User talk:Ad Orientem

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: [1], [2], [3], or just see their talk page history. Thanks. Ss112 09:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

WP:AGF. Remember that we are all trying to build a better encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ad Orientem The thing is, Ss112 has been engaged in drama with me before over another petty thing (false titles) which eventually culminated in an ANI report and the person who made it got told by an admin exactly what I told them.

It's becoming a pattern from Ss112 to resort to petty tactics, hypocrisy and hostility when it comes to reverting my edits and what not. So I think it'd also be appropriate for you to warn him about assuming good faith. AlNahyan (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlNahyan, I created those three Peggy Gou articles I reverted you on. They are on my watchlist. I didn't need to "go back into your edit history" to see them. Besides, you can't expect to manually revert people, in effect edit warring, and expect people not to notice. You have been warned by multiple editors now, including @

Your Power and Dxneo:, to stop edit warring and to stop splitting sentences needlessly. You are just moving around to different pop music articles repeating the same behaviour other editors have asked you to stop. The problem here is you and edit warring when people revert you. You apparently can't handle being reverted and feel the compulsion to repeatedly reinstate your edits. Learn to respect BRD and move on and make other kinds of edits. Stop edit warring. I am not having another discussion on Ad Orientem's talk page. We did this yesterday; you just need to learn to stop doing trying to make the same edits when you've been reverted. @Ad Orientem: this is the last reply I'm making here in this regard. But this response on their talk page doesn't bode well for your warning of not edit warring. Ss112 20:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• AO, speaking of edit warring, AlNahyan just returned to manually revert me two days later at
  Askeeaewiki: has just informed me that AlNahyan has received warnings for this exact type of behaviour from seven other editors in the past few months, and it is far from the first time they have edit warred or manually reverted somebody. Because they haven't faced any consequences for their actions, AlNahyan hasn't stoppeed, apparently doesn't want to stop so I don't see what else will get them to. Ss112 06:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Ss112, @AlNahyan As much as I dislike ANI, I think this is heading in that direction. Unless you can find some way forward, I suggest that a discussion be opened there for review by uninvolved experienced editors and admins. This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AO, they are edit warring. That is disruptive. You seem to be missing that this is not a "me versus them" thing. As I just said, seven+ editors have warned them and asked them not to make these kinds of edits, and to stop edit warring when they've been reverted. It's no longer even just a content dispute. I'm not going to ANI about a user who has been warned repeatedly for the same kind of behaviour. I have little confidence in the decisions made there and I don't see why it needs ANI involvement. While it's your talk page, I also dislike you tagging them, which just prompts them to come back here to throw more potshots at me like I'm at equal fault. I'm uninterested in discussing with them any further. What's there left to say on my part? They just need to stop this kind of editing when this many editors have asked or told them to stop. You even gave a formal warning and they disregarded it. This just emboldens AlNahyan to keep repeating the same kind of behaviour, repeatedly reverting anybody when another editor disagrees with their changes. Why are we enabling edit warring? @Sergecross73: for his opinion now that the user has edit warred by reverting again. Ss112 16:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an open and shut case of vandalism or naked disruption. As such, I am not prepared to act unilaterally. - This sums up exactly how I feel as well. Like always, you're free to look elsewhere for a 2nd (3rd?) opinion. But this is simply not that big of a deal. This is the sort of thing hashed out by consensus building, and then intervention happens if editing against consensus occurs. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:MOSBLOAT. As I said, inaction by admins just emboldens them to continue edit warring. I know consensus isn't established at user talk pages, but hell, if seven+ editors warning someone for disruptive editing and a few of them bringing up this exact kind of thing and disagreeing with it isn't some kind of consensus... Ss112 16:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@

conflict of interest. This should be regarded as a Formal Caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]