User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 22

Listen Brian K Tyler doesn't like my opinion and directions to change it back to the way it was he doesn't like Jeff Bergman's Tweety and Daffy Duck voices, Brian K Tyler Thinks Jeff Bergman is too old to voiced Tweety and Daffy Duck he doesn't like my opinion and directions to change it back to present for Tweety and Daffy Duck articles which is Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety since Bob Bergen Hasn't Reportedly voiced Tweety since Space Jam a New legacy premiered before Jeff Bergman and Eric Bauza respectively took over the role of Tweety. Please tell Brian to bring present back for Tweety and Daffy Duck which is Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety. If Brian Doesn't like my opinion and directions he can just stick to his stupid opinion all he wants. 166.182.248.124 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Do not attack the motives of other editors without serious cause and evidence. I am not taking sides in your content dispute. That said, IMO the discussion on BKT's talk page has run its useful course. You should either drop the stick and move on, or seek WP:CONSENSUS on the relevant article talk page. See also WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientem it is just I ugh I ugh I just Can't stand Brian K Tyler ruining my opinion and directions to change it back to present for Tweety and Daffy Duck articles which is Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety and trying to ruin my life Ad Orientem, Brian just wanted to keep his opinion and directions and just following what two or three of the most recent productions say, and he thinks to two current voice actors for Tweety Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza is enough to do one character and one current voice actor for Daffy Duck Eric Bauza is enough to do one character and he thinks Jeff Bergman hasn't reportedly voiced Tweety and Daffy Duck in a while which makes me upset and mad about Brian K Tyler Because he thinks Jeff Bergman is too old to voiced Tweety and Daffy Duck, Ad Orientem he is driving me crazy and insane at the same time. Ad Orientem is Brian K Tyler Saying that Bob Bergen's Tweety and Eric Bauza's Tweety is better than Jeff Bergman's Tweety? Is Brian K Tyler Saying that Eric Bauza' s Daffy Duck is better than Jeff Bergman's Daffy Duck? Oh My God This is Just Stupid, Ad Orientem I have been telling Brian every time to Bring present back for Tweety and Daffy Duck articles which is Jeff Bergman's part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety and he didn't listen he wants to his opinion, his directions and his research and he is just following what two or three of the most recent productions say, Ad Orientem I need to tell you the truth Bob Bergen Hasn't Reportedly voiced Tweety since Space Jam a New legacy premiered one year ago before both Jeff Bergman and Eric Bauza respectively took over the role of Tweety all because of Brian K Tyler not removing Bob Bergen's part as Tweety Bob Bergen voiced Tweety from 1990-2021 which was the last time Bob Bergen voiced Tweety before Jeff Bergman and Eric Bauza respectively took over the role of Tweety which is my opinion of course, Ad Orientem can you tell Brian K Tyler That is Bob Bergen voicing Tweety in Bugs Bunny Builders? Considered Bob Bergen Hasn't Reportedly voiced Tweety since last year also Ad Orientem he's another truth about Brian K Tyler he is disrespecting Jeff Bergman and Jeff Bergman's characters He Thinks That Jeff Bergman is too old to voice many other of his characters thinking he wants him to retire. Ad Orientem tell Brian K Tyler a question and say to Brian is he trying to removed Jeff Bergman's characters? And tell Brian K Tyler to bring back the present for Tweety and Daffy Duck articles which is Jeff Bergman part as Tweety and Daffy Duck and removed Bob Bergen's part as Tweety please and thank you and Good Night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.255.45 (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This business concerning Tweety's voicing has been some sort of problem for years, and I guess it's revived. I've done a rangeblock for a little while, but I regard it as an LTA, since the behavior and language looks familiar. I think I first encountered it about a decade ago. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is one of the most bizarre things I've dealt with since I got the mop. This is bananas. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty high on my list too. I seem to recall that there was a lot of this kind of thing coming from Atlanta-area IPs years ago. There may indeed be some kind of irreconcilable/undocumentable issue concerning cartoon voicings, but these IPs aren't going to help us correct it. Acroterion (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I have less than zero interest in your content dispute with BKT. Your behavior in this matter strongly suggests to me that you are obsessed with this topic in a way that is disruptive. You may not badger other users for months on their talk page on this or any other point of contention. I have already pointed you to the relevant guidelines but will repeat them for one final time. WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:BADGER and WP:STICK. If you post on Brian's talk page again w/o his express consent, I will reluctantly block you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ad Orientum, thank you for locking this, but in so doing you've also locked in the copyright violations and promotional edits restored by Alia Tsagkari (talk · contribs), before I had a chance to revert those. So, we're left with their edits, the question of Alia's COI and possible block evasion by Mykonosbiennale (talk · contribs), and the scrolls of non notables that have been added over the years. If you're prevented from removing the copyright/promo content, I'll be happy to ping another administrator or go to ANI. That article is a years' long advert. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not sure if this is a copyvio [1]. But it is unsourced, off-topic and belongs in the biennale's brochure, not here. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have lifted the page protection temporarily. However I will reinstate it either later tonight or tomorrow at the latest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I'm going to ping Drmies re: the mass of unencyclopedic content that remains. Probably if I weed through and remove all the non-notables, someone will yell vandalism. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientum. You range blocked this user . It seems to me pretty clear judging by the almost identical language in the edit summary and choice immediately to reinstate the same edits by the blocked user that this IP editor is evading your block. Given the fact that the language is clearly the same I thought it easier to bypass the usual process and go straight to the admin who imposed the ban. Hope that's ok and thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN IP blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi AO. Perhaps you can help with rev/deletion as well as a user block. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• Nope--looks like Drmies was on it. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I saw your report--thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}

