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.

Coming back to the discussion (see archive 5):

see your edits at: https://en.wikipedia.org/?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Ad+Orientem&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2017-06-21&end=2017-06-21 ; search for html and then check the block links which have only two bytes deleted. these are all wrong.

mabdul 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In progress. This is going to take a while. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Assuming this technological cluster---- was limited to the 21st of June, I think I fixed them all. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

Last time I posted to In the News someone added [New] to the subject heading, can you tell me how the heading is supposed to be formatted for new posts? "Not an improvement" isn't really an appropriate edit summary for this, I wasn't trying to make an improvement to an article, I was trying to make sure the subheading was formatted correctly. As for not an improvement, your revert destroyed the formatting of the page. I will let you fix it yourself. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 02:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be snippy. I don't recall seeing [New] used in nom headings. It's not usually done. I will look to see if there is a problem with the page formatting. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like any formatting issues at the moment. If there were any they have been fixed. I'm not going to get into a snit over the [New] thing. But I suspect someone will take it down. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to threats, I've protected your talk for a while. Hope that's OK with you. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about protecting the page overnight since some troll seems to have discovered my existence. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Special:Contributions/Mohd Farman King is an older account, blocked indefinitely in June 2017, used by the same individual for the exact same kind of vandalism/promotional spamming, so you might want to hide those edits too. Cheers - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 15:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I revdeled any edits that contained his phone number or other similar information. Some of the edits were just run of the mill spam/disruptive editing and they have long since been reverted. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For single-handedly cleaning out a backlog of nearly 40 requests at RfPP. You deserve a medal, but all I can give you is a barnstar. From the looks of your talk page, you need a bigger cabinet to keep them all in. MelanieN ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and I am starting to think about a subpage for them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Billy Ray Cyrus is still behaving like changes are pending, despite now being semi-protected instead. Is there a way for the PC to be shut off, or is this behavior normal? Home Lander ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, I was about to take this up with you and explain why I chose indef protection. This is one of those rare cases where it may be the best solution. The vandal is someone with their finger on the modem, one single person with nothing better to do, and since you and I have no more power than the subject of the BLP in tracking people down, this may be the only thing we can do. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. That particular type of vandalism tends to move me immediately in the direction of long term solutions as the vandals have an unpleasant tendency to being persistent. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You protected the featured article with the message "Routine protection for Today's Featured Article." But it is not routine. Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection is clear that the article should generally be unprotected. I was unable to find any recent discussion on the topic. 172.58.136.18 ( talk) 03:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection removed After a closer read I think you are correct. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ad Orientem. Would you be able to keep an eye on/have a word to the user Exposur? I'm not sure if they will come back to dispute the established order of genres on Melodrama (Lorde album), but just asking preemptively. They opened a discussion on the talk page of the article last month with the opinion that the album should have electropop first but have not achieved consensus. I understand this may appear to be a minor thing, but all they appear to have done since registering in February of this year is contend genres on album and song pages and are still doing so after receiving several warnings. They have also added unsourced genres, such as here. Their edits on the Lorde album page also came not long after an IP changed the order of the genres, and it looked suspicious. I warned them if this was them editing under an IP to not do so and that they could be blocked for sockpuppetry, but just thinking a word from an admin might stop them from doing so again. Thanks. Ss 112 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have re-opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Action at WASPI as there seems to be a bunch of work going on elsewhere at cross purposes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Fans of Frankie Grande are refusing to allow me to mention that a TV special he did was low-rated, cited false reasons of notability, accusing a reliable source of being unreliable, and claiming I am starting an edit war when they have no justification for removing other than wanting to treat his page as one with positive spin. The success and failure of projects is often mentioned for artists as it affects their careers and the projects require funding. Example Elaine May's page mentions that Ishtar (film) was a critical failure. Can you please assist so I can properly note (with my reliable source) that Grande's TV special "Worst.Post.Ever" was low-rated. One of the users immediately resorted to calling me an 'idiot' in their edit summary and threatened to report me. Thanks Ad! Sdfakjdfjklklasdf ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sdfakjdfjklklasdf. This looks like a content dispute to me. Looking at the article talk page I see no attempt to engage in a discussion. That's the first step. See also WP:DR. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Fans of recently concluded drama keeps on removing reliably sourced information in an attempt to whitewash the poor reception of the show. Edit wars and removal of content by IPs: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history 84.211.2.64 ( talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Is this Sdfakjdfjklklasdf by chance? If so, please be careful to avoid editing while logged out as an IP address. In a content dispute this might be seen as trying to stack the discussion via sockpuppetry. Beyond which, again we are talking about a content dispute. Please attempt to engage with the other editor(s) on the talk page before seeking outside intervention. There is lots of useful advice on dispute resolution in WP:DR. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit wars continue. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history 171.4.105.230 ( talk) 02:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, those are more likely sockpuppets/proxies of User:Bertrand101. See: [1] [2] [3] [4] and more recently, [5] [6] (both not blocked yet, but I suspect them to also be socks). They refuse to engage with other editors when it comes to making controversial changes, and always resort to using IPs to ask admins to protect pages when they see people opposing their viewpoints. Just my two cents. 192.228.176.168 ( talk) 11:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. When the full protection on " Maryam Mirzakhani" ends, may you please re-enable original semi-protection? Thanks. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I left it in place, but if not I will restore it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Less than one hour left until the protection ends... -- George Ho ( talk) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If you need specific links if you're not quite sure about what to remove from public view, don't hesitate to ask.

Could you be so kind as to revision delete all versions and diffs that show "User A, User B, and User C" followed by text? Here is where it was started by me: [7]. Scroll down a bit. (Again, if you need more specific links, don't hesitate to ask.) One of the users in question whose name I didn't reveal seems to think it's an invasion of privacy even though nothing private was revealed and it was general banter, just to avoid drama, I'm honoring and respecting their wishes of wanting it to be removed. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amaury. Are all of the edits that need revdelling located in the section "Okay, then..."? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK that makes it easier. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them all. If I missed any just send me the diff link. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So I completely goofed up when I answered your question. I think misunderstood it as I was somehow thinking of where the content was rather than where it was shown. The content itself is in that mentioned section, but there are plenty of other versions and diffs where it can be seen. All revisions and diffs between the link above, which was already RevDev'd, and my new section last night (including it) also show that stuff. Here are two screenshots to make it totally easy. I've highlighted everything that shouldn't be clickable: http://imgur.com/ra3KEbi and http://imgur.com/OKLKJzm

I am so, so, so sorry for the trouble. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK I think I'm going to just go and revdel pretty much everything from your initial post (already done) up to where you deleted that thread (also already revdelled). - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. Thank you so much, and sorry again for any trouble. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of edits from other users in here. Are you sure the talk page proprietor and the others are all onboard with this? I don't want to step on anyone's toes with a mass revdel on an editor's talk page and have them complain about it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H, any issues with this or no problems at all? This of course isn't deleting any comments, it's just making it so we can't view diffs or the version the page was at when your comments were made. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

