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


User not responding to talk messages to stop following what I do[edit]

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)[reply]

@Ss112 Have they done any of this since your last message on their talk page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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:

Not chart-related:

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 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)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 62[edit]

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

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banned member causing problems[edit]

Hello there Ad Orientem (talk)! I'm unfortunately having a problem with an IP editor, 70.54.53.237, & wondered if you could help since they appear to be a returned member you previously banned (86.1.199.26). This member is active under many aliases, some edits are okay but they frequently get reverted with more problematic edits. The problem I'm having with them is that they are going around & mass removing data-sort-values from filmography tables despite that being a desired feature to aid accessibility. I've been having to back-track & repair many such removals by them, which is quite disheartening. I posted on their talk page in an attempt to reason with them by explaining what data-sort-values do but seemingly to no avail as they again stripped out all data-sort-values from the very article I talked to them about (Kathy Greenwood). Also rather deceptively, they did not mention the removals in their edit description. Worth noting that this member also appears to be at least; Georgia76 talk, 72.38.51.152 talk‎, 142.126.248.30 talk‎ & many more. Notable editing features that mark them out are constant removal of data-sort values from filmographies without explanations, a propensity to edit Blue Bloods & the various versions of Law & Order & CSI. I'm not used to dealing with someone like this, I typically try to avoid conflict with other editors & prefer to just make constructive edits. Data-sort should be a non controversial feature. Should they remove data-sorting again from the Kathy Greenwood article, I cannot revert since that would cross over into edit warring. Thanks for any help on this matter. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LooksGreatInATurtleNeck. Having a look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you kindly for taking the time Ad Orientem (talk)! I note that under the guise of Georgia76, they have had a sock-puppet investigation. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Drmies, @Yamla @Girth Summit This looks complicated and may require a look from someone with access to the Magic 8 Ball. From what I have seen in my look, I think there is credible evidence of serial disruption, editing while logged out by Georgia76 and block evasion by 86.1.199.26, all of which may be connected. I'm not sure a formal SPI would be helpful and am reluctant to send this to ANI. Thoughts? (FYI ping @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck) -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to make supper, so would be happy to take a detailed look tomorrow. I'm hoping someone else has thoughts before then. :) CU users can't tie accounts to IP addresses, but we can still provide some guidance in cases like this. Still, it's going to be tricky to thread the needle. I have not yet looked at the CU data, but I think it's pretty much already assumed the 142.126 addresses are Georgia76 editing while logged out, based on the SPI? Again, that's not based on CU data and I will not be able to comment on this relationship if I examine the CU data. 86.1.199.26 appears to geolocate to Scotland while the other IP's geolocate to Ontario, Canada, by the way. Unlikely (but not impossible) to be the same person. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla Thank you. Enjoy your supper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you Yamla & Ad Orientem for looking into this! When I first noticed this Editor removing data-sort values en-masse, I just went about repairing & hoped it was some kind of quirk they'd grow out of. However the more I encountered their edits, the clearer it became that they were quite prolific. I'd hoped my friendly reach out to them on their talk page would clear things up but sadly not (I also further explained when 70.54.53.237 tersely replied on my talk page). A shame they can't put all that energy to a more positive use. I'm sorry to have brought such a tangle to you. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LooksGreatInATurtleNeck No worries. It's why we get paid the big bucks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Yamla, I haven't run CU on the account, so what I'm about to say is not a comment on whether or not the account is connected to the IPs. From a quick look at the previous SPI case, I see that the conclusion was that it was likely the same person editing while logged out, which is not in itself a policy violation - we're not required to log in to edit. That said, logging out to evade scrutiny, give oneself multiple 'voices' in a discussion, or cause disruption that you don't want associated with your account is disruptive.
I would recommend one of two courses of action. Ad Orientem, looks like you've already blocked an IP for this activity. If you are persuaded that it's all the same person, then its within your discretion to block the account and any other IPs doing similar stuff for DE and/or block evasion. If you're not confident (whether that's because you aren't persuaded by the evidence, or because you don't have the time/inclination to look at it in sufficient detail) then I'd suggest that an SPI case be raised by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, with evidence in the form of diffs that (1) demonstrates that it is the same person, and (2) makes clear how the activity is disruptive/deceptive. Hope that's helpful - I'm off out for a very wet walk with the dog. Girth Summit (blether) 09:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the dog enjoyed the walk. :) 86.1.199.26 remains blocked, but based solely on the IP geolocation, appears unrelated to Georgia76 and to the IP addresses listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgia76/Archive. All other IP addresses geolocate to the same area and based solely on IP geolocation and the SPI are probably Georgia76. I'm not convinced this rises to WP:LOUTSOCK; the case could certainly be made. Perhaps someone should remind Georgia76 to stay signed in while making their edits. I think there's nothing here that requires a CU at this time. Both of Girth Summit's courses of action are open. Happy to weigh in on an SPI if one is filed, though I'm not sure CU data would give me more than what I've said here without looking at the CU data, and I'd probably be allowed to actually say less. :) --Yamla (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the available data, I don't see any reason to doubt the geolocation associated with the IPs, so absent some strong behavioural evidence I would be inclined to agree with you Yamla that on the face of it the IPs are unlikely to have been used by the same person. The original post in this thread does not really spell out why the OP thinks that they are connected - any report would need to be accompanied by some specific evidence. (If you haven't done this before, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guide to filing cases is a useful read, and be aware that Twinkle can actually fill in the paperwork for you in the options under ARV.) Girth Summit (blether) 11:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Girth Summit! I originally connected the various incarnations of Georgia76 with 86.1.199.26 when looking at the edit history of Blue Bloods season 10, multiple accepted aliases of them appear just on the first page. So I checked a few of the other IP Editors listed & 86.1.199.26 editing pattern matched very closely. Same editing of CSI, Law & Order, Blue Bloods & other crime based shows. All the same kind of edits, with lots of reversions as they clashed with other editors. The only thing missing from this accounts editing style, that the others I mentioned include, is the editing of filmographies