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.

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

why you delete my page edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shramik vikas sangathan ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The page was deleted per the criteria in WP:CSD A7. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The current title hs conveniently omitted an thus it means it occupies a different space altogether. See /info/en/?search=Pacho_Entertainment. vs the newly created one /info/en/?search=Pacho_Entertaiment. Could be WP:GAMING. Kagundu Talk To Me

N Deleted per CSD G4. Thanks for the clarification. I have also blocked the author who looks like a WP:PROMO only account. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. This has been going on for years and on several platforms. We know the identity of this person now and appropriate measures are being taken outside of Wikipedia. Sad that because of these characters WP has turned into a joke. It's hard to take it seriously these days. The solution is to ban all anonymous IPs but I've never seen a debate on that. 87.13.43.207 ( talk) 19:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There was a time when I favored requiring registration to edit here, and an argument can in fact be made to that end. But we really have gotten a lot better at dealing with vandalism of the sort that disproportionately comes from IPs. Bots and the like are very quick to pick up on it and of course anti-vandalism patrollers do excellent work. It is also fairly easy to revert it, block the IPs and where necessary, to protect pages that are persistent targets. We also need to remember that Wikipedia is not drowning in new editors. Probably half of our constructive editing comes from IPs. I wish that they would all register, but alas, we are where we are. Anyways, thanks for your work on here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. I've tried to build constructive articles for many years, but now I gave up, spending most of my time managing this one particular problem person with a fixation and obsession for the Docker article. I ended up resorting to sarcasm which is quite sad to be honest, but the more serious and engaging you try to be the more nonsense appears. Anyway, let's hope the block puts an end to most of it. 87.13.43.207 ( talk) 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

There has been occasional spillage to other articles, but I haven't seen any for a while. Feel free to drop me a line if you spot any of it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

it's like this everyday, mostly obsessional editsw about articles, or libelous connections to Uday Hussein or other lovely dictators. The "spillage" is not occasional, I've been reverting stuff pretty much every week for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=John_Payne_(singer)&action=history 87.13.42.210 ( talk) 23:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of France, as was descended from Hughes Capet, had changed its laws over the millennia of its existence, however the succession the Capetian monarchy was singularly governed by Salic Law. When this practice was usurped in favor of constitutional succession, the last vestige of the Kingdom was lost, and thus a new nation was created. This new government came to be known as the French Kingdom under the elected monarch, Louis Philippe d'Orleans. Regiis Rosis ( talk) 18:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Umm...? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon, I was the anonymous character who repeatedly edited the Kingdom of France page to exclude mention of the French Kingdom. - Regiis Rosis ( talk) 18:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. Unfortunately we require that all claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial must have a citation to an independent reliable source. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Would the dissolution of Salic Law, the foundational succession law of the Kingdom of France, not validate a separation? - Regiis Rosis ( talk) 19:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As a legitimist, I agree entirely. But neither my opinion, nor yours, matters. We repeat what is reported in reliable secondary sources. Nothing more. You should read some guidelines like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTTRUTH. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Poodur Mallaiah he's an well known artist in telangana, no one recognized his talent, b'coz he's from the village , and from the uneducated family too. recently i was small research on him & his talent , he is an amazing talented & well known person in very villages in telangana.

 Declined The article cited no sources, made no credible claim of importance and was grossly promotional in its wording. We do not accept original research. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed a severe lacking of clerics infoboxes across Wikipedia. Do we not enshrine past bishops and cardinals in their respective boxes? - Regiis Rosis ( talk) 17:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Provided there is enough sourced background to fill in the boxes, I favor using them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to drop a quick note here saying thanks and apologies for not looking over the warnings more carefully. I noticed the nearly 100 messages/subsections, many of them with months as the subheading and I had a momentary brain freeze as to the fact that the months could symbolize templates other than warnings. So anywho, thanks for pointing that out and I'll be sure to observe the warnings more carefully next time! :) Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 02:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. We all miss things now and then. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad,

I strongly object to you deleting the page Draft:BredaPhoto (for which I have no back-up) and I request that you restore the page immediately! I submitted the page for review and I received helpful feedback with which I agree and for which I showed my appreciation. In its current form, the page is unsuitable to be moved to the 'main' space. I have spent some time collecting independent (international) references to add to the page and I fully intended to edit the page to make it much more objective and much less promotional.