My comments were in context of what is being deleted so remove at will. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands... we are talking about a mass revdel of a large chunk of the talk page history. All of those comments would disappear. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about the revdels, but I do understand that there were privacy issues with other people's comments from outside of Wikipedia being added to my talk page. But yeah, to make it publicly inaccessible, all the revisions as far back as when these were added on July 9 will need to be revdeled. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I've revdeled all of the likely contaminated edits. Hopefully this resolves the problem. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) The edit stamped 06:08 July 9 (UTC) still is accessible, and is another revision that contains the discussion from these people. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) Thanks, AO! By the way, you did happen to miss this one, really good considering how many you did. That will solve the problem perfectly. Thanks so much. You're awesome! Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

OK I think that's it. And it was not any trouble, just part of the job. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you possibly look into the disruption that is occurring at this article? There seems to be a content dispute, and I wonder if a temporary full protection would be necessary. Thanks. 223.204.104.51 ( talk) 00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that unrelated vandalism has also occurred on the article amidst the back-and-forth content dispute issues, which might be why pending changes is currently set on the article. 223.204.104.51 ( talk) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This does indeed look like a content dispute but it doesn't look out of control. In fact the PC is probably helping to put a break on what might otherwise be a lot of edit warring. I think the situation is OK for now but if things get really crazy drop me a line. Thanks for keeping an eye out. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's odd, they were just blocked for 2 months by a proxy bot... 70.114.244.46 ( talk) 04:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That likely means that 182.253.123.19 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a proxy as well... 70.114.244.46 ( talk) 04:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hrs and I've protected the article talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind disabling 82.97.255.128 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s talkpage? Also rev-del the edit summaries on their talkpage as well... 70.114.244.46 ( talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Also bumped 182's block to 3 months and disabled their talk page editing rights. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

They're attacking me now from 78.187.113.240 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS). Will likely need to set another 3 month block. 70.114.244.46 ( talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months and I've protected your talk page. Obviously this will also effect your ability to post there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL I just saw that they called me a Communist. What a herb. If there is an admin whose politics are farther to the right than mine, I'm not aware of it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI I'm about to go to bed and I've had to temporarily protect my talk page. This should be short term but if you need any admin help post on ANI or AN. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Nice job clearing out the backlog at WP:RFPP. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This editor's block expired yesterday, and the problems with their editing promptly resumed. One of the first things they did was to create an article on Phathana Phommathep with serious undue weight problems, since Das osmnezz based the article primarily on a puff-piece published by FourFourTwo. They've continued to use needlessly flowery language, describing football matches with wide margins of victory as an "obliteration" in Phathana Phommathep, and as an "annihilation" and a "demolishing" in Eric Williams (football coach). In Sam Schweingruber, they describe the start of a corruption scandal as "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder". All told, I think this editor still does not understand what POV is, and their English is too poor to be able to maintain a neutral tone. I think we're left with no choice but to block them indefinitely. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... This is like a bad cold that I just can't get rid of. Have you tried engaging them on their talk page? I really would prefer not to indef the guy less than a day after coming off block. But if this continues then, I will do what needs to be done. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I haven't, and frankly I'm done engaging this editor. I don't know how many warnings and several blocks later, and this continues to be problem? I don't think this is something the editor can fix, at least in the short term, and no amount of engagement will change that. Just because I tell them that there is a problem, isn't going to magically improve their grasp on the English language. All that will really accomplish is creating more cleanup work for us the long run. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Das osmnezz: You have been back for all of a day and are already causing trouble. If you are blocked again, it will almost certainly be indefinite. I don't know what more to say. You can be the most well intentioned editor but WP:CIR is not negotiable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And they've done it again. With this edit they've reverted my attempt fix the undue weight problems with this article, and reintroduce quotes from the aforementioned puff-piece. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This looks more like a run of the mill content dispute. The problem with adopting an "I'm done with engagement..." is that it makes it very hard to resolve low level disputes. It also becomes very hard to help new editors who have some shortcomings improve. If you disagree and think he should be indeffed take it to WP:ANI. But this seems like weak tea to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed. Here we have an editor who, immediately after coming off a lengthy block, resumes the disruptive behaviour that got them blocked in the first place, and you do nothing? The problem continues and you continue to do nothing? Anything I could say to them I already have several times over to no affect. You yourself say that you don't know what more to say to them, but then tell me off for not engaging? I hate to say it, but I expected better from. Anyway, I've taken the matter to WP:ANI as suggested. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry your not happy with my response. I've posted a comment on the ANI thread, which I do think is the best course for this situation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed you have edited this article in the somewhat recent past. There's an IP/SPA editor who is posting accusations & now verging into WP:NPA territory - they are posting at a rapid rate so who knows what they've posted since I started here. But this article & its talkpage have a tendency be a hornets' nest so would like some backup around before I decide to wade in. (FYI: I have also posted this message at Czar's talkpage.) Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just dropped a note before noticing yours which is quite good. Hopefully this will resolve the prolem. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Alas it did not. I've blocked them for 48 hrs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you missed an account when blocking/semi-protecting the article. 114.191.5.119 ( talk) 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And another User:Nsnsnsnnsnsnnsnsnnsnsnsnnsns. 114.191.5.119 ( talk) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again... got it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• 153.107.192.207 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Did you mean to block this IP for 2 days, or 2 years...? Cheers. 153.221.67.231 ( talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Good catch. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Good evening, I would like to challenge the ruling of these articles June 2017 deletion and I would like to ask for its full restoration of said articles. The individual that falsely filed for these articles deletion was vindictive against this organization due to some controversial acts that this individual's wrestling promotion took part of. I believe that this matter of said individual abused the right to file an article both based on false pretenses and out of spite shall not go unpunished. Will you consider restoring the following articles listed above and punish the person that filed for its deletion for no reason? Thanks!

 Not done I'm sorry but the articles in question were deleted following a community discussion which can be found here. This was not done unilaterally and two other editors concurred with the nomination. For me to overturn an AfD I would need some form of compelling reason. The argument you presented above based on accusations, without evidence, of bad faith on the part of the nominator does not meet that standard. If you wish to appeal the deletion further you may file that appeal at WP:DELREV. However I must advise you as an experienced editor that I think it extremely unlikely that such an appeal would be successful. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I decided to request a global block for this IP, but in the process of compiling evidence, I discovered that the IP's already been globally blocked. You should be fine now, unless the operator decides to go IP-hopping. Nyttend ( talk) 01:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good news. Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the "In The News" column of Wikipedia. But, can you assign the photo of Ram Nath Kovind in place of Lula Da Silva? I assume that you haven't assigned it earlier because the previous image had poor quality but now an user had uploaded a better quality of image and its used in the article by now. Please check and update the ITN.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.58.79.67 ( talk) 02:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I missed this AfD completely, article may not have been tagged for the wikiproject. Can you do a WP:REFUND to my userspace? Thanks. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Which AfD/article are we talking about? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Montanabw: ? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, whoops... [8] A horse race. I think it's salvagable, but I need to see what was in it originally. We have a lot of stubs at WP horse racing that need improvement. This might be one of them... Montanabw ^(talk) 06:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done See User:Montanabw/Black Gold Stakes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at the three accounts (DeniseJZ, Jessehr, and Kebawl). I see a lot of edit warring between these accounts, but I don't see anything obvious to where I can take action based off of behaviors alone. Usual things I look for depend on the situation. In this situation where multiple accounts are editing one article (and appear to be single-purpose), I tend to look for things such as "revert stacking" (or an account restoring content after a user removes content by another), an account being created and resuming the same behavior after another one is blocked or warned multiple times, as well as other things. I think the probability of sock puppetry is definitely plausible. Meat puppetry is something I'd consider even more plausible, too. I'd say create the SPI, list the evidence you found and the similarities between these accounts, and go from there. Let me know if you have any questions or need help with anything else. I'll be happy to do so :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I was going to create an article about Intacct when I found that a previous article about them had been deleted. I know there are a fairly substantial vendor of finance software. I was going to create a stub article with some general corporate information using the Infobox organization template. I can't see the full reason(s) of why the original article was deleted other than it being advertising. I should add that I'm not connected to Intacct in any way. Could you explain the reasons why the article was deleted? I don't want to create an article if a consensus was already reached about Intacct's notability. Thanks. Seaweed ( talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:NOPROMO, but it was done as a Prod. So if you want to give a shot at recreating the article taking care to observe that policy, I don't tnhink it would be an issue. I'd suggest doing it as a draft and then submit it to WP:AFC. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Seaweed ( talk) 16:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please restore football player Filip Balaj, you removed his page in April, but now he plays fully professional league. http://ulk.futbalnet.sk/zapas/278869/

