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.

In response to your cease warning left on my talk page, I encourage you to visit the talk page for Jack Posibiec and engage in the request for consensus which had been left there prior to you leaving this message on my talk page. It is patently disingenuous to leave such a message when the talk page has already been used for this purpose without engaging with the request on that page. Please be mindful of the civility requirements. Thank you. Ihuntrocks ( talk) 13:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) ihuntrocks

Replied on your talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

A note to all who may view the above: The above from me should be stricken, as I was still learning how to participate in the community and acclimating myself to the culture. Thank you. Ihuntrocks ( talk) 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why? Everything is open here and hiding it would smack of deception. We all were newbies here and have made mistakes. Just move on. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 17:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No big deal. We all have posted things that we later regret. I am treating the comment as retracted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Quick question: Since you declared yourself WP:Involved, would it be appropriate to revert the closure of the NPOV noticeboard and BLP noticeboard sections on this subject -- or possibly have another admin do the closure? Not sure what the policy would be there, but it would inarguably seem cleaner with either option. Thank you for the opportunity to keep learning as I go. Ihuntrocks ( talk) 17:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ihuntrocks Hmmm. That's a good question. I was not INVOLVED at the time I closed the discussion but I don't really have an objection if you want to post a new notice. But honestly having multiple discussions in different forums about the same subject is not helpful. My advice would be to just post an FYI to the effect that "there is a discussion at (insert link here) regarding issues related to this noticeboard. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion." That should also protect you from accusations of Forum Shopping or WP:CANVASSING. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been wondering that since yesterday and thought it best to ask. I'm not sure if I'll post any new notices there, but I will consider it. I'm more strongly considering an RfC regarding the WP:Coatrack assertion by MONGO. Of all the things expressed in the discussion so far, that seems to me to have the most validity and offers a lot of room for improvement if the consensus ended up being that the article is a coatrack. I've already expressed my agreement on that issue, so I'd have no reason to comment further outside of asking for more eyeballs and opinions on that potential issue. It's also an RfC that can be worded very easily and completely neutrally as a yes|no with direction to the talk page for discussion. Before I decide to undertake that, would there be any potential issues for me doing that, similar to canvassing or forum shopping, provided it's neutrally worded and straightforward? Ihuntrocks ( talk) 18:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd talk w/ Mongo about an RfC before posting one. As long as you are careful in your wording, I don't see any issues. That said, I'm not going to directly involve myself in the discussion though I am still keeping an eye on it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

DianaRossistheboss is definitely another MJH sock. Started out last month an editor focused on adding unsourced genres to Diana Ross articles, they've predictably moved into genre disputes on old MJH targets like Missy Elliott, Faith Evans, Rihanna and other R&B singers' articles. Ss 112 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also rolled back all of their live "current version" edits. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Keep up the good work! Cheers! Central Time 301 03:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll be using this edit summary in the future (a LOT) [1]. :) — Ched ( talk) 18:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

lol - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User Evrdkmkm that you blocked recently are at it again, edit warring at Sireethorn Leearamwat. Violating 3RR etc. I might be wrong, but I thought I let you know at least.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 08:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ. Thanks for the heads up. This editor has managed to draw a great deal of attention to their self. At the moment I think they are on the radar of several admins. Hopefully they will slow down. Otherwise someone is going to lower the boom on them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I just wanted to let you in on my suspicion that the Delprudensio account is a sock of Evrdkmkm. [ [2]] Exactly the same way of editing articles, and same way of writing messages at talk pages. I leave it at that. Thanks again.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 12:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed both accounts. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

BabbaQ, well that took an interesting turn. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Weird situation indeed. Good that a prolific sock gets exposed. But weird that the other account was not related.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The behavioral similarities are remarkable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And account Sirintipattamas and Paul_012 also edit a lot of the same articles like the blocked sock. And both have been edit warring like the blocked sock at the Sireethorn Leearamwat, especially Paul_012 started reverting the same sentences in that article within minutes of the sock account being blocked. The account uses same edit summaries and same threats of taking action. [3] Anyway it is all very weird. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. This may be of interest as you have already CU blocked Evrdkmkm. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@ BabbaQ: I don't think there is sufficient evidence to tie either of those two users to Golf-ben10 ( talk · contribs · count). If you think otherwise, then you should reopen the SPI and explain why.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

For further examination asap. [4] - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Using The411isthereal, targeting genres on some old targets like Mary J. Blige and Estelle albums, then crossed over to Stormzy articles too. Definitely MariaJaydHicky, who likes to remove genres without explanation but other times keeps one genre sourced to AllMusic in the infobox. Telltale sign. Ss 112 06:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. That was well timed. Just about to call it a night. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, User:U + 1F4AD has created another sockpuppet – User:Javed khan 666. Thier edit pattern is very, very similar. -- Sundostund ( talk) 16:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And, apparently, another one – User:Oahu 1888. -- Sundostund ( talk) 03:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

This user is just outright disruptive. They might make some constructive edits, but they've made a total of nine reverts today in the space of just over two hours on Romance (Camila Cabello album) (see the history). I think that's worth a block, considering they have previously been blocked for disruptive editing and you warned them for vandalism on Megatron (song). This is definitely disruptive and I don't think they should be getting away with just a warning. Ss 112 03:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

It looks like this is at ANI. I will keep an eye on it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, I've commented there, but I don't think any admin is going to block GetawayDress based on that when they should be, otherwise they'll continue edit warring and thinking they can get away with making that many reverts. Ss 112 03:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

