warring here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Penguin_(TV_series)&action=history and making grandiose claims that I have already clearly disproven. Now User:Favre1fan93 has taken to shouting at me in all caps. That is not appropriate. These users are continuously "undoing" all of my edits even though I have provided clear arguments for why they are correct yet those users have not provided any good arguments for why they are undoing them. Please make them stop it. They are being bullies. Nicholas0 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Great, now they're threatening to get me blocked instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion. Bully tactics again. Nicholas0 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nicholas0 I have fully protected the page for 24hrs. Everybody needs to stop edit warring and seek consensus on the article talk page. Courtesy ping @Trailblazer101, @Favre1fan93. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please block this IP wide-scale vandalizing
Hi AO. I think needs a block. This is wide-scale vandalism: an IP editor blanking all Australian chart positions from sets of articles over a two-day period. I don't know what their deal is but this is a problem. I've seen Australian IP editors do this before and I don't know why but it's a recurring issue.  Ss  112   15:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ss112 I've blocked them x 60 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Genre edit warring
Hello, there is a user by the name of Laylaluvalog who is edit warring. They have recently went on a genre editing spree and it is causing issues. This user's main problem is that they are misinterpreting sources to form their own opinions; this user has even admitted to misreading the sources (reviews).

This user is continuously listing multiple genres for various albums when those genres are merely elements/influences. For example, on Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) a review labeled the album as a "POP Album", yet they are adding other genres to the info-box that are merely elements/influences. Me along with another user who goes by @Lil-unique1 have both tried to explain to them the issue with their additions yet they are not listening. Now Laylaluvalog is reverting edits instead of discussing the changes. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @OkIGetIt20 I'm not seeing any edits since you posted your note on their talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the midst of me posting a note on their page they have reverted edits on Fear of Flying (album), Case of the Ex, and Age Ain't Nothing but a Number. They are continuously misinterpreting sources and I have tried to explain that to them. Maybe you can explain the issue better to them? OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AO, I would guess is MariaJaydHicky. This looks like what they've moved on to doing now that they can't edit Cowboy Carter. Maybe  can confirm.  Ss   112   18:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @OkIGetIt20 @Ss112 Yeah, I was just looking at their contrib log and was thinking they are some kind of sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem, @Ss112: Essentially confirmed. There's two LTAs operating on these ISPs. With the behavior, MJH seems obvious. Even if its a joe job by the other LTA... well that's still evasion. Clean up on Aisle R&B, I guess. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please ask this editor to stop edit warring?
Hi AO. I have come into contact with the editor whom I warned for edit warring and then had a discussion with on their talk page; see here. We disagree on personal preference on how to write the leads of articles as they appear to prefer separate sentences between introducing the topic and the release date/record label. I thought we had come to a mutual agreement that they would stop making these kinds of reverts/edit warring (their most recent message), and if they have been reverted, to follow BRD. Instead: I also created both of those articles, and what I am reverting to is the way it was in the first place. They are not understanding that if they have been reverted, to just let it be because there is no "one correct way" to write the lead of an article. They are not respecting BRD and don't even appear to care that I reverted them for this exact reason on those articles earlier. If you could have a word to them, it would be appreciated. This is far from the first warning for disruptive behaviour they have received and it's also not the first warning for restoring these types of changes (separating sentences) that they have been reverted for:, , , or just see their talk page history. Thanks.  Ss  112   09:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On Moment (EP): I reverted their edit earlier. After our discussion, several hours later, they manually reverted me by restoring the separate sentence.
 * On Once (EP): I reverted their edit earlier. After our discussion, they manually reverted me here.
 * Pinging Serge as Serge has in the past been pretty good at trying to let editors know that unnecessary wording "tweaks" like this don't need to be made, and especially if the editors have been disruptive (edit warring) about such changes when there's been disagreement, to stop before it ends up at ANI (although that would not be the first time this editor has been brought to ANI).  Ss  112   10:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ please do not edit war. In all but very rare cases (vandalism and the like) once you are reverted, the next stop should be the article talk page for a discussion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since we're here, let me bring up what User:Ss112 has been doing.
 * At the beginning of our conversation, he ran into my edit history and tried picking it all apart just to find an error he could revert. Then, once the conversation was over, he once again went into my edit history and reverted my edits on Peggy Goy articles and then proceeded to cite WP:BRD as if that's a good justification.
