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.

I didn't think a source was necessary since you already have sources on that very page and on the page of Chetniks movement citing the terrorism that they did. You just need to read all the articles of the sources thru. But who am I to know right ? It's easier just to write a talk message to someone withought reading sources of the pages the topic is related to. Don't worry, I will add the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serious19 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Serious19. What was your previous account name? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, I do not have a previous account, this is my first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serious19 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad. Hope you're well.

I noticed JamesRichliano add content to Don't You Want Me with this edit.

1. The user name matches the source writer name
   • no user or talk page, so no declaration of COI possible
2. The magazine In Newsweekly doesn't seem very notable
   • and yet has, according to this user's edits, had interviews with some big names in music
3. The {{ Cite news}} is lacking a |url= and I failed to turn up an archive
   • it's effectively not verifiable; this appears to be the case for all their "sourced" additions

Because of these concerns, I checked the user's contribs and found that they are doing almost nothing but adding claims that "James Richliano" for "In Newsweekly" something something...

Maybe I just need some sleep, but this makes my Spidey-sense tingle. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Fred Gandt. I dropped a note on their page. If this persists let me know. Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem Ad. Thank you (as always). Where do we stand on not being able to verify claims without having access to the (in this case possibly physical?) source cited? I know we have various templates to request a {{ Better source}} or express that it seems {{ Dubious}}, but what if none are forthcoming? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:V allows sources that are not online or easily accessible. However, we have in the past drawn the line at sources that are private and/or not available for verification. A while back we had a bit of a to-do over claims that a well known and deceased person was homosexual. The source of the claim were private diaries held by the family that only one person had been allowed to see. It was decided that in this case the source did not pass WP:V. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting; that's seems a fairly extreme example of a lack of verifiability, and yet caused a "to-do", so I assume claims that stuff was published in a magazine would sail through a challenge to the validity of the source. I had to do some digging and found an Encyclopedia of Journalism which seems to confirm the existence of the publication "In Newsweekly" ^[1] (the book was published before the Wikipedia article was created too, which is always comforting), but at the time of the book's publication, 2009, our article about "In Newsweekly" and its sources claim it had ceased publication the previous year. I suppose the book could have taken a while to publish after being compiled, and they just didn't bother fixing it. None of this adds up. For a magazine to have exclusives with big names in music, and yet the magazine and interviewer seem like ghosts, is just weird. It's 4:00am for me, so I quit for now. Good night Ad; I hope it's full of good things for you. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually reverted the edit. It looked fairly problematic to me after looking at it. However that was prior to your most recent comment. I'd suggest migrating this to the article talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for bringing info to the table late; it took a lot of Google-Fu to find that scrap. I'll try and engage JamesRichliano on their talk page, linking to all their edits demonstrating the same problem (i.e. difficulty of verifying) and connect the discussion with the apparent COI - otherwise, I'll have to cross post the same conversation on multiple articles. I'm going to tag all the suspect claims, but the applicable options are many; which of {{ COI source}}, {{ Self-published source}}, {{ Promotional source}} (which actually has zero useful documentation, so it's hard to say exactly what it's for), {{ Verify source}} and simply {{ Better source}} do you think is most suitable? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you will just have to use your judgement on the tags. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The plot thickens

He has claimed on several articles that "James Richliano" is or was a writer for Billboard (magazine); the only "James Richliano" I can find at Billboard is listed in one archive as a "Chart production manager" ^[2] and I can't find a single source indicating any articles credited to him.

On checking his ABBA edits, I found that what he's written was synthesis+straight-out-original-research based loosely on an article by Fred Bronson in Billboard,Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). and have edited the additions suitably. This editor appears to, at best, not understand what references are, or is attempting to insert themselves into articles with credit for the claims.

Other edits include:

• Kon Kan – added "interview with music journalist James Richliano" in article text with indirect link to Billboard home page in ref
• I Beg Your Pardon – another Billboard claim with no link in the ref and Richliano stated as author
• Move to Move – another Billboard claim with no link in the ref and Richliano stated as author
• Special Ed (rapper) – another Billboard claim with no link in the ref and Richliano stated as author
• Terence Trent D'Arby – Richliano as author of unlinked articles in In Newsweekly
• Vibrator (album) – Richliano as author of unlinked articles in In Newsweekly
• Total Eclipse of the Heart – Richliano as author of unlinked articles in In Newsweekly
• The Human League – two claims, added "interview with music journalist James Richliano" in article text for one, with Richliano as author of unlinked articles in In Newsweekly
• Don't You Want Me – added "told music journalist James Richliano" in article text with Richliano as author of unlinked articles in In Newsweekly

I have spent hours searching for any validity to the claims that this Richliano person is a music journalist and found only a "James Adam Richliano" who apparently wrote some music related books, but absolutely nothing explicitly indicating that "James Richliano" wrote for either Billboard or In Newsweekly in this capacity. I feel that everything they're doing is extremely dodgy. I'm taking a break now though. I don't feel good. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry that you are not feeling well. As for the sources, I agree. They don't meet our standards and I will support you if you choose to revert/remove the questionable material pending better sourcing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Evening. I am an author, and music journalist, who wrote for Billboard magazine, as well as other publications, including In Newsweekly and The Boston Globe. If you would like me to send you copies of my articles, I would be more than happy to do so. I interviewed The Human League's Phil Oakley in 1995 when he was in the Boston area preparing for a KISS radio event. In addition to being Chart Production Manager, I also wrote for Billboard and worked with author Fred Bronson on several Billboard books. I have a deep passion and love for music, and am honored to share some of what I have learned, and am still learning with Wikipedia. Please feel free to email me at Jamesrichliano@gmail.com, if you have any questions regarding my credibility. Thank you. Also, I'm not very good at writing in this forum, as I have never done so before. Have a good evening. Sincerely, James Richliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRichliano ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Good Evening again. As far as linking the In Newsweekly articles, that would be difficult as the paper no longer exists. However,in my opinion, that doesn't mean that it has no value, and that someone could not find it in a library. Thank you again. Sincerely, James Richliano

Also, in 1995, I interviewed Fred Bronson for an article on ABBA that was published in Boston's In Newsweekly. In this piece, he spoke about some of the same things he discusses in the April Billboard article. If you would like a copy of the article, please let me know. Thanks again, and enjoy your evening! Kind Regards, James Richliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRichliano ( talk • contribs) 02:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi JamesRichliano. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your note which helps explain some things. Unfortunately there are some issues here. First you are citing yourself as the ultimate source for most of these claims. That is almost never allowed. To the extent that you might have any chance your claim of fact would have to have been published in a reliable secondary source. See also WP:V. Additionally there is the rather obvious problem of a conflict of interest. We strongly discourage people from editing pages where they have such a conflict. See WP:COI. For now my advice is to confine any editing where you are the ultimate source to article talk pages where you can make an edit request. You could lay out what you want to insert into the article with the source which could then be examined. See WP:ER. Additionaly I have doubts about your using Newsweekly as a source. I am unsure that it meets our guidelines. However you can post a request for community review of Newsweekly at our noticeboard where we examine sources and evaluate them based on our guidelines. Please feel free to open a discussion at WP:RSN. I realize that a lot of these links to policies and guidelines may be confusing and apologize. However the community has adopted these in order to keep things running smoothly and ensure some basic standards for the encyclopedia. Thank you for volunteering to help build one of the greatest repositories of human knowledge in the history of the world. I hope that you will stick around and please feel free to contribute to articles and subjects of interest to you where you do not have a conflict of interest. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello JamesRichliano; I'd like to echo Ad Orientem's thanks for your effort to contribute, and am glad you've chosen to engage in dialog :)

