User talk:Ad Orientem

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)

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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. Ss112 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Disruptive football/soccer editor

Hello. Re the discussion at WT:FOOTY#Suspicious editing and your subsequent range block on 2403:6200:88a7:8107::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 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

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• 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 Ad Orientem,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

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 Schminnte, 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 JTtheOG, 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

Onel5969 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. Hey man im josh 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  Done -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 W:ZP

Hi, I have a major proposed addition to the W: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


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)

ITN recognition for Lou Conter

On 3 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lou Conter, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 3 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)

Can you please ask this editor to stop edit warring?

Hi AO. I have come into contact with the editor AlNahyan 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:

• 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.

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: [3], [4], [5], or just see their talk page history. Thanks. Ss112 09:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: 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). Ss112 10:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlNahyan 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 Ss112 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)

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)

Please block this IP wide-scale vandalizing

Hi AO. I think 1.145.104.250 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. Ss112 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 Laylaluvalog is MariaJaydHicky. This looks like what they've moved on to doing now that they can't edit Cowboy Carter. Maybe @Ferret: can confirm. Ss112 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)