 * What I want to know is why he thinks his preferences should take priority on articles, and why now he's preventing me from editing basically any Peggy Gou article. This behaviour is genuinely just petty and not only is it petty, it's showing serious ownership issues and hypocrisy. AlNahyan (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @AlNahyan You both need to discuss any issues you have on an appropriate talk page. Neither you nor want this to escalate. Trust me when I say that 98% of the time you are better off sorting things out without going to ANI or requesting admin intervention. Start with a conversation based on WP:AGF. Remember that we are all trying to build a better encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ad Orientem The thing is, Ss112 has been engaged in drama with me before over another petty thing (false titles) which eventually culminated in an ANI report and the person who made it got told by an admin exactly what I told them.
 * It's becoming a pattern from Ss112 to resort to petty tactics, hypocrisy and hostility when it comes to reverting my edits and what not. So I think it'd also be appropriate for you to warn him about assuming good faith. AlNahyan (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AlNahyan, I created those three Peggy Gou articles I reverted you on. They are on my watchlist. I didn't need to "go back into your edit history" to see them. Besides, you can't expect to manually revert people, in effect edit warring, and expect people not to notice. You have been warned by multiple editors now, including, to stop edit warring and to stop splitting sentences needlessly. You are just moving around to different pop music articles repeating the same behaviour other editors have asked you to stop. The problem here is you and edit warring when people revert you. You apparently can't handle being reverted and feel the compulsion to repeatedly reinstate your edits. Learn to respect BRD and move on and make other kinds of edits. Stop edit warring. I am not having another discussion on Ad Orientem's talk page. We did this yesterday; you just need to learn to stop doing trying to make the same edits when you've been reverted. this is the last reply I'm making here in this regard. But this response on their talk page doesn't bode well for your warning of not edit warring.  Ss   112   20:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * AO, speaking of edit warring, AlNahyan just returned to manually revert me two days later at One of the Girls here. I don't think they care about your warning not to edit war. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but the history of warnings for edit warring and disruption over matters like these on their talk page is approaching block territory. Even though we can see from AlNahyan's talk page, has just informed me that AlNahyan has received warnings for this exact type of behaviour from seven other editors in the past few months, and it is far from the first time they have edit warred or manually reverted somebody. Because they haven't faced any consequences for their actions, AlNahyan hasn't stoppeed, apparently doesn't want to stop so I don't see what else will get them to.  Ss   112   06:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ss112, @AlNahyan As much as I dislike ANI, I think this is heading in that direction. Unless you can find some way forward, I suggest that a discussion be opened there for review by uninvolved experienced editors and admins. This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AO, they are edit warring. That is disruptive. You seem to be missing that this is not a "me versus them" thing. As I just said, seven+ editors have warned them and asked them not to make these kinds of edits, and to stop edit warring when they've been reverted. It's no longer even just a content dispute. I'm not going to ANI about a user who has been warned repeatedly for the same kind of behaviour. I have little confidence in the decisions made there and I don't see why it needs ANI involvement. While it's your talk page, I also dislike you tagging them, which just prompts them to come back here to throw more potshots at me like I'm at equal fault. I'm uninterested in discussing with them any further. What's there left to say on my part? They just need to stop this kind of editing when this many editors have asked or told them to stop. You even gave a formal warning and they disregarded it. This just emboldens AlNahyan to keep repeating the same kind of behaviour, repeatedly reverting anybody when another editor disagrees with their changes. Why are we enabling edit warring? for his opinion now that the user has edit warred by reverting again.  Ss   112   16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. - This sums up exactly how I feel as well. Like always, you're free to look elsewhere for a 2nd (3rd?) opinion. But this is simply not that big of a deal. This is the sort of thing hashed out by consensus building, and then intervention happens if editing against consensus occurs. Sergecross73   msg me  16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So this editor can keep reverting editors, getting away with edit warring and causing disruption, because there hasn't been consensus established at a talk page...? Because that's what happening. They have made these kinds of grammar-type edits across many different articles. It would be pointless to try to establish consensus at one of those talk pages—a local consensus is not going to apply to all the pages they edit, and the MOS doesn't specify that one style is preferred and never will because it'd be WP:MOSBLOAT. As I said, inaction by admins just emboldens them to continue edit warring. I know consensus isn't established at user talk pages, but hell, if seven+ editors warning someone for disruptive editing and a few of them bringing up this exact kind of thing and disagreeing with it isn't some kind of consensus...  Ss  112   16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Datagod
you recently put a 30 hour block on my IP for alleged problematic editing. but what i was doing was reverting vandalism by user Datagod. User Datagod is using his well documented personal beef with Patrick Scot Patterson to remove his name from as many wiki articles as he can get away with doing. he claims Patterson entered the info himself but with no proof and edit logs show the various bits of info vandalized by Datagod were entered by a variety of other people. some of them have been in wiki for many years.