to remove sortname/data-sort values. I assumed this was simply down to them now adding another string to their bow. Use of a VPN would easily mask geolocation of course. I would concede I may be wrong about 86.1.199.26 being the same as the others, it's easy to start getting paranoid when you've spotted multi account use. :) Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I was about to ask you for specific evidence that makes you confident that these are the same person - you can't just say that you saw a matching pattern of editing, you need to present the diffs and demonstrate what the similarities are (you've already noticed the pattern - spell it out for us, rather than giving us a page history to look at and asking us to join the dots for ourselves). Having said that, and potentially contradicting everything I've just said, from looking at some of the pages they've edited, this smells for all the world like Mickeydee15... Girth Summit (blether) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yamla - I've looked at the CU data now, and the editing behaviour. CU data would be consistent with historic data for Mickeydee15, and editing pattern is a match - I've blocked. Re the IPs, policy prohibits me from linking specific IPs with blocked accounts - as someone who has not looked at the CU data, would you be willing to look at the IPs from a behavioural perspective and determine whether any long-term blocks are necessary to prevent ongoing block evasion? Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 12:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Girth Summit, my understanding is that you'd like me not to look at the CU data (because that limits what I'm allowed to say) and instead, look at the IP addresses and determine if we can block as suspected block evasion from Mickeydee15. Is that correct? Alternatively, I could use my CU tools and hand out a slew of blocks for WP:LOUTSOCK on IP addresses or ranges, without mentioning which accounts are involved. I don't think that's what you are asking, though. Either way, happy to do so later today! I do wish the ranges were smaller so we could easily just hand out a slew of range blocks. :( --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either works for me Yamla - you don't need to disclose whether or not you look at CU before imposing any blocks as you see fit. Girth Summit (blether) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, later today! --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Girth Summit! Sorry, I thought I had joined the dots. The pattern is mentioned in my first post & is pretty straightforward I felt, they edit a pretty set selection of articles that I've listed & tend to get reverted as they butt heads on those pages, which in-itself could certainly be shrugged off as coincidence. However the addition of editing filmographies to strip out all sortname/data-sot-values in combination with the pattern of articles edited makes them rather obvious. I think it's pretty clear that Georgia76 talk, 72.38.51.152 talk‎, 142.126.248.30 talk are the same individual by this identical editing style. Only the banned 86.1.199.26 lacks the data-sort-value deletion behaviour, as I've mentioned above. But I still think they are likely the same. Can I prove it beyond doubt? Nope, which is why I came looking for help from those more experienced. Sorry if the details I've provided are not enough, I'm finding this all rather overwhelming. I much prefer to just quietly edit & was rather pleased that, until this, I'd manage to make only main-space edits this year. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Girth Summit! I know I'm the novice here, but I took a look Mickeydee15's Contribs &, for what it's worth, I agree with you that this looks like the same individual. Same selection of crime shows, I originally crossed paths with Georgia76 as they edit a lot of Murdoch Mysteries as well as the actors who appear in it & I see it's prominent in Mickeydee15's history too. Same kind of edits & clashing with other editors, they love tweaking rowspan=. :) Only thing missing is the sortname/data-sort-value removal, just like 86.1.199.26, so I think that is just a fairly new quirk that they have acquired. Seems like they've been here a while. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Yamla! Honestly I'd just be happy if we could convince them to stop mass removal of sortname/data-sort-values. Some of their edits are actually decent. Their filmography edits are a bit sloppy & often break the layout, I've had to fix a few like here & here. But it's the mass unexplained removal of sortname/data-sort-values that is the real problem, hundreds of bytes of sorting info (& often references too) are deleted like here, here, & here. That's the only reason they came to my attention, I was noticing that often the edits I made to include the rather uncontroversial data-sort-values was being undone with no reason being given. Adding data-sort-values is time consuming but worth it to aid accessibility, but becomes utterly pointless if someone is just going to bin it soon after, especially with no apparent reason. :( Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit, @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck,@Yamla It looks like this is under control now. The assistance is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit, @LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, @Yamla FYI I will be off wiki probably for the remainder of the day due to an issue unrelated to this discussion. I need to step back before I end up saying/typing something I will regret. Right now I am so steamed I could swallow molten lava and shit ice cream. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know what you're referring to - certainly don't feel you need to pay attention to this thread, we've got it covered. I recommend a wet walk with a dog followed by a beer (but it might be a bit early for that latter where you are...). Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit If I had pinged everyone who has expressed opposition to, or reservations over these types of essays, and then dropped a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conservatism, I'd be desysopped, probably by the end of the day, and I'd be lucky to avoid being blocked or worse. And the community would be right. That was damned naked canvassing or there is no such thing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is, I'm afraid, one of the perennial problems when dealing with Wikiprojects. Local consensuses, skewed discussions - it's a slog, whether you're dealing with capitalisation issues amongst sports fans and milhist editors or undue weight/notguide issues amongst the airports fraternity. Personally, Without the active discussion on the project talk page, I would probably have agreed with you, but if a bunch of folk are actively talking about something in a relevant venue, it's a stretch to say that mentioning that it might get deleted is inappropriate. 'People who have talked to me about similar stuff' doesn't quite meet the same threshold, IMO, but FWIW I don't think that a post at the conservatism Wikiproject as a counterbalance would have been out of line.
I believe that you and I come from very different places, politically, but I agree with you on this call (possibly for different reasons). Things are kicking off right now - I see an emergent move war - but I'm making dinner so will step back. When the dust settles, I may try to start a discussion about merging some or all of these 'no ...' essays into a central location. Cool heads and some thought required. Nothing is on fire though, it doesn't need to be done tonight. Best wishes. Girth Summit (blether) 18:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you kindly to all involved, Girth Summit, Yamla & Ad Orientem! I really appreciate how you've swiftly looked into & dealt with this. I'd have preferred to have interacted with you all over a more positive issue, perhaps next time. :) Ad Orientem, I'm really sorry to see you've been embroiled in a rather hot topic below. Please definitely take a break for the evening, Wikipedia needs all the level-headed Editors & Admin it can get & can't afford to lose the ones we have. :) Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No queerphobes[edit]