I don't know who you are or why you personally felt it necessary to completely delete the draft page which was 'work in progress'.

I hope you will reconsider and restore the draft page so that I can work on it. Otherwise I will appeal in any way I can against your decision. Deleting my draft page without any discussion/comment is not the 'collaborative environment' I imagined Wikipedia to be!

Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikemorrell49 ( talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mikemorrell49. If memory has not failed me the page in question was deleted after being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:CSD G11. I will have another look and see if I think it's fixable. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I have looked it over and it has a lot of issues. It looks highly promotional and it has no references. This means it will need to be written using only material backed by independent reliable secondary sources. See WP:NOPROMO, WP:CITE and WP:RS. I would also encourage you to read WP:YFA which has some helpful tips for writing your first article. All of which said I am going to copy the deleted text to a user subpage for you to work on. Once you think it is ready for review you can move it into a draft space and submit it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You can find your text at User:Mikemorrell49/BredaPhoto. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Ad, thank you for your positive and quick respons. I have much to learn about Wikipedia and your comments - with those of the reviewer - will help me. Regards ... Mikemorrell49 ( talk) 13:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not recognizing this particular TLA that you used on ITN/C, and RGW isn't helping. I can surmise what the "GW" stands for and I can guess your overall meaning from context, but I'm still curious. Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oops. I added the wiki link. It is to Right Great Wrongs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. I'm pretty sure I've already told you about the user BlaccCrab before—they basically never discuss things and take being reverted personally, then has to "get back" at somebody by reverting them again almost immediately. He's quite a tendentious editor, always disputing songs being singles or removing information (even article talk page messages) for random reasons. This random removal of information has happened again at Memories...Do Not Open, and BlaccCrab has reverted again after I restored it (the page has been on my watchlist since the album came out)—somehow he thinks including a statement about what peak the song included on the US Hot 100 is "misleading"? I'm not sure if you've warned them before, but might you send one of your warnings his way again? This editor still doesn't get after however many years on Wikipedia to discuss disputed information rather than continue restoring it. Ss 112 06:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to have stopped this time. Ss 112 11:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know if the situation needs my attention. Also I have blocked Hadgi87 for a month. If this doesn't stop he is looking at an indef. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

...for the revdel on my user talk page. I'm grateful it's gone from the history (and that you blocked the user, too). -- bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Bonadea No problem. If you see anymore problematic editing from this user just drop me a line and I will show them to the exit. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources indicate that Nazism is a specie of extreme right socio-political ideology. While there are some who argue that Nazism should be considered a far left ideology, this is an extreme minority view. Whether or not it is a FRINGE view is a question that is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that the community has consistently demonstrated a strong consensus that reflects the prevalent view among scholars and historians that Nazism is a far right ideology. Repeatedly challenging that conclusion without demonstrating a significant shift of thought on the subject in reliable sources is not constructive and if pressed after being advised of the community's strong consensus on the subject, might be seen as disruptive

Just for the record, this appears to address a hypothetical situation which had not occurred, rather than the real one, repeated closure of ongoing discussions. Anmccaff ( talk) 20:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively, repeatedly reopening a discussion that had been properly closed after citing the clear and longstanding consensus of the community. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, although the "consensus" was not expressed anywhere except buried in archives, and the closer had a habit of adding his own commentary before closing. Either way, though, the point at which that becomes edit-warring was the question opened at AN3, moved to ANI, and never answered. Instead, there's a commentary of a hypothetical. Anmccaff ( talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Anmcaff's claim is not true, as is easily seen by looking through the diffs. (I don;t know why people bother dissembling when the history is there for everyone to see.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So regarding this CSD - I declined it, if you really think it is CSD material you have a delete button. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, again. This is my new account. - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 22:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fyi. I have tweeked your former user pages purely for appearances. Feel free to edit to your tastes. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Having had plenty of experience dealing with contentious AP2 topics, it's definitely best that I withdraw for tonight. I'm at 1RR on the page, enjoy arguing too much, and have multiple other on-wiki things to do. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

power~enwiki I understand. My own irritation level has reached a point where I think I am going to step back for the night. Obviously I am INVOLVED but if Artw continues this behavior I may have to take him to ANI. Anyways, thanks for your help. I will look at this again in the morning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Please note that I have considered taking you to ANI for your continuous attacking behavior also. From my side of the fence you are very much the unreasonable one. But I genuinely believe the suggestion below is the better one. And yes, you would qualify as INVOLVED so there's not much point in trying to preserve that by staying out of specific points, if that is your concern. Artw ( talk) 04:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