As Ad said, the conflict of interest is a concern, but also, when citing any source, the more accurate the details are the better. When citing books, we like to know which pages or chapters are being cited, and for magazines, the issue numbers and pages are even more important. You have added dates to your citations, so you either have an extremely good memory, are estimating or you have direct access to the essential details. When leaving your edit requests, as Ad Orientem has suggested, please be sure to include as much detail about the source as possible. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I've tagged everything with {{ COI source}} and hopefully other editors will find alternative and reliable sources to replace the refs. Anything you can do to assist improving the sourcing will be greatly appreciated James; Wikipedia's credability hangs on our sourcing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 11:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: Apparently a "Jim Richliano" has published for Billboard, and thanks to JamesRichliano's edits on Kon Kan drawing attention to this fact, we may be able to clear everything up satisfactorily. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs

@ JamesRichliano: To save bothering Ad Orientem with every detail of this issue from now on, I will start a thread on your talk page, where we can work together to address the COI and sourcing. Thanks for making a start on Kon Kan, but be aware that, as Ad Orientem has stated, it would be best if you ask other editors to make contributions where you are directly connected to the source. I'll see you at your talk page. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, people can always say, "Rules are descriptive, not prescriptive; actual practice is the dog and rules are the tail; etc." So if they want to redefine rules to mean something other than what they say, hey, they can perhaps do that, if a closing admin lets them; the Supreme Court does that kind of stuff all the time.

But if you want my opinion, I think more citogenesis goes on than people would care to admit; Wikipedia is so widely-cited that if Wikipedia has an article on a shooting, then that gives it a better chance of meeting the 10-year test than it otherwise would have. So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, which a lot of times is what people are hoping for. Wikipedia doesn't just reflect the way the mainstream thinks; it also affects it, which is why so many things that Wikipedia supposedly isn't (such as a battleground for righting great wrongs), it ends up actually being. It's part of the opinion-molding New Media.

In this case, I don't know exactly what the agenda would be for wanting to keep the article around, other than just regular inclusionism. A lot of times, people's "interpretation" of WP:EVENT or WP:NOTNEWS really boils down to an ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT sentiment; they'll just say that it passes or fails the test based on whether they like having that article there, but they're not really taking the wording of the rule into account, even though they wikilink to it. It's like how if you're in front of a jury, if they think you're a piece of trash, they might just claim, "Yeah, we didn't find him credible" as an excuse to return some verdict against you. They figure, "It's rough justice; the Constitution is not a suicide pact; etc."

I was tempted to say on that AfD page, "B-but the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that it says right there in the U.S. Constitution that a woman has a right to privacy" but they probably wouldn't have caught the reference. Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 02:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem,

Read your revert of my edit. It's fine I won't go and undo it again because I wasn't aware of any admin rules usually when a no is consensus taken. I will make my case to to you eventually. But this album was NOT something I was planning to work on soon, but was rushed by another user.

I will paraphrase Henry Louis Gates Jr. at 2 Live Crew's lawsuit and put it the context of this album. This decision to put the album in a keep/oppose vote was made based on class and a prudish fright over content more so than the substance for which is exist.

When I created the page of FKI's The ChinamanI was ready with substantive evidence. When that user told me his intent I was sure he would take his time.

I will make my case in the near to far future. As I said there is no rush for me there. Filmman3000 ( talk) 05:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Filmman3000, I just wanted to respond here to your assertion above that my decision to start a deletion discussion was based on class and concerns over the content. I can honestly assure you that it wasn't - I don't know anything about the content of this album, and had never heard of it or any of the artists involved before I came across the article. I volunteer as part of the new page patrol team, checking new pages as they are created to ensure that they are compliant with policy. Amongst other things, we check that the subject of the article is notable, either via the general notability guideline, or through one of the specific guidelines (in this case WP:NALBUM). I checked the sources in the article, then I checked for additional sources online, and I could find nothing to establish notability according to the wording of these guidelines. You can see the flowchart we use for making decisions about how to respond on the NPP page - when there are no reliable sources in the article, and you can't find any elsewhere, AfD is the standard response. You are welcome to check my record of AfD nominations - I believe that they will demonstrate that I am not on any kind of crusade against a particular style or class of music, I simply apply the guidelines to new articles as they are received.

Please also note that the discussion was closed as 'Redirect', not as 'No consensus'. Discussions at articles for deletion aren't evaluated as a simple numerical vote; rather, the closer will weigh the strengths of the arguments made by the voters, and how they relate to policy. If you can dig up some solid coverage in reliable sources, I don't have any problem with the article being restored at a future date. I hope that's clear, cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth,

I sincerely apologize for not using the word "speculation", otherwise one could think that I am accusing you of such which is not the case. It's a BIG mistake on my behalf.

The reason I am speculating this is because the album Freaky Chinese, page was targeted before all other albums by Fresh Kid Ice added by the user in the same period time. The cover and title are extremely obscene compared to others albums.

On wikipedia I have seen what I call culture wars warrior (both from the left and right) which make some pages extremely hard to edit.

Based on some of the behaviour I've seen here and the fact that the album's title and cover are bonkers, I speculated that is why it caught your attention and it was targeted unfairly.

Again I apologize for not using the term "speculate" otherwise I could leave the impression that I am accusing.

This album is not in my top priority list, but do believe it is notable enough to make the cut. I am in no rush to do so.

To show my good faith I do have an account with Newspapers.com and will gladly unlock a dozen article for you. Filmman3000 ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Filmman3000 - thank you for your gracious words. All I can say about the reason this article was picked up first was that, when reviewing the NPP queue, the title looked interesting so I clicked on it! I'm going to drop a note on your talk page now, as I don't think Ad Orientem needs this discussion to take place on his talk page, but I'd be happy to discuss sourcing and potential notability with you. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Block or semi-protection. Whatever action you think is best would be appreciated here. See history. Courtesy pings for Geraldo Perez and IJBall. Amaury • 23:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection is the best choice here – the IP is definitely being disruptive, and refusing to Talk. Semi-protection may change that. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 Template Protected Semi protected indefinitely. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:DJDan18 the other day. He's back and still making edits that aren't particularly helpful to the encyclopaedia. The stuff he's doing isn't overly negative, but it's unnecessary, and he's still using misleading edit summaries such as "Fixed typo" and "Added links", which aren't even remotely what he's doing. Do you think it would help if someone explained to him exactly what a typo is? Personally, I think it's futile even attempting to communicate with him, since he's shown no desire to collaborate with other editors in the past (zero edits to any kind of talk page in his edit history and boilerplate edit summaries), but I'll give it another go if you think it's necessary. – Pee Jay 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi PeeJay2K3. I've dropped yet another note on their page. Even the most charitable interpretation of their behavior is leading me towards a WP:CIR block. Sigh... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I was on vacation for two weeks and I see AAFT University of Media and Arts was deleted. Can you please restore it under my user space so I could merge the content into Asian Academy of Film & Television? Best regards. -- Muhandes ( talk) 12:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ Muhandes see User:Muhandes/AAFT University of Media and Arts. Do not move this back into the mainspace w/o first ensuring that all of the issues raised in the AfD have been resolved. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Naturally. Thanks. -- Muhandes ( talk) 16:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Lil Rich's credits are listed here— https://tidal.com/browse/credits/5530742

those are official tidal credits, similarly seen on Spotify. Can we get this page undeleted asap? As shown on TIDAL, he just executive produced Cousin Stizz's new album.