See my comment on the talk page. I guess it is goodbye then. Thank you for unintentionally alerting me to it. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will stay if the community allows me to though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions1325 I think your comment was ill advised and strays too close to debating the subject rather than addressing the deficiencies of the essay as per WP:PG. I think you should consider deleting your comment before it attracts responses. FWIW I have sent the essay to MfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda think you're right. I have done that. I did not put much thought into it as I just got home from a long day at work. If someone wants me to bring up the arguments again at the MFD, I will. Unfortunately though, I did feel the need to be honest with the community. I am willing to self-censor to contribute here, but not to the extent that the essay demands that I do. Also, please do not reply to the email that I sent you. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scorpions1325 In general, I think we should check our social and political prejudices at the door when we come here. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with the essay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree for the most part. I disagree with you on one point though. I agree that extreme queerphobes should not be allowed to edit here. Unfortunately, far too much of the world is queerphobic by that essay's standards in order for me to be okay with it. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem was that it was one giant WP:NPOV violation, but I think your argument is good too. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think a civilized discussion needs to take place at the appropriate venue. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether or not the essay complies with community policies and guidelines? That discussion is occurring now at MfD. Any discussion regarding the social political issues raised, can occur anywhere other than on Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying that we should discuss on JimboTalk exactly how much intolerance is allowable before a block. Currently, there is no precedent. Scorpions1325 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is precedent. If you violate community guidelines by engaging in personal attacks or promoting FRINGE beliefs/bigotry etc on the project, you will be shown the door. I have blocked numerous trolls. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD[edit]