In the name of calming things down on the Roy Moore page and actually reaching a state where the contentious template can be removed I would very much like you to consider the suggestion by Octoberwoodland here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Roy_Moore&oldid=809744859 - I believe this will be much more productive than any yelling matches or citing of policy names at each other. Artw ( talk) 04:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that suggestion is a sound one. Given the hour (it's late here) I suspect that a detailed response is not likely to materialize before morning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and NP. Artw ( talk) 04:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Could use one here. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 16:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ed I'm buried over at Roy Moore right now. Appreciate your assist. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you appear to be subbing for GAB today, an IP that they blocked for edit warring semi-coherent rants into climate related talk pages is back in action. The original IP was Special:Contributions/2.247.255.43 and he/she/it is now back as Special:Contributions/2.247.255.107. Could you give this IP the weekend off please? Not sure if a narrow rangeblock on 2.247.255.0/24 might be justified. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Widr just took care of it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks to you and @ Widr: both. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem. I was just browsing the DSLOG and noticed your entry of November 9 that should probably have an archive link to ANI such as: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#ShushkoMushko: Antisemitism in talk pages. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 15:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:00, 11 November 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)

Hi Ad Orientem. I have tried sending you the link quite a number of times and my reply is just missing from your talk page. May I ask how can we get this solved? Thank you. Sandrapriya ( talk) 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Ack! Hi Sandrapriya. Sorry that your previous message seems to have gotten missed. I have left a brief review on the talk page of the draft. Unfortunately the draft needs some significant improvements before it could be considered for the mainspace. I am not altogether sure that it is possible to get there. Notability is one of those things that can't be manufactured in an article. If the source coverage isn't out there then there is little that can be done. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: GAB may be busy in the real world right now. SPI is probably where this belongs. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem. What's SPI? Akocsg ( talk) 16:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigations. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done. See here. Akocsg ( talk) 17:43, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we transfer the Wikipedia pages of another language to the English Wikipedia? - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 08:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rosarum et Veritas. You need to be very careful copying material from any other sources, including material within Wikipedia or from other wikis due to copyright concerns. See WP:CWW, WP:CR, and WP:C-P. My go to guy for all things dealing with copyright is TonyBallioni‎. Also be aware that different wikis have differing guidelines and standards for what is and is not notable, a reliable source etc. Just because something exists in another wiki does not mean it will pass muster here. In general our standards tend to be higher than many if not most other wikis. My advice is to proceed with caution. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

All WMF projects are compatibly licensed. So the translation itself is not a concern: you'd just have to do simple edit summary attribution (such as Content translated from [[es:Foo]], see that page's history for attribution just change the [[es:Foo]] to the language code and article for the page that is translated). Note this needs to be done for every edit that is translated, not just once. We also have Template:Translated page, which can be placed on the talk page.

The real concern with page translation is that other language Wikipedia's are often not as good at detecting copyright violations as we are here, and so we will get copyrighted text translated into English and then catch it, which of course will require us to either delete or revision delete the content. If you're competent enough in the language to translate it (and not just doing Google translate), you should be able to do a search yourself of the article in order to verify that the text is free in the original language. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What if I were to reword the original text? This would nullify any copyright concerns while maintaining the intended exchange of information. How does one go about publishing the translated page? - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 00:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Any text that is translated is all but sure to be copyright for at least part of the material (and thus requiring CC-BY-SA 3.0 attribution.) This is easy to do as demonstrated above. If you're asking about text that was a copyright violation in the original language, you can't translate the violation, but you can summarize the source it was taken from in English just as you would for English-language sourcing. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello Ad Orientem, I would like to ask a question concerning names in the intro text of an article. What's the rule concerning those? For example in the article Ayran various names for the porduct are listed. Can names which are not the original and a derivation be listed there? Regards, Akocsg ( talk) 16:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The basic question is are the names accurate? And is it appropriate to list them in the lead? See WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. If it looks like it may be an attempt to pump the subject of the article that might be inappropriate per WP:UNDUE and WP:NOPROMO. In this specific case it might be unencyclopedic. Unless there is an unusual reason for this in my experience we tend to stick to the original name in the country or language most associated with the product bearing in mind that this is the English Wikipedia. For examples see Coca Cola and Pepsi, two products sold world wide, yet we don't list their name in any language other than English. This is addressed in more detail in MOS:FORLANG. My gut says in this case that it is probably not appropriate. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I am wondering the reasoning behind the deletion of my page for the 2012 film "The Locked Door." It is a produced film currently available on iTunes and has a listing on the Internet Movie Database.