Donner60 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Donner60 Thank you. A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

Hello Ad Orientem: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 

From my family to yours TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 

 

 

 

Hello Ad Orientem: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I never said it was vandalism, but can you take a moment and intervene, this guy is running a muck, even Cluebot reverted it. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime I will have a word with them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

why did you delete my sandbox? the rationale given in the blog is "attack page" but i was very careful to not write it as an attack page, given that at least two drafts were similarly deleted. please let me know. .usarnamechoice (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@.usarnamechoice Do you have a link? Ad Orientem (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:.usarnamechoice/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1&preload=Template%3AUser+sandbox%2Fpreload .usarnamechoice (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@.usarnamechoice The opening statement made the following unsourced claim... "During his tenure in the government of the United States, Joe Biden has made false or misleading claims. The frequency of these falsehoods became a subject of media discussion following his various runs for the presidency. Biden often repeats these statements even after media outlets discredits or fact-checks them." Additionally, some of the more specific claims of fact were unsourced. This constitutes serious BLP violations. The language and tenor of the page was such that it was clearly intended to attack the subject, again, a serious BLP violation as well NPOV. You should tread very carefully when creating articles that are substantially or entirely negative in their coverage of their subject. It is not impossible, but the standards set by BLP are extremely high. If you want an example, you can take a look at Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. This page is obviously highly negative, but it is so heavily sourced that at least half the page length is made up of citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

