This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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.

W/E - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. Ss 112 17:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:53, 19 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)

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)

You forgot this one :) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 02:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops you just revdel it when I posted this message. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 02:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm working my way through this clown's contrib log. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice, looks like they've all been taken care of. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 02:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't usually start off with a 30 day block with no previous ones for an IP, but that was just flatly unacceptable. If it had been an established account I would have indeffed them on the spot. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the problem but I should have stated that he did the same thing on his user page ARMcgrath ( talk) 02:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. He is done. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I know he is. But still thank you and have a great evening ARMcgrath ( talk) 03:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Thanks! :) Usman47 ( talk) 14:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO, just wondering what you think on an issue. So Guns N' Roses recently re-released Appetite for Destruction and the album re-charted on a lot of countries' album charts. An editor has recently listed a whole new chart table on the album article and Guns N' Roses discography claiming that the re-released edition (called the "Locked N' Loaded Edition") has actually charted, when most chart publishers only list the original album (no 'edition') as re-charting. In fact, other than published articles that explicitly state "because of the re-release, the album has re-entered the chart", I can't find a single listing of the "Locked N' Loaded Edition" spelled out on a chart. This to me constitutes WP:OR because an editor is claiming they know better than or know what a chart publisher actually means when all the chart lists is the original album. It might be an "educated assumption" to some given the timing of the album re-entering and I don't deny this album has primarily bolstered its sales, but it's also not as if only the re-release is selling (as the original is still available), and it's still not in any of the sources that it is this specific edition that has charted, so I have tagged the sections for OR. Ss 112 04:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, after your protection of it expired, Girls Like You still has a problem with the same IP (83.41.84.180 this time around) adding component charts they have previously had explained to them should not be added. After they are removed, they just restore them again. Ss 112 11:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have re-protected the page. On the OR question, I am going to plead incompetence as the subject is beyond my normal areas of editing, and suggest you seek more qualified opinions, perhaps at WT:WPMU. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Dorothy Kilgallen. Warning is in regard to this edit [41]. Coming from a mere mortal editor, "Don't be dense" is really inappropriate. Coming from an administrator, it's really inappropriate as well as unacceptable. Especially when you consider the user is a newbie. Wikipedia already has an editor retention problem, please don't add to it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi. I and a large number of other editors have been waging a years long battle over efforts to promote WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories regarding her death into the article contrary to WP:PAG and in particular WP:CONSENSUS. One of the patterns is that when one editor gets their efforts shut down a "new" editor pops up to start the battle over again. When they in turn lose their battle, and after a period of time, yet another new one shows up and the cycle begins anew. This "newbie's" pattern of editing is highly indicative of someone who has been around for a while. Unfortunately I don't know who the master is but I strongly suspect sock puppetry. Nor am I the only one. Beyond that I am not going to comment further on this situation for obvious reasons. However, I will gently suggest that it might be better to ask questions before charging onto the talk page of experienced editors and dropping warning templates in cases like this. I am going to AGF here and presume you were not aware of the background. But just to set your mind at ease, I can assure you that I am not in the habit of snapping at new editors w/o cause. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the "battle" over time at the talk page with the fringe theories. The possibility that the redlink newbie could be a sock did not cross my mind. That said, I think that the first communication with such newbies at the page/possible socks should be met with AGF. After that, if the fringey stuff continues relentlessly and the odor starts to become just like an old sock, bets are off in the way of AGF. By the way, I'm too old for charging anywhere, let alone onto a talk page. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Even a casual glance at our latest "newbie's" very short contrib log practically screams "I'm a sock!" The odor of socks hanging over this article and its talk page has been overwhelming for a long time. And it has been on the radar of multiple experienced editors, including admins. I think that's as much as I care to say for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems from your choice of words that you're insinuating I'm not being honest. If that's that case, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I did not pick up that the redlink editor could be a sock. There's really nothing more to it than that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any dishonesty at all. I am simply noting that their contrib log throws off a lot of red flags for socking. One of the unfortunate aspects of being an admin is that I spend far too much time dealing with these kinds of things and have become somewhat more attuned to the signs, some obvious, and some more subtle, that indicate a possible sock. In this case, the circumstantial evidence is very strong. I have no idea if you even looked at their contrib log. Indeed, why would you? So no, there is no criticism here of your not seeing anything unusual or suspicious. There was a time in the not so distant past when I would never have even thought of looking at another editors contrib log just because they popped into an ongoing and hot topic of debate out of nowhere. Unfortunately, experience has made me generally more suspicious than I like. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It's appreciated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

Stalker here Surajvedula. Your observation is correct in that we do indeed show partiality to movies here. We evaluate whether a film's announcements come from a major studio and/or if their production status is published in reliable sources. In this case "reliable sources" would mean respected industry publications or newspapers which employ fact checking and editorial oversight. Anybody can have a Twitter account and make whatever claims they want. Blue Riband► 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this IMDB - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1950186/?ref_=ttls_li_tt it's the most reliable source there is...under production notes you can see the status as filming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surajvedula ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) You may want to read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for use as a source. ☕ Antiqueight ^chatter 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