u are free to do as you see fit of course, but i think it is a bad decision here. Datagod is targeting information about a specific person and deleting it from wiki. I was fixing his vandalisation efforts. You need to look into him for problematic edits and targeting. he is not working to improve wikipeedia, he is looking to hurt a person he has a personal grudge with 35.135.179.48 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Datagod, and 35.135.179.48; I don't know what is going on here. But I advise you to find a suitable talk page, and work this out. Otherwise, this is likely going to end up at ANI which is not a place well known for happy endings. (See my thoughts on ANI over on my user page.) Edit warring, POV pushing and the like are disruptive, and will get you blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Ad Orientem, thank you for taking the time to respond. My only interest is improving Wikipedia.  I was removing unsourced claims and links that have been added in obvious self promotion.  The anonymous IP addresses used over the past few years always trace back to the same neighborhood where Mr. Peterson resides, and the links are always to articles that he wrote himself.  The anonymous IP addresses always claim to know Mr. Petersen's inner thoughts as they are close friends, but deny actually being him.  That is still an undisclosed conflict of interest.  I will take your advice however and move the discussion elsewhere.  Thank you for your patience and your assistance in this matter. datagod (talk)  🍁 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I never say I was a friend or knew him at all. Datagod knows Patterson and how is that not conflict of interest? He is going into wiki to delete any mentions of Patterson claiming self promotion even though wiki edit history clearly show metnions of him were put in at different times by different sources.
 * Datagod's socilas clearly show he has a negative opinion of Patterson and he is vandalizsing wiki in the interest of removing his name while lying about it. He is removing additions to articles made by various other people while claiming it to be self promotion without prooof and while ignoring or denying his own conflict of interest.
 * Datagod should not be allowed to edit mentions of Patterson due to hsi personal beef and relationship with him. clear conflict of interest 35.135.179.48 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @35.135.179.48 Discuss this with datagod. You do not want this to end up at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i do not know what that means but why am i warned and him not?
 * he is vandalising wiki
 * he is removing mentions of a specific person that he knows personaly without disclsoing it to wiki. He made those removals because of his personal feelings about a speific person. that is a conflict of interest
 * wiki mods are scolding me for undoing his conflict of interst vandalism but not him for violating wiki rules. we are discussing this already but i wish to file a complant about his violations of wiki rules 35.135.179.48 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @35.135.179.48 I do not know how to be more clear. Discuss this with @Datagod on an appropriate talk page. This is a content dispute. Edit warring is disruptive. You need to seek WP:CONSENSUS. See also WP:DR for other suggestions. You both need to work this out or it's going to end up at WP:ANI. If either of you have any connection with Patrick Patterson you MUST disclose this, and you may not edit any page where you have a conflict of interest. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * AO, sorry to butt in, but do you object to me taking action? I've found a long chain of disruption going back over 7 years from the IP's geolocation and ISP, spanning numerous articles and clearly operated by the same individual behaviorally, always in support of the BLP in question. Disclosure: I'm aware of this dispute from my watchlist and other user talk pages as well, but it was most active here. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ferret I've been digging through their editing history in between the endless posts here and am not happy with what I am seeing. If you feel a block is in order feel free to act. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ferret Holy bleep! I've had more traffic on my talk page in the last few hours than the L I E at rush hour. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It just means you're doing something right ;) I found over 4-5 IPs all editing in favor of Peterson, from the same geolocation, since 2017, coming back repeatedly to restore their own edits as various editors removed them. Perhaps I'll give them just a bit more time to come clean and maybe something productive can come of this? But if I see any more of it, I am definitely blocking. -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That was quick!
I was just about to report another IPv6 that editor evidently was using: 2600:1006:B10C:94B9:E04C:CC40:C351:5540 has the same Happy Tree Friends/Nirvana fixation. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skywatcher68 I'm not sure that one is actionable. They don't appear to have edited in the last 12 hrs so this is getting kinda stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll report to AIV if I notice that one starting up again.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