The fact that issues around queer people are becoming increasingly political is, in my opinion, quite disappointing. It should not be anyone's interest to police other people's beliefs or opinions, and the antagonism around these is really intense.

But it is sad to me that you had to exaggerate the extent of that essay in your MfD statement. I don't see the essay elevating those beliefs as nazism. The only place that mentions the NONAZIS essay is referring to essays that discuss why denigrating minorities is not allowed on Wikipedia. Suggesting that this appears as attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ideological echo chamber doesn't help, it just disparages people who agree with the essay and incites anger in those who disagree. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@0xDeadbeef Perhaps, I misinterpreted the essay. So you believe they are trying ban persons who subscribe to ordinary (non Nazish) political views with which they disagree? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the ideological echo chamber, I'm afraid that is very much what it looks like to me. I think you could take all of these "No- fill in the blank" essays and summarize them as anyone questioning the current orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. I don't think anyone is trying to ban people with political views that they disagree with. It is unproductive to frame it as that. I don't see anywhere in that essay where it suggests people should be banned for expressing anti-LGBT beliefs alone.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we have been reading the same essay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp. This is not really productive then. I was hoping you could cite some examples.. I'll log off. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
''...anyone questioning the current orthodoxy of the social political left is persona non grata"
That is what it looks like to me, too. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what's going on. They are going to ban all Christians and make this an atheist proabortion blog. 207.212.33.88 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that comment is helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un-Withdraw Your MfD Please[edit]