What ^^^they^^^ said. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dan Dubeau. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Restored This may be headed to AfD, but I have restored it for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, 197.87.171.111, has vandalized three pages: French Crown Jewels, Laurent Ronde, House of France. Given their persistent unnoticed vandalism, I have issued a single-notice warning. – Conservatrix ( talk) 05:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeat offense post-warning. – Conservatrix ( talk) 17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 72 hrs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you revoke their talk too; they put the porn image in unblock request. Home Lander ( talk) 02:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done and reblocked x 6 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you asked for a ping if there were problems with this one. Actually, while they looked benign, every edit they'd made since the last block was sneaky vandalism, because they altered citation URLs to ones that didn't exist. (One, the Il Messaggero edit, oddly didn't make a difference because of the odd way that Google Books IPs work, but it was clearly the same intention as the others). I've blocked them indef. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite! I wasn't sure about the more technical looking diffs which is why I asked for more specifics. The reporting editor sounded like they were complaining primarily about the general attitude of the editor, which given their handle was highly suspect, but I didn't feel comfortable pulling the trigger. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 18:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I apologise for not discussing the matter with you first. I could not mention the other AfD (which I found to be more insentisive to human dignity since the article has been around since 2016 and is index on Google) without mentioning the one you started. I have less of an objection to your AfD request.---  Coffeeand crumbs 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to your comment at the RfC, I say let it run its course. I won't take it personally. It also serves as a record of a clear consensus against such a policy. In my mind, we have to put some thought into this issue. It is not likely to go away. As you frequent ITN like me, you understand this is a relevant issue that comes up time and again. How we address this dichotomy between sensitivity to BLP subjects and their families and our goal of creating a good and neutral encyclopedia needs discussion. Change cannot happen in a single day but it also cannot happen if we do not speak up when we see a wrong.---  Coffeeand crumbs 23:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just make sure you put on your asbestos underwear. Things could get hot. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As the previous blocking admin, could we get another block, please? Clearly they haven't bothered to understand that Wikias are WP:NOTRS. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 06:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by 331dot. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, looks like Zara Larsson discography has been vandalised every so often for almost this entire month by a string of related IPs, most recently using 2.123.182.108. Can you maybe protect the page? Ss 112 10:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

vacate your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casa Ricci Social Services and relist the discussion.The !vote by a COI-affected article-creator (who has a reputation of spamming random nonsense) is hardly any significant and well, one vs one don't tilt it to a keep. ∯WBG ^converse 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi WBG. I did not find his argument to be weak or nonsensical. Article creators are allowed to participate at AfD and their votes are not presumptively discounted. And as a matter of WP:PAG he is correct that obits, assuming they were written by a reliable source independent of the subject, are perfectly acceptable sources both for claims of fact and establishing notability. Indeed they are among the more common sources for biographical articles. The second Keep vote essentially backed the first one. Also Banner did not bother to respond to the points raised by Jzsj. If you want to make an argument favoring deletion that responds to the points made, I would consider reopening and relisting the discussion. But if you still believe I should discount his comments I will need a more detailed explanation. As of right now I am not seeing a good rational. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That I did not respond to Jzsj is because of the arguments given by Winged Blades of Godric. each and every time he comes up with sources not conform WP:RS. The obituaries are about Fr. Lu's work, not about the organisation. The Banner  talk 18:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually on closer examination, I am going to relist this. The obits are mostly fine. But too many of the other sources cited are tied to the Catholic Church. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Have a go at this. This user ( Foal Breeze) seems to believe their BS commentary on "writing a song about not caring is caring though!" is some kind of "Eureka!" analysis worthy of Wikipedia. I've tried to explain this is not encyclopedic already ( on their talk page) but they're not getting it. Maybe you can? They were also going off a few hours ago about how the article for Bon Appétit (song) not containing a mention of its "blatant oral sex references" must be an example of Wikipedia's self-censorship. This is some kind of newbie business I really fail to deal with very well. Ss 112 20:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Failure to grasp anything being explained. Ss 112 21:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. It may take a little bit. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112 For now I suggest you disengage. I have requested a CU on this editor. My sock detector has raised a yellow flag. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You might be right, but who they'd be a sock of could be any number of troublemakers from over the years. I'm fine with disengaging from their talk, but also a bit hard to disengage completely when they're tagging me in their article talk page accusations of ownership [42]. Ss 112 21:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless they are committing vandalism or some other really naked disruptive behavior just ignore them for the time being. There is nothing they can do that can't be undone with a few clicks. Bbb23 has been alerted and if this is a sock I expect we will find out soon enough. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112 I believe the problem has been resolved. [43] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you please indef block Westwoodtt2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Given this user's activity on my talk page, this is probably the sock of a serious LTA vandal. Thanks. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick action. :) I left a couple of reports at WP:AVI on another recently-active LTA. Can you please give them a look? Thanks. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 18:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Both rangeblocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Hannity. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Time to revoke their talkpage access. Thanks. 2601:1C0:4401:24A0:FD84:CCD1:C7BC:1E17 ( talk) 05:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

TPA revoked block extended to 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Persistent block evasion by 2001:8003:6F2D:C900:9CA7:4090:B128:ED7F ( talk · contribs). Perhaps all articles relating to characters from this show will need protection. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps you need to remind this user that you blocked me for THIRTY-ONE hours and THIRTY-ONE hours has passed. And point out to them that the only article relating to characters from this show I'm reverting is the one that a fan letter made notable enough-- 2001:8003:6F2D:C900:9CA7:4090:B128:ED7F ( talk) 03:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• See [44], which was the previous sock, and has been blocked for two weeks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• This one also blocked [45]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Range blocked" x 1 month for block evasion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, Ad Orientem. Probably a good idea to watchlist the mother lode of related articles. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but with around 6000 pages on my watchlist that would be an exercise in futility. If this continues I suggest a trip to WP:RFPP. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Echhh. Understood. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Floss_McPhee ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 03:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done x 1 month - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus ( talk to me) 03:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that the IPs belong to User:TBBC, who was blocked indefinitely for making a threat to disrupt the Home and Away articles, which I guess they are currently carrying out. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there. Hope it's okay if I come directly here. We've been dealing with an IP range that is persistently adding unsourced and biased content about the Asia version of Andi Mack since February 13. (The IP range starts with 180.) That IP range would later cause the article to become semi-protected twice, once on June 18 for one week and once on July 1 for one month. As you can see in the article history, almost immediately or shortly after, that IP range resumes its disruptive editing. Unfortunately, per this discussion, that IP range would be too large of a range to block as it would cause a lot of collateral damage. (Courtesy pings for MPFitz1968 and Geraldo Perez.) And so the only solution, really, is to either revert and block the individual IPs or revert and semi-protect the page. Because of the unblockable range, the latter is the better option here, but it's probably going to take quite a lengthy semi-protection to drive them away. Thanks for your time! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 year. If that doesn't work we can go to indefinite. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, AO! Appreciate it! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called " interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

---

An ip user previously blocked by you here [46] is active again and is also doing disruptive edits and personal attacks here [47]. Can you please impose a block again? Thanking you in anticipation.- Kishfan ( talk) 13:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The one edit summary is not enough to justify another block. Also I am not seeing any attempt to discuss this on the article talk page. This looks like slow motion content dispute. If you believe the edits are vandalism then that needs to be explained as I am not familiar with the article subject. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

