Miller Baking Company Comment
Hi, can you expand a little on your rationale for No Consensus? The first Keep !vote uses the term "reliable sources" which is not the criteria for establishing notability. The next doesn't use any policy based arguments. The next also uses "third-party reliable sources" which isn't the criteria. The last states they've added references and posted a requested move. Basically, none of the Keep !voters have provided any indication of the criteria in NCORP. Can you help me understand how you weighted the Yea and Nay !votes? Thank you. HighKing++ 11:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @User:HighKing hmm, I thought I had satisfied WP:BEFORE and the article was deletion worthy. I seem to have removed it from my watchlist, or else I would have made this request myself. 2Joules (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will take another look as soon as I have cleared out my morning inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing & 2Joules After taking a closer look at the discussion and the article I have decided to re-open the discussion and relist it. You can read my explanation in the relist notice, but the short version is I think the pro-delete arguments are weightier than the keep, but I am not satisfied that consensus to that end is sufficiently strong to delete. This could be called a no consensus given that it has already been relisted twice, but I think we are close enough to consensus to justify a third relist. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sheesh, sorry to come back to this but I just don't get it. There were two more Keep !votes added after the discussion. One from the author, Jayfish420 who pretty much admits as his last comment that he's uploading appropriate supporting material now but never did. The last was by HenryMP02 who !votes using reasoning that is clearly ruled out in policy and guidelines. At worst (and only because the nom had been blocked as a sock) it should have been closed as No Consensus. Based on your comments before reopening that the arguments were stronger for deletion, it should have been closed as Delete. This isn't a !vote counting contest as we all know but the evidence on this AfD makes me think that sometimes, that is actually what is comes down to. HighKing++ 11:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning HighKing OK, I took yet another look at this. There is no way this could be closed as a delete. There is clearly no consensus that supports such a close. NOTAVOTE is not carte blanche for ignoring what appears to be consensus or inventing one that doesn't exist. However, I do think I erred in the close. This should have been procedurally closed as soon as the nom was identified as a sock per DENY. I am going to alter the close accordingly. This will be w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination if you are so inclined. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- No probs. I won't renom straight away either - I think the product might be notable so there's no real harm in leaving it at the "wrong" title for a while HighKing++ 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning HighKing OK, I took yet another look at this. There is no way this could be closed as a delete. There is clearly no consensus that supports such a close. NOTAVOTE is not carte blanche for ignoring what appears to be consensus or inventing one that doesn't exist. However, I do think I erred in the close. This should have been procedurally closed as soon as the nom was identified as a sock per DENY. I am going to alter the close accordingly. This will be w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination if you are so inclined. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Sheesh, sorry to come back to this but I just don't get it. There were two more Keep !votes added after the discussion. One from the author, Jayfish420 who pretty much admits as his last comment that he's uploading appropriate supporting material now but never did. The last was by HenryMP02 who !votes using reasoning that is clearly ruled out in policy and guidelines. At worst (and only because the nom had been blocked as a sock) it should have been closed as No Consensus. Based on your comments before reopening that the arguments were stronger for deletion, it should have been closed as Delete. This isn't a !vote counting contest as we all know but the evidence on this AfD makes me think that sometimes, that is actually what is comes down to. HighKing++ 11:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing & 2Joules After taking a closer look at the discussion and the article I have decided to re-open the discussion and relist it. You can read my explanation in the relist notice, but the short version is I think the pro-delete arguments are weightier than the keep, but I am not satisfied that consensus to that end is sufficiently strong to delete. This could be called a no consensus given that it has already been relisted twice, but I think we are close enough to consensus to justify a third relist. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, there's another AfD that was nominated by a (now) blocked sock - StuMagz. HighKing++ 10:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- AfD closed per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. While you're on a roll - here's yet another couple - AfD of Furniture Choice and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals. HighKing++ 16:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Closed per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- @HighKing FYI most of these have been reverted, correctly, based on WP:SK4. As I just got handed my head so to speak, I am going to recuse myself from further involvement in those discussions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Closed per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I will take another look as soon as I have cleared out my morning inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Block evasion by Drizzy010
Hey again AO. The editor Drizzy010 (talk · contribs) mostly edited Drake discography and several Billboard achievement pages; Dalzon9596 is doing exactly the same thing. Same type of edits to Drake discography and editing the other pages Drizzy010 did. Ss112 16:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The user @ʎɐpʎɹəʌə pəəʍ əʞoɯs: doesn't appear to be here for any constructive purpose. See here, here, and here. Ss112 07:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like Drizzy010/Dalzon9596 is back as WD1024, who appears to have registered after you blocked Dalzon9596. Editing several pages related to Drake's recent achievements and several pages Dalzon and Drizzy frequented (2018 in hip hop music, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade). Ss112 16:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked and pages protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like Drizzy010/Dalzon9596 is back as WD1024, who appears to have registered after you blocked Dalzon9596. Editing several pages related to Drake's recent achievements and several pages Dalzon and Drizzy frequented (2018 in hip hop music, List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade). Ss112 16:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of The Signals Network page