So... you want me to do what you think no other admin will do? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, because rarely do I see blocks come about as a result of ANI threads when there's a content dispute at the centre of it and the editor reporting has also reverted several times. It's like most admins don't even want to wade into it—not that I blame them for wanting to sit petty content disputes out, but I think when people have clearly gone over 3RR, been pretty unrepentant about being disruptive and display a proclivity to continue doing so they should be blocked. Anyway, I see that you've blocked them now, so thanks. Ss 112 04:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just discovered the user and I have not seen a more clear-cut case of WP:CIR lately. They create non-notable and poorly formatted articles (two versions of the same children's song Bing Bong Zoo(Peppa Pig song) and Bing Bong Zoo (Peppa Pig song); as well as So Fresh: The Hits of Spring 2016, an Australian compilation album that came out three years ago), drafts that assert no notability at all ( Draft:CG5) incorrectly titled drafts for songs that are entirely not notable ( Draft:Drake(Bart Baker song)), do not know how to format references or wikitables whatsoever (just see this monstrosity), repeatedly cite the WP:USERG lyric website Genius (even though I have just informed them this is not reliable and by linking to, we are linking to a copyright violation). I know they're new but wow, this user has a long way to go to become competent. Ss 112 01:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ad, I'm not sure what the SOP on a situation like this. A hopping IP has been posting thread on various talk pages [5], [6] and [7] and [8]. If Google translate is correct, it might be promotional posting (not really sure). My concern is it's disruptive in a maintenance point of view. Just not sure if we just have to put up with it or what. Thanx - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 02:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Checking. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 176.59.192.0/18 x 1 month for disruptive editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 03:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@ FlightTime Phone: Yeah, the contrib log for that range is just filled with disruptive editing well beyond what you pointed to. Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

-- User:Martin Urbanec ( talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, it says in Ruslan Yamadayev's article that people were convicted with killing him, but it is said to be an unsolved murder also in his article. Is this correct or not, please let know your view on this. Please answer me as the other people who I have asked this to days ago who have not answered me at all. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I see no evidence that the crime is unsolved. It's not listed on the list of unsolved murders. I have removed the See also link. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this person Movladi Baisarov case an unsolved murder or not? The police were able to line up the bullets to whose gun it belonged to, but no one was charged, plus he was also fired at by an unknown person and we don't know what shots that were fired killed him. Wikipedia administrator Daniel Case has told me if no one is charged with the crime then it is unsolved (about other cases, not this one), but I though would check with you to see if you have the same view on this just to be sure. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 07:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd call that one unsolved. Criminal convictions are not always required if reliable sources are stating who is generally known to to have done the killing. But that does not appear to be the case here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

CountyCountry has elected themselves the new Billiekhalidfan in the latter's absence, unilaterally changing what is a single and what is not across multiple different articles today alone. The upkeep in reverting their disruptive edits is getting annoying, and I have told them multiple times on their talk page to propose contentious changes on the article's talk page. They have not listened and have continued with this fast pace of making controversial decisions, so the next step is admin intervention. Can you please have a word to them? And honestly, it only just crossed my mind they could be a sock of Billiekhalidfan. BKF didn't care to dispute their block at all, and coincidentally, CountyCountry has really ramped up their editing after BKF's block, hitting a lot of BKF's favourite articles and just like BKF, they edit through mobile for a lot of their edits. Maybe Bbb23 could have a look? Ss 112 07:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112: I dropped them a line. Let's see what happens. I will take a look at their history tomorrow and see if there is enough to justify asking for a CU. At the moment it is going on 3 AM here and I need some sleep. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 07:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

I'm not sure if you remember me, but back in early October I asked if you could temporarily protect my talk page? you did (thank you) and said that if the problem persisted I could ask you to re-protect it? Well, it's happened another 8 or so times since then (3 in the last few days), as the person/persons continue to change IPs or make new accounts. Could you please protect my talk page again? Thank you, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 10:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 11:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, Gibby1242 returned from their 24-hour block, and immediately resumed their edit-warring. livelikemusic talk! 05:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Livelikemusic: Yeah that is pretty brazen behavior. I have indeffed them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay! Just thought I would've made you aware of their immediate return. livelikemusic talk! 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's another sockpuppet here of User:DJMoore19, who you indefinitely blocked back in September. He doesn't seem to be being particularly disruptive right now, but I'm pretty sure evading a block is a blockable offence. – Pee Jay 17:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. – Pee Jay 18:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we've got another sockpuppet: User:RomanKemp19. The pattern of articles edited and edit summaries is identical. – Pee Jay 14:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. I've also protected the Manchester U article. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't need to really step in here (at least, yet), but would you be able to drop a short note to Jedi94 to not revert to their revision of File:Frozen 2 soundtrack.png again and to instead follow BRD and comment at Talk:Frozen II (soundtrack)? I have already left a message on their talk page, but I'm concerned it may turn into an edit war if they revert again. I know you're not interested in content disputes, but to summarize, my version of the cover is (clearly) the main version as it is used on most main Western streaming services (and I have provided evidence of this). This user has cited an obscure Japanese website as the source for theirs, and that's really one of the only uses of it I can find, so whichever way you want to look at it, that is clearly not the main version. Although I've opened a discussion at the soundtrack page, that may not stop this editor from being stubborn. Thanks. Ss 112 04:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112: This is premature. I read your note and there is no need for my involvement at present. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So if they disregard BRD and revert again...? Ss 112 04:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Then drop them a polite note and remind them about BRD (again) and gently point out that edit warring is a no no. If it goes beyond that, then ping me to the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The user Myxxd either needs a final warning of sorts or a block. This user's sole purpose on Wikipedia appears to be the hype and promotion of their favourite band Westlife (just see the band's main article and how long and overstuffed it is—all, or primarily a result of this user's "efforts" over the past 10 years). The limits of the trivial and either unsourced or poorly sourced information they will add to Westlife articles knows very few bounds. I am far from the only user to raise this with them since at least 2008. Quite recently the user YouarelovedSOmuch has also pointed out this long-term pattern of adding unsourced material in one of the multiple threads/warnings I have left/opened on Myxxd's talk page, and they also came to my talk about it. I have warned Myxxd twice this month alone for adding unsourced material to the article for Westlife's latest album, and SummerPhDv2.0 has also given them multiple warnings this year, with a final warning left back in July. Myxxd makes a half-hearted attempt to add sources for a while until they're no longer under scrutiny, then the fancruft starts creeping back in. Just today, I have reverted them on several articles for starting back adding unsourced content ( [9], [10], [11]). After 10 years, it needs to come to an end. Ss 112 02:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Warning issued. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Using 82.58.186.72, hitting all the old targets listed on User:Ad Orientem/LTA Cardicharts. IP also geolocates to Italy. 01:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I guess just to make it super obvious, they made the account David A. McAuley and restored their edits I reverted on Taki Taki (song) and added a new peak to the article Falling (Trevor Daniel song) that they created using the IP address. Ss 112 12:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. ( T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