== Deletion review for PAGE NAME ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAGE NAME. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. Hope this finds you well, we haven't interacted in quite a while. Picked your name off the Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests list. Was going through my CSD log, and came across Vincent Lee, which I A7'd. I probably could have also G10'd it. Regardless, this edit probably should be redacted. If not, sorry to have bothered you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969   Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Grazie. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi AO. Thanks for reverting Pauldbaker95 on my user page, I didn't catch that. But shouldn't the things they said [2] and then the fact they immediately went and edit warred on "Escapism" while accusing me of "vandalism" [3] be grounds for a block? This is clearly an unpredictable editor. Also, would you be able to revdel the comments they made on my user page? I don't think that should have to remain in the edit history... Ss112 00:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 I've revdeled their edits on your user page and dropped a note on their talk page. As I am sure you are aware by now, I'm not a fan of no warning blocks except in the most extreme situations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I moreso meant because they're unpredictable and think they're justified in behaving however they like now, but okay. If they continue to edit war after this, would that be grounds for a block? Ss112 01:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 Being unpredictable is not grounds for blocking. But if they behave disruptively, after being appropriately warned, then I would consider corrective measures. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've sent you an email. Ss112 03:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi John, I am Greg Ellis. I’ve been attempting to have misinformation on my wiki page corrected for months. Yesterday you locked the page. Please will you contact me to discuss. 23.133.160.26 (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Ellis; welcome to the project. Please read WP:COI, WP:CITE and WP:OR. Then post any requests for changes to the article on its talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello - it seems the article is so sensitive/controversial that the talk page is locked. Noting your involvement perhaps you could help: please add 'organisation' to the following part of the article: 'The White Ribbon Campaign, a nonprofit opposing male-on-female violence' ... that being change it to 'nonprofit organisation.' Thanks. 213.205.211.42 (talk) 13:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey AO. The user Lsnig334, whom I warned about adding unsourced genres last week has since provided sources, but as I pointed out here, none of the sources they provided on the article match what the sources say. They just put what they think the song is then falsely attributed those genres to sources that only say parts of what they claimed. A quick look at their contributions and I notice they removed a sourced genre and added two unsourced ones to another article, and claimed a song is "power pop" while the prose says "pop power ballad". It looks to be habitual rather than just innocent mistakes. They frequent articles by the band OneRepublic and all their recent singles have had unsourced genres added either by Lsnig334 or Lsnig334 has written around what other editors have added. What do you think? Ss112 07:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 A friendly word of caution on their talk page might be in order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have done that three times now. First time last week, twice (including a warning) yesterday: User talk:LsnIg334#Misleading edit summaries and unsourced genres. Just earlier after asking them to not add unsourced genres, they've added an instance of them again here while claiming the genres are in a section that they're not. Hence why I've informed you because I don't think they're listening to me. Ss112 23:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 I've issued a formal warning. If they make any more unsourced changes to genres let me know and I will block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey again AO. I'm concerned about Lsnig334's recent expansion of Waking Up (OneRepublic album). I've only looked at the critical reception section and already found (and removed) two instances of them again ascribing genres to sources that say nothing about those genres or claiming that the critic compliments the album, which, when clicking on the sources, is not what they're doing whatsoever (my removal here). I'm starting to believe this editor can't be trusted around genres or to accurately summarise what a source says. Ss112 00:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 Blocked x 24 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Ad Orientem: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi AO. I'm having a bit of an issue with the editor 162 etc., who requested that an album titled IIII should be moved over the article for the 'alternative' Roman numeral IIII, which at the time redirected to Roman numeral. They weren't satisfied when I took issue with this request (as I thought I was just the first to notice a ridiculous request), and then converted IIII to a disambiguation page, ordering the album from a couple years ago first. I moved the sentence about it being used on clocks first, saying it should take precedence and is arguably the primary topic considering nobody had an issue with it redirecting there for years. They reverted it this morning, claiming MOS:DABORDER says "Blue links go first", but it does not say this, and even if it did, there's also a link in the entry for Roman numerals. I can't get through to this editor in convincing them that centuries of use on clock faces should take precedence over a damn album. I don't even think the page should be a dab page. What do you think? Ss112 23:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112 I dropped a note on their talk. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

you know which article. Revive it and let it go through approval. It is approved. Revive it. Wikieditor61 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wikieditor61 I have no idea which draft you are referring to. What was your previous account? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Drmies. Anything in your magic 8 ball? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, they're a confirmed sock of the editor who created Draft:Ramy (YMARRAMY). Whether you want to block them for socking or for bad manners is up to you. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies Thanks! Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ad Orientem. During last couple of days, there have been multiple attempts to delete the content added with citation to reliable source in the Wikipedia Page on China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. A registered user whom you have unblocked per WP:ROPE, seems to be more inclined on deleting the content rather than modifying/improving it. The user talk page conversations revealed that another admin @Yamla had previously declined the unblock request. Even though the recent edits on the article appear unconstructive, I am consciously avoiding calling this incidence as Vandalism. However, just a few days back, on 16 Dec 2022, another IP address user (blocked by admin @GeneralNotability) deleted a major portion of article. These cases are highlighted in the article talk page.