Hi Ad Orientem, First of all beware I'm a newbie in wikipedia. I tried to get a new page in wikipedia for a non profit called "The Signals Network" that offers protection for whistleblowers. It appeared that the page was instantly marked for deletion : not enough notable sources -- from what I understood. I wanted to improve it but now that it has been removed is there a way I can get my text back in some way? (through some kind of revision history?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Signals_Network --Mathieuleddet (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning Mathieuleddet. I have userfied the article which can now be found at User:Mathieuleddet/The Signals Network. Please note, this page is not to be moved back into the article mainspace w/o first submitting it to WP:AfC for review and approval. I am going to tag it as a WP:DRAFT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Denis Law (politician)
I understand that the numerical votes in the discussion (as it was) favored deletion, but I think it is important that as the closer of the AfD, that you add explanation for the close. Most of the delete votes (Nom, Tillerh11, John Paul Lambert) put in their comments before the expansion of the article (now I feel appropriate proclaiming WP:HEY). The argument raised in favor of deletion by SportingFlyer was rejected by Bearcat. And, it is not hard to characterize Mangoe's argument as "only things that happen in big cities are important." But, because AfD is not a vote, but a discussion of policy, I feel that as the closer, you should articulate which rational(s) you based the close upon, rather than a simple "delete."
As Bearcat alluded earlier on your talk page (which I also fully agree with), these AfDs do set precedent (to a degree, as certain arguments are stronger than others). In my concluding comments on the AfD, "there are lots of local mayors" who are similar to the final version of the (now) deleted page, who are mayors of cities with a substantial sized population, whose article is greater than stub length, and whose merits would presumably be debated around the "significant things he did in the position" - as Bearcat mentioned, which is not, traditionally, been a question of this project. --Enos733 (talk) 06:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a case of vote counting. There is a fairly strong WP:CONSENSUS that the coverage in reliable sources is insufficient to ring the WP:N bell. When I read the discussion it appeared that you were taking issue with NPOL and or the way it has been applied. That may well be a discussion worth having. But this isn't the right venue for that. The bottomline is that AfD is not always perfect or even generally consistent. We base our decisions on consensus and that is typically dictated by those who show up for the discussion and in all but the rarest of cases, which would need a serious explanation, a closing admin is bound to respect that. Indeed if anyone closed this as a Keep or even a No Consensus I think such a close might well be challenged at DRV with a very strong likelihood of being overturned. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where would be the appropriate forum to have the discussion? Because, by endorsing the close, I feel that the strongest argument for deletion along the lines of not sufficient coverage in reliable sources completely discounts any local reporting, to the point of worthlessness. Also, because the arguments that the sources were insufficient came before substantial work was done on the article (taking it from a very incomplete stub to a full article), the close also has the effect of discouraging recreation (as revised). --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the guidelines for notability relating to politicians that can be done at WT:BIO. If you want to challenge the actual close that would be done at WP:DRV. In the latter case please read the directions carefully as DRV is not where you rehash the AfD but rather whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Are you wiling to put the article in my draft space? The problem I run into is that if the decision to close was based on inadequate sources I am not sure what sources are needed to add to the article to satisfy concerns of the delete votes (based on the most recent version, not the article when it was proposed for deletion). --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done @Enos733 This page is not to be restored to the mainspace w/o first being submitted as a draft for review at WP:AfC. Good luck. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Are you wiling to put the article in my draft space? The problem I run into is that if the decision to close was based on inadequate sources I am not sure what sources are needed to add to the article to satisfy concerns of the delete votes (based on the most recent version, not the article when it was proposed for deletion). --Enos733 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to discuss the guidelines for notability relating to politicians that can be done at WT:BIO. If you want to challenge the actual close that would be done at WP:DRV. In the latter case please read the directions carefully as DRV is not where you rehash the AfD but rather whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Where would be the appropriate forum to have the discussion? Because, by endorsing the close, I feel that the strongest argument for deletion along the lines of not sufficient coverage in reliable sources completely discounts any local reporting, to the point of worthlessness. Also, because the arguments that the sources were insufficient came before substantial work was done on the article (taking it from a very incomplete stub to a full article), the close also has the effect of discouraging recreation (as revised). --Enos733 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Girls Like You page protection
Hey AO. Basically every day, an IP in the 83.xx.xxx.xxx range is coming back around to Girls Like You and adding a bunch of unreliable charts (listed at WP:BADCHARTS), unsourced or component charts we don't need. Can you maybe protect it for a bit? This 83-range IP is persistent with Maroon 5 articles; they did it previously at What Lovers Do as well. Ss112 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Has there been any attempt to communicate with this user on a talk page somewhere? I realize that may be difficult if they are a dynamic IP. But while potentially disruptive, and certainly irritating, this isn't naked vandalism. Some attempt at communication should normally be attempted before protecting pages that do garner a high level of editing from the internet. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did explain them multiple times to check WP:BADCHARTS on the talk pages of various IP addresses they used to edit What Lovers Do. They would continue restoring it regardless. This is what's happening here, and I've just undone another round of it. Ss112 16:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected for a few days. Let's see what happens after that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did explain them multiple times to check WP:BADCHARTS on the talk pages of various IP addresses they used to edit What Lovers Do. They would continue restoring it regardless. This is what's happening here, and I've just undone another round of it. Ss112 16:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Choice?