Laurennostro ( talk) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ping Ss112. The above linked page does not strike me as RS. But music genre is not my strong suit so I'm seeking a 2nd opinion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Even if that is RS, I don't believe it constitutes the level of coverage needed to ring the WP:N bell. I am leaning heavily against restoring this page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Copyright infringement. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Concerned about a couple of IP edits on the above article, which relate to an ongoing police investigation... I've reverted the offending content, but I'm not sure if revdel is in order here to avoid any libel issues. Richard3120 ( talk) 19:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@ Richard3120... IP and new user blocked. Four edits revdeled. Page protected x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you – you might want to check the two edits by the IP 92.10.136.237 on 26 August and see if they need to be added to the revdel list. I'll keep an eye on this after the week is up, as the court case isn't until 24 September, so there could be more contentious editing. Richard3120 ( talk) 20:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Zapped. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

As you are an administrator willing to do revdels, could I draw your attention to the edits of 2a02:2f08:e408:2100:ed65:b42e:7d5d:607 at Dan Fâșie? Thanks! Dorsetonian ( talk) 19:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done and IP blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am trying to recover a page you deleted for an artist named Lil Rich who is a producer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1524:CCDF:BDD3:D41A:1049:821D ( talk) 20:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I regret that the page was deleted following a community discussion. That discussion can be found here. It appears that subject of the article does not meet our guidelines for encyclopedic notability The relevant standards can be found in WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I have not seen any evidence which causes me to believe that this person has enough coverage from reliable independent secondary sources to pass our guidelines for inclusion. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

If I collect research about viral drinks into a list of viral drinks, then people say, "That's pure WP:SYNTH and WP:LISTCRUFT; the viral nature of the drinks should just be mentioned in the articles about the drinks themselves." But, if I write articles about individual pieces of legislation, they say, "You should combine the info on all those separate bills into one article, because the fact that none of those bills has a high chance of passing the Senate means they only deserve a brief mention in one general overview article." How is aggregation of research in one case pure SYNTH and therefore forbidden, and in another case mandatory?

It's kind of like how they say, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, in that we don't speculate about what's going to happen in the future; but on the other hand, if you're going to write an article, you need to do a 10-year test in which you guess whether 10 years from now, people will still care about the topic.

The viral drink article probably could've survived if it had had a different title like drink popularity trends in the United States and presented the information as a narrative, rather than as a combination article-and-list. But, for the moment, my interests seem to have mostly shifted to other topics, so I'm feeling kinda lazy about that. At the same time, I recognize a systemic and recurring problem.

With drinks, there's a logical sequence of events in which X leads to Y and Y leads to Z, as when Zima inspired Smirnoff Ice and Smirnoff Ice inspired White Claw Hard Seltzer. It's the same way with legislation; the STATES Act led to the more ambitious legislation as Congress shifted leftward and began wanting to tackle social justice issues rather than just taking a purely federalism-oriented approach.

AfD is basically, though, people saying, "Okay, this is cool, let me just cite some random rule to justify keeping it" or "This is lame/trash; let me cite some random rule to justify deleting it." That's generally how things go when there's no accountability for misusing rules. It's like how the 9th Circuit can just interpret the Constitution however it likes, because sometimes they might get away with it, and the worst case scenario is that the Supreme Court reverses their decision and rebukes them, but they stay on the bench because they have life tenure. Here, we don't even have that, because the appeals court (WP:DRV) is made up of the same community that made the original decision. Зенитная Самоходная Установка ( talk) 10:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Internet self-aggrandizing wannabe Robin Weisse is back with a new account, Sentres, that looks to be the latest in a long line created solely to insert his name as a songwriter onto pop music articles. Most have been blocked previously; not sure if you've blocked any. Ss 112 17:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. Do you know what the original account was? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what Robin Weisse's first account created here is. However, probably whomever created the now-deleted Robin Weisse. You can be pretty sure the editor who created that page (which you can check, being an admin) would be the person themselves. Their accounts would be too far back on Chris Brown and Justin Bieber album and song articles for me to find easily. Ss 112 18:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. I am going to just refer to this user as the "Robin Weiss LTA." - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

They're back on Unitretradest. Ss 112 05:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And again on Trountlof Ss 112 10:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

And Songzutr. They appear to be creating accounts just to do this. It's getting to be a problem. Do you think protection is warranted? Ss 112 11:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Truterdsa. Page definitely needs protection at this point. Ss 112 11:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• All blocked and the page has been protected by Ed J. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, please see your email when you come online. Ss 112 19:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem,

At Dorothy Kilgallen, a new KF account is trying to add content about people who did not attend Kilgallen's funeral. At Lee Israel, it is content about the criminal background of her accomplice. I reverted at Kilgallen. Can you please take a look? Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328. The only obviously disruptive edit I saw, and it came close to naked vandalism, was this which has been reverted by Skysmith. However there is a bunch of stuff that has been added, probably by KF, starting in May. Most of it looks like either unnecessary detail, or just dicey to me. It is the sort of stuff that might possibly fit in an article specifically dedicated to the crimes, but is over the top here. I am thinking it might be best to roll back the article to the last April 3, 2019 version. But I would be reluctant to take that step unilaterally. I was thinking about opening a talk page discussion but then remembered how dreadfully tendentious KF can be with her book length comments on talk pages. And it doesn't help that I am on a short break attending to some time consuming personal business. If you want to revert it, I would support you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait until your personal business is resolved, when we can discuss it in more detail. I have had a time-consuming day at WP:AN and don't have the appetite for another battle this evening. I hope things go well for you off-Wiki. Take care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm reporting this editor because they keep adding unsourced content in articles [1] [2]. This editor have been blocked for this kind of behavior not too long ago. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 23:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Disruption resumes after semi-protection expiration. Amaury • 15:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since protection expired with only the one disruptive edit. That's not enough for restoring protection. Sorry. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. There's a new message on your Meta-wiki user talk page. Would you take a look? 60.53.103.218 ( talk) 11:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