I noticed you changed the protection for the Rian Johnson page when you were cleaning up the IP edits. The page was already protected through May (I think, maybe March) because of the constant vandalism. It looks like the change makes it expire today. Is it possible to restore it? Thanks for your help! - Nemov ( talk) 14:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Nemov: After looking at the page history and the long history of protections for disruptive editing, I removed the pending changes protection, and raised the protection level to semi-protected for a period of one year. The protection expires on December 2, 2020. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. I guess I need to work on reading dates. Thanks again. - Nemov ( talk) 17:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Nemov: Nothing to worry about. We have all misread dates before. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. The SNL troll, who you last blocked for 1 year at Special:Contributions/24.227.92.114 and Special:Contributions/74.120.47.82, is now evading the block at Special:Contributions/24.129.175.58. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 18:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, I think that Category:Extraterrestrial superheroes and Category:Superheroes should be merged into one category simple called superheroes. What do you think about this? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I am afraid that I have almost no familiarity with the superhero genre and would be uncomfortable expressing any opinion. Sorry, I realize that is probably not helpful. I suggest you open a merge discussion on a related talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Where can I do that? Could you direct me to that place to do that? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

On Category talk:Extraterrestrial superheroes and post a notice regarding the discussion with a link on Category talk:Superheroes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart: Actually it would be better to open a discussion at WP:CfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Please show me where on the page to do that. I have not used that page before. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 22:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The directions are listed here. Read the intro at the top of the page first. You are going to want a full discussion. If you don't have Twinkle installed, I suggest you do so. Go here for instructions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now added my suggestion to where you told me to put it. I don't know how to open the discussion, could you please do that for me? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 04:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You did it. I tweaked your nom statement a bit and put a merge tag on the category. You had a rename tag there. But it's all good now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I this case Crawford family murder an unsolved murder or not? It says in the article who the people said are who did the murder, but other sources say it is unsolved. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. My gut says no, based on a legal determination by a government inquest. In countries that operate on a legal system closely patterned on the British, coroner's inquests often have legal competency to make those kinds of pronouncements. In Australia a coroner is a legal magistrate. I'd say that from a legal perspective this is not considered an unsolved crime. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 07:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know this, I have now removed the unsolved murder category from it. I don't understand what there was conflicting views on this and why the unsolved murder category was added to the article. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 21:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Some people operate under a mistaken and somewhat legalistic approach, believing that unless someone has been convicted in a court of law, that the crime is unsolved. There can be a lot of reasons why a formal criminal conviction is not possible. But as long as reliable sources indicate who did it and especially if they are citing competent authorities, then it is not really unsolved. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

December 2019

---

Happy Holidays! The end of the year is a time of year for remembrance. We take stock of where we came from, and have a moment to think about where we are going... At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling. May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship. Best Wishes!

---

WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2019
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe
Delivered: 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

As an FYI since you seem to be the only one tracking this, CosmoJustinR ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to David A. McAuley ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki). Another admin thought Cookie234The ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) might be related. Technically they are  Unrelated in my opinion, but if the behaviour is the same and disruptive enough, they might need a block for different reasons. I'll leave it to you. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Cookie234The, that would be a sock of Cardicharts just based on behaviour to me. The "list of nominations received by" pages are their favourite. Edit: However, I've just seen their sandbox, where the Cardicharts IP address edited, and unless they're playing games to fool other people, it looks unlikely. Ss 112 17:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

They're on different continents, and the network Cookie234The is on is one I trust and have never seen as a compromised host. The other account sock account has consistent geolocation across different IPs, but it's a case I'm not that familiar with, so I can't rule anything out, but yeah, technically they look different. TonyBallioni ( talk) 18:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Looks like they've now used another Italy-located IP, 37.227.210.207, to add a chart to the article they created on their 82.xxx.xxx.xxx range IP. Ss 112 14:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Just the one edit. It's probably them, but I need a bit more evidence for a block. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

They're back on 79.20.64.167 with the same attitude on List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj, editing Cardi articles from an Italian IP address. Ss 112 19:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And blocked... again. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Back using 79.21.52.153. Updating a chart on the article they created, Falling (Trevor Daniel song), and adding a chart on a Cardi B article. Is it nearly time for a rangeblock? Ss 112 16:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and page protected. Unfortunately the range is just too wide. Even if it weren't it would be ineffective. History has shown they have no shortage of access to internet connections and I am not going to block Italy. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking that creep 96.248.75.84. I see that you've hidden 13 edits of my talk page. You might as well hide the whole conversation because I was somewhat disruptive too. But he was attacking me, and I had to strike back. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 03:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

When I revdeled their edits your replies were all covered as well. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis as "delete". I have rewritten the draft and asked the DRV community at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 8#Draft:Allen Matkins to approve moving the draft to mainspace. Cunard ( talk) 02:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for the notification. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have tried to expand this article Valdemar Chidondo, but can find almost no information or sources at all. I think it should be deleted unless someone can improve it. Also don't you have the power to restore deleted articles? I will get back to you with more information on that at a later time. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. Assuming the subject actually existed and the cited sources verify the claims made in the stub, he probably passes WP:NSOLDIER. However, if nothing further can be found you can go ahead and WP:MERGE and redirect the page to UNITA. Yes, I can restore pages if there is a legitimate reason. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