Hi there! I was interested to see your close here, and wondered if you had seen the brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Sockpuppet nominations. I'm fully in agreement with you, but I'm not sure that those other editors would be. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware of the discussion and have just dropped a note there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hutterite Christian Communities
Hi there, please help me understand why two of our communities have been deleted. Thank-you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rus2er (talk • contribs) 21:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Rus2er. Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately two articles that were created in good faith were alleged to not meet our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Generally we require any subject being considered for a possible article to have a certain measure of notability. This is discussed in detail at WP:N. The principle guidelines for establishing notability in this situation are WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Discussions regarding these two articles were opened in WP:AFD. Those discussions can be viewed here and here. Due to inadequate participation these discussions were closed as what we call a "soft delete." This means that anyone can request the articles be restored. However I must advise you that I believe both articles have significant shortcomings that are likely to result in their being renominated for deletion. If you would like, I can restore them both and move them into a subpage of your username. This will allow you to work on them while they are not in the encyclopedia's mainspace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Ad Orientem—as I hope you will agree I have been cautious and restrained in my participation at the Meessen De Clercq AfD since you have warned me about my problematic participation. I have a registered account. But the IP, variously known as 96.127.242.226, or 104.163.157.79, or 198.58.163.19, has free rein to say anything they want and almost nothing to loose. They have told me three times[1][2][3] that I am bludgeoning the discussion. And with virtually every post that they make they are blatantly misrepresenting me. They present my argument entirely contrary to what I have argued, and I have corrected them many times. This is obviously a game that I am playing with someone who has nothing to lose. In their most recent post they say "If we adopt that as policy then movie theaters who show films by notable directors, bookstores that have author talks, bars and clubs that present notable musicians and perhaps even restaurants who have have hired notable chefs will all be eligible."
I never, ever—not even once—presented an argument which says that notable artists or notable artworks confer notability on art galleries. All I really ask is that you lift the verbal and informal restrictions on my participation in that AfD. I understand not to "bludgeon". I would like to feel free to participate and I promise to do so with restraint. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Bus stop I am fine with responding to arguments that are misrepresenting and the like. I just don't want to see the same points being repeated ad nauseum. That AfD is already insanely long. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will be cautious and restrained. I am more to blame than anyone else for the AfD being as lengthy as it is but I will be careful from this point forward. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will be cautious and restrained. I am more to blame than anyone else for the AfD being as lengthy as it is but I will be careful from this point forward. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem—here is 96.127.242.226/104.163.157.79/198.58.163.19 at another AfD for an art gallery telling me "Yes, and all of those articles were deleted, because what Justlettersandnumbers said was accurate. Please do not badger this AfD as you have done at other AfDs. If you keep up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT and walls of text, I would say you are headed for a topic ban."