Hello. I strongly encourage you to un-withdraw and un-strike your original MfD nomination. Productive discussion is occurring there regardless, and it seems the issue has gathered a momentum of its own. I think you raised some very salient points as well. Cheers. Durchbruchmüller 02:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Durchbruchmüller Sorry, I can't do that. People have been citing legal arguments for why it's perfectly OK to send out notifications to editors and noticeboards (at least 2 that I know of), where conservatively (pun intended) 90% of the respondents are going to take their side in the discussion. This was brazen WP:GAMING. If I had notified editors who have expressed reservations about all of these NOT... essays in the past and dropped a notification on the talk page of WP:CONSERVATISM, I'd have been desysopped before sunset, and been damned lucky not to end up blocked. And the community would have been right. This entire affair has been absolutely scandalous. I refuse to have anything to do with it. And just to be clear, I am not implying bad faith here. I am stating it unequivocally. Anyone who is offended can haul me in front of ARBCOM or open a discussion to have me recalled. This was the most brazen attempt at rigging a discussion that I've seen in years and by far the worst that wasn't shut down with people getting blocked. My confidence in the capacity to have a fair discussion on Wikipedia about sensitive and hot button subjects has been severely shaken. CC @Girth Summit, @Drmies, @Yamla, @Acroterion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with your sentiments regarding WP:CANVASS & WP:GAMING whether it's being done intentionally or not, but I still feel this is an endeavor worth pursuing, and urge you to reconsider. That said, I understand wanting to disengage from contentious topics on Wikipedia. It tends to bring out the worst aspects of the site and its userbase. I know I certainly have my opinions regarding this project, the climate it has fostered, and its bureaucratic functions. I wish you well whatever you decide. Durchbruchmüller 03:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem You're not alone, I know exactly what you are talking about. I see it too, sir. I wish you well. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit, @Drmies, @Yamla, @Acroterion. A quick clarification to my CC above. I am not requesting anyone join in the discussion for obvious reasons, and having pinged you all, would actually prefer that you did not. I was hoping for some advice on how to handle this disaster on wheels. I should have taken this to ANI right away. Both, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and MikutoH probably should have been sanctioned for GAMING and CANVASSING respectively. Unfortunately, it is far too late now. At this point it would be pointless and arguably punitive. The damage has been done. At the moment, I am thinking the best option is to just take this to DRV the minute it's closed (assuming it's not procedurally closed as FUBARed by the breathtaking GAMING and Canvassing). I can't think of anything else to do.
The really sad thing is that it's not just this discussion that has been wrecked, but the essay itself is now effectively bullet proof. Most of these canvassed editors will have now watchlisted the page knowing that it has been challenged. So yeah, they won. Whoever said "cheaters never prosper" obviously had little experience with Wikipedia. On a side note, I am not usually online during Holy Week, but between this and some unrelated personal matters, I probably will be. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Durchbruchmüller & @Philomathes2357 Thank you both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Practically speaking, I think the best option is to unwatch that page and just not engage further. I think that's the path that is most likely to lead to... well, not happiness, but perhaps less frustration for you. I think this is the path you are already trying to take: "I refuse to have anything to do with it." That said, I took this approach recently with a particular problematic editor and they just got louder, including on articles I watched. So, this approach may not work, even if you want to try it. Still, what other option is there? Not trying to silence you; I just think there are better battles outside this particular MfD.
More generally, and this particular MfD aside, I think there are two fundamental problems here. The first is whether we-the-community should be trying to roll up all of these essays into one or if we-the-community are okay with having ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred of them. I think this was your point behind the MfD, I think people saw trees instead of the forest. The second is how we-the-community can have discussions on contentious topics without it degenerating into massive drama. I'm not sure how to solve either problem. I'm not sure the second is even solvable in the current political climate of the U.S. and the world. Still, I think both problems are worth solving on Wikipedia. I have specific thoughts around ArbCom, but they aren't well-reasoned enough to post here.
So, I give no path forward on the two fundamental issues, and an... only vaguely useful... path on the particular MfD. Still, I think your week would be more improved by going for a walk than spending the same time on Wikipedia dealing with this particular MfD.
None of the above should be read as me taking a political position or passing judgement on anyone's actions here. I also more than occasionally miss the entire point, and hope that's not happened here. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged: I agree with Yamla that it is probably best to disengage. All of those essays have a way of evolving into convenient hangers for particularlized concerns and POVs, straying from the original concise intent of describing why there is a sentiment to deny participation in the formation of the encyclopedia to people who do not want certain kinds of people to exist, and who want to make sure that happens, using Wikipedia as a tool to that end. Nowadays when I encounter an actual Nazi or similar fellow traveler (roughly every couple of weeks) as evidenced by blatant bigotry, I just block them for bigotry. We don't need essays to formalize a reasonable response to obvious hate. Acroterion (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Acroterion. Thanks for the message. FWIW, the essay itself is not the issue that I am upset over. I have already withdrawn my nomination. What has me highly ticked off, is the brazen abuse of GAMING and CANVASSING which effectively killed any chance of having an honest community discussion. I don't like most of these "NO..." essays, but it's not a hill I am interested in dying for. What gets me bent is cheating to get the desired results of a discussion. And, with a few exceptions, the response to this has been a collective shrug. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I gathered, but I can't say I'm surprised there was canvassing. But I think any action on hot-button issues like that can' be solved by one person alone, or even a few. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion The answer can't be to only invite one side to a debate. How can anyone seriously suggest that any close for this discussion will have any legitimacy as community consensus? It's turned into a farce. The hostility around here to anyone who doesn't tow the right (read "left") ideological line is getting steadily worse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mean to imply that canvassing was a solution, I was really meaning that the solution for the canvassing needs a broad action, supported by a cross section of the community. More or less echoing your dismay about the collective shrug. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acroterion Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I misread your reply. BTW I indeffed Arnida0210. I noticed the thread on your talk page and they looked pretty dodgy. Their contrib log screams NOTHERE, but they clearly have been before. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Administrator changes

readded Nyttend
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed Nihonjoe

CheckUser changes

readded Joe Roe

Oversight changes

removed GeneralNotability

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ad_Orientem&oldid=1221993579"