PeopleEater143 is back using 67.129.161.163. Editing recent pop music topics with the same snarky edit summaries, and the IP geolocates to the same area of the United States that previously used IP addresses do. Ss 112 17:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, found a sock of the EDM artist vandal, Phantasus Magician, who previously used the account ADCDL. Just from the name alone and what they've been editing, ADCDL24 is obviously a sock. Ss 112 23:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a new message on your Meta-wiki user talk page here and here. Would you take a look? 2402:1980:244:B8F1:B27B:8047:F943:C08A ( talk) 19:02, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Can't you see? 2402:1980:8254:E5A6:2560:D90D:C21C:8E00 ( talk) 02:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I have a question concerning a deletion of a revision, are you able to assist with this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiro999 ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Handled via email. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem!, I created 2019 Samoa assassination plot, and since I messed up by nominating "Argentina becomes first Latin American country to declare Hezbollah as "terrorists"", I just wanted you, if you wish to do so, to guide me through the following query: On September 30, one of the four defendants of attempting to kill the PM of Samoa will be sentenced. Should I wait the others to be tried, convicted and sentenced to nominate to ITN/C? Or with one is enough? Just an advice. Thanks in advance friend. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 15:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cory If they are all being tried separately I'd go ahead and just do it now. However I'm not sure it will pass. But don't get discouraged if you have a nomination turned down. It's fairly common. Only about half of mine have been posted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks my friend!, I'll take the risk by September 30 lol. -- CoryGlee ( talk) 16:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Cory, remember that normally you can only nominate current events for ITN. Anything more than a week old is usually considered stale. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I may have written wrongly since English is not my first language, the plot originated in April but on September 30 the defendant who pleaded guilty will be sentenced to (i.e. life in prison), that's why I must wait right? -- CoryGlee ( talk) 16:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That would be correct. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to let you know that I accidentally removed the "pp-protected" template while doing reverting the above page to the last best revision. Sorry. Lupin VII ( talk) 07:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. It is not uncommon when fixinhg vandalized pages. As long as the icon is restored after the revert it's all good. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I was amazed to see Bryan Chapell deleted - I thought it would be a slam-dunk keep. Anyway, I realise I did not participate int he discussion - for some reason I completely missed it. Well, I was wondering if you could userfy it for me - I would like to work on it to establish notability along the lines that his writings and approach to preaching qualify him under WP:PROF #1. Thanks. St Anselm ( talk) 10:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There are delete !votes like "non-notable local church pastor" when he has a book cited 397 times on Google Scholar - something that almost always allows a subject to pass WP:PROF! St Anselm ( talk) 10:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See the extended treatments on Chapell's approach here, here, here, and here. St Anselm ( talk) 10:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done See User:StAnselm/Bryan Chapell. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I added six references and restored the article. What do I do about the talk page? St Anselm ( talk) 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I've restored it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, could you help me with a person who is using different IPs to make changes aginst Wikipedia rules? I noticed it on " Promises (Calvin Harris and Sam Smith song)" - could this article be protected from IP's for some time? 114.26.154.128, 120.109.133.6, 122.118.51.112, and maybe more is adding constantly all US Dance charts to the table, which is aginst WP:CHARTS. This person does not respond, just changes it on and on. I'm sure he added it to more articles, and I see on other articles there was also a genre problem. Could you help me in any way? - Max24 ( talk) 07:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 2 weeks and blocked the two most recent IPs. Unfortunately this does look like a dynamic IP which means the blocks are likely to be of limited effect and the various IPs are far too spread out for any kind of range block. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you very much! :) - Max24 ( talk) 07:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---- evrik ^{( talk)} 18:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear. I didn't explicitly say that you declined the request because I was trying to not personalize it. I am not asking for the article to be undeleted, I just want the code. -- evrik ^{( talk)}

When you ask admins to do something where another admin has already said no; that is relevant information that needs to be included in your request. I am going to AGF here, but failing to include that could be viewed negatively in a discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for using the wrong forum to have the content "userfied ... so the content can be improved upon." I will repost the request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- evrik ^{( talk)} 17:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Evrik, userfying a deleted page is not a right. It is something which falls under the heading of administrator judgement and is almost always left to the sole discretion of the deleting admin. I have already said no and explained the conditions under which I would reconsider. WP:REFUND does not apply here. Your only recourse is to go to WP:DRV which I have already discussed above. Until/unless you can produce some evidence that can credibly be used as an argument for satisfying our WP:N guidelines I am not prepared to entertain any further discussion of this. On which note; you need to revert your restoration of the links that I had deleted. That was not done because I felt like it. We do not blue link to redirects about subjects that are not independently notable. And bluntly you were wrong to have reverted an administrator action w/o discussing the matter with me first. Now it is time for you to drop this particular stick and move on. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

We usually don't make people jump thru so many hoops for a simple userfication. Evrick has been here a while; if he wants to spend time working on an article in his userspace that may or may not meet WP:N when he's done (personally I think it's going to be pretty difficult, Evrick), because he thinks he'll be able to pass that test, why stop that? There is nothing stopping him from creating this right now from scratch in his user space, but then (a) why make it hard, and (b) if he's successful the we'd have to undelete the article anyway for attribution purposes. He's doesn't seem to be asking to put it back in the mainspace, so DRV isn't appropriate since he isn't challenging the deletion decision (i.e. removal from article space). Per WP:REFUND#Userfication of deleted content, any admin can userfy an article that's been deleted. When the risk of wasting time is all his, I don't understand the reluctance to userfy it for him. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Floq I'm not a fan of userfying pages that were just deleted at AfD with overwhelming consensus that they fail WP:N and where I am not seeing any credible argument to the contrary. It kinda defeats the point of the AfD. However I am fine with doing so if there is some credible reason to believe that the situation is likely to change. I'm not seeing that here. That said, if you want to userfy the page go ahead. I am not inclined to belabor this any further. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. You're right about REFUND. I stand corrected. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks AO. I think the purpose of AFD is more to get it out of article space. I have zero concerns about your AFD close. I'll userfy, then, and make it 100% clear that he'll need to get either (a) your agreement, or (b) agreement at DRV if he ever wants to send it back to article space. I'll also make it clear that, IMHO, it's going to be hard to get it to pass WP:NOTE, to make sure he realizes he's risking wasting his time. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I think you inadvertently pulled the exoplanet discovery blurb while putting the Tongan president death into RD. Can you put it back up? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:4CCB:9F85:8B9D:9FC6 ( talk) 03:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Good catch. I'm on it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

88.111.156.101 ( talk · contribs) 92.19.13.222 ( talk · contribs) There is a editor might be using multiple accounts, for example the first IP made these edits [4] [5] in the article Stoney, the second IP made these edits in the article just recently [6]. If you look at the edit summaries, they are very similar. The editor also added genres in the article Beerbongs & Bentleys [7] but the sources don't support these genres, so I remove them. The editor restore them with the second IP here [8]. Clearly here to be disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 09:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like their editing is intentionally malicious. As far as I can tell most of their edits appear constructive or well intnetioned. I have posted a warning over adding unsourced material but there is not enough to justify a block. Also it's quite possible that this individual may have a dynamic IP or they may be using some form of public access computer. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not a excuse to use different accounts to restore your edits. I agreed the edits are not bad but the sources added by the IPs does not strongly support the genres, that's my problem with it. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

He is not using different accounts, he is using different IPs. And as I noted above there may be perfectly benign reasons for this. Some internet services randomly change IPs on you. And if they are stuck using public connections like a library, internet cafe, or McDonald's that too will result in editing under different IP addresses. I agree that a few of their edits were poorly sourced, hence my warning. But otherwise I see someone trying to improve the project and we need to be careful about biting potentially newer users. Maybe a friendly note suggesting they sign up for an actual account? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should have explain the genres are poorly sourced in my edit summaries instead of reverting without saying anything at all. Maybe a friendly note suggesting they sign up for an actual account might help, but this might be one of those editors who just ignore the notes. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

If the problem persists after suitable warnings, then other measures can be employed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

92.19.13.222 has been making disruptive edits to Eusébio. It's getting tiresome. SLBedit ( talk) 16:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an ordinary content dispute, though it may be bordering on disruptive if they are editing against consensus and/or ignoring BRD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how removing a hatnote, removing inline citations by moving text, removing sourced content, etc. is a content dispute. SLBedit ( talk) 16:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I posted a formal caution on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The editor is how using 79.66.223.58 with this edit [9]. This editor is still being disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I see they have added sources as well. Do the sources not support the material they are introducing? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Congratulations" is not diamond. Trap, pop and country is not explicitly supported by sources. It's poorly sourced content and the editor silently revert my edits to restore their edits. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have posted a level 3 warning and protected the page for 2 days. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's good. Sorry for bugging you about this issue but this editor is starting to get annoying. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I can understand that. One can be disruptive even when acting with good intentions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I appreciate your assistance with User:DJDan18 recently. Unfortunately, it seems like he has attempted to circumvent his block by creating a new account: User:DJMoore19. Any chance we could dispose of this account in a similar way? – Pee Jay 14:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I am currently involved in an edit war with said user on the Rachel Lillis page. I added her signature roles since other Pokemon voice actors such as Veronica Taylor and Eric Stuart have that as well. Please bear in mind I am new to editing on Wikipedia and I am doing what I can to make sure my edit stays since it is an improvement for said page. Please give me suggestions on what I must do! Thank you! UpWithJimmy ( talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

UpWithJimmy

UpWithJimmy has reverted my edits on the Rachael Lillis article, "yelling" at me and threatening to report me for edit warring as he does so. I represent Rachael Lillis, and a more balanced presentation is preferred. UpWithJimmy's talk page shows he has a history of edit warring. I saw your note to this user, so I thought I'd let you know. If I have addressed you in error, my apologies. Thank you!