One thing that I would like to mention that I went over before is about Davy Crockett (outlaw). Here are two sources that claim he disappeared. ^{[1] [2]} One said he escaped from jail, the other says he "fled". I think there is enough evidence that he went into hiding (disappeared and be called a missing fugitive). Can you confirm this for me? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@ David: There are multiple reliable sources saying he died in 1876. I don't think you can make claims that contradict those sources and present them as definitive. You might be able to mention them as an alternative theory if the sources meet our guidelines in WP:RS. But that's probably as far as I'd go. Also the term "fugitive," unless being used in the past tense, is not appropriate for anyone who obviously is dead. Even if he survived and disappeared into the fog of history, he is obviously long gone. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

What I was asking is did he disappear from jail? I would like to add him to The List of fugitives from justice who disappeared "fugitive who are no longer sought section", as I think that there is enough evidence that he DID disappear, but yes was later killed. I have been told he didn't disappear, but in fact he did. Can you confirm that he in fact did disappear, as I think the sources are adequate enough. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

( edit conflict) x 5... I think you have to weigh your sources against those claiming he was killed. I don't believe you can realistically say he that he clearly escaped and survived. If he was killed, his fugitive status died with him. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. The blocked user Evedentlyuser new account Evervessence728 did the genre warring, notable in Can't Get You Out of My Head, same as before ( [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]) 2402:1980:8240:16C4:870:5229:200D:D37A ( talk) 08:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Music2247 ( talk · contribs · count) Hey Ad, can you try and get this user's attention, they've been here a week and are completely ignoring the multiple warnings on their talk, changing things to what they think it should be and have been asked multiple time to discuss their concerns, but the only thing they're doing on talk pages is complaining about being reverted and not their concerns. Thanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 16:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@ FlightTime: No edits since Onel5969 left them a note on their talk page. If this resumes ping me or take it to AIV. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

They're back. - FlightTime ( open channel) 19:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 24 hrs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you fix this. Thanx, and thank you for what you do :) - FlightTime ( open channel) 23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Not sure if you received a notification, but I pinged you on Commons to request your judgement. Veverve ( talk) 00:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Veverve ( talk) 01:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

NP. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, someone has told me that Damendorf Man should not be classified as an unsolved death and that it is an archaeological discovery of a person who died thousands of years ago with no hope of identification or "case resolution." But if Ötzi can be on the List of unsolved deaths then I think this one should be too, and don't agree with what they said would apply for it being called an unsolved death. Also I have spent hours adding to both the List of unsolved murders and List of unsolved deaths lately and think that any entry added is good to have on it. I think if someone dies and who don't know their identity or what their death cause is then it is unsolved, regardless of how long ago it happened. Please let me know your thoughts on this and if should be called an unsolved death or not. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 06:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. I'm affraid I am more of the view that not every person lacking a death certificate should be classified as "unsolved." And I agree that Ötzi probably should not have that category either. That however is just my opinion and my guess is that the categories are not adequately defined. This may be a good subject for a talk page discussion and possibly a WP:RfC. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Call-out culture. Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You have blocked this IP twice for disruptive editing back in August [21], this editor has returned and still doing the same thing as before. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. This has gotten old. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please block this IP ? THanx, - FlightTime ( open channel) 02:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

NVRMD  Already done - FlightTime ( open channel) 03:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit distracted watching election returns. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologise for, it's called teamwork :) Cheers, - FlightTime ( open channel) 03:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This character Shockwave (Transformers) article was deleted even though he was a major character in the transformers universe. Is there any chance that we can have this page restored? Davidgoodheart ( talk) 02:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi David. You need to discuss this with the deleting admin. That would be Jo-Jo Eumerus. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Umertan was the sockpuppet of a POV-pusher. Can you revert the edit made using the Umertan account? Thanks! Veverve ( talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I reverted any current version edits on their contrib log. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi again,

Could you please protect my talk page again? it has gotten worse. Since the protection expired on 2 December, the IPs have vandalised my talk page another 4 times (on the 8th, 10th, 13th, and 16th). Wonder when they'll stop. — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 02:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@ MelbourneStar: Done. I set the protection to indefinite. However we don't usually like to protect talk pages indefinitely. This was done so the vandals will not know when the protection is expiring. At some point in the next few weeks just drop me a discreet line and we can lift the protection. If this continues again, we may have to consider longer term protection possibly running for months. Hopefully they will get bored and move on. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I have also rangeblocked 188.146.224.0/20 x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It is a pain that it's come to that, but I'll definitely get back to you in a few weeks. Thanks again, — MelbourneStar☆ ^talk 04:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You may wish to revoke talk page access.-- Cahk ( talk) 11:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: Please check out the comment that I made on the Murder of Serena McKay talk page that was removed. Should her history about who people say who the killers are be redacted or not?

Having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

There are two other admins already involved and I'm not going to jump into this. If you disagree with their decisions you should open a discussion on the talk page and ping both of them with your concerns. I would encourage you to be ready to cite policy and or guidelines. WP:NOTCENSORED is the only one I can think of that might help. All of which said I don't have access to the suppressed edits so again, am not going to take a position when I am not in possession of all the relevant facts. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Right off their block, has resumed their inane questioning; just asked one on my talk page (won't engage with them). Nate • ( chatter) 01:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This is getting old. Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Nate • ( chatter) 02:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Specifically 67.129.161.163. Hitting old targets, like List of 2019 albums as well. Ss 112 12:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ad Orientem! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well AO. MarnetteD| Talk 19:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO. I know you're travelling, but the user Damntcsarg appears to basically be a single-purpose account whose sole purpose is to dispute what are singles and what are not. They do not respond to any reverts or talk page messages they have been left. I've warned and reverted this user sufficiently, and explained in reverts/asked them to stop. They have not, and continued to return to Wikipedia every day to restore their contentious changes. Can you please either give them a final warning (as they're disregarding mine) or it may already be time for a block. Thanks. Ss 112 04:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Adapted from {{ Season's Greetings}}

Is back using Cardistann. They're not even trying to hide it with the username this time. Hitting all the same old targets. Ss 112 06:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Edits reverted. Pages created now deleted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi AO. I am fast becoming quite concerned by the edits of TrackerMercurial136. I'm not sure if they're a sockpuppet of a blocked user, as I'm not familiar with socks in the area of Michael Jackson articles (although I assume there are a few), but that has been a suspicion of mine because some of their edits are hard to even assume as good faith. For example, their latest thing is, in the vein of the editors Billiekhalidfan and CountyCountry, removing claims of songs being singles. They've tried to rewrite the past a few times, like on Scream (Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson song) here, claiming that the track "Childhood" is not a double A-side when the name of the song is literally on the cover and the article, before being split, was written as a double A-side. (At the least, there has never been consensus to deem the track a B-side.)