 Done per WP:REFUND. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @ Sir Sputnik. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice that you blocked Wanye2004 ( talk · contribs) as WP:NOTHERE in response to the complaint brought up at ANI. However, it seems that he's actually a sock of Wanye04, which he has reverted back to using. –  Train2104 ( t •  c) 02:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Referred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wanye04. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Ad Orientem. See you around at Dorothy Kilgallen, probably. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Cullen328: Haha that was one of the biggest time sinks I've dealt with on here. It went on and on for years. Happily the tin foil hat editing has mostly stopped since I put up the edit notice. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but all the drive by editors know for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was totally innocent! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Starbucks6789 continues to try to edit articles and articles' protection has expired. See recent ones at /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B111:8406:A14F:7E16:1500:EAB9. Need lock term lock on Real World: Ex-Plosion (they tried to edit on the 14th), The Challenge: Rivals, The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II, The Challenge XXX: Dirty 30, The Challenge: Invasion of the Champions, Ink Master (season 9) (tried to sockpuppet talk to editor about getting changes), Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Battle of the Sexes, and Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Battle of the Seasons. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok I've protected a couple of these where I have a high degree of confidence about the socking. But most of them I'm not sufficiently up on either the article subjects or the socks to be able to identify malicious editing disguised as legitimate edits. I suggest you take these to RfPP or NinjaRobotPirate who I think has more experience with these subjects. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Starbucks6789 should be gone for the next six days. I got fed up with his disruption and did a pretty wide range block yesterday. That's why some of these articles weren't protected yet – I figured it was easier to range block him than go around chasing after his IP socks and semi-protecting every article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Like - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe they are back as 93.142.170.130 since that IP edited the The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II elimination chart to remove DQ and then did some Challenge XXX edits. However, I am not positive if it is them. Can Exes II please get indefinite protection? Sdfakjdfjklklasdf ( talk)

@ NinjaRobotPirate: was this in your range block? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Starbucks6789 mostly uses 2600:1008:B1* ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) (you have turn on the range contribs gadget in Preferences→Gadgets→Advanced for this to work). As far as I can tell, this is 2600:1008:b100::/41, which I've range blocked a few times. I've also done range blocks on 192.173.192.0/18. According to my notes, all his range blocks have timed out. My notes also say his IP addresses geolocate to Verizon Wireless in Illinois, Spectrum in Wisconsin, or NetNet in Wisconsin. So, if the IP address is from the Midwestern US, edits reality TV shows obsessively, and edit wars over table formatting, it's definitely him. 93.142.170.130 geolocates to Croatia, which means it's probably not him. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't block as I'm involved, but this [9] is too much. Thanks for the protection. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 24 hrs - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And mere seconds later... an IP which I blocked for vandalising both Talk:Moors and Rickin Baltimore's talk page. Being involved isn't a suicide pact. But the talk page may need protecting and I'm too involved to do that. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Page protected x 48 hrs. And I agree. Obviously disruptive editing has always been a recognized exception to INVOLVED. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It would have been stupid for me to wait, the IP would only have done more damage. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And I've extended the blocks on the IPs to a month though I doubt it will be effective. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw that you protected Lust for Life on July 11 here. However, some stuff escalated and another admin made it to completely blocked for all users the other day, and that protection ended on July 24. The article is now completely unprotected now. I don't know what happened to the protection you put up. Can it be restored? Thanks -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Persistent removal of sourced content 112.119.93.68 ( talk) 11:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Emperor:_Owner_of_the_Mask&action=history

 Declined Not enough recent activity to justify page protection. However I have blocked the two accounts for obvious sockpuppetry. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I've (belatedly) taken your suggestion of AfD for Shaharir Mohamad Zain as I believe the addition of a wordpress article and journal articles by the subject not about the subject don't meet the requirements to remove the BLPPROD. Thought I should let you know, Cabayi ( talk) 20:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That's probably where this should be resolved. I just took another look at the version of the article at the time I declined the BLPProd and there are a number of sources listed that I was not, and am not able to express an opinion on as their passing WP:RS. Under the circumstances AfD is the right place for this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

On 27 March, you put the Extended confirmed protection: at the Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map because of the high level of conflicting changes and IP-vandalism. link But due to the congestion of this module we divided it into two parts. So now its second part Module:Syrian Civil War overview map without of any protection. So I ask you also put the Extended confirmed protection: for this new module. I applied for protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection But request was declined. link Mehmedsons ( talk) 12:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Declined If my memory has not failed me that protection was applied due to an ongoing problem with disruptive editing. I am not aware of any current or recent issues with the new article. And as Anarchyte has quite correctly pointed out, we do not protect pages preemptively. If/when the article is subjected to a high level of disruptive editing, file another request at RfPP. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok! But if some of the blocked users just will create a new account then they can be again make of any edits at Module:Syrian Civil War overview map and it will affected the correctness of the data in the Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map Because both of these modules are interrelated and use one template Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Maybe there is still an opportunity to at least put a temporary protection for Module:Syrian Civil War overview map? Mehmedsons ( talk) 13:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

And you are a good know how many probles was with it at past. After all, if one module which had many problems (high level of IP vandalsm and conflicting changes) was divided into two interconnected parts, then why can not to divided the protection for both of them? Why wait for problems if they can be avoided! Mehmedsons ( talk) 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We will just have to take that chance. Our guidelines do not permit preemptive protection except in a very few cases mostly covered by ARBCOM decisions. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

But we good know that similar things already happened many times at past and will happen again. It's only a matter of time. We already have an example of conflicting edit - your can see it lnk But what happen when many of such IP-users to learn that the module is not protected. Mehmedsons ( talk) 13:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Sorry I missed the easier route with the review process. -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Everything is good now. Happy editing! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This user: BushidoBrown is at it again and I saw you previously blocked him. He is making dozens of edits that are unnecessary and unsourced - stuff he's already been warned about. I can't report him for vandalism so hopefully you can help. Thanks -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@ Sergecross73: are you available to do this? The user (BushidoBrown) keeps changing things that do not need to be changed. -- Jennica✿ / ^talk 12:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sergecross73 for handling that. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Algiers expedition (1541). Legobot ( talk) 04:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep protecting List of The Loud House episodes?! --71.250.208.140 20:35, 24 July 2017