• I have temporarily locked the page and left a formal caution on the talk page. Please take heed of its contents. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

AO, I can't believe I need to come to you about an experienced editor like Onel5969, but it appears I do. They have just blanked at least a dozen articles because they feel the articles don't meet WP:NSONGS and WP:NALBUMS when they clearly do. I mean, for example, look at the amount of sources listed on Shaped by Fire—how it would not meet NALBUMS? In other examples, Lalalay reached the top 5 of the Korean singles chart. Dear My Dear has six news articles listed on it and it has yet to be released. Dreamland (Pet Shop Boys song) has four news sources listed and it charted on a couple of charts as well that aren't listed. This is problematic blanking at best. I also feel Onel5969 has some bias against articles on topics that they can't read the language of. There's no other explanation for blanking an article like Closer to You (Exo-SC song) when there are enough Korean-language sources present to meet WP:NSONGS. I'm just at a loss to explain this blanking spree. I've asked them to stop and take them to AFD, but I don't know if that will be enough. Ss 112 04:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Handled - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for writing to this user. I've tried [10] [11] multiple times and my efforts for him to change his way have failed miserably. Since then I can occasionally watch his actions, though he is so busy it is impossible to follow all of them. With the odds firmly stacked against KEEPing, since August, I have successfully defended 5 out of 5 AfDs he initiated. This takes a lot of work, while he is doing hundreds of edits at a time. 3 a minute at times. Obviously he is causing these and the overwhelming number of redirects in an ill-founded fashion and is out of step with the community. My beef, he moves so fast he doesn't do WP:BEFORE, thus he has no idea what he is doing. This is to a level that something more needs to be done, but I don't know what or how. Trackinfo ( talk) 06:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully they will take the hint and slow down. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

BlaccCrab is back using 130.85.59.151. Making Dierks Bentley updates (one of BlaccCrab's favourite artists, considering the amount of updates he used to wait around to do for this one artist), and IP geolocates to Maryland, which is a giveaway. Ss 112 00:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. The SNL troll at Special:Contributions/24.227.92.114 patiently waited out your 6 month block. Same IP user again evading the block you carried out at Special:Contributions/24.73.197.194 and others, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Googie man. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Also see Special:Contributions/74.120.47.82. Also waited out your block on this IP. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 17:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. The user TheRedundancy125, whom I've noticed from editing several Maroon 5 articles, appears to be using multiple IP addresses while logged out/in tandem with their account. I haven't looked so in-depth as to see if it's to any disruptive ends, although it doesn't appear to be on the surface. However, the articles and topics they edit with their account frequently have Malaysian-based IPs in the 115.13x.xxx.xxx range (like 115.133.122.203) editing after them—I noticed this first in the history of Maroon 5. As they are all editing the same sorts of topics (film articles related to Step Up, The Terminator, Friday the 13th, Wrong Turn) and even using the same edit summaries, it's pretty safe to say it's the same editor— 115.132.163.168 used the edit summary "trim and cleanup" on Maroon 5, TheRedundancy125 used this on their talk page here. I might understand if the IP and user edits were clearly separated and take it to be simply forgetting to log in, but repeatedly doing so and the timeframes look a bit more intentional than that to me. This practice of using multiple accounts is misleading to other users, and I don't know if they have disrupted using this method in the past, but can you give them a fairly strong warning to stay on their account? I previously warned them for changing other users' accessdates and their recent use of a tag, but they removed the former message of mine from their talk page, so it's doubtful they'll listen to me. Thanks. Ss 112 12:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it appears the IP previously altered text on Memories (Maroon 5 song) and an accessdate in a ref they didn't add (after I warned TheRedundancy125 about doing exactly this), and this edit was reverted by Billiekhalidfan. The IP editor then made the same edit again (and were reverted by BKF again), so it looks a bit disruptive and evasive. Ss 112 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Dropped a friendly caution on their page. If this continues let me know. The next message may not be friendly. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is back using 173.118.79.29 and just like before, changing date ranges without explaining why. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 01:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• 96.81.226.65 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thought I'd drop you a line that this IP is exhibiting similar behavior to editor Bradley026258, whom you recently blocked. The IP is going through a large amount of roller coaster articles adding unsourced height and drop claims. Was hoping you could take a look and perform a mass rollback if possible. Thanks in advance! -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and all edits reverted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO. Discovered another PeopleEater143 sock, using 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:C4 to edit one of their old favourite targets, the "List of 20xx albums" articles, as well as a recent album article ( Manic (album)) and using insulting edit summaries towards people they disagree with. Definitely them. The IP geolocates to the same area of the US as well. Looks like they were talking to Billiekhalidfan in some of their smart-alec summaries as well. Ss 112 07:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Already back using 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:4C. Do you think List of 2019 albums warrants protection yet? I mean, there's not a lot of constructive edits from IPs anyway—they're mostly always adding unsourced entries to the list, and it's a common target for this troll IP. Ss 112 00:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Range blocked 2600:387:3:805:0:0:0:0/64 x 1 year. I think they are/were using public access computers based on the behavior evidence within the range. Possibly a library or school/university. The range has been repeatedly blocked before. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

Ad Orientem, thank you for bringing to my attention that one of the contributors was a sock puppet with the habit of insulting edit summaries. I looked over the four edits that was done by the two IP addresses, and found three of the four to be useful, even if I reversed one of them, but I do agree that two of the edit summaries were insulting, and I do agree that banned editors should not work around the system.

I do disagree with a statement made by @Ss112 where it was stated that there were not a lot of constructive edits by IPs anyway, mostly adding unsourced entries to the list. I just looked at the data entered to the list from September 27 to October 1, which was a particularly good stretch for the IPers, but also a recent window of activity. In that stretch, 16 albums were added to the list, 13 by IPers and 3 by named users. The IPer 109.8.42.7 added the Korean titles [ [12]] (the majority of the 13 additions), and was very good about including valid citations, I only replaced one from a subscription news site with a citation from free news article in Korean. Even the IPers who don't add sources for their listings bring my attention to albums, and I look up the news and determine if a good source is available. I love the input from the IPers as nudges to consider albums, where I can come in later and clean up the entry. Once a page is protected, then these same people, if they are not discouraged and turn away, then post requests for the main editors to add the albums, and generally we still have to look up the sources. I do not find the input by the number crowd to be disruptive in the main, but generally helpful. Mburrell ( talk) 03:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mburrell. I've read your comment and don't have a strong objection to lifting the page protection on a trial basis. However if we see a return to the socking and/or a lot of problematic editing by IPs it would have to be reinstated. I will wait until tomorrow to give Ss112 an opportunity to chime in if he is inclined. Lifting it for a while is not a big deal in my mind. If the issues return it's just a few clicks to put it back in place. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello dear JOHN,

I've seen your message on my talk page and let me start with this :

Wikipedia is NOT censured so we can talk however we want. I find it unfair that you came to threaten me with the message you left on my talk page knowing well that the conversation started off correctly and respectfully. Things only escalated when "Billiekhalidfan" went on to say things I deemed and found inappropriate and disrespectful by calling me sarcastic. Yes, I've felt disrespected and felt the need to speak up and this what I did.