BLP vandal at 31.180.135.4
Hey, if you're still around, this IP is having a Rick Beato hatefest. Could you remove their edit summaries? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skywatcher68 Blocked x 60 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

User is ban invading and constantly vandalizing articles.
Hello, I noticed you temporarily blocked Special:Contributions/165.214.68.110 for 60 hours due to constant vandalism, looking through the edits of Palm Beach County Fire Rescue I noticed there was a account called PBCFR that made the same vandalism edits as this user did just a day prior. The user [PBCFR]] was indefinitely banned due to this. I believe this user is ban evading and even coincidentally if he isn’t, I believe the 60 hours isn’t enough as every single edit made by Special:Contributions/165.214.68.110 has been reverted because every single one has been vandalism. Ryan Watern (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Ryan Watern1. This isn't technically block evasion as PBCFR was not hard blocked. Their block was a soft block based solely on their user name. The level of disruption and infrequency of the IPs edits, coupled with their record of no previous blocks does not justify a longer block right off. If they resume their disruption, I will likely drop a block of at least a month. Let's see what happens. Thanks for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion on Elijah
Hey,

I think you maybe closed that discussion a tad early. Despite his statement that he will stop editing the articles, he's already back editing the article's talk page and has stated an intention to make a revert to the article itself. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sideswipe9th He hasn't been topic banned from any pages and is free to edit where he wishes. But he must use edit summaries when doing so. His failure to do so when deleting whole chunks of material was clearly inappropriate and borderline disruptive. I dislike having to repeatedly remind experienced editors of very basic policy and guidelines like that. Hence my decision to issue a formal caution on the subject. Hopefully he takes the hint. Any other disagreements can be handled in the customary manner on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Prior to your caution, he had already been warned by six editors, including once by you . In addition, while the lack of edit summaries are an big issue here, there are multiple other serious behavioural conduct issues that your warning doesn't address. While I agree with your final warning on the edit summary issue, I also think you've prematurely closed that discussion and as a result the other underlying problems haven't been addressed. Would you be amenable to re-opening that discussion so that the other issues can get some sort of resolution? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th What specific other issues do you feel need admin attention? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Content ownership, editing against consensus, and being unable to edit collaboratively with other editors. Driving off PMC also needs some sort of acknowledgement, even if it's part of the ownership and unable to collaborate problems. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th Alright. I will re-open the discussion. On a side note, none of my messages to EP were a warning. When I issue a warning to someone, it is explicitly labeled as such. My earlier message was mainly an expression of concern over their editing and a reminder of community expectations. My message today was a formal caution, which is akin to a yellow flag. That is letting someone know firmly that they need to make some adjustments in their conduct. A warning is so labeled and is akin to a Red Flag. In other words, stop what you are doing or bad things will follow. I haven't reached that point, yet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't really want to get into semantics about what is or isn't a warning though, though I disagree with the essay there's plenty of WP:DTTR adherents who'd strenuously disagree that all warnings need need either a template or that red label. There are multiple ways to warn a person beyond using warnsign, and if someone had made even one of those messages to me, I'd personally have considered them a warning. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi Ad Orientem, thanks for notifying KomradeKalashnikov about that userbox discussion. The thread is actually at AN, rather than ANI, so I thought you'd like to edit your message to them so that they don't have a hard time finding it. DanCherek (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @DanCherek Ack. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