Please advise.

Thanks

AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexanderLeague ( talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlexanderLeague. The article was deleted following a discussion at AfD (which can be viewed here). The basic rational was that subject failed our guidelines for encyclopedic notability.. See also WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been a few months since our last discussion of this editor, and I'm sad to say little has changed. I largely ignored them over the last few months in the vain hope that if left undisturbed they might get their act together, since trying to explain the problem to them had so clearly failed. About a week ago they popped up on my radar again by coincidence, and they're still completely unable to write neutral content. At Esoh Omogba, which has since been deleted, we get phrases like "a transcendent performance" and "a facile 5-0 triumph". Another editor brought the problems with these phrases to their attention. Despite this, the problem continues with phrase like "Gillingham were in clamant need of a replacement" at Finn O'Mara, "a 6-1 crushing" at Christian Okonkwo, and "a 13-0 thrashing" and "the rampancy of crime" at Kareem Knights. The last of these is particularly worrisome since the source used to verify the material in question refers only to the "crime situation". I've said it before, but I think this editor simply does not have a sufficient grasp of the English language to be competent. They're clearly not able to adapt the often hyperbolic language of sports coverage into something sufficiently neutral to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. Ten months since this issue was first raised, many warnings and three blocks later and this continues to be a problem. Could you please block this editor indefinitely? I think it's the only responsible thing to do here. Thank you. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 04:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik I think I have a solution. BLP is covered by discretionary sanctions and I just posted the alert on their talk page. If this continues (and being honest that seems likely) I am going to impose editing restrictions that will require him to submit all new articles as drafts to AfC for review and require any edits on BLPs for soccer players to be reviewed by another editor before being posted on the article. I was actually about to just indef him when I checked the user contrib log and saw they he has managed to create over 400 articles, even discounting the more than 90 that have been deleted. This seems like a reasonable course that will curb his bad editing habits while still allowing a productive editor to contribute. It should also minimize the amount of time you have to spend cleaning up after him. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Thank you. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The IP user 208.70.36.7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), did it again, and as usual. He didn't had a explanation. Give him an indefinite ban, BigGreener ( talk) 07:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs. We don't start with indefinite blocks and in any case we can't indef IP's. However if this continues I may protect the page to prevent further disruptive editing. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ad Orientem. We have a bit of a rare situation—an IP/user is claiming they are Sam Littlemore (an Australian record producer and now member of Pnau), and continuing to restore a subjective unsourced statement and unnecessary overlinking to Changa (album), and editing their own article. I linked the IP address to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and told them we have no proof (despite their account being named "Samlamore"), but not sure what else to do. Ss 112 11:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped an fyi note on their new talk page. Let's see if they take the hint. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I found that the article Abu Kamara does not meet the football notability criteria (has not played in fully-pro league) nor has been capped at senior level. Also, thanks for the warning- I have not got any page deleted since I created Esoh Omogba and have checked if my wording is encyclopedic or not. Das osmnezz ( talk) 23:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Das osmnezz. You can nominate an article for deletion by following the directions here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing— Draft:Deepak Singh—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. # 1997 kB 04:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added references for the Filmography of Rikard Wolff. I do not know if that makes a difference for you but just giving you the head up. Regards,-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO, having a disagreement with a user on Continent (and its talk page). I noticed earlier today that in July, a significant table concerning the area and population of each continent was removed from the page after following an incoming link from another page. It's a significant addition to the page and there are plenty of incoming links, so its omission appears a big oversight. I restored it earlier, and the editor Khajidha, who regularly edits the page, believes I need consensus to restore it despite my already having done so. They are claiming silence equals consensus despite some essays around ( WP:SMN, WP:SILENCE) saying that that can only be assumed until there is a dissenting voice (which has now occurred), so therefore there is no longer consensus. However, it appears they are unwilling to open a new discussion (they never had consensus, just one or two IPs who raised a concern on the talk page, which they took as reason enough to remove it) and I really want to avoid an edit war here... thoughts? Ss 112 14:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. While it is true that silence does not equal consensus, the general rule of thumb is that if an addition of material is challenged by reversion then things should stop until consensus is reached on the talk page If the other editor is unwilling to discuss you can still open a discussion and post a neutrally worded request for input on the talk pages of related wiki-projects. Alternatively you could just open an RfC. Once consensus is reached you can then move forward. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would have directly reverted the editor's removal of the section in July if I could (but couldn't due to edits made since), so I believe I indirectly reverted them by restoring it. They haven't reverted me or edited the page since that time despite commenting on the talk page. I understand any editor can seek consensus, but is the responsibility not more on them now that they have in effect been reverted to seek consensus before removing it again? It seems a murky area. Ss 112 14:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If the restored material was part of the article for a long period of time I'd say that your edit could be seen as restoring the article to a previous stable form. The important thing here is that we don't get into an edit war. This needs to be resolved on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