Going through the history of article page vis-à-vis user talk/contrib and coming across a pattern, it gives rise to suspicion of Socking. Is there any way to confirm this? Does this behavior of deletion and violation of WP:PRESERVE warrant any further action?

In order to avoid any kind of edit-warring, hereby seeking all the tagged admin(s) intervention to prevent such disruptive editing in future. Thank you. Anand2202 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Anand2202. I do not have access to check user tools so I can't help there. However there is a list of admins who do. That list can be found here. With regards to the broader concerns about their behavior, I think you should open a discussion on their talk page. Alternatively you could ping them to the discussion you opened on the article talk page. At the moment I am not seeing this as vandalism. As such I don't think admin intervention is called for at the present. But an argument could be made that their contributions to this particular article are sub-optimal. Try discussing their edits with them. You can also see WP:DR for additional tips. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have initiated a discussion on the user talk page in addition to article talk page.

I am surprised to see the user talk page history - this user has deleted others' comments, critical views and notices. It seems deletion is the favorite form of editing for this user!

Anyways, looking forward to making most of the time and energy spent on Wikipedia. Thanks for your inputs.

. Anand2202 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your good work on AIV Andre🚐 02:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan Thank you! -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

  Administrator changes

 

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

  Stephen

 

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

  Interface administrator changes

  Nihiltres

 

  CheckUser changes

  Moneytrees

 

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

  Oversighter changes

 

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

 

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

  Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

  Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Hi again AO. Lsnig334, whom you blocked just over a week ago for unsourced genres, has apparently learned nothing and continued on very blatantly adding/changing genres without any attempt to hide what they're doing: [4], [5], [6], [7]. They also just created West Coast (OneRepublic song) on a redirect I made and added "folk pop" as a genre when, similar to previously, the source they claim says such a thing doesn't. They also again edited Waking Up (OneRepublic album) crediting genres to sources that either don't say it whatsoever, or Lsnig334 misconstrues what the sources say (again)—see here, here, here.... You said on their talk page if this persists they could face a much longer block, and it's definitely persisted. Ss112 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112 Blocked x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem. I found a revision that has unsourced defamatory material which violates BLP policy, I hope you can delete it. It can be found at the ‘Personal Life’ section.

Revision in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Dominick&oldid=1132720901

Thanks. Khrincan (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Khrincan   Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Could you review this ANI case of mine? Thanks in advance. Veverve (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Veverve. Sorry, but I have edited that article and others closely related to the subject to an extent I consider myself WP:INVOLVED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi AO. I've just discovered the user LB2001 is repeatedly adding to a sandbox that is clearly never going to be used for the encyclopedia and appears to be their own personal collection of discography statistics on artists they like. User:LB2001/sandbox is a whopping 500kB in size with a bunch of artists' copy-pasted discographies mashed together. As they clearly do not listen to me (and you previously blocked them in September 2020 for personally attacking me), I thought you might want to have a word to them per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ss112 15:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ss112 I dropped them a line. But this doesn't look like a serious abuse to me. At worst it's what I might call a parking ticket offense. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it okay if I can submit a vandalism report page again? I still wanted to report removal of info. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd If this is the same user, you would most likely be better off going to ANI. Be very sure you have your ducks in a row and that you can produce diffs showing the disruptive editing and that the user has been correctly warned. Read WP:BOOMERANG before posting your report. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for performing the IP block that I asked for. The IP block log is worrisome: first block on Jan 4 for just over a day. A day later, another block, this time for 2 weeks. Almost exactly two weeks later: your block, for 3 months. With a pattern like that, I am surprised they didn't get more vandalism in during the hour between being reported and blocked! --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@GRuban Unless they lose interest over the next few months, when they return and inevitably start up again, I would expect the next block to be measured in years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r   Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem! Having in mind that, about six months ago, you initiated this proposal (which unfortunately failed), I must ask you to consider endorsing WP:NOCONFED, as an essay aimed at eradicating neo-Confederate extremism on Wikipedia. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you or the note. However, the community having decided against a broad approach to this subject; I am not really interested in playing the 'this extremist ideology is bad, but that one, not so much,' game. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! I fully understand your view, regardless of the fact that our opinions may differ on this... Anyway, as I said, I am sorry that your proposal (which I more than readily supported) failed last year; I am convinced that it would be of great benefit to the community if it was adopted. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 08:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The topic block you placed on this IP range [8] may need to be expanded. The IPs's current agenda appears to be removing all sourced references to Russian influence from articles on Helsinki. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