On this topic AO, an IP user still blocked for adding unsourced personnel sections to country album articles on 74.99.150.2 is back using 98.117.10.121 doing exactly the same thing. Ss 112 17:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but this ip user has started removing references again here [48] and also reverting edits on other pages which were previously semi protected because of the disruptive behavior. Again your assistance is requested.- Kishfan ( talk) 16:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not taking the hint. Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, looks like the vandals moved from Zara Larsson discography to now Charli XCX discography and Jess Glynne discography (the protection of which recently expired after what is probably the same IP did this last year). Can you maybe protect these pages? Thanks. Ss 112 20:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Both articles pending changes protected x 1 year. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO. The user Adamklein84 has been editing Wikipedia for several years, oftentimes with the edit summary that their major removals are "minor edits by [act's] management". They have now done so at Bananarama, Alison Goldfrapp and most recently, Claire Richards. It is troubling they've gone this long without being warned about WP:COI (which I have just done) and seem to think removing between 2,000 and 4,000 bytes of information is in any way a minor edit. Do you think this user can edit constructively or that they're purely promotional and should be blocked? Ss 112 17:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this is a promotional only account based on their editing. However they have not been warned before today and some of their edits do appear to be constructive. But yeah, their overall raison d'être looks like promotion to me. If you see anymore obviously inappropriate editing let me know. [FYI I am going to be offline most of next week and first couple days of the week following.] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO, there's been a user, Before the Storm, making contentious edits to Miley Cyrus edits for a few weeks now. They were blocked by Black Kite for disruptive editing two weeks ago after being reverted by three users (including myself) over and over across various pages, and in the past two days they've gone back to doing much the same thing. I've just reported them at ANV again but I'm getting the feeling this would not be the first instance of this if I went back through the histories of the articles they've been editing, and that this kind of persistence around one singer's articles is sockpuppet behaviour. Can you maybe drop a line to Bbb23 and ask if they have some time to check? Thanks. Ss 112 18:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look now... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have blocked them for 72 hrs for disruptive editing. As for socking, the evidence is thin at best. Only 221 edits and they do look SPAish. But they have been around since 2012. It is possible they may have used an IP to tag team editing but again the evidence is not conclusive enough for me. If you have an idea of who the master might be or can round up enough diffs to show they have been editing while logged out in support of their logged in edits you could open a discussion at ANI. But for now 72 hrs is as far as I am ready to go. If this pattern of editing continues however, then a long term block is not far off. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States elections, 2018. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you remember that editor who keep changing the date ranges of album articles? Well it appears that the editor is back again with a new IP 2601:240:CF80:2F61:83D:D572:EB53:D5A4. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked by Widr - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Tjdrum2000 is yet again using another account 2600:1702:B20:3240:44A9:B8C4:D367:61AF. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 11:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblocked x 1 year. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is now using another IP 2601:240:CF80:2F61:395B:C384:BFF3:F99D. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 17:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed has a sleeper account DizzyReed. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 23:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, hope you're enjoying your vacation. Tried ANV, but it was removed by Materialscientist as being "unactionable". I suppose it isn't urgent anyway. BlaccCrab's back using 96.244.213.210—editing hip hop articles, still concerned with what is/isn't a single. Just from their edit summaries alone, it's quite easy to tell. But failing that, the IP geolocates to Maryland, where BlaccCrab previously had on their userpage they were from. Ss 112 04:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112- blocked x 1 month. I probably won't be online again before Thursday. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I don't know how much info was recorded, the Black Gold Stakes race should never have been deleted. Please undelete and I will take care of it. To help you understand, this race has been run for the past sixty years and is an important part of the Fair Grounds Race Course stakes program. All races properly done at Wikipedia should contain the winner's name, jockey, trainer, owner, time, purse, historical info and more. All of these can interconnect, either now or later at Wikipedia, to multiple things in multiple articles in the United States and even to Europe, Japan and Hong Kong. I'm sure there are times when a horse race should be deleted. However, I think there needs to be a way that any question about horse related articles should simply be posted to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing where someone with knowledge on the subject can examine it and respond. Thanks for your help. Stretchrunner ( talk) 12:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Stretchrunner The article was restored and userfied on July 21. It can be found here. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the info. Stretchrunner ( talk) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am leaving. An email has been sent if you wish to remain in contact. It was good to contribute a bit of knowledge to Wikipedia, and despite the ugly blocks and warnings on my talk page I did write a few things myself. Happy to translate the Austrian, French, and Portuguese pelates. Good to have the commanders of the Bastille and Garde du Corps published. Sadly, I left my planters in shambles. Hopefully someone can pick-up where I left off. :) Au revoir! – Conservatrix ( talk) 17:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Conservatrix I'm sorry you have gotten frustrated. I suggest taking a long wiki break. We all get fed up with issues and biases here, both real and imagined. Sometimes you need to walk away for a while. A few years back I had to leave. At the time I was not sure I'd be back, though eventually I did return. But that six months away was really pleasant. If/when you are ready to return do drop me a line. In the meantime I wish you the very best. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It was perfectly fine where it was and was not any kind of issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BandGoBlue2020 ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi BandGoBlue2020 The article was deleted as a result of this discussion at AfD. I took a quick look at the deleted page and it is pretty bare bones with not much in the form of reliable source coverage. So I would have to disagree with your assertion that there was nothing wrong with it. That said, things can change and if you think there is now enough RS coverage to ring the WP:N bell, I might consider userfying the page. But I am not prepared to restore the article to the mainspace in its state at the time of deletion. Alternatively you can recreate the article as it has not been salted. Just take note of the issues raised in the AfD and make sure they are addressed or the newly recreated article might end up being deleted as well. Anyways let me know. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything is perfectly reliable. There was a setlist and Dates were sourced reliably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BandGoBlue2020 ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I am told "Your feelings about how Prager expresses himself have no place here. Please stop giving your personal opinions." Is this a violation of WP:BLP policy? Is it a violation of some other policy? I was under the impression that Talk pages allowed for some latitude of discussion for possible changes/improvements. You even wrote "Editors need to be able to discuss controversial topics relating to BLP subjects and the article talk page is normally where that occurs." [49] Where does that fine line get drawn between excessive discussion and necessary discussion? Thanks. Bus stop ( talk) 18:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