...for closing the Nazism thread on ANI, but the issue isn't quite finished, unfortunately. Anmcaff continues his disruption on the RfC on Talk:Nazism, bludgeoning the discussion with responses to practically every comment, calling other editors "wikipedjits", and so on. Could you take a look and issue a warning to him if you think it's appropriate? Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I just posted a note on their talk page suggesting that it's time to drop the stick. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that, thanks, I hope that will be sufficient. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, Ad Orientem! What is your opinion regarding our discussion with Tony? Do you agree with his conclusion? - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 04:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The change being Veritas to Veritatis. - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi RV. Sorry I got distracted by a number of matters requiring immediate attention and your message fell off my radar. My Latin is poor on a good day. If you have run your proposal by those with some competence I'm sure it will be fine. I will however suggest you not get bogged down in this sort of thing. Changing accounts is allowed as long as their is some sort of reason. But account hopping is not encouraged. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to apologise for the comment on Hadji87's talkpage,
I wasn't trying to say you wouldn't of blocked them or that you're incapable etc etc - I know some admins prefer to go to ANI to get consensus first and that was the whole reason for my comment, as I said I wasn't trying to suggest you wouldn't of blocked or anything like that but anyway I apologise if the comment came across the wrong way, Thanks, – Davey2010 ^Talk 21:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. There was nothing even remotely inappropriate about your comment. In any event the situation is under control and Hadji is on notice. I am a micro-inch from indeffing him. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't understand why you deleted Claude Silberzahn, to which I added two (IIRC) sources as requested.

Thanks. Apokrif ( talk) 21:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Double checking now... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:39, 1 Mikemorrell49 ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, you appear to be correct. I have no idea how I missed that. I will be restoring the article directly. Please accept my apologies. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping Apokrif - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the article and removed the BLP Prod tag. Just a friendly word of advice. I would try to expand the article as soon as possible. Right now I'm not sure there is enough to survive a CSD A7 nomination much less AfD. Good luck. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have removed {{Prod blp/dated}} but I don't know if the aticle's creator is allowed to do so. Apokrif ( talk) 21:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can take it down provided that an RS source has been added. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