‎85.76.18.111 blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

And block evasion [9]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3F00 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked by Ponyo. I have also protected several of the main pages they seem to be targeting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I would suggest removing some of the older unrelated blocks to the 85.76.0.0/16 range at this point. As can be seen in the block log, the IP range was blocked from editing three user talk pages for two years in December 2020. Due to new pages being added to the partial block, users of the IP range remain unable to leave a message for the three users, despite the fact that the blocks would have already expired by December 2022. Currently they will not be able to leave a message on said three talk pages until July 2025, four and a half years later, which is more than double the length originally set for the blocks. There is also no evidence (at least none that I am aware of) that the user whose activity caused the first three blocks is even active any more. If they are, then the blocks can simply be reinstated. --2001:999:580:ED95:E430:DB8A:EEEA:BDE (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, thanks! Scruton1 might actually be the article subject, though; I had just created a WP:BLPN thread about the issue. They've been evading a partial block, so (unless I'm overlooking something), I think taking the block settings from 2601:442:4481:13f0:2059:9056:4497:99f8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and copying them to the account should do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree. I've modified their block to a partial for 12 hrs per your suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks   ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Also, I had protected the page for 48 hrs. If you think it is unnecessary feel free to modify or remove as you think best. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Nah, these seem perfectly fine to me too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes   Gimmetrow   Bjelleklang Bob the Wikipedian Leithp WhisperToMe 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes   BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim MusikAnimal   Oversighter changes   BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

  Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

 

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r   Handled -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, AO. Best wishes. Bishonen | tålk 08:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC).

Hey @Ad Orientem. You asked me to drop a lilne in 6 months after my topic ban. However almost a year passed. I hope you can review tha ban and lift it. Tsans2 (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Tsans2   Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Separately on that page, there appears at present to be a conflict between the main page and some of the subordinate sibling articles regarding the recognition of a "4th phase" in the invasion. Based on the nearly isolated article by Tony Judah in the NYRB from month ago, several sibling articles have incorporated the language of a 'fourth phase' in the 2022 Russian invasion; the term was apparently Judah's own invention and has not been picked up in the general press by The New York Times, nor the Boston Globe, nor the Chicago Tribune, nor the LA Times. Hoewever, sysops has apparently endorsed keeping the '4th phase' wording at one of the subordinate sibling articles merge requests (the Wikipedia Timeline article for the fourth phase), which we are now discovering is inconsistent with the main article here with only three phases identified to the present date. As a practical matter, the '4th phase' does not exist in the international press and the main article has not incorporated it in anyway. The blowback from the sysops decision from a subordinate sibling article for "2022 Russian invasion Timeline Phase 4" has led some editors to try to incorporate the edits from the subordinate article into the main article with incompatibilities. The attempt to do an article name change request on the Timeline page for the 4th phase also seems to have stalled. Is there a way out of the contradictory article titles? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ad Orientem! I saw your most recent comment in the 2023 visit by Joe Biden to Ukraine merge discussion about presidential visits to conflict zones and wanted to clarify the Lincoln bit. Thought it'd be easier here, given I'd already posted four comments in the merge discussion. Per this NYTimes article, in all previous cases you had mentioned "(...) they went to countries or areas under control of American forces or after hostilities had eased. In this case, the United States military would not be present in Ukraine, nor would it control the airspace." Eisenhower visited Korea as president-elect in early December 1952, prior to inauguration, which is why I believe it would not be counted as such in the NYTimes. Barring any errors in their reporting (obviously there is always a chance), it would make Biden's visit unprecedented in modern times. Ppt91^talk 01:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

1945 FDR's trip to Yalta. Definitely not under control of US military forces. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but very different context as the area was under allied control and Stalin obviously wanted to accommodate both him and Churchill (especially that it was his insistence regarding the place in the first place). Not trying to split hairs here, just being as specific as possible in relation to the Biden claim. And in any case, your points should be addressed in the article so that it is clarified. Ppt91^talk 01:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim.

