User talk:Ad Orientem
Welcome! Please read this before posting here.
If you have questions comments or concerns feel free to drop me a line below. Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, and remember to sign your message with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic. |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
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 February. 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 ( Warning) 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)
- @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 ( Warning) 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)
- 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 What specific other issues do you feel need admin attention? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Prior to your caution, he had already been warned by six editors, including once by you in February. 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)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 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 @PepeBonus: 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#Don't_disregard_the_Manual_of_Style. 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. Ss112 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: [1] and [2]; [3] and [4]. 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. Ss112 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:
- @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)
- I believe so: [1] and [2]; [3] and [4]. 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. Ss112 16:00, 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.
Not chart-related:
- 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.
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 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.
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. Ss112 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
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
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)