On article talk pages we confine ourselves to discussions that pertain to improving the article. I do not believe that discussing private opinions about controversial aspects of a BLP subject is ipso facto a BLP-vio, especially if the issue is already noted and referenced in the article. But it may well be a violation of NOTFORUM. Again if you want to raise questions about the article and how it addresses controversial topics, this needs to be framed within WP:PAG. All of which said, a certain amount of latitude is customarily accorded on user talk pages as long as you are not promoting things that are grossly offensive illegal or otherwise a direct breach of PAG. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you look at the link I included? You refer to "controversial aspects of a BLP subject" and you refer to "questions about the article and how it addresses controversial topics". When you say "controversy", what are you referring to? Please be specific—what is the "controversy"? Bus stop ( talk) 19:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the article talk page. My reference was to your solicitation of personal views concerning Praeger's political opinions, some of which I believe are controversial. I am not going to take sides in this discussion and frankly it is not in anyone's interest for things to reach the point where I have to become involved in my capacity as an admin. However, I am going to make one observation. While I very much believe that you are a good and well intentioned editor, sometimes you don't know when to walk away from discussions or seek other opinions to help form consensus. I have also seen this at AfD. Your heart is in the right place, but now and then you can be like a dog with a bone. You need to learn when to let go. Speaking of which, that is what I am doing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for weighing in. Bus stop ( talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem! Regarding your block here, it's clearly the same LTA as you blocked here. You mentioned "disruptive editing" as the reason for the new block, I just wasn't sure whether your remembered which LTA case the IP is connected to. -- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not. Thanks for the reminder. I may reblock with a more specific block summary. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I only realized it when I did a contribs check on the /24 range and saw the previously blocked account pop up.-- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have extended this to an anon-only /24 range block. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Alas, seems to think that calling me "extreme right wing" is not a "Personal Attack" and his original "anti-Semitic" words were not a personal attack either. I fear that he is quite likely to continue in this vein. I am especially amused by:

"t is abundantly clear that I did not say that the user was anti-semitic. I stated that there was mention of this on their talk page, and given their defence of Hitler, this was a concerning development that needed to be addressed."

Collect ( talk) 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks, this time at you. Please block and remove TPA. Thanx - FlightTime ( open channel) 18:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Nah. Editors are allowed a certain amount of latitude for venting on their own talk page. I've been called worse and everybody gets WP:CIVIL is important but in a community as big as ours you need to be able to shrug off petty stuff like this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

---

Can you please see the above? There is no way for me to deal with this editor. This is supposed to involve collaborative editing in a WP:CIVIL environment? It is impossible. Every move I make results in a litigious response. See my Talk page: Misrepresenting other people, Edit war warning, Notice of discretionary sanctions, and Note - violating BLP and asking others to. Bus stop ( talk) 00:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Bus stop I suggest you request a 3rd opinion or open a discussion at WP:DRN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cleveland, Texas. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You added a warning to a user about his changes at Glima. He keeps adding uncited information anyway.-- Óli Gneisti ( talk) 10:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Issued level 3 warning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Óli Gneisti ( talk) 17:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your name was found on Feedback request service Politics, government, and law. Please join the discussion here and give your needed opinion on whether to include China's position concerning Hamas. Thanks! Veritycheck✔️ ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Despite your talk page messages, looks like CrunchyCookie is now reverting everything, even edits that don't have anything to do with what they wanted to do on Muse discography: 1, 2, 3. I don't think they understand or are even willing to understand the basics of WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS—or even sourcing their edits. Maybe it requires you to intervene further, because I'm sure they're arrogant enough to continue reverting... Ss 112 09:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, if you do, can you ask them to stop posting on my talk page? I'm really getting quite tired of telling them I don't care what they have to say, and they refuse to listen regardless. Ss 112 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done He is a newbie and means well so try and cut him some slack. But yeah I do understand that it can get tiring. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, BlaccCrab is back using 71.179.82.143, editing his own created article Hopeless Romantic (Wiz Khalifa song). Edit summary is a dead giveaway. Ss 112 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It continues: they've attempted to file an ArbCom case against me, and again posted at my talk page. This is a newbie horror story. Unrelated: would it be possible for you to to un-delete Believe (Lenny Kravitz song)? I want to see what was there before it was deleted and work on it by adding charts, certs and so on. Ss 112 14:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Heh. I was busy this morning and am sorry that I missed this. Clearly it did not end well for them. I am not going to add salt to their wounds but hopefully they have now gotten the message. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Just saw your email. It's alright, thankfully some other users noticed what they were saying and reported them to ANI while I was writing my own ANI report up. Also, in regards to what I said above, would you still be able to un-delete Believe (Lenny Kravitz song) for me to work on it? Thanks! Ss 112 21:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to userfying the page, but you should run that by the deleting admin first just to be sure they have no objection. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