Now they've begun removing sources from articles and then PRODing them, like on Automatic (Prince song) here. Granted, Discogs is a WP:USERG source, but that's not all. They removed a perfectly working/valid source (AllMusic) from this article, then PRODed it. They removed two sources that work entirely fine then PRODed it here (they claimed the second reference "doesn't link to the page" but it works entirely fine). Then we get to the most concerning edits of all. On The Collection (Michael Jackson album), an album that charted quite widely around the world in 2009, they removed a source that they claim doesn't mention the album at all (when it absolutely does) here, then they blanked an entire certifications section when the links all work here, and deleted perfectly valid/sourced chart information here...then proceeded to PROD the article as well. I have no idea what this editor is playing at but it's hard to take several blankings of sourced information across multiple articles in good faith. Ss 112 01:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. It doesn't look like they have edited since you posted your warning. Let's see what develops. Also as an FYI, I will be traveling tomorrow and won't be online most of the day, if at all. I am about to log off so I can pack and get some sleep. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@ Ss112: P.S. You might want to have a look at this thread over on WP:AN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hm, that might be tangentially connected in ways I'm not sure of, but I'm not seeing any obvious connections based on Flyer's original post there. Anyway, will let you know if more develops. Hopefully it's an isolated incident. Ss 112 01:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey AO, hope you're having a good break and Christmas. If/when you get time, can you please issue a final warning to this user. Again, they are disputing what is/is not a single when they have been reverted previously, I have explained previously and already given them sufficient enough warnings. They again reverted the same information yesterday. I reported this to ANV so as to not bother you about it, but as usual, it's too "complex" to be blocked straight-up at ANV. Thanks. Ss 112 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Spread the WikiLove; use {{ subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
	Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi mate, no worries if you've already finished your brief check-in, but we've got another sockpuppet, I believe. Based on edit patterns and usernames, I believe User:DJMaina and User:Riku maina are sockpuppets of User:DJMoore20, and by extension all the other accounts that was a sockpuppet of. Any chance you could deal with them? I'm certain DJMaina is a sock, but I only made the connection to Riku maina based on their username. – Pee Jay 20:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@ PeeJay2K3: DJMaina indeffed as an obvious sock. I have referred Riku maina for confirmation by a CU as this account predates all of the others. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23 ran a CU on Riku maina and found no evidence of socking. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

– North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ren (singer). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. lullabying ( talk) 10:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey,could you have a look at the new version of the map of the territories of the Eastern Orthodox Churches? I believe it is now almost good enough to be published. Veverve ( talk) 19:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The legend is supposed to have all the autocephalous churches in chronogical order of their granting of autocephaly, please check if I there is no mistake concerning this. Veverve ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Veverve. Sorry for the delay. I am currently traveling and will be online irregularly if at all over the next few days. I will try and have a look when I get some time. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Meanwhile, a new version of the draft has been posted. Veverve ( talk) 17:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe the map is now finished, please have a look and give your feedback. Veverve ( talk) 11:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for dealing with persistent IP-hopping vandals threatening violence and randomly removing infoboxes. RandomAct (talk to me) 05:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I misread there being two IPs involved. My bad. El_C 01:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
• A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
• Following a successful RfC, a whitelist is now available for users whose redirects will be autopatrolled by a bot, removing them from the new pages patrol queue. Admins can add such users to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist after a discussion following the guidelines at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist.

Arbitration

• The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
• Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

• This issue marks three full years of the Admin newsletter. Thanks for reading!

---

ICHTHUS

January 2020

---

Happy New Year! At this special time of year, we give thanks for editors like you who have made our Mission easier and our lives more fulfilling. May your New Year be all that you hope for, and may it be sprinkled with love and friendship. Best Wishes!

---

WikiProject Christianity
Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity © Copyleft 2020
Questions • Discussions • Newsroom • Unsubscribe Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey AO, hope you're having/have had a good New Year's. Found another sock of MJH, genre warring using 2020ismyyear right after registering and messing around with genres on other R&B artist articles. Ss 112 07:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Along with that, found a Cardicharts sock adding year-end charts on 95.232.69.250. Started editing out a Cardicharts favourite, Ava Max, then followed with a bunch of Slovenian charts (which Cardicharts has added at length before) and ended with a load of BTS articles. IP geolocates to the exact same area of Italy as the other addresses they've used. If you want to revert all their edits, I'll leave that to you... Ss 112 11:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed both. Current edits reverted. Happy new year. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Another sock of Cardicharts, 95.249.57.222. Same area of IP geolocation, adding year-end charts to a bunch of articles. Edit: They've already moved on to using 79.51.3.180. Ss 112 17:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've reported yet another, 79.31.75.89, to ANV. Ss 112 10:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A few more they've used... 79.20.65.1, 82.60.148.110, 79.41.72.136. Ss 112 16:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

All blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you blocked 2.123.42.107 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) a few days ago. They returned as soon as the block was lifted and are engaging in exactly the same behavior (violating WP:ENGVAR, WP:SUBCAT). Should I bring it up elsewhere or does this work? Best,  Mr.choppers |  ✎  20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 2 weeks. I like original mistakes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they certainly noticed...  Mr.choppers |  ✎  00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL... That may be the best comeback to a block I've ever had directed at me. That's so funny I'm not even going to strip them of their TPA. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that's the right attitude. If I'm ever blocked, I hope you'll be the one to do it.  Mr.choppers |  ✎  13:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, just to notify you that the map is done and has been published. Veverve ( talk) 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome back from your holidays! I just wanted to let you know the I renamed Disappearance of Jorge Müller and Carmen Bueno page as I had added Carmen Bueno middle name to the title, instead of her first name. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Also could you please add an article that I have upgraded to the List of fugitives from justice who disappeared. If so I will give you the article to add. I would really like that. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 00:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart: what article? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This one Kemar Jarrett disappeared April 2002, now captured. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart: The article seems to suggest this individual is no longer a fugitive. Am I misreading something here? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

He belongs in the "fugitives no longer sought section of the article", which is there for that purpose. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 01:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart: I'm not altogether sure that is a useful section. There are so many criminals who were at one point a fugitive that listing even a fraction of them would blow up the article. I think the criteria for that section needs to be sharply narrowed, or perhaps even have the section removed entirely. The criteria as it stands is far too broad. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, the IP 2.123.42.107 which you previously blocked for 3 months has evaded the block as 90.195.54.246. Could you do the same for this one? 120.188.34.201 ( talk) 14:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight but I've added a source for your addition to January 17.

Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Toddst1: Any chance of this being added to the queue for Jan 17 given it is the centenary? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So, I"m not quite sure what you're asking here. Most unsourced additions are being reverted, but given your reputation (as I understand it) as a super-solid core contributor, I fished around and backed up your edit with what I thought was a reliable source. Am I missing something? Cheers! :) Toddst1 ( talk) 04:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Toddst1: Never mind. I worded that badly. I was just trying to get the entry added to the staging for the forthcoming 17 Jan OTD. I went ahead and boldly added it to the staging while removing the Stockton School shooting that has been on the main page multiple times. Thanks for your help with the entry. I am usually more involved at ITN and not as familiar with the OTD side of the page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The talk on 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism has reached a clear consensus. Since you are an admin, not involved into this discussion, and I since from what I understand Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure is to be used only if the consensus is unclear, I contact you to request a closing. Could you move the page 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism to "Moscow–Constantinople schism (2018–present)" and close the RfM? Thanks in advance. Veverve ( talk) 16:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

And... we just lost that consensus, maybe I have been too quick to judge. Veverve ( talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Veverve: Yeah, I'd let that discussion stay open for a little longer. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• TheRedundancy125 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You have warned the above editor repeatedly [22]. I have tried to engage with editor about behavior I consider disruptive and WP:PROMO, and this editor *never* responds to my attempts to engage on his/her talk page. Additionally, the editor almost never uses edit-summaries despite my requesting it. He/she deletes warnings on talk page without archiving and without acknowledging the problem. What can be done? I am concerned this is a WP:SPA or possibly even a paid editor. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I notified the editor of my concerns here. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 19:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@ David Tornheim: Unless the editor is engaging in overt vandalism or something that is nakedly disruptive, my best suggestion is to go to ANI. Make your case. Be concise. State the facts while omitting nothing relevant. But don't go off on tangents. Cite diffs and the applicable WP:PAG. Notify all involved parties on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

AO, that being said, TheRedundancy125 is adding unsourced content now and again ( [23]), and is still extensively editing the same articles while logged out, using IP addresses in the 115.xxx.xxx.xxx range, which I believe you warned them for previously. Ss 112 22:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

User warned - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Category "People who were expelled from school" was deleted. The first thing that I want to know is are you able to get me the names of the people who were on this category. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 23:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Davidgoodheart: I don't think so. However I am not the world's most tech savvy admin. Perhaps Oshwah could provide a more definitive answer. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Davidgoodheart - Dang... That's a good question. I attempted to review the page history as well as the "what links here" special page for a category that's currently being used; neither tools provided the information that you would be looking for. I even restored this category for a brief moment to see if there were any articles that were still within it - there were none. This either means that it was empty at the time of its deletion, or the deleting administrator did his/her due diligence to remove all pages from that category before deleting it. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to look up the category's history and see which articles that were in it, meaning that there's no real way of grabbing that information. You could look through the deleting administrator's contributions at the time he/she deleted the category, and see if they edited articles immediately beforehand to remove the category from them first. If they didn't, it's likely that it was empty when it was deleted. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

​ ​You cannot directly get what was previously in a category. The best you can do is find the edits that emptied the category. In this case it was these edits. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 07:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

JJMC89 - Excellent answer! I learned something new! <3 ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AO. I've just come across the user Mcrrythenight, who looks to be a single-purpose account disputing what is and is not a single from various pop artists' albums (I guess this is a new thing now). They registered only two days ago, and they look very suspicious to me—do you see enough to ask Bbb23 to do a CU? Update: I reported them at ANV for their blankings, and they were blocked for a week, but I still think they might be a sock. Ss 112 14:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Ss112: Their pattern of editing does look suspicious. But just as an fyi, Bbb23 doesn't have a restricted talk page and you don't need to be an admin to let them know if you think something looks dicey. If you think something may need a glance from a CU just drop them a line or a private email (CU requests are one of those things that are sometimes handled discreetly). The same applies to most of the other CUs. They don't bite (usually). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder who "usually" refers to. I only bite when I'm hungry, and I just had a very nice lunch. I suppose Ss112 could be dessert, though... -- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have gone directly to Bbb23 before, particularly when you have been absent or otherwise unable to additionally assess whether you believe the user is suspicious. The only reason I ask is to have a second opinion and another pair of eyes assess what they've been up to so as to rule out whether it's just me thinking something's up, or even something you yourself may recognise and block the editor directly for without need for a CU. Ss 112 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The IP 90.195.54.246 which was previously blocked as 2.123.42.107 has evaded the block again as 2.121.242.151. It seems the IP address is regularly changed over some course of time. Should you continue the block? 125.160.113.76 ( talk) 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. 125.160.113.76 ( talk) 14:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