I actually only made one post to that page although I did so in multiple edits. I have not taken the bait and lashed out verbally at this unregistered account because I have a registered account. This is not a level playing field. Nor do I want to interact on that level. The IP's activity has a lot to do with me, and that is trolling. I have no doubt that they want these articles deleted but they also want to prevent me from participating in these discussions. By the way I have actually voted in favor of unregistered accounts during one of the times that this was under discussion. But this shows the abuse and unaccountability that unregistered accounts make possible. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ad Orientem—I guess I should be glad that I have an IP to keep me in line. Here they are once again voicing objection to my method of participation. Their finalized version of their post was preceded by these tentative versions:
- "Sorry, I am not going to engage with your tiresome arguments."[4]
- "Sorry, I am not going to engage with your tiresome arguments, per previous AfDs."[5]
- "Sorry, I am not going to engage with your tiresome repetitive arguments, per previous AfDs. You are just repeating everything you already said."[6]
- "You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition to bludgeon the discussion."[7]
- "You are just repeating everything you already said in an earlier comment. Please avoid using repetition and walls of text to bludgeon the discussion."[8]
This IP has been saying this to me at several articles for deletion. Back in March of 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albemarle Gallery I've got this IP saying:
- "Your badgering of every commenter is not helping your case."[9]
- "Comment—Bus stop, badgering everyone who comes to this AfD with an opinion isn't helpful. Do you think you could just chill out and let this proceed? It's not meant to be a battleground."[10]
- "I also note that you have been blocked for edit warring and other conduct issues at least a half a dozen times."[11]
- "Note to Bus stop, please don't bother bludgeoning me with your tired BUTILIKEIT arguments; they don't change policy."[12]
In all instances the IP is concerned with my behavior. But is their behavior proper? They have made me their private obsession. The aim is generally the same—that I've said too much and that it is time that I learned to be silent. This is an ongoing phenomenon and it doesn't show any sign of letting up. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Message of Thanks
Thank You for stopping the issue. I feel hurt that Hotwiki lashed me out over High-Quality images. I did not do anything wrong. In my heart, I did it right but i have shortcomings. I hope you understand.
- @Veluz330 You are both good editors. Sometimes we get into snits and need to be reminded that we are all on the same team. Thank you for all of your work on the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Closure of Account
I request the closure of the Veluz330 account because i used Wikipedia Irresponsibly. Please approve my permanent account closure thanks.
Not done You got into a snit with another editor. It happens to pretty much all of us from time to time. Learn from the experience and move on. Beyond which I do not block editors other than as a last resort for persistent disruptive behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
You SON OF A BITCH you accused me that i got into a snit. Go ahead Punch me in the body.
What's "W/E" Coward?
- As a stalker here I find that wiktionary defines it as a slang abbreviation for whatever. Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Reinstate Ford V Ferrari Page
Shooting on this film has begun. https://twitter.com/JohnSant87/status/1018121391907004417
Christian bale is in le mans france. You still think this movie is not going to get made ? They sent director and cast to france so they can cancel the movie ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Not done Twitter is not a reliable source. If/when you believe the draft is ready for review please submit it to WP:AFC for review. This can be done by applying the following template to the top of the draft... {{AFC submission}}. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
whats a reliable source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning Surajvedula. Reliable sources and their importance are explained at WP:RS. Additionally you may wish to look at WP:CITE and WP:GNG. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
good morning thats a big ass page and I can't read it. My question is, why do you have a page about the movie "once upon a time in hollywood" but not about this movie ? that is being released in July 2019 and this is in June 2019..so this movie will come out before that and general public who wish to spend their money to watch this movie needs to know that this movie exists. By not allowing this page to exist you are hurting the box office of this movie. Don't you think it is pretty vile and evil ? delete one upon a time in hollywood page as well then I will shut the fuck up.
- Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. We don't exist to promote box office sales. We are an encyclopedia that has guidelines for inclusion. I have provided you with links to those guidelines. If you don't have the time or inclination to read them then I think it will be difficult for you to contribute constructively to the project. I don't know about the other article and am not overly concerned with it. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, another page you probably won't take the time to read. If I may inquire, why are you here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Its not about marketing. Its about treating all movie fairly. You should not show partiality to a movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Secure-K OS
Hi,
some time ago I wrote an article about Secure-K OS, which has been deleted by you because of notability concerns; time has passed and the operating system is now enlisted in the official directory of Distrowatch (distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=securek) and Softpedia, to name two important independent sources.
Considerig that system is the first (ISO9660) live to feature a kernel update - so it brings also innovation to the bunch of Linux lives - can a related article appear now?