(TPS) I wouldn't bother, that deleted article is a single sentence that says "A single that is featured on the Greatest Hits collection by Lenny Kravitz.". If you think it's worth an article, I'd just start again. Also, the deleting admin hasn't edited for nearly 2 months. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. Was about to say the same thing about Od Mishehu myself. Thought the article might have been a stub with a couple of refs! Ss 112 22:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you left out a /64 there, yes? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 02:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap. Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This smells of an LTA. Any idea which one? Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 02:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly no. But Bbb23 might. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User keeps editing several articles disruptively. Is it time for a new block? SLBedit ( talk) 20:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SLBedit. Any diffs? I'm not seeing edits in the last 48 hrs so unless I'm missing something, any disruptive edits are likely to be stale. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The IP is again removing sources from articles, e.g. S.L. Benfica (roller hockey), which has been locked three times already; the last time was due to 85.242.48.58. SLBedit ( talk) 20:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Those edits are three days old, which makes them non-actionable. Additionally the IP was last blocked 9 months ago and there have been no warnings during the intervening period. So yeah this is stale. I will however post a warning on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know that 85.242.48.58 ( talk · contribs) has been blocked along with 83.223.227.226 ( talk · contribs) and 2001:8A0:6CC2:C401:C978:FDB9:E36E:F84E ( talk · contribs), which belong to a problematic user. SLBedit ( talk) 01:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. That looks like a good block since the IP has received multiple recent warnings. Hopefully the length will give them some pause. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You have blocked this IP in the past for adding unsourced content in articles. The editor is still doing the same thing again recently [50]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@ TheAmazingPeanuts Thanks for the heads up. I have issued a final warning. If this continues, let me know and I will reblock them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptively editing at Beyoncé discography, here, adding original research, which you specifically warned them about since December last year. It's coming up on a year later and they're still attempting to add the same thing despite the message that was on the article, despite their blocks for similar behaviour, etc. Ss 112 01:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112 I had to indeff them after they threatened to start socking. If you see suspicious editing on their preferred articles let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, pretty sure the user BardiCardi is a sock, probably of MariaJaydHicky. Literally their second edit was a revert of an IP for genre warring and they've been reverting such things since. Can you maybe ask Bbb23 to take a look? Thanks. Ss 112 05:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. Their editing history suggests this is not their first time here. Ss112 thinks they are MariaJaydHicky. Thoughts? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Also found another that had been dormant for two years.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 14:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously. For restoring some of my faith back into the admin corps. Cheers - wolf 21:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

NP. Don't be too hard on Ritchie. He's one of our better admins. And he is almost always right when declining reports. We get a lot of reports at AIV that don't really belong there. But I do agree that this was a case of intentionally disruptive editing. We all miss things once in a while. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, he is one of better ones. I actually appreciate the effort he puts into RfA. But, that AIV just threw me a little and I had to speak up. It's already old news. Take care. - wolf 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've left a message on Talk:Titanic II regarding Palmer's latest announcement on the project. Blue Riband► 11:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Replied on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Shredded77 ( talk · contribs) This editor keeps adding poorly sourced content in the Astroworld article [51] [52] [53]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their talk page. If this continues let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The editor might using another account 216.240.49.54. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 20:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@ TheAmazingPeanuts I'm only seeing a single recent edit from that IP. Everything else is from August 20 or farther. That's too far back to be actionable. But again, if this IP starts actively editing again, and you think it's them (and have some behavioral evidence) then let me know. Sorry if I'm not being terribly helpful here, but before I lower the boom on an established editor I need to be sure our ducks are in a row. On which note, I am going to drop a another note on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

(add) Hmmm been around for over 12 years but less than 200 edits. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason I think this is the same editor because the edits look very similar. For example, they both add the Complex source (even I said the credits from that source are incorrect) and the edit summaries say almost the same thing. Here's the diffs [54] [55]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 21:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It may well be them. But I have to consider a couple of factors here. First, while they have been a registered account for a long time they have less than 200 edits. So they probably don't know most of our policies and guidelines. In short we need to treat them as effectively a newbie. The other issue is that there has only been the one edit in more than a month. Even if this were an experienced editor where I was convinced of bad faith editing, there is no way I could block with just the one edit and no formal warnings since Aug 20. I have dropped a couple of notes on their talk page. Let's see what happenes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I did some looking through pages frequented by My Royal Young, and found this IP making edits in a pattern that suggests it would be him/her. The editing history isn't enough for a block (yet), but I thought I would point it out since this IP range is not on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/My Royal Young. Morphdog ^talk 02:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You might want to pass that to a CU. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and logical help with that outbreak of silliness. I hope that they'll calm down a bit now, maybe. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 20:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

NP it's what I'm here for. Drop me a line if the silliness resumes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem,

I'm inviting admins to join our team at parli.co providing advice on how to build and manage a collaborative website. Parli.co is an emerging project aiming at building a sort of Wikipedia of arguments around controversial topics (more info here). Part of our budget will be destined to such consultancy work, and we think we could benefit from the experience of Wikipedia janitors and admins. Feel free to message me back with interest and questions. -- isacdaavid 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera. Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an editor named Aitch & Aitch Aitch who been making bold edits in articles. For example, in ? the editor add unsourced genres [56] and have been reverted by Theo Mandela and Binksternet [57] [58], and been warned by Binksternet for starting an edit war, after that warning the editor restore it again [59]. This happened in several other articles, most notably in Flower Boy [60] [61] and Atrocity Exhibition [62] [63]. Keep in mind this editor have been warned multiple times by other editors. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Final warning on the way. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

---

I assume you'll revdel their edits, too? Also, there is at least one more of the bird boys down the page history. Not concerned abiab the content re: revdel ( been called much worse), it's the edit summaries. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@ John from Idegon I think I got it all. Let me know if I missed anything. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO. The editor "EditorE" was blocked indefinitely early last month for their OTT "insults" directed at me, which I told you about via email until they were blocked after a thread opened at ANI before you saw it. I've caught them using 108.17.12.203. Exactly the same topics and types of edits: EditorE refused to use cite web templates and always spaced their references like this. They were making almost exclusively chart-related edits until their account was blocked, and that's primarily what this editor is focusing on. I've reverted the majority of their remaining edits. It's also no surprise they began editing using this IP straight after they were blocked on EditorE. I'll report them back to you if they come back using another. Ss 112 05:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If it weren't already basically confirmed, take a look at the history of "Top 10 Hits at the End of the World". EditorE is the creator and one of the only editors to touch that page, and of course their IP goes right back there to make some more edits... Ss 112 06:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That sounds pretty definitive. I am off to bed as its nearing 2:30 AM here. Have a good day(?). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

     Hi Ad Orientem
     
     You wrote:You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Catholic Church. 

     Please explain to me how I am disrupting Wikipedia?
     
     You then wrote:  Switching IP addresses will not prevent measures from being taken to stop POV editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

     I haven't the slightest idea on how to switch my IP address.