Wikipedia is not censured.

Secondly, I've seen you talking about uncivility, but I made sue to cut every single curse words out. There's so uncivil acts that were involved in the disagreement so with all due disrespect I don't think that what I said on the Manic talk page should be considered as "harrassement" knowing well that harrassement is something that occurs several times. Bully or even Abuser? - I just think you went way to far by calling me such things.

Thirdly and finally :

This is not the first time be and the other editor had such disagreement. They have done things that I found disrespectful in the past so it kind of explain why I talked like that.

And please, of you think that my overall message on your talk page is rude or disrespectful, let me let you know that it is not the intention here. I'm just trying to explain myself.

And on this final note let me say it out loud : Wikipedia is not censured and we are all human after all, aren't we?

I just let my frustration out a little bit too hard on them.

Kind regards Iambacknimbetter ( talk) Iambacknimbetter. —Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Iambacknimbetter. No. NOTCENSORED is not license to abuse other editors. Your comments were completely unacceptable and in no sense justified by anything Billiekhalidfan wrote. Deliberately addressing someone by the wrong gender pronouns to harass them can get you blocked on the spot. That you do not seem to understand this is disturbing and raises serious doubts in my mind as to whether or not you are going to be able function here. My warnings stand. Heed them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem:

Well if you say so, Johnny.

If you think my comments were inappropriate then so be it. I'm not going to fight about that.

What I'm not okay is that I've hurt some feelings. What should I do next to be able to move on without having you warning me? (Asked in the most respectful and reflective way)

Should I apologize? Please, help me out.

Thanks my goodness that I "seem" not to be understanding but trust me, I do.

And yeah, Wikipedia is not censored so I don't see why its editors should be.

Iambacknimbetter ( talk) Iambacknimbetter

• An apology to Billiekhalidfan is definitely in order. I'm going to be blunt here; your comments in that discussion and subsequently have all but convinced me that you are WP:NOTHERE to edit an encyclopedia. Barring a dramatic change in attitude I think your tenure here is going be very short. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem:

OH my lord, what attitude? You're saying that I have an attitude just because I decided to fight back because I felt attacked? Or because I called you "Johnny"? (No jokes, this nickname gives you a grandpa vibe since you've been here for long)

In short, where can I issue my apologies to him? On the talk page ?

And by the way, I truly want to prove that I am here to help in building an encyclopedia not to pick fights.

My comments on Billiekhalidfan were not personal since I decided to defend him the previous discussion on the manic talk page anyways.

Hoping to here from you again Iambacknimbetter ( talk)Iambacknimbetter

• Ye, their talk page works. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked this editor, for many obvious reasons. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO, I have two block evaders for you. The first is Trounzerd, who is another account of the "Robin Weisse" songwriter trolls. The other is SenpaiKev, who is evading their block on KEV2179413. They were blocked for unsourced edits going back years, and it's quite clear from their name ("Kev"), the time they registered (late August, right after KEV2179413's block) and their topics of interest—only adding credits sections to articles (as KEV2179413 said this was the only thing they were interested in) that it is them. Ss 112 09:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Both indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Robin Weisse now using Nointres. They're exclusively targeting 10,000 Hours (song) now. Ss 112 22:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed and page protected. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, can you have a word to the user Mad.acme? They're edit warring to retain unsourced speculation like this at Who (album) and I don't believe anybody less than an admin can get through to them. I explained this in a summary last month, but they're still fighting over including this BS WP:OR and speculation—it's purely "I think someone could interpret the title as this" without a shred of evidence other than personal belief. Looks like some deluded Who fan. Ss 112 00:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No edits since you issued your warning on their talk page. Let me know if this their problematic editing resumes. No need for me to pile on at the moment. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just being pre-emptive. I don't think they're particularly well-versed in Wikipedia standards, for example in regards to their insistence on capitalising all words in album titles. Ss 112 00:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

They are a new user with barely 300 edits. Let's tread softly here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon John,

I simply wanted to apologize from the bottom of my heart for everything I said or did that hurt your feelings or upset you.

I also wanted to add that my previous comments on you do not reflect who I truly am. Thanks for blocking me. And I meant it. It helped me grow and realize that if I want to continue on Wikipedia, I need to change and I realized that just because of you.

I truly want to thank you!

Regards! BetterOfThatWay ( talk) 17:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

