Jump to content

User talk:Ad Orientem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OmoYoruba45 (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 24 October 2019 (→‎Blocking and sanctions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status:     Online




Archives (Index)
This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Range block needed

For a few examples, see: 190.58.21.8, 190.58.9.11, 190.58.10.7, 190.58.17.43. Long-term disruption in adding unsourced content, particularly in ratings, and unresponsive to warnings. Amaury • 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

190.58.0.0/19 blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleEater143 back on pop music articles

PeopleEater143 is back with their snark, and fighting with Billiekhalidfan on pop music articles using 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:86. Geolocates to roughly same area as the other IPs used. Ss112 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjust page protection

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

Thank you. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hi Buffs. Per your request I took a look at the template and could not find anything in the editing history that would justify the EC protection. I also tried to look at the RfPP request I was responding to but it is so far back that I could not access it. (RfPP does not archive farther back then seven days due to the volume of requests and edits and when I tried to manually load the page history back to January my browser gave me the Bronx Salute.) Given what I could see and that I don't recall the particulars of the RfPP request, I can't defend that protection level and have accordingly dropped it down to semi-pp. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Buffs (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AAFT University of Media and Arts

Is this new article substantially the same as the one deleted in August after this AfD which you closed? If so the new one can be CSD'd G4. PamD 22:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Yes. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon

Is this something that should be reported someplace? Onel5969 TT me 02:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Yes, and thank you. They have been blocked, their edits revdeled and the people who need to be informed have been. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Ad Orientem. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 03:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP genre warrior

Hi Ad, would you consider actioning this request? Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) - FlightTime (open channel) 18:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

I think this conversation has run its useful course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am posting this here as normal talk page communication between some of the interested parties has broken down.

Redirects should not be created in the absence of evidence justifying their existence. In general they should be a plausible search term related to a notable subject with some form of reliable source indicating its existence. Redirects should not be created as a way of staking a claim to a topic that might eventually become independently notable. In situations where a subject becomes notable enough for an article, and a redirect with no previous history as an article exists, the redirect is often deleted to make way for the new article assuming the creator of the article and redirect are not the same person. Where questions are raised regarding the suitability of a redirect or whether it meets our guidelines (see WP:R), a discussion should be opened at WP:RfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Ss112, Lk95, MaranoFan
P.S. Also a gentle reminder that while private emails are welcome, requests for my involvement in a situation, including but not limited to requests for admin actions, should normally be made in the open, either here or on the relevant talk page discussion. This is to ensure transparency and to guard against any perception of favoritism or backroom type dealings. Rare exceptions where commonsense and/or our guidelines dictate a need for discretion are understood. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm aware of the first thing, and I have mostly heeded your request primarily to email where discretion is needed. The talk page discussion between Lk95 and MaranoFan had been removed by the time I noticed and MaranoFan has requested I not post at her talk page, so I informed you via email after (seeing) Lk95 pinged you. This isn't the first time I've notified you via email of a talk page discussion between two users and asked you to intervene but fair enough... Ss112 23:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ss112, can you please take my user/talk page off your watchlist? I can't force you to, but it would be a decent thing to do after I have asked you not to post there. It's deceptive to act like everything is fine on Wikipedia yet continue emailing admins about discussions on my talk page that have nothing to do with you. I'll have to look into a more serious course of action the next time something like this is brought to my attention. Regards.—NØ 06:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MaranoFan Aside from the use of email, which was done in good faith and no harm resulted, there is nothing wrong about asking an admin to have a look at something that might be of concern. Obviously there is a difference between watching a talk page and stalking another editor's activities which is a no no. It's up to Ss112 whether or not to unwatch your page. It arguably may be a good idea. But I want to be clear that I don't think there was anything inappropriate in their dropping me an fyi on the matter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Thanks for that AO. Besides, I'm not concerned about these threats anymore. MaranoFan has said the exact same thing about 10 times, and I have seen her say it to other editors as well. I've yet to see anything come of it, and from an editor that has said they would be reluctant to go report anything to ANI given their own reputation there, I really doubt anything will. By all means, indulge us, get the receipts out, drag up all the tired old drama if you must. It won't be making me look bad. Regardless of what the use of email implies, I have nothing to hide and I will continue to let whomever I feel it is appropriate know when editors who have been told to stop doing things by administrators themselves continue doing said things. Thanks. Ss112 06:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Neoplan Rider Studios