     You then wrote: 
     If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

     I am not sure what a shared IP address is.  I did note make the edits today.  I am waiting until Tuesday to edit in order to prevent being silenced because of WP:EDITWAR. I would prefer to remain anonymous

     Respectfully, I am only trying to maintain the dignity, credibility, and integrity of Wikipedia.  I trust that you and I are pursuing this common goal.
72.208.204.252 (
talk) 01:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• You are repeatedly amending the text of History of the Catholic Church in a manner that presents various claims on the part of the Roman Church as established fact. You have been repeatedly reverted and yet persist in edit warring over this. When edits are challenged the correct course is to proceed to the article talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is what governs everything we do here. Edit warring in an effort to include your preferred version of an article is disruptive. Please read WP:BRD, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTTRUTH. If you are planning on contributing here I strongly encourage you to register for an account. There are a lot of benefits and it avoids issues that may result if your IP address automatically changes from time to time. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

    I believe I have reached consensus.  Please see 
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Citizen_Canine

    After I tirelessly walked Citizen Canine through the first two of my fifty citations, you will see that he writes, "Fine, if you believe the two statements "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus." and "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ." are supported as reliable assertions by ANY of the sources you cited, go ahead and make those changes again. I very much look forward to seeing how it goes down 😎 Citizen Canine (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)."

    And then, if you read: 
/info/en/?search=User_talk:72.208.204.252

    You will see that Bennv3771 says, "Regardless, I'm not gonna edit war with you over this, so I'll leave your edit up and if it it reverted by someone else, please cite references that explicitly verify your claim. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC
     
    We then continue this dialogue here: 
/info/en/?search=Talk:History_of_the_Catholic_Church

     Bennv3771 says, "I would support reverting back to the original wording as no WP:RS has been provided to verify this change. Glad you've started this discussion. Would be good to get consensus since the anonymous user is extremely insistent that their assertion remains. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)"

      I responded to Bennv3771 by reminding her that, "You were being dishonest when you made this statement. You know very well that I have provided over fifty citations on numerous occasions."

      Bennv3771 then says, There is nothing to settle between us. I haven't edited this article in over 2 weeks. Other editors are repeatedly reverting your edits, although you keep singling me out for whatever reason. And no, these editors are not my "co-conspirators" according to the Websters definition, as we are not "acting in harmony". Those editors are all acting independently and apparently coming to the same conclusions. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and right now the consensus is against your changes. You can start another discussion and try to get consensus for your changes. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)"

      I then, painstakingly, and tirelessly, walk Bennv3771 through the first of fifty citations in order to help her to understand how these citations support my claim but to no avail because she had already conceded that, "I'll leave your edit up."

      At the same time that I was in dialogue with Bennv3771, I took Bennv3771's advice, "You can start another discussion and try to get consensus for your changes" by attempting to start dialogues with Citizen Canine, JackintheBox, and Zenadix.

       Please see: 
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Citizen_Canine, 
/info/en/?search=User_talk:JackintheBox, and 
/info/en/?search=User_talk:Zenadix

       Careful review of these links will show that I attempted consensus with all three and only citizen canine responded.

        Please note again that Citizen Canine conceded when he responded, ""Fine, if you believe the two statements "The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and his teachings (c. 4 BC – c. AD 30) and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus." and "According to history, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ." are supported as reliable assertions by ANY of the sources you cited, go ahead and make those changes again. I very much look forward to seeing how it goes down 😎 Citizen Canine (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)."

       I am willing to take the time to illustrate this change to anyone that questions it for the benefit of Wikipedia's dignity, credibility, and integrity.  

       According to the record, I have reached consensus with 2 out of the 4 editors who challenged my change.  

       The other 2 have yet to respond to my inquiry for consensus.

       It is unclear; are you also challenging my change?

       If so, I would like to also open dialogue with you in order to arrive at consensus.  

       Please inform me on how we are to proceed.  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
72.208.204.252 (
talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 
        
       
72.208.204.252 (
talk) 01:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am acting here purely in my capacity as an administrator. This needs to be sorted out on the talk page of the article where everyone can join in the same discussion. And I very much doubt you have reached consensus. My guess is that Citizen Canine was being somewhat satirical. Also please don't indent your paragraphs so much as it is creating a rather distracting box format. Thank you... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

                    I apologize for indenting my paragraphs.  I was doing this at the urging of Citizen Canine, "As an aside, in future please indent your paragraphs."

By now, it is probably obvious that I am an old-fashioned, computer-illiterate, two fingered typist, history buff who is working diligently to uphold the dignity, credibility, and integrity of Wikipedia.

Please excuse me for my lack of computer etiquette. I prefer books and I am surrounded by them.

        You said, "My guess is that 
Citizen Canine was being somewhat satirical."  Rather than, "guessing", I think we should just stick to the facts.  The fact of the matter shows that citizen canine said, "Fine ...go ahead and make those changes again." Unfortunately, do to Wikipedia's  WP:EDITWAR policy, I was unable to follow Citizen Canine's instruction and do as he had requested.

         You also said, "This needs to be sorted out on the talk page of the article where everyone can join in the same discussion. And I very much doubt you have reached consensus."

          I have already attempted this:  
/info/en/?search=Talk:History_of_the_Catholic_Church  and I have demonstrated how 2 of the 4 editors have conceded and that the other 2 of the 4 editors failed to respond to my inquiry for consensus.

         This brings us to the first point in your reply when you said, "I am acting here purely in my capacity as an administrator."  If one was to carefully review my participation in the editing of Wikipedia's, "History of the Catholic Church" , they will not only see that I am doing my best to follow the guidelines established by Wikipedia, while being factual and transparent. 

         On the other hand, when reviewing your participation in the editing of Wikipedia's, "History of the Catholic Church" , it will be difficult to draw the conclusion that you are, "acting here purely in my capacity as an administrator."

          Take for instance, the last few changes to this topic:

          (cur | prev) 00:13, 8 October 2018‎ Ad Orientem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,671 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 862886815 by JackintheBox (talk): Rvt POV editing. (TW)) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 00:04, 8 October 2018‎ 2600:1700:b7a0:3a90:7807:ea8d:3c08:ecb (talk)‎ . . (136,646 bytes) (+9)‎ (cur | prev) 23:32, 7 October 2018‎ 2600:1011:b166:f60:d83d:1a2:7ac3:2d04 (talk)‎ . . (136,637 bytes) (-34)‎

           This shows that someone other than myself edited this passage and you in turn reverted it back without taking the time to thoroughly investigate it.