For your message -- Tomas8024 ( talk) 01:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears that we have tripped over each other making exactly the same close to the same AfD. bd2412 T 03:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I just restored the draftified page and deleted the duplicate in mainspace. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think everything is now kosher. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good work. bd2412 T 03:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think that these articles Carmen Bueno and Jorge Müller should be merged into one article, since they are the same disappearance. Do you agree with me? This is my first of a few questions. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm not sure they pass WP:BASIC either separately or together, though I have not made a search for coverage to determine if they pass on some basis that would negate WP:1E. That said, I tend to agree that assuming their disapearance is what makes them notable, and it passes our guidelines, then they should probably be merged. You could be WP:BOLD and just do the merge yourself. But if challenged you will have to open a discussion. Or if you wish to be cautious and seek WP:CONSENSUS first you could open a merge discussion on one of the talk pages. If you have WP:TWINKLE enabled you can use the function under Tag and scroll all the way to the bottom. It will automatically apply the tags and open the discussion for you. All you need to do is fill in the rational for the merge. Also bear in mind it may be better to create an entirely new article about the disappearances as opposed to picking one of the current articles. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I created the combined article the Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno, which I will do my best to keep expanding it, so I don't think that we need to keep the single articles anymore. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David I would suggest that you BOLDLY redirect them to the new article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how could you please do that for me? Also how can I now that the article has been created? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting is easy. There are instructions in the link I provided. You just blank the article(s) you are turning into a redirect and then insert the code provided on the linked page. Anyone typing in the names of the old articles will be taken to the new one. I will handle it for you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is progressing since being merged as I have added more sources and provided more information, and the expansion is continuing. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please add information to the talk page of Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno. It is no longer a stub is one thing that you can add. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have been working very hard upgrading articles, but I just can't do this all by myself, do you know anyone who could help me with this? I would really be thankful for that. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. Are we talking primarily about the new one you created? Or are there others? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean ones that need expanding, not the ones that I created. I figure before I make anymore I should deal with improvements that can be made done now. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 03:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There are currently close to 38 million registered users. But around 250-300k are editing with great regularity. I suggest contacting the wiki projects associated with the articles you are working on and posting there. You can ask for help or advice. But in the end don't get too worked up over things. Do your best and when you have run up against a wall, move onto another project. That's what most of us have to do. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Please check out this article Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno now that I have added more on to it. Please let me know what do you think of it now. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Not bad. I did some light copy editing but basically it looks like a decent start class article. Unfortunately given the dearth of information on their fate, heavy expansion is probably going to difficult if not impossible. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for you edits to the article. Here is the information needed for the red link https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Álamos. Able you able to convert into English then add to article? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The place is probably independently notable and would rate its own article. Unfortunately the vast majority of sources are going to be in Spanish and I don't have the necessary competency to translate them. But I think it is something worth suggesting, perhaps on WP:CHILE. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate the thanks, but it's not necessary to issue one for every edit I make.  :-) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Please check out the expansion that I have made to Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Cecilia Bueno. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 11:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Did a little copy editing but otherwise looks good. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding reminder to please check out Tres Álamos. Perhaps you can expand it's talk page. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 17:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, one thing that I would like to suggest is there should be stricter guidelines against unnecessary deletion of articles. If Wikipedia's goal is to supply people with information, then less deletion of good articles is needed. I feel that a lot of good articles were deleted that simply should not have been. I also think the more deletion there is, the less people will want to contribute to Wikipedia. Also I will contact you again soon regarding another matter as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Where to draw the line in terms of what to keep and what to get rid of is a perennial topic of debate around here. Our guidelines have developed over years of discussion and sometimes contentious debate. I doubt many people are happy with them which may be a sign they represent a decent compromise. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Here is the other thing that I wanted to mention to you: I have tried to expand this article Oumar Baldé, but almost no information can be found. Unless someone can't expand it like Pavlos Kouroupis was expanded after having been put through the AFD, then it should be deleted. Please put a deletion tag on it. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I've WP:Proded the page. This doesn't look controversial to me and AfD would be a waste of time. That said this does give anyone interested a week to work on the page if they are inclined. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please fix the external links on these articles Murder of Serena McKay and Elizabeth Ann Duke, when you click on the articles it will go right to the links and you will see the links that need fixing under where is says "external links". Maybe you could tell me how to do this, so I will know how to do this from now on. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 18:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. The problem was that when you were posting the link to the page you did so using the following [[Murder of Serena McKay#External links|Murder of Serena McKay]] and [[Elizabeth Ann Duke#External links|Elizabeth Ann Duke]]. The first part of that markup before the '|' is the actual link and it tells you where the link will take you. The second part which follows the '|' is what shows up in the hyperlink. In other words when you use the code [[Elizabeth Ann Duke#External links|Elizabeth Ann Duke]] people will see a link to Elizabeth Ann Duke, but because you targeted the link with "Elizabeth Ann Duke#External links" anyone clicking on the blue link will end up in the external links section. The # when used in links is a section indicator. So "#External links" will take you straight to that section of the article. If you just want an ordinary link to a page you should use a direct link such as [[Murder of Serena McKay]]. I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Please fix the links, so then I can see how it was done and I will know how to from now on. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm also fixing the actual bare links in the article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've fixed the bare links in the Serena McKay article. But be aware that I have doubts that most of those links pass WP:NOEL. The relevant information should be in the article with citations linked. So these pages likely serve no real purpose as external links. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have a good suggestion for you. Do you think you could add some entries to List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. I have added many entries, but there are more that need adding. The page gets over 1000 views per day, so it is well worth adding to. I add as many entries at a time that I can, but could use some help. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. If I run across any I will add them, but it's not a subject I deal with a lot. I'm about to start working on the long dormant List of ocean liners. The only place I could even think of looking for names of fugitives would be the US Marshalls website and the FBI's most wanted. I'm assuming that those individuals would be ipso fact notable and probably already have articles. I suggest asking for help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will give you some entries to add when I get them, but right now I am tired as I have been editing all day, I haven't gone out because of the rain. Also thanks for your suggestion which I will use as well. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, could you please add entries from Category:Fugitives wanted by India who aren't on List of fugitives from justice who disappeared to the list. I will contact people from the list you gave me, but can't do so right now as I am going out. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 20:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope things are going well with you Ad Orientem. Despite you closing this AfD only one month ago, User:Scope creep filed another AfD on the same article. Generally, it should be a while before another AfD is filed on the same topic so this seems like WP:Gaming the system. Would you consider closing it? Thanks. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 18:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi 1990'sguy. The previous AfD was not closed as a keep. It was closed as "no consensus" which defaults to keep. Renominations are generally allowed in such cases and I specifically stated as much in my close. If this second discussion ends as another no consensus I would probably encourage a waiting period of at least 12 months before having another go. If the last discussion had closed as an actual Keep I would likely treat this differently. But no, this is not gaming the system and I don't see a good argument for a speedy close. I will however suggest that all of the participants in the previous AfD be pinged. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ad Orientem, for your response. I will ping every editor from the last AfD per your suggestion. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see a single policy-based argument in favor of "delete" in this AfD. Nominator's WP:SPORTSEVENT rationale is invalid and the two delete votes are more or less WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Would like to know your view on how a "clear" consensus was reached. Dee 03 16:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dee03. Including the OP there are 3 comments favoring deletion and one (yours) opposed. You are certainly free to disagree with their rational. I've been there a few times myself. But that is a consensus and I don't think I could have closed the discussion any other way. That said, the article has not been salted so you are free to recreate it. My only caution would be to ensure that the concerns noted in the AfD are clearly addressed in any recreation lest the page end up being speedy deleted. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem, if possible can you please take care of user Priancaa.pri ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sock (sleeper) account of "Allstuffs blogger"‎ that you blocked yesterday per commons:category:sockpuppets of Allstuffs blogger. Thank you. GSS ( talk| c| em) 16:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The user Tbone49, who has had a multitude of issues I've warned them about over the past few months, is edit warring on Tom Walker (singer), claiming that a source says something that it doesn't. I have warned them multiple times but they're not listening to me. Can you please ask them to stop/give an official warning? Thanks. Ss 112 19:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

They have been making unsourced edits like these [13], [14] for months. They have been warned from as far back as May of this year for adding unsourced content by a number of editors. It may nearly be time for a block. Reverting entirely unexplained and unsourced things like this is getting tiring. Ss 112 19:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I dropped them a note. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I am writing to you regarding your AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis. No AfD participants commented specifically about the sources I found. I would like to follow the suggestion of the only AfD participant who commented after I provided the sources, who supported deletion "due [to] its state as WP:CORPSPAM" and who said "That's not to say someone can't re-create the article, properly sourced, and which establishes its notability, possibly using offline sources." I would like to stubify and recreate the article with the sources I found. Is that permitted by your AfD close? Would you move Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis to Draft:Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis? Cunard ( talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done @ Cunard I've draftified the page and the talk page. However it is not to be moved back into the mainspace w/o approval from WP:AfC. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for draftifying the page. Wikipedia:Articles for creation says, "The Articles for Creation process is intended to assist new editors in creating articles. Articles are created as drafts which are then submitted for review."

I am not a new editor. I do not have a conflict with the subject. Would you explain why recreation must require approval from WP:AFC? Why am I not permitted to move the draft back to mainspace when I believe it is ready?

Cunard ( talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@ Cunard... Because the article was just deleted at AfD and yours was the only comment favoring keeping it. I want another set of eyes on that page before it is moved back into the mainspace. Absent that, this could be reasonably seen as an end run around AfD. Sorry but that is a condition of my draftifying the page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

For a few examples, see: 190.58.21.8, 190.58.9.11, 190.58.10.7, 190.58.17.43. Long-term disruption in adding unsourced content, particularly in ratings, and unresponsive to warnings. Amaury • 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

190.58.0.0/19 blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

PeopleEater143 is back with their snark, and fighting with Billiekhalidfan on pop music articles using 2600:387:0:805:0:0:0:86. Geolocates to roughly same area as the other IPs used. Ss 112 23:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Please adjust the page protection settings on the following pages. As discussed at there is clear community consensus that ECP should not apply for "high risk templates" and nothing under WP:ECP supports such protection to this/these template(s) (example: "by request" is insufficient).