As predicted, the problems with this editor's writing have continued. They inserted there own opinion into Sadin Smajović, describing his performance as "perfunctory" without a source to back up the analysis, and continued with needlessly flower language at Min Thi Ha with the phrase "foisting danger upon the opponents goal". Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Per ACDS I have imposed editing restrictions on them. See their talk page for the notice. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: Are you allowed to review my drafted articles by any chance ( Draft:Ismaël Benahmed and Draft:Mykola Shevchenko)? Das osmnezz ( talk) 05:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am currently acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin here. If were to start reviewing your proposed drafts and article edits I think that would make it difficult for me to continue to function here per WP:INVOLVED. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad, some time ago we had a conversation about a draft page I was working on entitled 'BredaPhoto'. This page was (justifiably) deleted by you and I now understand the reasons. At my request, you restored the draft content to User:Mikemorrell49/BredaPhoto. I've learned much more about Wikipedia and editing since then. With the help of a Wikipedia coach and two independent reviewers/co-authors, a page about BredaPhoto has been published in the Dutch-language Wikipedia with supporting sources. The majority of sources are in Dutch. At the moment, there are (in my opinion) insufficient english-language sources to indicate the notability or relevance of an equivalent English-language Wikipedia page. Should that change, the obvious approach would be to use an automatic translation of the existing Dutch page as the starting point for an English language page. The only content of User:Mikemorrell49/BredaPhoto at the moment is a short note on the status of the page. As far as I'm concerned, the page can be flagged for deletion. I'm unsure whether I can/should do this myself. If you can, please feel free to delete it. Regards,' Mikemorrell49 ( talk) 11:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mikemorrell49. Remember that sources do not have to be in English. While English sources are preferred, sometimes they just aren't available for some subjects. See WP:NOENG. If you want to delete the page you can just tag it for deletion per WP:CSD G7. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful feedback Ad. Much appreciated considering that you make so many other valuable contributions. I've come a long way since our first contact. I have a definite COI in deciding whether to propose an english-language page about BredaPhoto. I will inform other editors (NL/EN) and let them decide whether there is sufficient justification for an EN page. If so, I will support their propsal in the role of translator. Kind Regards, Mike Mikemorrell49 ( talk) 14:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I was investigating vandalism from an IP and discovered that the Paradise Valley Unified School District operates a string of IPs from 199.195.109.161 to 199.195.109.176. Together they have racked up an impressive block log, but only a few of them are under a school block, only 199.195.109.169 is blocked for a substantial amount of time, until 2020. Several of them have been blocked in the last 60 days, and most of them vandalised up into this month. I was wondering if because of the constant back to back disruption coupled with the fact that because the 16 IPs need to be uniformly suppressed to prevent vandalism, could you please school-block them for as much time as you feel necessary (2020 would be nice)? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 17:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Working on this between other issues. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok I have blocked every IP address in this range for 1 year provided it had any history of vandalism and it was not already blocked for longer than 1 year.

Thanks! :) L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

hello, looks like this page got deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Christ_Covenant_Church_(Matthews,_North_Carolina)&diff=next&oldid=794150519

I'd like to ask if it could be reinstated. I was actually working on a project to add better detail to it. It is one of the more visible churches in the PCA and is even listed on their notable denominations page. /info/en/?search=Presbyterian_Church_in_America#Notable_churches_in_the_PCA

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.90.27 ( talk) 23:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry but after looking at the article again (admins can see deleted pages) I am not seeing anything that suggests any viable claim to importance much less notability. It's a church. One of many. But there is no really significant claim to importance. I also note that article has been deleted previously. It may be notable to the denomination, but I am not seeing a claim to encyclopedic notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem. Could you please help to persuade User talk:I am joker to come to the article talk and discuss, rather than reverting. I already tried, multiple times. Even after being blocked, they are continuing to do the same changes [3], [4].-- DreamLinker ( talk) 01:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I have left a warning. If this continues let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will let you know if this continues.-- DreamLinker ( talk) 03:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. There is nothing wrong with the content added, proper reference was provided still DreamLinker is reverting it again and again. Please stop him from spamming. I am joker ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked x 48 hrs for persistently adding material despite repeated reversions by multiple editors and w/o talk page consensus. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

A new economics discussion has been opened on my talk page and your contributions as well as those of your savvy friends would be appreciated. - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 07:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rosarum et Veritas. Thanks for the invitation. However I must decline per WP:NOTFORUM. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoops! Didn't notice the guideline. - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 20:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

On a unrelated note, would you happen to be the Mad Monarchist? - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 01:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha. No. I am not that Mad Monarchist. But I stole the name for my back up account. I am actually thinking of abandoning it though precisely because I think it might cause confusion among those who know of whom you have just written. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah, shame. I had hoped to discuss the future of monarchism and my own ambition of launching a more interactive website than the medium through which MM conveys his message. That chosen host is more tailored to making declarations than inspiring constructive dialogue, and it would be beneficial if his followers felt that they could contribute in a substantive way. The option to comment is available but to what end? - Rosarum et Veritas ( talk) 03:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Archive link to the proposal. 