Since no one has been able to get through to them because of their unreasonableness, we hope maybe you could have a chat with them to see if you can get through. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116 Hi and thanks for your many years of work on the project. I'm very sorry that you are having trouble with another editor. FWIW, you are not the first to have issues with other editors. I would encourage you to read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the suggestions there. This should help get the ball rolling. Admin intervention is usually a last resort except in cases of obviously egregious disruption, like vandalism. That said, if discussion and mediation fail, you can always take the matter to WP:DRN. As a last resort, if you feel that the other editor is behaving in a manner that is seriously disruptive, you can open a discussion at WP:ANI. I generally discourage this as ANI, often referred to as the "drama board," is not a place known for happy endings. See my thoughts on that subject on my user page. I hope this helps. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: You posted the same notice on my Talk page as well. I concur in Ad Orientem's comments above. Best regards, Cbl62 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116 I agree with Ad Orientem as well. If you're going to take this to ANI/DRN, I would recommend condensing what you have to say. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes   The Wordsmith   Fuhghettaboutit Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes   Callanecc   Oversighter changes   Callanecc

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

  Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

  Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

Good evening John (Ad Orientem),

I came on Wikipedia tonight to find that I have been blocked by yourself for Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I'm shocked that you have blocked me for this reason, this simply could not be any further from the truth. Please refer to my User Page and see that I am a genuine Wikipedia editor (having partaked in Ukrainian cultural diplomacy month for the last three years amongst many other edits that have been approved over the years). Also might I add, I have never been blocked before on Wikipedia.

I simply cannot fathom why I would be blocked by yourself. None of my edits have ever been flagged, neither have I ever been messaged regarding any issues with my account and my edits. The most I ever got was an article that was not chosen to be uploaded as deemed not relevant enough. Please relook over my recent edits and what I have done in the past. All I can simply think from reading the article that was included with my block is that it is either a case of mistaken identity or a similar IP address? I am at a loss as to why I have been blocked - and so severely might I add. I'm extremely disheartened to have recieved such a severe block for no reason and I can only hope that this is resolved soon.

Kind regards, Luke (Luke780). Luke780 (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're not blocked. You've never been blocked. Your IP that is presently assigned to you was probably caught in one of the many broad rangeblocks in place to deal with BKFIP. Since you can log in, there's no further issue here, there are thousands of IPs that fall in those rangeblocks, it's not you that 's the problem. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your quick reply. May I ask why I am unable to log in currently then? I cannot get past the log in page - I am getting to this user talk page by clicking the editors name that supposedly blocked me. Is it simply the IP address that I am currently at that is the problem then, and when I return home everything should return to normal?

Kind regards, Luke Luke780 (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

You're logged in to your account, it's attributed correctly in this page's history, not to an IP. I'm not sure what exactly might be going on, but I can assure you at least that BKFIP is to blame, not you. By the way, it looks like Ad Orientem has stepped away from the computer, so I'm responding in his stead. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion Issue resolved, many thanks and have a pleasant evening all! Luke780 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion Thanks for handling this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ad Orientem, I have been meaning to raise this with you, actually. You blocked a very busy UK network (82.132.192.0/18) citing this reason for the next 3 years (I'm not confirming whether that one applies here). I think it's fair to say it means absolutely nothing to just about every user on the network, of which there are many, and you easily see this by looking above and at Special:Contributions/82.132.192.0/18. Could you please just add an anonblock or rangeblock template? At least if not this time (which would be great) then in the future when you make a significant block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz I've updated the block per your request. I don't think that automatically puts any templates on ip talk pages but it will show up in the block log as an anonblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. IP users will see the expanded template when they try to edit, instead of some cryptic message about BFKIP. The same with schoolblocks, in my experience this will prevent a significant amount of confusion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

 

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)