Seems to have deleted your ban notice. Sorry to bother you. Just happened to stumble upon the admin discussion. Slywriter (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slywriter and thanks for the heads up. They are actually allowed to remove block notices. And in any event it doesn't really matter. They can't unblock themselves and they are indeffed. As long as they don't post anything disruptive on their talk page I am content to ignore them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request

As an admin willing to revdel - could you look at these and consider whether they should be revdel'd (and/or whether any other action should be taken)? Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsetonian, I have blocked the user inderfinitely and protected the page x 3 months. Their edits have been revdeled as purely disruptive. That's it for me. I'm off to bed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very many thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyPedia123

user:MickeyPedia123 attempted to make an edit in the filter log that has me a little concerned. CLCStudent (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checking -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rollback of disruptive IP edits (part 2)

Follow-up to User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 14#Mass rollback of disruptive IP edits...

Sorry to keep looping you in on this, but since you've dealt with this twice now, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this new IP iteration when you have a chance. Similar behavior to 96.81.226.65 and Bradley026258, involving unsourced height/drop claims being plastered across article infoboxes and running text. Thanks again! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked x 1 week. Both IPs geolocate to the same general area and are likely the same editor. I am going to mass revert their live edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing???

I saw you left a disruptive editing message on my page and I have to tell you it was really funny and also confusing so, I just had to say something about it. According to Wikipedia a disruptive editor is someone who is tendentious, Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability, Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging", Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits and Rejects or ignores community input After reading this, I didn't think my editing behavior meet any of this criteria. It is also disappointing that you didn't follow the Wikipedia steps before tagging me as a disruptive editor. You should have

  • First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor:
    • Assume good faith. Do not attack the author who you suspect is disruptive. However, revert uncited or unencyclopedic material. Use an edit summary which describes the problem in non-inflammatory terms. Stay very civil. Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Consult Do not bite the newcomers, and be aware that you may be dealing with someone who is new and confused, rather than a problem editor.
  • If editor restores, or unreverts:
    • If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage.
  • If reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information:
    • Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Provide diffs of the multiple reverts by the tendentious editor. Keep your post short (no more than 250–500 words), well-diffed (multiple diffs showing evidence), and focus on user conduct issues (the tendentious editor is not engaging in discussion / is inserting unsourced information / is ignoring talkpage consensus). Try to avoid going into detailed article content issues at ANI, as it may reduce the likelihood that an admin will understand the complaint. Note: To be most successful at ANI, your own history must be clean. At all times, stay civil, and avoid engaging in multiple reverts yourself.
  • If tendentious editor is using sources, but if the sources are poor or misinterpreted:
  • If attempts at dispute resolution are rejected, unsuccessful, and/or the problems continue:
    • Notify the editor you find disruptive on their user talkpage.
      Include diffs of the problematic behavior. Use a section name and/or edit summary to clearly indicate that you view their behavior as disruptive, but avoid being unnecessarily provocative. Remember, you're still trying to de-escalate the situation. If other editors are involved, they should post their own comments too, to make it clear that the community disapproves of the tendentious behavior.
  • If tendentious editor continues reverting:
  • If tendentious editor is not violating the three-revert rule (3RR), or there aren't enough editors involved to enforce Wikipedia policies:
    • File another ANI report.
  • If editor continues to ignore consensus of any decision reached at ANI:
  • If blocks fail to solve the problem, or you are still unable to obtain attention via ANI, and all other avenues have been tried:

Blocking and sanctions

  • Disruptive editing may result in warnings and then escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours.
  • Accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely.

You skipped a lot of steps there buddy, I am sure that the disruptive edit warning was left on my page because I removed the update message that was left on the Ecowas page since 2017. The reason I did that was because, I didn't see anything that needed to be updated on the page. Unlike you, I actually looked at the page and read through it to see if there was anything that needed to be updated but I couldn't find any. I then went further to the Ecowas website to see if there was any major developments that need to be included but there wasn't any. The only major thing that happened recently that needed to be on the page was the formation of the Eco currency and since it was already on the page, I was convinced the page was up to date.

Now I need you to explain

    • Why the Wikipedia due process wasn't followed before I was tagged a disruptive editor.
    • What I did that was disruptive that you felt the need to tag me as one
    • Why you think the message is still relevant(especially when it was left two years ago)
    • Why you didn't attempt to resolve the issue in a civil manner.(There was none because I made zero reverts or any further edits after my edit was reverted)
    • Why you didn't attempt to update to the page if you felt it needed to be updated, after all that's what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do.OmoYoruba45 (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem&oldid=922765297"