Because the article has been the subject of very persistent disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL SOCKPUPPETS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B013:A074:810D:C99B:1047:41F8 ( talk) 14:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{( first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed ( permalink).
• An RfC ( permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

Please, could you protect Sam Hunt single " Body Like a Back Road", in the last weeks, a lot of IP users and accounts are changing the genres without a source, if you can, thank you. ( 24.41.228.188 ( talk) 16:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC) )

Hey anon. AO is currently on Wikibreak. You might want to try WP:RFPP instead. TimothyJosephWood 16:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem I would like to inform you that an administrator by the name GySgtHartman is making edits on this wiki page ( MTA bridge and tunnels ), he has an external relationship with the people, places, or things that he writes about in the article which is a COI. He is an employee of this agency. GysgtHartman keeps removing fact base updates IE: In 2017 New Yorks Governor Commo placed NY State Police and NY National Guard at every inner city crossing to enforce all police and Conterterrorist function. Also they are approximately 525 Tbta officers not 700. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7083:8100:8EE:4A6F:BE34:DC5C ( talk) 02:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem I would like to inform you that an administrator by the name GySgtHartman is making edits on this wiki page ( MTA bridge and tunnels ), he has an external relationship with the people, places, or things that he writes about in the article which is a COI. He is an employee of this agency. GysgtHartman keeps removing fact base updates IE: In 2017 New Yorks Governor Commo placed NY State Police and NY National Guard at every inner city crossing to enforce all police and Conterterrorist function. Also they are approximately 525 Tbta officers not 700. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-transformational-plan-reimagine-new-york-s-bridges-and-tunnels-21st Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7083:8100:8EE:4A6F:BE34:DC5C ( talk) 03:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fans keep on white-washing the reception section, even adding copy-pasted, plagiarized content repeatedly despite other editors removing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Real_(2017_film)&action=history ShaneShaneShame ( talk) 00:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi ShaneShaneShame. Sorry but I am on an extended wiki-break and am not currently functioning as an admin. If you need help with page protection please go to WP:RFPP. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You think Carmen Melendez was abusing accounts?

Hello. As an admin, would you mind merging Lightning Source within Ingram Content Group please? I don't think we need a badly cited article about a business unit. (We could also possibly merge both within Ingram Industries, with subsections?) Zigzig20s ( talk) 22:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zigzig20s. I am currently on an extended wikibreak and won't be doing much on here before the end of September at the earliest. If you need help with an admin related issue please post your request at WP:ANI. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Turkey. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You were in favor of blocking user Jobas. Please be aware that a user with the name Jobas is currently active on WIKIPEDIA , once again edit warring for example on ia.wikipedia.org..also once again on a page that has reliigion as a topic. Grsd ( talk) 14:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

To be more precise , this user is reinserting unsourced and incorrect material that has been deleted succesfully from the English WIKIPEDIA (reason not compliant with WIKI rules). The edit warring is done by spreading this unsourced map over many different pages over many different languages. . Grsd ( talk) 20:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Grsd. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you, but I am currently on an extended wikibreak and am not functioning as an admin. I would encourage you to seek assistance either at WP:ANI by contacting another admin. If memory has not failed Doug Weller was involved with this. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Grsd, if this is happening on another language's Wikipedia, we have no way to deal with it, contact their Admins. If you wish to discuss this further, please do it on my talk page. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You have to not edit for 30 days for to add that template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B01F:A500:CD64:9343:753E:3EBB ( talk) 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Exodus. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature ( more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

I have restored Draft:Gala Porras-Kim as a draft to be improved further, per request.-- Pharos ( talk) 18:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 keeps removing sourced content for an unsourced genre on Unapologetic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DE55:6400:C154:36A7:D632:51F5 ( talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ad Orientem. I would like to request for undeletion of a page - Asian Institute of Finance. Would you be able to advise on what went wrong and how can we get this page back up? And is it possible for me to send the draft to you first before submitting it on wikipedia again? Asian Institute of Finance is a not to profit think-tank which was established by the Central Bank of Malaysia and Securities Commission of Malaysia to enhance human capital development and talent management across the financial services industry in Asia. This page will be informative to those from the financial services industry and students focusing on this topic. Do let me know how this can be done. Looking forward to your favorable reply. -- Sandrapriya ( talk) 01:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Sandrapriya. I am currently in an extended WP:Wikibreak. During this time I am not functioning as an administrator which means I do not have the admin tools at my disposal. As such I cannot undelete any articles. I did however review the deletion discussion where there was a clear, near unanimous, consensus in favor of deletion. Undeletion via WP:DELREV does not look like a good option. That said, if you think that you can remedy the issues cited which mostly appear to involve referencing and encyclopedic notability, see also WP:GNG and WP:ORG, you can always submit a WP:DRAFT to WP:AFC for review. Other experienced editors will then look it over and let you know if there are issues that need correction before it is posted to the mainspace. Please be sure to include a note on the draft talk page alerting reviewing editors to the fact an article with that name has previously been deleted. I would also strongly advise against simply recreating the article without going through AFC first. If it is believed that that the newly recreated article has the same issues as before it would likely be nominated for speedy deletion. Further, given its history of repeated deletion the article name might well be salted to prevent recreation by anyone other than an admin. I hope this helps. Please be aware that I am only online once or twice a week and therefor messages posted to me may not receive a timely response. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for assisting on this matter and I wish for a speedy recovery for your mother. I will correct the issues on this particular page and follow the steps suggested. Thank you again. Sincerely Sandrapriya ( talk) 08:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine). Legobot ( talk) 04:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Starting this weekend I will be on on extended wiki-break. Mom, who is in advanced years, is going in for some serious surgery . Recovery time is expected to run from one to two months. During that period I will be moving in to help out. Unfortunate;y mom lives in the middle of nowhere. Actually, she lives in a valley in the middle of nowhere. There are not even any cell towers that reach there. The only available 21st century communication links are via satellite which in the case of internet is prohibitively expensive. So the bottom-line is that for the next month or two I will be relocating to the year 1975. The twenty-first century is about a 25 minute drive from her house. Now I will be checking in with the modern world from time to time, but not daily and when I do it's likely to be for brief periods. I've given this some thought and come to the conclusion that I can't function as an admin under these conditions. There's just no way I could guarantee anything close to a timely response to any questions about any admin action I did take much less urgent requests for help. And so I will be temporary;y handing in my superhero suit this weekend. Hopefully the crats can have it dry cleaned while I'm off grid. This hasn't happened yet, but I did want to give everyone a heads up. I will also post a notice at the top of the page when the time comes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope all goes well and she enjoys a speedy recovery. Cabayi ( talk) 21:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Prayers and best wishes to you and her. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I hope that the surgery goes smoothly, that she recovers promptly, and that you return to active editing as soon as possible. Enjoy your visit to the past. Buy a stack of books and bunch of index cards. Write references on the cards and add them to the encyclopedia in a few months. There is no deadline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to recruit someone who is around, and who doesn't yet have a checkered janitorial past to keep up with, and designate them as someone who can follow up on any moppy things that come up. You know what? Speak of the devil. There's Cullen328. He might do the trick.