User not responding to talk messages to stop following what I do
Hi AO. I understand this is not a serious issue, but I have repeatedly asked the user to stop following me around Wikipedia. They understand and are capable of speaking English, they just don't respond to my talk page messages when I ask them to leave me alone. I have asked them three times in the last week to stop and have received no reply: User_talk:PepeBonus. The time gaps between what I edit and their subsequent edits on pages they have never edited before makes it rather clear they are hounding me. Two recent examples. First: my edit, one hour later. This afternoon (my time), my edit, 13 minutes later PepeBonus is editing it after me. I can pull up more examples if this isn't convincing. But why is somebody on my edits this often? It's strange. Would you please ask them to politely stop? There is enough to edit on Wikipedia that there is no need to follow an experienced editor who is not making problematic edits. One time or once every few months I get but this is every other day. I have not had any serious conflicts with this editor, and while we both edit in the topic area of music, I don't see a need for this recurring fixation. I have no interest in what this editor does, so I don't understand why they do for me. Thanks.  Ss  112   09:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ss112 Have they done any of this since your last message on their talk page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe so: and ;  and . The fact that they haven't responded when I asked them to to acknowledge they received the message doesn't fill me with confidence regardless.  Ss   112   16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ss112 Looking at their recent editing history, it looks like they are editing multiple articles. A lot of it is chart updates. This doesn't seem like they are dogging your edits specifically. It seems more likely the occasional coincidences that will happen when two editors have similar areas of interest and edit the same pages from time to time. Sorry, but what I can see from their recent editing does not suggest they are following you around. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AO, you asked if they had done any of that since my last edit, now you're taking those two diffs as if that's the only reason I came here. You know from past experiences that I am well aware that chart-related edits will make editors cross paths on the same articles. This is clearly not only about chart updates. Please see what I linked in the first message, those are recent:

Not chart-related: As I said, this has been going on for a while, since at least last year. They look at my contributions to find articles I have recently created. I apologise for all the edits, but if by "recent", you mean has not happened since my most recent "warning", then okay. But I will let you know when it happens again because I know it will happen again.  Ss  112   17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PepeBonus had never edited Second Wind (single album) before I edited it—my edit, one hour later PepeBonus conveniently finds the recently created article. It was not actively charting at that time.
 * An edit to Taylor Swift's template 13 minutes after me is not a chart-related edit: my edit, PepeBonus's edit.
 * On QWER: they had not edited the article previously. My edit, 22 minutes later they edit it for the first time.
 * On Benson Boone, they specifically fixed a citation I added: my edit, their fix. That implies they looked at what I did on the article.
 * On Last Scene (EP), which they had never edited before: my edit, PepeBonus edits five minutes later. Nothing to do with charts.
 * I had just created an article for a song that charted several months prior in December last year. It was not actively charting and a chart had not just updated. My edit, PepeBonus edits it six minutes later while an "in use" tag is still on it.
 * In February, I created the article for an EP that had not achieved any new peaks that week. My most recent edit, less than half an hour later PepeBonus edits it. Not chart-related either.