NP. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

CheatCodes4ever is a blocked sockpuppet with talk page access revoked. They are currently evading their talk page block by instead using the talk page of one of their alternate accounts, User talk:Wiiuplayer. Could you consider revoking talk page access there too? Thanks! Dorsetonian ( talk) 09:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

TPA revoked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Dorsetonian ( talk) 15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Just came across the user Mediafanatic17 leaving summaries like these: [24], [25]. If I even tried to talk to them, I know they wouldn't listen, so could you drop them a line? Thanks. Ss 112 13:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Already warned by Meters. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I edited that article because I am a big fan of ocean liners not sailing ships I hardly know those ships existed please do not revert it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please do not!!!!!!!!!!! I repeat please do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and if you do edit only the ships names not the knickname of the RMS Olympic I put in beside it that was like that in real life Sincerely Luke Starling

@ Luke Starling: This is an encyclopedia and we cover all sorts of things you may not have an interest in. You need to stop blanking sourced material from this or any other article without an explanation that is supported by our community policies and guidelines. This is the third time you have done this and the third time you have been reverted. I understand that you are a new editor but this is disruptive and needs to stop. I have posted a formal warning on your talk page. If this continues you may be blocked from editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Quite sure with the smart-alec attitude and the same location as their previous IPs, 2601:48:8100:9740:8CDD:91CB:685F:C5D1 is a sock of PeopleEater143. Ss 112 02:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, that IP editor updating chart peaks before the chart references have updated is back using 2607:FCC8:FA06:5700:E592:5591:D75A:8DF6. Ss 112 02:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I've issued a warning. I do not remember the details of the previous case, but if this continues report to AIV with a link to the previous IP if available. I am about to sign off for the night. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. The SNL troll, who you last blocked in December at Special:Contributions/24.129.175.58, is now evading the block at Special:Contributions/2603:9000:8D10:C900:8A3:6448:22FF:515C. Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AO. I have concerns about another user being a sock. The user Thisboi99, who earlier this month blanked a significant portion of information from several articles including Halsey discography and other such unexplained edits, has just chimed in to be a smart-alec on Alicia Keys discography after I undid Tbone49's edit there for being WP:OR. By name alone they're definitely connected to their previous account Thatboi99, but do you think it's worth having a CU look into it? For this user to come out of nowhere and (act like they) know what they're doing doesn't seem too likely to be a new editor to me. I also recall warning an IP editor around the time Thatboi99 stopped editing for them to only use one account, so I know they've been using at least one other IP to edit in tandem with. It also seems likely Thisboi99 attempted to back their own edits up using the IP 2001:8A0:73AB:EA00:44DA:C09D:1A01:58A5, and Thatboi99 previously used 140.161.88.35. Ss 112 21:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. This might be worth having a look. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm also thinking they could be a sock of Tbone49, considering they make the same kind of edits to current pop music topics/singers/articles, and they did basically back themselves up at Alicia Keys discography—for a user who had not edited in nine days to come out of nowhere and find that edit seems a little fishy to me, right after I reverted Tbone for it. It might be Tbone's mobile account—Thisboi99 edits almost entirely using Android web edits, and Tbone occasionally does this as well. Ss 112 22:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That was tedious, but it's done.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:W. N. Sangriang is pure spam, however as a user talk page is not eligible for CSD, please revdel the first revision, I will blank shortly, but this should not even be in the revision history.

BTW, I only picked you because your on the list willing to handle these requests, and I saw you were recently active. Thanks 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 02:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done and user indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you please protect Manic (album)? IP editors have been routinely blanking credits and singles for the past month and it's disruptive. It's happened twice today already. I previously requested page protection at WP:ANV, but nothing came of it. Ss 112 22:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done x 2 weeks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, can you protect Treat Myself? Looks like it's become a target of PeopleEater143 since the last IP you blocked of theirs. They've since used 2601:48:8100:9740:BCB0:1553:7E01:7416 and 2601:48:8100:9740:7C87:5653:BA19:3F4B and it doesn't look to be stopping. Ss 112 06:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done x 3 months. Also range blocked 2601:48:8100:9740:0:0:0:0/64 x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 06:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AO. I just tagged you in an edit summary of Talk:Music to Be Murdered By, because this is not the first time the user Nice4What has thought that they get final say on what happens on talk pages or that they can do whatever they like with their own comments and replies to them. They thought I was going off-topic on the talk page, so collapsed my comments in an "extended discussion". I'm well aware this is a common thing, but if there's objections—which there certainly is here, because Nice4What is acting like they own the article—it should not be done. I've removed the collapsed portion and reinstated my reply where it was originally, and replied again. I've pointed them to WP:TALK, but considering Nice4What is also a user who has previously edit warred at my talk page because they thought they could remove them if they later wanted to, I don't think they will understand anything less than an admin informing them of acceptable talk page behaviour. Thanks. Ss 112 20:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the general note on the article talk page, but I don't think that's going to stop Nice4What thinking they can move around other users' comments and do with them what they please. It's more specifically about one user's conduct, not any other user who has commented there. Ss 112 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Ss112: A generally directed polite reminder often resolves issues w/o needing to escalate things. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please revdel 1 and 2, the second was because I tagged before checking the page history, thank you! 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 23:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

and also 3 and 4 from before I blanked it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D ( talk) 23:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done It's spammy but doesn't rise to the level requiring a WP:RevDel. I've issued warnings to both editors. Thanks for your vigilance and other contributions to the project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I wont take away those ships anymore however I will put beside rms Olympic called the Old Reliable because that is true do not threated me with blocking my editing anymore you are just a user like I am Sincerely Luke Starling

@ Luke Starling: Yes, I am en editor just like you in most respects. However I am also an administrator. So while I intensely dislike using it, the community has given me the authority to block disruptive editors. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks you for not blanking rms olympic's knickname I put there

