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

No idea what to do with two very POV users[edit]

Hello. I need at least some advice, and very likely an intervention to explain two users how Wikipedia works.

I am at my wits' end with two other users (User:Arkenstrone, and User:Yesterday, all my dreams....). See Talk:Maria Valtorta#Recent heavy POV-pushing and Talk:The Poem of the Man-God#Criticism is Weak. Their profile, from what you can see in those two threads, is as follow:

  • both clearly imply they believe the work (The Poem of the Man-God) is of divine inspiration, and its writer (Maria Valtorta) divinely inspired
  • both are very adept of producing walls of text to defend their position
  • both are extremely motivated in pushing their POV (I feel it as a form of attrition forcing me to always be there otherwise they would push their POV, I mean just look at their answers, my good faith and energy is wearing thin...)
  • neither understand what a POV is, nor what the WP:NPOV pillar is (they insist on making a false balance)
  • neither understand what a reliable source is, nor what makes a source reliable
  • both have preconceptions on what the article should contain or not

None have edited the article very recently, but they are planning to do so in the very near future.

Full disclosure: I have an ANI opened against Arkenstrone (which, as always for my ANI requests, have not received the attention of an admin willing to close the case in a few days; this is not a request for you to intervene at this ANI though). Veverve (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Veverve Have you notified all of the editors involved in these disputes of the ANI, including any previously involved admins? That should be done as a matter of form if it has not already been done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Arkenstrone was noticed. I did not think a warning to the other admins should have been done, nor did admin Deepfriedokra who commented at the ANI and was loosely part of the content at the ANI request. I did not think any of the admins I mentioned at ANI were involved. So, do you think I should warn all the admins mentioned in my ANI request?
  • The ANI thread only concerns Arkenstrone, and its matter is unrelated to the POV and lack of COMPETENCE I described to you.
Veverve (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve An ANI notice is not a warning. It's just an FYI. You can always leave a note as a opposed to the template. But I have always operated on the belief that where ANI is concerned, anyone who has been involved with the dispute, especially admins who have a history with any of the parties, should be given a courtesy notification. I am loathe to get involved in a dispute that involves subject matter with which I have little to no familiarity and where other admins have already been involved before me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the matter I am asking you for advice – and if you deem so intervention – is unrelated to the matter discussed at ANI. ANI only concerns personnal attacks. The crux is: I cannot get through those two users thick skulls that all their behaviour I described above is problematic, I tried everything, it is like they do not read the links to policies I send them. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve I've dropped a note on both their talk pages. That's as far as I'm prepared to go right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Hopefully, this will help. Veverve (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, judging from what they both have written recently, they still have no idea what a RS is. They have not edited the article to push this opinion I oppose, so technically they are not POV-pushing (at least, not yet). I am tired of those walls of texts, my words have been falling on deaf ears with those two SPAs for weeks now... Do you have any advice? Veverve (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve I dropped a note in the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve A discussion has been opened at WP:RSN. You may want to make your case there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for admin help by someone familiar with LTA[edit]

Hi. I've read your description so please don't worry if you haven't the time or space to deal with this. You helped a while ago with an LTA via an IP block. Said editor is a prolific sock who abuses multiple accounts (very easily more than 20 imo). Anyway, there is an SPI here and the admin involved has asked for someone more familiar to assist. I'm happy to help. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi NEDOCHAN. I took a look at the SPI but am not really comfortable going where a check user is not. (I don't have that tool.) You might post a request for other opinions at WP:AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. The (albeit understandable) necessity of spending so much time on socks is what makes me so contemptuous of them. NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NEDOCHAN. Entirely understandable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the stuff submitted by that IP on Tejashwi Yadav's page was defamatory and threatening. Kindly delete all revisions of the IP from that page. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DreamRimmer. Thanks for the note. I just took a look and it appears to have been handled by Materialscientist who has also protected the page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the time I wrote to you about it, you had likely gone offline. I then asked NinjaRobotPirate to delete those revisions. Later on, at my request, NinjaRobotPirate deleted those revisions. DreamRimmer (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DreamRimmer Yeah, I had gone to bed by the time your message showed up. Good teamwork by all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for replying. Regards! DreamRimmer (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

Hi, this user is back under a different range , would it be possible to block it too? FMSky (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FMSky Blocked 2A02:C7C:5100:0:0:0:0:0/42 x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nice, thanks! --FMSky (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 56[edit]


The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

  • New partner:
    • Perlego
  • Library access tips and tricks
  • Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN Tina Turner's death - procedural objection[edit]