Books & Bytes – Issue 62
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 62, March – April 2024 
 * IEEE and Haaretz now available
 * Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
 * Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

MfD
The fact that issues around queer people are becoming increasingly political is, in my opinion, quite disappointing. It should not be anyone's interest to police other people's beliefs or opinions, and the antagonism around these is really intense.

But it is sad to me that you had to exaggerate the extent of that essay in your MfD statement. I don't see the essay elevating those beliefs as nazism. The only place that mentions the NONAZIS essay is referring to essays that discuss why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia. Suggesting that this appears as attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber doesn't help, it just disparages people who agree with the essay and incites anger in those who disagree. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @0xDeadbeef Perhaps, I misinterpreted the essay. So you believe they are trying ban persons who subscribe to ordinary (non Nazish) political views with which they disagree? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the ideological echo chamber, I'm afraid that is very much what it looks like to me. I think you could take all of these "No- fill in the blank" essays and summarize them as anyone questioning the current orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think anyone is trying to ban people with political views that they disagree with. It is unproductive to frame it as that. I don't see anywhere in that essay where it suggests people should be banned for expressing anti-LGBT beliefs alone.. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we have been reading the same essay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Welp. This is not really productive then. I was hoping you could cite some examples.. I'll log off. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 03:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ...anyone questioning the current orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata"''
 * That is what it looks like to me, too. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what's going on. They are going to ban all Christians and make this an atheist proabortion blog. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comment is helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Nyttend
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg JohnOwens · Killiondude · MelanieN · Nihonjoe

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Nihonjoe



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news
 * Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news
 * Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration
 * The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous
 * This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
 * A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
 * Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No queerphobes
See my comment on the talk page. I guess it is goodbye then. Thank you for unintentionally alerting me to it. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I will stay if the community allows me to though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Scorpions1325 I think your comment was ill advised and strays too close to debating the subject rather than addressing the deficiencies of the essay as per WP:PG. I think you should consider deleting your comment before it attracts responses. FWIW I have sent the essay to MfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I kinda think you're right. I have done that. I did not put much thought into it as I just got home from a long day at work. If someone wants me to bring up the arguments again at the MFD, I will. Unfortunately though, I did feel the need to be honest with the community. I am willing to self-censor to contribute here, but not to the extent that the essay demands that I do. Also, please do not reply to the email that I sent you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Scorpions1325 In general, I think we should check our social and political prejudices at the door when we come here. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the essay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part. I disagree with you on one point though. I agree that extreme queerphobes should not be allowed to edit here. Unfortunately, far too much of the world is queerphobic by that essay's standards in order for me to be okay with it. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My main problem was that it was one giant WP:NPOV violation, but I think your argument is good too. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think a civilized discussion needs to take place at the appropriate venue. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As to whether or not the essay complies with community policies and guidelines? That discussion is occurring now at MfD. Any discussion regarding the social political issues raised, can occur anywhere other than on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was saying that we should discuss on JimboTalk exactly how much intolerance is allowable before a block. Currently, there is no precedent. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course there is precedent. If you violate community guidelines by engaging in personal attacks or promoting FRINGE beliefs/bigotry etc on the project, you will be shown the door. I have blocked numerous trolls. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have partially readded my comments directly on the MFD. All I said was that this essay becoming de-facto policy is anti-intellectual. I don't plan on removing it. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: It appears that the essay has since been modified to something more reasonable. I have changed my !vote. I have been trying to get off my medicine since December (It seems to be going well). I am wondering if I should stay away from Wikipedia until my mood stabilizes without medicine. Depakote is not an easy medicine to get off of. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy (Orthodox) Easter!
I will be mostly offline for a couple of days. Wishing you and yours and blessed feast.

Christ is risen!

Christus resurrexit! Christos Anesti!

Kristos Voskres!

-Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)