           Instead, you accused me here:  
/info/en/?search=User_talk:72.208.204.252

by stating, " October 2018 Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Catholic Church. Switching IP addresses will not prevent measures from being taken to stop POV editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)"

           I believe that is incumbent upon you, in your capacity as an administrator, to fully investigate the entire issue by first reviewing all of the supporting documentation, prior to hurling accusations, threats, and arriving at far reaching conjectures.  

              I also believe that your actions fall under a cloud of impropriety:

1. When you failed to fully investigate the entire issue by first reviewing all of the supporting documentation 2. When you assumed that I covertly switched my IP address (to be honest, I had to look up what an IP address even was) and made a change to the article (I also did not know a change was even made) 3. When you took a "guess" at what Citizen Canine meant while disregarding what he actually said, "Fine ...go ahead and make those changes again." 4. When you ignored what Bennve3771 said, "Regardless.... I'll leave your edit up" and then later added in an effort to show her sincerity regarding this issue, "I haven't edited this article in over 2 weeks." 5. When you ignored the fact that the other 2 editors that challenged my change ignored my invitation to dialogue in order to reach consensus. 6. And in spite of the above mentioned, you disregarded over 50 citations that I had offered, accused me of edit warring, accused me of not proceeding to the article talk page in order to seek WP:CONSENSUSand finally, (and most insultingly) accused me of being disruptive

              Is there a way to have the improper actions of an administrator be reviewed by maybe some other unbiased administrators?
72.208.204.252 (
talk) 03:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

      At this point, I would like to respectfully request that you:  1. Admit your error, 2. Offer a meaningful apology to me and the million-users of Wikipedia, and 3. In light of all of the presented evidence allow the changes that I have made (at least until someone else challenges them).
72.208.204.252 (
talk) 03:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Within hours of the prior page block expiration, the IP vandal returned, they continue to use a dynamic. -- Green C 17:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Page protected x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see my message at Talk:Titanic_II#September_2018_Palmer_Announcement. Blue Riband► 15:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO. I just noticed that Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DanTheMusicMan2 was closed five or so days ago but his user page was not actually deleted? His talk page was but his user page is very much still there with the 500KB of listcruft still on it... Ss 112 22:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

While I doubt it would be all that controversial, technically I am WP:INVOLVED. So it would be better if another admin tied up any loose ends on this issue. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Premeditated Chaos: As the admin who closed the discussion, could you maybe delete it? I see you deleted his talk page, but not his actual userpage. Ss 112 10:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding to this, I've been on vacation. It's been dealt with though. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I hope you had a chance to relax. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I did, thanks :) ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Pennsylvania-located PeopleEater143 is back using 156.12.252.246, leaving their typical self-righteous edit summaries like "Where is your source for that? You can’t just say stuff and not include a source for it." A summary they've repeated about the place about 20 times in the past few months. Ss 112 11:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just sent you an email! Don't know if you've seen it yet (I know I don't get email notifications most of the time.) Ss 112 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor is still adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 19:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi TheAmazingPeanuts. Any diffs? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a couple that are recent. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I was about to show you the diffs as you requested but you see the diffs anyway. I try to do that next time. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 19:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

NP. I do think they mean well. But this just has to stop. Hopefully a 24hr block will get their attention. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just emailed you about the deletion of my redirect.-- N Ø 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@ MaranoFan I have replied to your email. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, there's a user by the name of LRLArch who's been edit warring to maintain their own version of various articles on-and-off for several years. Looks like they've gotten to thinking constant reverts are the way Wikipedia works, instead of WP:BRD. I've warned them on their talk page for their four reverts in one day (two separate times) on The 1975 discography, where a week ago, they ignored commented-out messages to discuss any changes to the content and instead changed it to their preferred version then edit warred with other editors (even reverting a bot) to keep it that way. I think it's gone far enough with them; can you have a word to them? I already have but, as you know, admins' words hold more weight than users'. If it continues I'll let you know. Ss 112 23:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. Special:Contributions/24.73.197.194 – Carried our the same exact disruptive editing after a one-year block expired. Think this IP should be banned. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 18:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 years. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

TPA revoked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

After you blocked 108.17.12.203, he's back using 108.17.18.29 Very similar IP address...do you think a rangeblock is in order? They resumed editing about three days after you last blocked them; clearly persistent. Ss 112 12:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

BlaccCrab just won't give up either; he's back editing his old favourite Ty Dolla Sign's articles using Ty Mustard Sign. Clearly his edit summaries, and he's already edit warring/making fun of Magnolia677, which BlaccCrab used to do quite a bit of. Ss 112 15:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

108.17.0.0/19 blocked x 3 months and Ty Mustard Sign indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Chris Brown-loving sock Giubbotto non ortodosso (whose socks you've blocked several times) is back as HeartbreakOnAFullMoon (named after Brown's last album, a dead giveaway). Ss 112 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112. See their talk page. It appears they are editing from a different country. Under the circumstances I have unblocked them as that kind of evidence trumps any behavioral indicators. If you still think this is a sock you will have to open an SPI. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Break Through the Silence (EP) should've been deleted because it uses an incorrect disambiguator. It's a dual single not an EP, a more appropriate title would be Break Through the Silence (single). Flooded with them hundreds 05:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Flooded with them hundreds. I don't have an objection if you want to move the redirect. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's also fine! Flooded with them hundreds 05:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I misread that! I thought you were going to move it for me. Flooded with them hundreds 04:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

lol... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Howdy!, you added protection earlier today to an article I created upon request of another editor who was trying to help. Thank you, but I just tried to edit the article and it won't save my edits. Could you check into that when you have a second? The editor who refused to stop making unsourced edits was the target. I have a login and should be able to edit it, I have autoconfirmed and/or confirmed access, etc. I was hoping to be able to make some edits in peace for the two days you gave me. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn ^(talk) 03:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi dawnleelynn. Are you sure you are linking the correct article? It was created a long long time ago and you have only been around since 2015. You might want to try again. The most common explanation in these situations is that you were trying to edit it while logged out. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was wrong in stating that I created the article, my bad. I logged out and then back in. That did not help. Yes, it was created in 2005, I see that. I am logged in for sure, and cannot update the article. I've been working on this article for awhile off and on. I even WP:TNT'd with my mentor's help, Montanabw. I edited it I think 3 times on the 26th with no problem. Appreciate your help. dawnleelynn ^(talk) 04:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