@ Luke Starling: NP. It was a reasonable note. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I read your AN/I response, which I'll mull over. One question, though. How do I deal with The Banner when he insists on making the Balkan Wars part of WW1 in the WW1 casualties article, even though the two are separate? I can't just let him declare the Earth is flat. Is there any recourse? 98.221.136.220 ( talk) 02:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You discuss it with him on the talk page. If you are still unhappy you can seek additional input from other editors. This can be done by requesting a WP:Third Opinion or you can open a WP:RfC. You can also post a neutrally worded request for intput on the talk pages of related wiki projects like WP:Military History. Other suggestions can be found at WP:DR. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Didn't mean to cause a fuss. 98.221.136.220 ( talk) 02:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. It's what I am here for. Seeking advice is almost always better than throwing bombs. ANI is definitely a place to stay away from in all but the rarest cases. One last piece of advice is to consider signing up for a WP:ACCOUNT. There are a number of advantages especially if you plan to edit regularly. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for all my persistent and annoying disruptive editing actions in vandalizing on Wikipedia six months ago. Being blocked from editing for that time period have got me deeply hurt and enraged at all of the world's motion picture, television, home entertainment, and video game companies. Most of all, I am furious at the fact that none of these studios and companies ever cared about the animation for their films and television programs being outsourced to different countries. Of all my concerns about overseas animation, I can still hear anime (Japanese animation) and tokusatsu (Japanese special effects) sound effects from American, Canadian and European productions, whose animation were done in Japan. The examples? These sound effects, especially by Toho, Fizz Sound Creation (then known as Ishida Sound Production), the E&M Planning Center, Swara Productions and Anime Sound Production, are heard in Rankin/Bass' Festival of Family Classics, The Last Unicorn (1982), ThunderCats (1985–1989), SilverHawks and The Comic Strip (1987); Warner Bros.-Seven Arts' Johnny Cypher in Dimension Zero; and DIC Entertainment's Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors and The Care Bears (1985–1988). They're also briefly heard in Warner Bros. Animation's Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League (2001–2004) and two of the various Tom and Jerry direct-to-video films ( The Fast and the Furry and Giant Adventure), among the other western animation properties. It's far too deceiving as they would make those non-anime projects complete anime to fool us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.57.136 ( talk) 06:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, and thanks for taking care of the above sockpuppet. Without having looked closely, I would guess the user and IP are both socks of a veteran problem editor: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qualitee123/Archive. Just an FYI in case we should note it there. Eric ^talk 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the PP will slow them down. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, though for some reason the protection was lifted recently: see Jan 16/20. Not sure how that stuff works, but it seems there was a reason. Do you think I should see about adding the new username and IP to the master's archive? Eric ^talk 15:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it was just a mistake. They probably only intended to remove the extended confirmed and accidentally unprotected the article. See the top thread on their talk page for an explanation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AO. Just randomly, without having done anything to this user, got told to "die" in Hungarian by LB2001 on my talk page, which, when translated, reveals another lovely sentence calling me a "son of a bitch" too. Ss 112 19:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Ss112: That was pretty egregious. I read them the wiki-riot act. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I like when they resort to speaking another language to insult people they know can't speak that language. Weak tbh. Don't know what inspired it, but I think they deserve to be blocked for doing it not once, but twice. Ss 112 02:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I issued a 4IM warning, which I rarely do. But I don't think this was a WP:ZT situation. They have been put on notice. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Brilliant move blocking TYR4264412 indefinitely. No doubt he would have changed the page he was vandalising again once his original block ended, and shutting him off his talk page also helps. He hung himself. I admit to egging him on just a tad and sorry if that was out of order, but I was trying to help make him look like an idiot worthy of perma-block. His last crack was his last mistake. Thanks again. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:4D34:F52E:911D:97BB ( talk) 21:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi AO. You blocked AvatarYoshi indefinitely last month for persistent addition of unsourced content, after which they were unblocked upon appeal, claiming they would never do it again. Two weeks ago, I caught them adding unsourced material and tagged you. They said they would stop again. I just checked on them again today, and the first two things I find: [26], [27]. They've been given enough rope at this point—I just don't think they'll stop. Ss 112 02:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I have requested an explanation for the edits. That said, please don't dog other people's editing. That has gotten you in trouble before. I intensely dislike blocking people who are trying to be constructive in their editing though I do recognize that there are limits to how much latitude we can accord before an incompetent editor becomes a net negative. I may kick this to ANI and request community input. I will think about it pending a reply to my query. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How am I "dogging" their edits? I just told you I had not interacted with them in two weeks, and even then, two weeks ago it was because they edited several K-pop topics on my watchlist. Besides, even if I was "dogging" them, I wouldn't think it was uncalled for, considering you blocked them for persistent addition of unsourced content last month, they have said twice now they would stop adding it, and are still doing it in just the two most recent examples I found. Even admins keep an eye on disruptive and problematic editors, so technically there's a lot of "dogging" going on. I know your opinions differ but I personally don't consider adding unsourced content "constructive", especially if added by a user who has claimed they would stop but have yet to. This is exactly what I said would happen with this editor—they would resume adding unsourced content when they believed you or I had stopped taking notice of them—and I've been proven correct twice now. Ss 112 11:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I just checked on them again today... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

So you're taking my turn or phrase to mean that I'm "dogging" them when I could have just as easily found them again through their edits yesterday to topics I've edited before? Regardless, you are focusing on the entire wrong thing. You'd rather jump to an assumption of me "dogging" what you make sound like some poor editor when I've presented you with proof multiple times now that they've added unsourced content after you told them being unblocked would be their last chance, and you've straight-up ignored it. As I said, even if I were "checking" on them—which is an entire different thing from "dogging", mind you—it would not be undeserved. They're an editor that I think most would agree have had a number of problems that warrants their being checked up on. If you want to make every excuse to avoid blocking an editor who has been given multiple chances and, to use one of your turns of phrase, thumbed their nose at them, then go right ahead. Ss 112 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Indeffed. They have had close to 24 hrs to respond. It's time to move on. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)