Other than that, here's hoping for a swift recovery, and we'll see you soon. TimothyJosephWood 01:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I will post updates here when I am getting ready to make the big move. Books! I need books! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, should you be interested in academic religious history, I have several I could throw your way. Early modern Spanish mysticism and related matters. Also a few Sci-Fi. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have a reading list that should get me through my off grid vacation. I am currently plowing through Viscount Norwich's three volume history of the Eastern Roman Empire. After that I have Peter Wilson's history of the Holy Roman Empire. Somewhere along the line I'd like to read Karl Rove's history of the 1896 election which I do not currently have a copy of. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

All sound interesting. The last book I bought was Mariano Gagnon's on the Shinning Path conflict in Peru. Actually for the Wikipedia article because it was only $5 used on Amazon. Ended up being an autographed copy by the guy who I had helped write the biography on, which was pretty neat. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet beyond the bits needed for the article, but really should. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I too hope your mom's surgery goes well and you have an uneventful 1975. Pro tip from someone who lived through it: try to refrain from redecorating with avocado or brown appliances and rugs, and above all, no disco music. ;-) Katie ^talk 22:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I wish your mother well and hope everything will be fine. Also, one needs to take wikibreaks from time to time.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 14:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Good luck, Ad Orientem - hope everything goes smoothly. You both have my best wishes. GAB ^gab 00:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck, AO. Hope everything goes well, Spencer ^{T♦ C} 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Best wishes to you and your family. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I always peruse the list of de-sysops, and almost always see names I don't recognize because they've been inactive for years. Yours was an exception which brought me to this page. Here's hoping the surgery goes well and you are able to return. You will be missed.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck with everything! Samsara 09:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope everything goes fine with Mom. Take care. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Best of luck to the both of you! -- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 07:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words. Hope your family situation is going well too! Cheers, ansh 666 23:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Galkayo. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I'm pleased to see you back. Just an FYI that the SNL troll is back again: 24.73.197.194 ( talk · contribs). Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 15:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 blocked x 1 year - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your friendly message, but I have to ask: doesn't 3RR only apply when more than three reverts are made in a 24-hour period? Not that I'm trying to justify edit warring, but I thought that was the rule. Regardless, it seems that ExitiumNL doesn't give a shit about working collaboratively here. He reverted me again only an hour ago! – Pee Jay 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:PeeJay2K3. This is a pretty clear case of edit warring. The 3 revert per 24 hrs is a bright line, but it is not exclusive of obvious slow motion edit warring. It does appear to me that the other party is behaving in a rather "I don't give a bleep" manner and I have issued a formal warning to that end. In the meantime I suggest opening a discussion on the talk page and possibly posting an FYI notice on any related wiki-projects. Be careful to keep the notice neutral in its language so as not to run afoul of WP:CANVASSING. See also WP:DR for other suggestions. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've opted to post an expanded version of my research regarding the club's name at Talk:1994–95 UEFA Champions League rather than calling for reinforcements from WP:FOOTY at this point. – Pee Jay 22:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: this difference [10], the warnings can be found here. I wonder how many final warnings does a login user need to be considered disruptive (at least)?-- Jetstreamer  ^Talk 23:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jetstreamer. The most recent warning I found was from 18 months ago which is definitely stale. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I've left a four-level warning at the user's talk page in order to refresh their memory.-- Jetstreamer  ^Talk 19:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving a note rather than templated warning. Unless the issue is on the level of naked vandalism or something similar going straight to a level 4 warning might be seen as overkill at best, and possibly as a rather rude failure to AGF at worst. Just a suggestion... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called " edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

In the time since you issued your final warning, the user went on to create Draft:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as it clearly serves no helpful purpose whatsoever given List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films is already in the mainspace (and a FA to boot) if you could please help with that. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, glad to see you're back editing (at least part-time). Anyway, would you please be able to help me keep an eye on Slow Hands (Niall Horan song)? I reverted the editor Solitude6nv5 there last month, and didn't notice they had removed a sourced genre until quite recently. They reverted again earlier, and I have asked/told them to discuss it at least twice now. They strangely claimed that a Billboard writer is "hardly a reliable source". From their history I see that they edit war over genres quite frequently, and they appear to not be getting the message that controversial changes should be discussed. Can you please have a word to them if you get time? Thanks. Ss 112 00:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there's an IP sockpuppet going around in the Die Hard series. Each of the vandalizing in the film articles are used by the IP user that starts with 46.99 with two different list section of numbers. Look at the editing history in Die Hard 2, Die Hard with a Vengeance and Live Free or Die Hard if you want to see for yourself since I don't know how to report sockpuppets because it's too complex for me to do. BattleshipMan ( talk) 16:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

 Protected x 2 weeks - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for clearing the recent request for page protection backlog! Your efforts are very much appreciated! RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 23:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jacet512 who you blocked last week for disruptive editing is at it again.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 06:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) I took the liberty and indeffed as a clear case of not here. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey again, Ad Orientem. Can you please ask the user Theo Mandela to open a discussion before altering or removing genres in future? I believe I've asked them three times now, and they've refused to listen. They open discussions on other users' talk pages, but refuse to open one on the article talk page where others can see it taking place. Generally they are a pretty helpful user, but I just discovered after I had a disagreement over what to do with said genres on several pages last week, they waited several days then asked another user or two their opinions, then disputed genres again while avoiding the talk page altogether. Thought they were over it, but apparently not. They seem to have a strange approach to editing—they don't appear to edit according to their opinions or guidelines necessarily, they ask others what they think then take this on as their own opinion and believe this qualifies as consensus. Ss 112 14:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• 97.68.139.170 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Hey,

Just a heads up that you and another admin conflicted different block durations for this IP address. And since the other admin got to it first, you may want to switch it back to their block. Thanks. 198.236.58.11 ( talk) 14:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I happened to notice that in the page history after the comment became part of the large revdel (reason for revdel unknown to me). Obviously I can't know what your comment said, but I'll take a shot at a response anyway. I had reasoned that the words alone were probably enough clue (e.g. "in exhaustive detail"), but I made it small as another one. Lesson learned, I'll try to be more explicit with my very rare uses of satire. ― Mandruss  ☎ 15:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your wording was fine. My reading of it was less so. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

More

Regarding maturity, maybe you're not aware that Macon has said to at least three users recently, "I'm done talking to you!" - like an adolescent girl. That, in addition to insisting on restoring the trolling part of the user's "vote". ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

In my experience those who resort to the argumentum ad hominem almost always end up damaging their own position in a discussion or debate, irrespective of the merits of their case. Now I really do think it's time to move on. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Four, actually: Beyond My Ken, Bus Stop, Medeis, and me. Ideally, issues between users should be settled on their talk pages. Unfortunately, by stonewalling users from his talk page, he encourages more-publicly-visible criticisms... which he then calls "hounding". ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect the page persistent sockpuppet editing by User:MariaJaydHicky? 115.164.184.232 ( talk) 17:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Declined Sorry but a couple of edits from close to three weeks ago are not enough to justify page protection. If this becomes a persistent issue come back or report it to WP:RFPP. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Some wine for you!