When you try to edit, what is the message you are getting? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That's what is strange. It acts like it accepted my edit. There is no message. But then the article does not update. dawnleelynn ^(talk) 05:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm... That is odd and I do not have an explanation. I have checked the protection level which is semi. So you should be able to edit. At this point I think my capacity to help may be limited. This may be be a tech issue and my command of tech peaked with the electric typewriter. I suggest you post a thread at ANI and ask for some help from more tech savvy editors. Sorry that I am unable to resolve this issue. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your help to the limit of your knowledge in this matter. These things happen. Have a good weekend! dawnleelynn ^(talk) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and same to you. I am off to bed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Using 156.12.253.148, a Pennsylvania-based IP that frequently edits on mobile (based on the location, this is consistent). Same attitude in their edit summaries, rhetorical questions and calls to "be consistent", and edit warring with an editor on Cody Simpson. They've used two 156.-range IPs on The Pains of Growing now and have been extensively editing Cody Simpson, so maybe those are in need of page protection to stop the socking temporarily? Ss 112 14:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks and pages protected x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

—— SerialNumber 54129 14:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It seem like Tjdrum2000 is back again using another account and bring disruptive as usual [64] [65] [66] [67]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

GAB ^gab 14:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Answered - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, can you protect Dua Lipa discography? An IP that's changed a few times has been removing content since at least October 21 with no explanation given. They've been reverted by another editor and it's getting annoying to have to revert over and over. Thanks! Ss 112 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, can you look at the history of Girls Like You and see if you think it needs protecting again? As it's still the #1 song in America at the moment it's subject to a high amount of traffic and looks like vandalism. Ss 112 19:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Protected x 2 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

Hello Ad Orientem. Both Jimmy everettt and Jimmy everetttt are CU-confirmed Nsmutte socks doing a joe-job on Jimmy everett who is not Nsmutte, so I'd like to ask you to revisit this block. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, looks like we have PeopleEater143 block evading using another Pennsylvania-based IP, 2600:387:3:801:0:0:0:A5 on Caution (Mariah Carey album). Characteristic snark and criticism of whoever wrote the article's grammar. Definitely them. Do you think the article warrants protection yet as a sock target? I understand if not, but I thought maybe it might warrant protection only for a short term. Ss 112 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112 Do you see anything in the last 5 days in this range that you think is not PeopleEater143? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be quite a bit they wouldn't be interested in. But the edits to Interstate Gospel and Am I a Girl? are definitely them as well, being recent pop music articles. Ss 112 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that precludes a range block for the time being. They may be using a public connection. Possibly a school or library. I will block the specific IP's for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the two IPs x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO. There's an editor by the name of Wells.grace who has contributed substantitally to the article Shatta Wale. The article reads like one big puff piece and there's still quite a bit to bring it line with an encyclopedic tone and the Manual of Style, yet this editor feels slighted because they're a fan of the rapper (which explains the glowing tone of the article). I've warned them twice now for removing maintenance templates and they have removed them twice. Can you maybe drop them a line about it? This time I'm not even sure they'll listen to you—I just think they'll keep removing them until a final warning has to be given. Ss 112 18:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just came across an editor by the name of Johannes275 who has this charming user page that reads like a load of vandalism garbage written by a hyperactive teenager. What's your take on it? Ss 112 18:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for CSD and a caution left on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Johannes275 here. Very sorry, but that has been deleted. I apologize for any inconvenience. I am not a hyperactive teenager; I wish to contribute to Wikipedia as best I can. I do not tolerate vandalism, and I deeply regret having put that as my user page.

@ Johannes275 Fair enough. Thank you for blanking the page. I think that is satisfactory. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Would you be able to protect Caution (Mariah Carey album) and block 156.12.249.29? They've now claimed "I tried to put in an unblock request" on my talk page, although through what account I don't know. Still block evading; they were purely disruptive and edit warring in the past, there's no real coming back from that. Ss 112 19:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

They've also said "I'm not going to let that bs keep me from editing when my block ended." here, so clearly they intend to stick around, expressing future intentions to continue sockpuppeting. Ss 112 19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, found another MariaJaydHicky sock: Urbanjamz—definitely quite similar to their previous socks' usernames, back on pop music articles and removing genres with their second(!) edit. Ss 112 20:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

156.12.249.29 is getting abusive: [68]. Check out their contributions. This has gone on long enough: Special:Contributions/156.12.249.29 They're edit warring with me and being disruptive. Ss 112 20:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Not anymore. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it be right to ask to protect the articles they were editing? They expressed a clear intention to continue editing on my talk page. Ss 112 20:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed the MJH sock, and blocked the IP x 1 month and protected the page x 3 months. If the socking continues I will protect additional pages as needed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:12, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is an editor who is adding unsourced or poorly sourced content in articles [69] [70], the editor is also edit-warring in the Tragedy article [71] [72] [73]. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 15:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor warned. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, i watch some high profile users' talk pages in order to revert vandalism or answer to some questions by newcomers/unexperienced users. Please let me know if you allow me to watch your talk for the above purposes. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani I have no problem with anyone watching my talk page. Thanks for the courtesy note. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey AO, sorry for inundating you with messages today, but could you maybe look into protecting A Brief Inquiry into Online Relationships? Several IPs (including one persistent one) is editing against what sources say, refusing to explain their edits, and has been warned. It's an everyday occurrence. Ss 112 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Final Warning issued. This looks like a single IP. We don't typically protect pages from a single user. If the issues continue I may block them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Using 2600:387:3:801:0:0:0:B3. That's the exact same IP they used to evade a block in 2017—you can see they edited their old favourite target, List of 2017 albums and several albums in 2017 with their characteristic edit summaries and editing from mobile. They have edited Baby (Clean Bandit song) yet again (page protection needed?). There is no helping them—they are a lost cause. They will just do this over and over. Ss 112 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the discussion. But as we now know they're just going to continue evading, do you think it's worthwhile protecting their latest targets Baby (Clean Bandit song) and What Is Love? (Clean Bandit album)? Ss 112 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)