Hi, I'd like to raise a procedural objection to the decision process for Tina Turner's death on ITN. The discussion was closed in literally one hour, giving many people in a good chunk of the world extremely little opportunity to voice their opinion (support, oppose, or concerns). Consensus could have easily changed in the span of 24 hours, I'm not convinced that enough time was given for others in different regions to give their opinion. This approval was far too quick, this doesn't seem to be a good way to run this discussion. Please let me know if this is a good place to discuss or not, the ITN voting page says "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page" but I'm not sure where that is. Thanks, QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually think it unlikely that consensus would have changed in 24 hours, and I don't think the decision to post was wrong or premature. It is a little unusual to close the discussion that quickly, normally it is left open for objections/requests to pull, but again I think it is unlikely that consensus would have developed to pull and it would have not been a productive use of our time. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure if consensus would have changed - maybe it would have stayed at post, maybe it would become a mixed bag, maybe entirely oppose, not sure. But this isn't about the outcome (post vs not to post), it's about the timing and the procedure - I do think the decision to post was premature (even if ultimately correct). I also think it is productive to have a lot of people voice their opinion over the span of 24 hours (or however much time seems reasonable to you, the number is not so important), even if it ends up being basically entirely support. Especially so that we can have more confidence that ITN is more global in perspective and captures the preferences of the wide-reaching English wikipedia readerbase. That confidence is lacking if the item gets posted only one hour after the discussion starts. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@QueensanditsCrazy You could open a discussion at WT:ITN if you wish. That said, I concur with Pawnkingthree. Normally, I prefer that RD nominations, and especially death blurbs, not be closed before the subject has had a chance to reach room temperature. However, in this case I saw no realistic grounds for opposing. The discussion, albeit brief, was pretty close to unanimous and had plenty of input. In order not to post, we would have to see a virtual avalanche of oppose !votes with few or no additional supports. Realistically that was just not going to happen. Keeping the discussion open purely to allow for pile on supports, and/or tributes is not what these discussions are for. Once consensus becomes clear, with no reasonable likelihood of it being overturned, it's time to close the discussion and move on. Out of curiosity, what reasons were you planning to cite for opposing the nomination? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't actually planning on opposing the nomination. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Main crux of my argument was that consensus was not clear if it's only been an hour. I agree the discussion was substantially unanimous, but perhaps further discussion could have elucidated some changes to blurb (eg. due to new information) or concerns with article quality (eg. citations, or concerns with high traffic) etc. I actually think it's okay to have a "virtual avalanche" - i mean it's not like a large number of people read that page. If the commenters are not providing useful feedback (isn't that every blurb nomination these days, haha) then I would say that's a symptom broader than just the Tina Turner article. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This User...[edit]

Hello Ad Orientem.

This user "SurferSquall" was recently unblocked and is continuing an edit war, now on the List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force article. Could you look into this? Thank you. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 02:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Layah50 Sigh. I have dropped another note on their talk page. I dislike blocking editors that are obviously well intentioned. But they are collecting warnings the way some people collect stamps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see.. 🛧Layah50♪🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう!) 03:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of equipment of the Indonesian Air Force[edit]

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'm requesting you do something about the edit history mess of this article. One user keeps claiming a "consensus" was reached on the talk page, when none ever was. (I don't believe he knows that that word means). thanks SurferSquall (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SurferSquall I will have a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SurferSquall See my note on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've manually changed some things around on that page to meet the consensus on the talk page. here's hoping it doesn't get reverted again for no reason SurferSquall (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi.. Thank you for looking up the disputed article. The issue is SurferSquall, (relatively new editor on air forces inventory pages topics), recently come and make edit IMO, based on "World Air Forces 2023". Aircraft inventory is not really subject to recentism, as it hardly changes each years. Therefore, older reference can be still relevant.
Throughout years of editing using previous edition of "World Air Forces", we (other long-time air forces inventory editors) learned that "World Air Forces" is not always correct, and there are instances that we agreed to not use that source. However, SurferSquall insist to use "World Air Forces" simply because it is "newer" without trying to understand the context why newer source is not really necessary better source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ckfasdf @SurferSquall I am not going to take sides in a content dispute over sourcing. My post on the article talk page was intended to remind everyone to avoid edit warring and to seek consensus on the article talk page. If a consensus exists from an earlier discussion, one should not edit against that consensus. Consensus can change. But until it does, the previous one must stand. Beyond which, if there is a dispute over contradicting sources, you may request input in a talk page discussion and post a note at WP:RSN. You may also post a nuetrally worded request for input on the talk page of relevant wiki-projects such as WP:MILITARY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "previous one" is before the drama or before SurferSqual edit right? Because my, FOX or Evo revert are reverting back before SurferSquall's edit. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
all three of you are going against the consensus that was reached on the talk page. SurferSquall (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WAF is used as a source for every single air force page on Wikipedia. Newer source = updated information = takes precedent over older source, You have yet to enter a single source into the article that is newer than WAF. SurferSquall (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ckfasdf@SurferSquall Appreciate that you are talking, but this belongs on the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.