You have beaten me to three blocks on AIV and made the exact same edit I was going to make. And I thought Widr was bad (at putting me out of a job, that is)! Come, let us celebrate with some red wine! And let's hope you get too drunk and too hungover to use your mop so all the blocks are mi— wait that wasn't supposed to be public... aww snap!) — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 00:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

In vino veritas.  :-) - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for interceding with the edit war on LCC2017. My intent was not to engage in edit warring, however during the process of filling out the article, I found my revisions (which matched years-old ones on related pages for older LCC pages) were consistently being reverted by doktorb and Galloglass. I've proposed a solution in the article's talk page, which appears to be a compromise that meets the needs of both sides. All edits made since then have simply been to maintain the status quo and revert edits that have been made by those who are actively ignoring the article talk page.

Thanks!

- bulgaroon 20:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you are handling this on the talk page. Just remember that edit warring is wrong even when you are right. The only acceptable reasons for it are reversion of naked vandalism, serious BLP violations and reverting unambiguous copyright violations. Welcome again and thanks for your contributions to the project. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have locked the article just a few minutes after my changes were reverted again. If you take a look at the article talk page, I have provided several examples of every single 2017 County Council election following the exact same format that my edit did. As such, the article is now locked on a format that does not match every corresponding article for that election. Given how quiet the talk page has gone, it concerns me that you may have inadvertently been weaponised as a way of closing down the discussion in favour of those reverting my edits, and since it's now locked in their preferred version, and they want no further information added, I'm concerned that I may never see a meaningful reply to on the talk page again. Would you please consider reverting to my last edit, which does indeed match all of the other county council results? I also have more edits in the works which finish off the article in its entirety, and bring it up to par with the corresponding 2017 county council election results, which I'll now be unable to apply. - Bulgaroon ( talk) 02:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bulgaroon. Please see WP:WRONGVERSION. I'm not being weaponized by anyone. I'm putting the breaks on an edit war, and maybe saving one or more editors from getting a block. Discuss this on the talk page. If needed post a WP:RFC. Once there is a consensus you can move forward. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. You can also post a neutrally worded request for comment at WP:UK. Let them know about the discussion and provide a link for them to follow. Just be careful with the wording so as not to run afoul of WP:CANVASSING. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm a fairly new editor, so I'd be in your debt if you could advise me on when it would become appropriate to do so? I'm obviously keen to simply resolve it in the talk page, but I suspect that I'm barking up the wrong tree. I'm currently looking at 2-3 days of no replies from editors who have both been online in that time. I've also no idea on what the correct process for invoking WP:UK would be. Is it simply a case of adding it to the talk page for WP:UK? - Bulgaroon ( talk) 02:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:UK is the wikiproject for all things UK related. All you need to do is start a new discussion thread on the project talk page Put in an appropriate title to let editors know there is some controversy over at the article, offer a few details, keep the wording neutral and ask interested editors to join the discussion. Provide a link. You might want to consider joining that project if you plan to work on UK related articles. You can also post an RFC on the actual talk page thread. There are instructions at the link. ( WP:RFC). Let me know if you need more help. It's getting late here but I am online a great deal so I will get back to you, if not instantly. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

That was a brilliant speech - and it worked wonders. I wish I had that talent (and patience) instead of being a cantankerous old bugger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Some whiskey for you. Thank you too for the rambling. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. Thanks for your help with editors who don't seem to understand consensus is required with substantial changes they've made that have been reverted, but I've come across another: the user SamWinchester000 on the article Natasha Bedingfield discography. They are adding notes beneath singles that say "this song was on two different albums". This is against discography style, and I don't think other editors care or that this is significant. I've reverted them twice and asked them to discuss on their talk page. Can you maybe send one of your nicely worded messages to them? Thanks. Ss 112 13:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)<

Never mind, that user stopped and started discussing. Can you maybe look into the user 2601:c0:c401:c1b0:556b:ee80:7e49:486a and their edits at Demi Lovato discography? I reported it at ANI and I was told it was a "content dispute"; however, the user is invoking a reference that doesn't contain the information they're claiming is at it and persisting; that's addition of unsourced content and disruption. Ss 112 16:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk page. This doesn't look like deliberate disruptive editing to me and I think we should try to lower the tone a bit. I have encouraged them to discuss this on the article talk page. Beyond which I am reluctant to go around an ANI discussion. If you think there is a further need for admin intervention ping me to the ANI discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant reported it at ANV. Ss 112 17:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You recently protected Thor: Ragnarok. Would it be possible for you to extend the protection as it high-profile film that is about to be released and as such it is prone to disruptive edits? Thanks.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 20:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia, so I don't really know how the schematics work. But could you please explain how I could continue to add information to Thor: Ragnarok with it being a protected page? WikiTeen1000 ( talk) 20:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiTeen1000 and welcome to Wikipedia. You can make requested edits on pages that you are not currently able to edit, or which you should not be editing for some reason (i.e. WP:COI). See WP:ER for insrtuctions on how to do that. Feel free to drop me a line if you need any help. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel like it could be in danger of AfD. I was not even aware that there was such a thing as a 98-character copyvio. But, now I'm getting a final warning. (Shrugs)

It kind of makes me wonder what Moldbug's views on intellectual property are. He seems to be a fan of the Austrian school, and I don't see a copyright notice on his blog, but on the other hand, I also don't see that he has released his work into the Creative Commons either. Oh, I notice he does write:

Four, freedom of industry. As long as they are not making weapons to assault each other, Fnargites can build anything they like any time for any reason. Fnargland is also not beholden to any patent monopolies. "Intellectual property" does not increase the value of FnargCo's real estate - quite the contrary.

Does that count as fair use, or did I just commit a 308-character copyvio, which presumably would be ~3.14285714286 times as bad as a 98-character copyvio, which spookily enough happens to be an approximation of π? Smooth alligator ( talk) 01:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright is one of the things we take uber seriously. The editor you want to go to for all questions on copyright is TonyBallioni. My general rule of thumb for copyright is unless you know beyond reasonable doubt that you have permission or it's in the public domain... just don't. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The usual IP is back; pp? Anmccaff ( talk) 04:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Anmccaff ( talk) 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your manner in correcting me during an edit in a polite way - and being helpful with the welcome to WP guides. Thanks again. CalorusRex ( talk) 01:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. Happy editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientum, the IP you blocked yesterday is evading the block and is continuing to stalk my edits simply to revert. Any ideas? Cassianto ^Talk 17:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cassianto. I suggest going to ANI and ask for a range block. I'm not sure if that's an option given that it might involve a fairly wide range but you can always ask. In the meantime I will treat anymore of this stalking as a zero tolerance issue and will block w/o warning. Let me know if/when it resumes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping... Zzuuzz - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Much thanks. It seems Zzuuzz has now blocked them. Much appreciated to both. Cassianto ^Talk 18:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

IP editor back again We hope ( talk) 11:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked and article protected x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :) We hope ( talk) 12:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I don't know if you've ever heard of the long-term disruptive sockpuppeteer MariaJaydHicky or blocked any of their accounts, but it appears they've returned and are back focusing on Grace Jones' album articles again with the account BorninJamaica. They're giving false edit summaries about "overlinking" or "major tidy up" (typical MariaJaydHicky diversions) while simultaneously changing genres to funnily enough again, genres MariaJaydHicky socks previously added to the page. Their new account name also seems like a typical MariaJaydHicky account name, positioning themselves as coming from Jamaica(?). They also only registered yesterday. Also, if you think they're a WP:DUCK, do you think the Jones album articles they've edited should be protected at all? Ss 112 09:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey never mind, they've been blocked by Favonian now. However, I'm not sure if MariaJaydHicky will use another account to try to restore their edits on the articles. They've just used an IP address on Island Life as well. Ss 112 10:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

blocked and pp added.