Regards, Marco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoburatto (talk • contribs) 07:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Marcoburatto. I'm sorry but neither of those are reliable sources. Notability requires in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Please see WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
BlaccCrab is back
Hey AO, BlaccCrab is back using VanWinkle92. Same tone in edit summaries, and much the same topics as BlaccCrab—Sean Paul, Ty Dolla Sign, recent hip hop and alternative rock album, song and discography pages. They've even been edit warring with DovahDuck about what is a single and what's not on Trench (album), which was fully protected because of it. Another dead giveaway is that they expanded Pineapple (Ty Dolla Sign song) from a redirect, as Ty Dolla Sign appeared to be one of BlaccCrab's favourite targets. Ss112 17:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Usman47
After spending some time into this, I have collected some evidence. CU logs are not reliable as you know and out of fear Usman47 indirectly admitted to be sharing same location as Hassan Guy.
Usman47 wrote "so that I can continue to positively contribute to this community"[13] in unblock request which is similar to unblock statements from Hassan Guy account.. "I can operate as a constructive member here and that I do in fact deserve a last chance,"[14] "I really want to be a part of this website and contribute."[15] And they both never signed their unblock requests.
Both can't indent their comments.[16][17]
His style of providing references is also same: [18][19]
Hassan Guy told back in the day that: "I actually talked about this on defence.pk You see when I was first banned I actually talked about this on defence.pk (the pakistan defence forrum), I did end up getting in contact with my boys and I have seen whats been going on over the past week because it was raised up again. I saw that lovely page that indian dude made for me, I find it funny he thinks where all the same guy. (there not even in Oman anymore, i think idk)."[20] Usman47 seems to have discussed his Wikipedia incidents on defence.pk as well[21] about what he was doing on Regional power, during this same period.[22]
Even his statement here or defence.pk are same..
On Wikipedia:-
- "is also evident that Indian's don't want Pakistan listed as a regional power"[23]
- "you have been abusing your powers just to keep Pakistan out of the list"[24]
- "Indian's have been removing Pakistan from the section for quite some time. Now it is becoming very difficult to find proper citations to counter this problem."[25]
On defence.pk:-
- "they also keep removing Pakistan from regional power under south Asia. I reverted it back few times before but these low life keyboard warriors keep coming back to show their ugliness."[26]
- "You can always see the editing history, revert it to the previous version or edit it and give sources. And the person who is misreporting and making an article biased can be reported. But again this filth is like cockroaches keep lingering around."[27]
Usman47 was clearly talking about his own experiences since he was the one who continued to "revert it to the previous version"[28][29] and "give sources",[30] then try recruiting people on-wiki as well.[31]
Thanks Orientls (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. Even when I unblocked him I believed, and still believe, he is a sock. But the CU evidence raised what I think most people would call a reasonable doubt. When I unblocked him I was careful not state that he was innocent. All of which said, I am just not comfortable with a unilateral block here. This will have to be sorted out at SPI or maybe ANI, though I think that is probably not the right venue. For now I suggest monitoring and collecting evidence that can be laid out at a later date that is compelling enough to convince a jury in a capital murder trial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a case of pure bad luck for me. I had no clue I was even suspected of this. You are right in your own sense that I happen to be making very similar mistakes to what he did. In fact the similarities between us are mind-boggling. You can have your doubts about me but to my defense if I was a sockpuppet and I had a little bit of brain left in me I won't do the same thing again due to which I had been blocked many times before. I was also not recruiting anyone neither did I get any help from them. Pak editor replied me like a day or 2 ago saying that the article was already fixed and then he asked for my help too [32]. When an article is disputed it's bound to get attention from multiple editors. Same goes for the Regional power article [33]. Now the article is in WP:DRN [34] and any decision that comes out of that will be accepted. Still I apologize for the inconvenience I have caused to both of you. btw I'm not on defence.pk and there is no proof that I ever posted anything on it because there are a lot of people on defence.pk who mentioned that they tried to the same thing when editing on Wikipedia. Please read [35]. When I posted that Hassan Guy's IP and my IP can be in the same range I was under the impression that maybe this is some sort of range block. When I looked back at all the evidence against me I was puzzled. It's just unexplainable. I can't prove that I am not a sockpuppet and I happen to be making very similar style of mistakes. From now on I will try my best not to get caught in this kind of issue. The reason I don't properly sign my comments is because of my inexperience. I will work on that too. Again I am very sorry for what happened. I won't mess around disputed articles again without first talking on the talk page. Usman47 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
—Ad Orientem am I now allowed to revert back the articles I have edited so far? I have spent a lot of time writing them and after this accusation they were all reverted back. Now since the accusation isn't proven what about all the hard work I have done? I am not talking about disputed articles here. These are the articles I was working on [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Usman47 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- Make sure your edits are undoubtedly correct and ask the person who reverted you. Provide them the reasons why they should self revert and wait until they reply or it is obvious that you can revert after discussing. Orientls (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)