• Template:Infobox wildfire‎

Thank you. Buffs ( talk) 16:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Hi Buffs. Per your request I took a look at the template and could not find anything in the editing history that would justify the EC protection. I also tried to look at the RfPP request I was responding to but it is so far back that I could not access it. (RfPP does not archive farther back then seven days due to the volume of requests and edits and when I tried to manually load the page history back to January my browser gave me the Bronx Salute.) Given what I could see and that I don't recall the particulars of the RfPP request, I can't defend that protection level and have accordingly dropped it down to semi-pp. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Buffs ( talk) 19:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this new article substantially the same as the one deleted in August after this AfD which you closed? If so the new one can be CSD'd G4. Pam D 22:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@ PamD Yes. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this something that should be reported someplace? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Onel5969 Yes, and thank you. They have been blocked, their edits revdeled and the people who need to be informed have been. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Ad Orientem. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 03:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad, would you consider actioning this request? Thank you, - FlightTime ( open channel) 18:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you :) - FlightTime ( open channel) 18:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have deleted your ban notice. Sorry to bother you. Just happened to stumble upon the admin discussion. Slywriter ( talk) 02:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Slywriter and thanks for the heads up. They are actually allowed to remove block notices. And in any event it doesn't really matter. They can't unblock themselves and they are indeffed. As long as they don't post anything disruptive on their talk page I am content to ignore them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

As an admin willing to revdel - could you look at these and consider whether they should be revdel'd (and/or whether any other action should be taken)? Thanks! Dorsetonian ( talk) 06:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Dorsetonian, I have blocked the user inderfinitely and protected the page x 3 months. Their edits have been revdeled as purely disruptive. That's it for me. I'm off to bed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 07:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Very many thanks! Dorsetonian ( talk) 07:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

user:MickeyPedia123 attempted to make an edit in the filter log that has me a little concerned. CLCStudent ( talk) 02:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Checking - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 14#Mass rollback of disruptive IP edits...

• 71.57.101.89 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Sorry to keep looping you in on this, but since you've dealt with this twice now, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this new IP iteration when you have a chance. Similar behavior to 96.81.226.65 and Bradley026258, involving unsourced height/drop claims being plastered across article infoboxes and running text. Thanks again! -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 07:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. Both IPs geolocate to the same general area and are likely the same editor. I am going to mass revert their live edits. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is back again using account 64.53.195.227. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 23:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO. For a while, I've seen a trend of editors who appear to do little else on Wikipedia aside from upload images. One of them is AgWoolridge. They replaced my upload of the cover of the latest Tame Impala album, File:Tame Impala - The Slow Rush.png, with a version that has no difference aside from it's the tiniest bit darker—and this is not necessarily a benefit, because a cover being darker can sometimes indicate inferior quality, and for an album cover that was just released, we have no idea what the "preferred" or more common version is. AgWoolridge gave the reason "Colors" and "from the photographer's website", although I have no idea who the photographer is (or if the cover is even a straight photo rather than a design) or where they got this from, because they didn't provide a different source. I have witnessed AgWoolridge do this several times this year already; replace perfectly fine PNGs with their own, with the flimsiest of reasons and I can find no other reason than they find the design aesthetically pleasing, and/or they view their upload log as some kind of gallery of pretty album covers and film posters they can look through. I brought this up with them several months ago to no response.

Now, I upload a fair amount of album covers—some of them are replacements, but really only when the original was a grimy JPG or a JPG with visible compression artefacts on it. One could accuse me of having done this for "aesthetic purposes" as well, except most of the time I don't particularly care for the artist, and in some cases I don't think the album cover looks very nice at all. Sure, some of them are nice, but honestly uploading covers is more of a chore or an inevitability than anything. Uploading a new version of an image with the tiniest bit of brightness difference (and not necessarily "color") is something most editors do not care about, but that's the excuse this editor gives and appears to find it worthwhile spending their time trying to spot. Thankfully, most editors see a cover matching the one used in most places and of decent quality has been uploaded and go on their way, but not this editor, and out of a contributions log of some 6,000 edits, having an upload log of the size they do to me appears to back up what I'm saying. I know there's not a lot of "proof" per se and this is my word against AgWoolridge's contributions, but can you take a look through their contributions/upload history and have a word to this editor if you see what I mean? Thanks. Ss 112 03:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that AgWoolridge has uploaded or replaced all other album covers by the artist, so that also factors into my feeling that their replacing this too is primarily some kind of aesthetic appreciation or "collection" thing to them, which...is really quite sad. Ss 112 04:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112 Have you discussed this with them? Unless its vandalism or grossly disruptive editing, that's the first step. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, yes. Twice now, the second time today, as you can see from their talk page. That's why I was hoping to get your input and to see if you agree, hence to have an administrator tell them an editor's upload log is not supposed to be a collection of images they find aesthetically pleasing. Ss 112 04:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that. Ok I will have a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a short note. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

- Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

(Response to post on my talk page)

Hi Ad Orientem

Thanks for contacting me in a helpful, facilitative manner.

Regarding the article heading and occupation of the subject, the current description ('architect') is inaccurate. Legally a person is not an architect in the UK unless they are appropriately qualified and registered with the ARB. The subject is not. Link to register here ^[1]. This is a simple matter of fact and is easily checked.

With reference to the alternative description of occupation I provided (which was removed); every word I used is implicit from the content of the article so it seemed unnecessary to provide citations (e.g. there are books he has written listed, so it is surely not controversial to refer to him as an 'author'). Is my understanding wrong here?

Best regards, Ace Morgan 12:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemorgan ( talk • contribs)

Hi Acemorgan. As long as there are reliable sources labeling him as an architect you would need reliable sources explicitly contradicting that to challenge the current text. Not being mentioned in a register is not good enough. The term architect is not necessarily a legal term in the article. And in any case your reading of the sources amounts to WP:SYNTH which is a no no. We can't assume something not expressly stated in sources. Thank you for your contributions to the project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. I have come across the editor Cognissonance, who appears to be rather controlling on the article Pitfalls, which they both created and have contributed extensively to. Lk95 added a chart table to the article, which is very in line with how chart tables appear across most song and album articles on Wikipedia (and an improvement compared to the way Cognissonance later changed it to), which Cognissonance took issue with, claiming they "need" to control the sourcing on the article per WP:CITEVAR in this revert. I have sent them a message regarding this on their talk page, saying while CITEVAR means editors get to define where the references appear and the parameters used, it does not mean they "control" things nor that there's a need to revert the use of the album chart template, as the reference the template generates can be invoked using a refname.

While this might have just been poor wording on their part, this controlling behaviour appears to have landed them in hot water in recent months, as they have been warned for edit warring, reported at WP:ANEW, taken to a dispute resolution noticeboard, and also appear to think asking other editors if they are "retarded" is acceptable (an IP editor called them out on this, but there was no response nor input from more experienced editors telling them this behaviour isn't tolerated). If you think it's worth you chiming in, can you have a word to them about all this? I don't really see that they've ever received word from an admin about these things and may have just carried on in their own editing bubble for the years they've been here without getting much notice for these sorts of issues. Thanks. Ss 112 13:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have no idea what this stream-of-consciousness babble in their sandbox is about, but that first sentence seems rather er, troubling? Ss 112 13:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112... I've nominated their sandbox for speedy deletion. Beyond which, I think your note on their talk page covered the salient points and I don't feel a need to add anything. If the problems persist let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please intervene and send a warning to this editor; they have edit warred by reverting me, and they've already reverted Lk95 twice. I can't get through to these people who live in their own bubble on Wikipedia—being here for five years and edit warring any time someone makes a change to their pet project, going around asking people if they're "retarded" and thinking everything on an article they started "needs" to be the way they want it to be. Even if they know of WP:OWN, they never think it applies to them. I can't understand the delusion. Ss 112 23:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

• The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

• A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

---

• 96.81.226.65 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previously-blocked IP has resumed disruptive operations unfortunately. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 06:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)