Thanks for that, and thanks for the barnstar. However, now I'm concerned that the user "Fleurpower" is MariaJaydHicky. They registered late last month and are targeting genres on all the usual MJH haunts, trying to make it look like they're concerned about proper sourcing. The name is very similar to past MJH accounts, and they also edited Grace Jones just the other day, before the above account and IP targeted her albums. They've also targeted Cherish, Mary J. Blige, Janet Jackson, Fergie and Mariah Carey articles, which seem to be dead giveaways. Half their edits are reverting others. Very much a WP:DUCK case. Ss 112 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 12:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. Hope things are good at your end. I would like to ask for your kind assistance to review the page I have re-drafted - Asian Institute of Finance. How can this be done and how do I submit the details to you? Appreciate your help and advise on this matter. Sandrapriya ( talk) 08:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sandrapriya. Can you provide me with a link to your draft? Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ad Orientem. Thank you very much for getting back to me. Please do view my draft at Draft:Asian_Institute_of_Finance and I truly appreciate your time to advise me on this matter. Sandrapriya ( talk) 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Ad Orientem. I wanted to discuss the AIV report I made. I understand why you declined my report there. I first became aware of this editor when I responded to this Help Me request. I knew that this was a borderline case but their edit history did seem to show an editing pattern "...deliberately intended to obstruct..." I am hesitating to bring this to AN or ANI because the nature of the disruption does not seem to be either emergent, or serious, or controversial enough to require it. Given that they are not confining themselves to any recognizable field, it seems clear that their only field of editing is a poor attempt at some type of millennialist Christian witnessing by a person with marginal English skills. Either that or the type of word salad characteristic of schizophrenia. Given the location in Botswana, I suspect the former. I guess my question is: why is it not possible to merely block them as a regular administrative action? Their edit pattern shows that a short-term block is not likely to be noticed, never mind effective. It is not a huge record of disruption, but why allow it to continue at all? Thanks for your help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

After looking at their editing history I am obliged to agree that it has not been constructive. I am posting a warning on their talk page. If this continues, drop me a line and I will block them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. The warning was very well-phrased. I will try to keep you informed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Ad Orientem, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightly mad 04:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I've had several conflicts with the user BlaccCrab, and it still appears that when they are reverted, they would rather edit war than open a discussion on the talk page. Someone added a single to Bebe Rexha discography, and they removed it claiming it wasn't a single despite two reliable sources calling it one. I reverted them, saying we have two sources. It's been going on since then. I asked them to take it to the talk page, they've refused and removed it again. I know you generally don't want to get into things like this, but perhaps you can get through to them with a warning. They've been blocked and warned in the past, I don't know what else there is left to do to tell this user the correct course of action. Ss 112 09:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a general note on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi After your protection, the iP have continued. Could you apply pending change ? -- Panam2014 ( talk) 18:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Pending changes protected x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you plan on warning Ss112 too? Because not only are Jennica and him wrong about those edits, but Ss112 was also edit warring. Or are you going to do what other editors have done and blatantly show bias towards him just because he's been here longer than I have. BlaccCrab ( talk) 19:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't warned anyone formally. I was asked to look into the situation and I saw some problematic editing that I felt warranted a general caution on the subject of edit warring. This was posted on the talk page of the article, not anyone's user talk page, and I issued courtesy pings to editors who I felt would benefit from my word of caution. I believe Ss112 was included in that list of pings. It is my hope that everyone will take what I wrote as friendly council and proceed accordingly. In closing I will also gently suggest that adopting a somewhat less confrontational tone in talk page discussions is much more likely to help your case. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to drop me a line here. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

And I restored your message to the article talk page after it was inappropriately removed. -- Jezebel's Ponyo ^{bons mots} 20:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. Thanks JP. BlaccCrab we do not edit or remove other editor's comments from talk page discussions unless they are purely disruptive. In general that is considered a specie of disruptive editing. Doing so with an Admin's comments is especially unwise and is not likely to end well. I am going to cut you some slack here because I do realize that you are a newer editor but please slow down and take a deep breath. No one is out to get you but we have guidelines here governing how we interact with one another. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS if you have not already. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If you all want false information on a discography page and want to scold me for removing a warning that i've already read so be it. I'm so tired of longtime editors being able to do whatever they want and just get their buddies from 2006 to jump in 10 seconds later. BlaccCrab ( talk) 20:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A few quick points. First you are not the final arbiter of what is and is not factually accurate here. Secondly that was a general note posted on an article talk page. It was not addressed exclusively to you. Editors do have (within reason) a certain amount of latitude over their own talk pages, but no one has the right to unilaterally alter or redact anyone else's comments in general discussions. Frankly your lack of WP:AGF and unwillingness to engage in a collegial manner is beginning to raise concerns with me. If you continue to move about the project with this chip on your shoulder I fear you are not going to last here. I'm really not trying to be harsh, but you seem to be looking for excuses for your acerbic behavior. Please stop. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay first off, I intern at radio and work in the music industry so i'm certainly more of an arbiter than the joke that is People Magazine. Second of all, while i'm tired of all of you being condescending, i did actually think that the warning was on my talk page so I apologize for that. As for you thinking I'm "not going to last" or someone calling me a "newer editor", I've been here for 4 years. Spare me. BlaccCrab ( talk) 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Not sure why I thought you were new. My mistake. That said if you have been here for four years, then you should know how things work around here. I will pass over the removal of the note given your explanation which I think is completely understandable. But you need to put a lid on the snark. Seriously. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:08, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I wish certain other editors would see that I just want to be talked to as an equal rather than a pupil. BlaccCrab ( talk) 21:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoguryeoHistorian, we seem to have a named account that has continued on the edit-warring of a couple of IPs. They appear to all be operated by the same person. What would you advise I do here, if I wanted to issue blocks? Thanks, GAB ^gab 19:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi GAB. First the inevitable disclaimer. I have limited expeience with SPI and am not a check user. But if Alex Shih smells socks, and you think there is enough behavioral evidence to support a WP:DUCK block, let's just say I trust your judgement. It looks like it to me. But If you have any doubts I'd suggest waiting for a check user report. You might also ask Oshwa who has some experience with behavioral evidence. But yeah my sock radar is pinging big time here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I meant more in terms of appropriate block length, but your advice is sound. GAB ^gab 00:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I definitely misread your question. You have handled it though. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi GAB. I noticed that GoguryeoHistorian is still being a pain in the @$$ and since I misread your earlier message I figured I give you my 2 cents now. My gut says this one is going to continue to evade their block. The next time around I'd just indeff them. If IP block evasion continues you can always look at a range block assuming the IP's are sufficiently related. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I did rangeblock them. GAB ^gab 17:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Like - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ad Orientem. To avoid a long, drawn-out SPI case, I thought I'd ask if you could look into this, as it seems fairly obvious. I've previously talked with the user Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, who was also aware that the user Hadji87 has been using IP accounts, sometimes using them in tandem with their main account, to restore articles and make disruptive edits/edit war. Most recently, they tried to make Revenge (Pink song) into a full article again, using the IP 86.180.183.239 after the article was redirected by another user for failing WP:NSONGS. I noticed and redirected it again, and was reverted by Hadji87 yesterday. The IP address also attempted to make Faking It (song) into an article, despite this also failing notability. They then added several links to the article, and several minutes later, Hadji87 added the same to a protected article. This user primarily edits UK chart-related articles, and usually always uses IPs beginning with 86. They've received warnings from Starcheers not to do this all through this year, and I've reverted them in the past and asked them not to as well. I've lost track of the 86-range IPs I've warned on their talk pages/reverted in the past few months. Hadji has also been blocked for edit warring and warned not to as well, so I think the disruption aspect is clear, but if you could take a look and see what you think, it would be appreciated. Ss 112 14:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Final Warning issued on their talk page. If you see anymore of this drop me a line. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at user Koala15? Seems to be doing the same things he's been warned for in the past. Not responding to talk and keeps reverting changes that seem valid, without providing a reason. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Koala15 Fowleral ( talk) 16:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in their recent editing history that appears disruptive. Are there any specific edits you have in mind? I will however agree that it's impolite to revert edits w/o an explanation unless we are talking about naked vandalism. Courtesy ping Koala15. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

87.13.43.207 ( talk) 19:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey again AO. I understand that sometimes you don't like to "warn" established editors or much of the like, but I'm saying this in anticipation I'm almost certain to happen. The user Walter Görlitz yesterday made superficial changes to an article presumably on their watchlist— NF (rapper), inserting blank lines underneath every heading that do not need to be there. Previously, Walter, Jennica and I had a dispute on a Twenty One Pilots article about this sort of spacing, and Walter ends up inserting this type of spacing into articles that he edits quite frequently because "it's what Wikipedia generates on a talk page", despite the fact that none of this particular article was automatically generated and was all typed out—with none of those spaces originally there. I am almost certain that Walter Görlitz, a user very quick to revert and jump into edit wars against any changes they disagree with, will revert me. As you may be able to get through to them being an admin, can you please send them a message saying when they are reverted, to take their changes to the talk page and discuss? I understand it's probably a trivial issue but it would be appreciated. Ss 112 13:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Monitoring... This disagreement looks mainly to be over style to me. Have you had a conversation with Walter about this? A friendly note on a talk page can go a long ways towards reaching an amicable understanding when there are minor differences over editing practices. And yes, I do try to avoid going straight to warnings or blocks when addressing a problem, with some obvious exceptions. Going directly to a warning or writing testy edit summaries over what are almost certainly good faith edits can cause bad feelings including resentment. On the other hand, sometimes you gotta do what ya gotta do. In the case of Hadji87 that you brought to my attention there was clear evidence of socking and bad faith editing which I responded to with what I thought was a very strongly worded warning. It has become my experience that this job has a lot of aspects to it. But of all the traits I believe most essential, I would put tact and restraint at the top of the list. Yes, knowing when to drop the hammer is important. But knowing when not to, and understanding the importance of erring on the side of AGF is much more important. If this gets out of hand feel free to drop me a line. Just remember that civility and common courtesy are probably 75% of the formula for successful dispute resolution. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, around the time of the first disagreement I dropped Walter a line on his talk page, but the warring continued and there were no real compromises. Thanks for monitoring the situation though. Ss 112 17:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Duh. That was fairly obvious. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to figure out whether you've recently edited my talk page (as the history suggests), along with The Frankfurt School's talk page Talk:Frankfurt_School, or whether it's the work of a manipulative rogue editor who appears to be disguising their edit summaries in vague language and threats in order to get away with performing a political re-structuring of Wikpedia articles all over the place. Can you please have a look and clarify "your" statements with me? -- Jobrot ( talk) 14:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jobrot. I haven't edited your talk page or the article talk page since July. It appears that {{u|Chas. Caltrop}} copied the text from your talk page and posted it on the article talk page. I am not seeing why they would so this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I suspect their actions are some sort of strange intimidation tactic. This user has a very strange editing style. Their edit summaries are mostly duplicates of each other, they appear to have little use for consensus and have been re-structuring articles to their liking since April 2016. I'm attempting to write it all up at AN/I now. Thanks again for your helping out with my confusion. -- Jobrot ( talk) 14:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. ANI may well be the best place for this if you have not been able to engage them in a productive discussion about their editing. -- Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO, would you be able to keep an eye on the IP 213.205.251.52? They've been getting a bit worked up over at Flicker (album), where I reverted their rewording of a sentence as it ended up repeating itself, then they restored it talking about how them being reverted is "edit warring"...? I've run into this London-based IP editor on a Sam Smith article before, where it appeared they preferred saying what they wanted to say in edit summaries rather than on talk pages. Ss 112 11:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. Sorry I did not respond more quickly. The last day or so has been a bit hectic. However I did look earlier today (yesterday on wiki time) and things seemed under control. If that changes let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I posted at another admin's page as well, but you are online as well. Can you please take a look at this Special:Diff/808129416 and do something about it?I asked him to strike and he refused and doubled down. It is unacceptable to call someone racist (or say racist diatribe) merely for having a different viewpoint. Thanks Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've revdelled the attack and posted a warning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I don't know if it's a glitch, but it's still visible on the page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I revdelled the attack in the ITN discussion. I am not going to do that on their talk page for now. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

That's what I meant. It's still on the ITN page. If you open up the discussion, it's still there. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've posted a request for intervention at ANI. Because I am INVOLVED there are limits to what I can do here. However it looks like Oshwa is taking a hand. I would encourage you to discuss this with him. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem - You only redacted the revision that added the comment. It's still on the page and hasn't been removed. If you meant to redact the comment entirely, you need to remove it and then rev del all revisions with the comment present. What this that you were trying to do? I don't want to step on any toes in case this wasn't... ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Oshwa. Yeah it was and I saw after the fact that there will have to be a bunch of revdels. However as you have hatted the discussion and I am INVOLVED, I think I am just going to step back from this. Both Cullen and I dropped warnings on CosmicAdventure's talk page. Hopefully things will calm down now. Thanks for throwing some cold water on this little fire. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I feel okay redacting the comment, as I only acted in an administrative manner to moderate the discussion. I'll take care of it. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I received a notification that you had deleted the article on Andrea_R_Canaan as an A7, however I looked at the sourcing with my other account (Tokyogirl79) and it doesn't really qualify for an A7 based on the assertions (work has been published in academic texts) and because this source by Rutgers University Press covers one of her poems. Granted if this was at AfD this source wouldn't be enough by itself to save the article, but it does give an in-depth enough look to where it'd be seen as an independent, reliable source.

A quick look for sources suggests that she might likely pass notability guidelines (she and/or her work are discussed here, here, here, here). This is more just something I'm adding in order to argue for page restoration, as I wouldn't really be comfortable arguing for a page to be restored if there wasn't at least a chance it would pass notability guidelines.

I will definitely make sure to talk to the student and let them know to better source articles before making them live and moving on to the next task as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 15:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Restored. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)