Sorry to be more than a year late, but please add my support to this proposal.  I've made similar proposals more than once.  FYI, Your note at the top of Common Outcomes is still there.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. What note of mine is still on the OUTCOMES page? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you please protect the Bob the Builder list of episodes page from unregistered users? ThomasSirHandel1998 ( talk) 05:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi ThomasSirHandel1998. Is there a reason? The last time an edit was reverted for vandalism was in June. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Since the page about the show is protected from unregistered users, wouldn't make since to protect the episode list page also? ThomasSirHandel1998 ( talk) 19:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually we do not protect pages preemptively. See WP:NO-PREEMPT. Do let me know if a serious problem involving disruptive editing comes up. Best regards...- Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: By any chance, am I allowed to make any wikipedia pages of football clubs and/or stadiums? Thanks. Das osmnezz ( talk) 15:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The editing restrictions apply only to BLPs. But I would encourage you to have someone look over any new articles you are creating before posting them to the mainspace. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:30, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Block me all you like, I'll wear it like a badge of honor, but will you do the same to the users reverting me on my own talkpage? Clearly their actions are also uncivil. Or did you fail to look at the history leading up to my reaction?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 01:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kintetsubuffalo. I'm going to give you the same advice I gave Nagualdesign‎... drop the stick and move on. There is nothing to be gained from this mutual sniping. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

A little honesty here, please. You went right along with it [5] and fed into it [6] until Winkelvi made a point to call out the ongoing incivility. All I did was use "fuck" to put a stop to being dogpiled on, I didn't belabor it after.-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 02:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Which is why you are not currently blocked, despite the fact that you have been blocked in the past for incivility. As I noted to Nagualdesign‎, there is some latitude on your own talk page. And for the record, yes, I do think that some of your editing looks a bit like like you were sticking your finger in their eye. IMO it would be best if you two tried to give each other some space. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

You have that reversed-I never engaged him first-I've left him alone for months. Speaking of my talkpage, you gonna be doling out any warnings about this https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Kintetsubuffalo&diff=prev&oldid=811833790 ?-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 13:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a note on their talk page, though I also see they self reverted their message. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem. Can you please have a word with the user Abi-Maria? They've been reverting an IP and now myself on Your Song (Rita Ora song) because they think if a chart is not listed on WP:CHART we can't include it, when the list itself says it is not exhaustive and that there are good charts that are not listed there. Regardless, Abi-Maria is blatantly edit warring because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Same with Perfect (Ed Sheeran song). They are claiming users need consensus to include charts when this has never been the case. I have explained why the charts should stay (because they are published by the official recording industries of those countries) and this user refuses to follow WP:BRD. They appear to edit war quite often, as their talk page shows they were warned previously as well. It would be much appreciated if you could ask them to stop edit warring. Thanks. Ss 112 10:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO. This user is now threatening to report me to ANI because, while we were disagreeing on several other talk pages earlier today, after that I left a note on their talk page saying they had edited a page on my watchlist and that I disagreed with it in part because it was allowed per a guideline (otherwise I thought they would get the idea I was following them). Also, while telling me to stay away from their talk page, they're still going around and passive-aggressively referring to me without naming me, like here. Can you maybe drop them a note saying they want to avoid ANI or any drama board at all costs, for their own sanity? Seems this user still doesn't have much of an idea that things can come back to bite them at ANI or that it can be long, drawn-out and not worth all the crap that comes along with it. Also, maybe to avoid referring to me at all if they can avoid it, if they want me to leave them alone? Thanks. Ss 112 11:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Just as a note here though, Abi-Maria has opened discussions at Wikipedia talk:Record charts and asked for comments from other editors and elsewhere AFAIK. Ss 112 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient answers at Abi-Maria's talk page. I have no interest in "Wikihounding" Abi-Maria if that's what they think is happening. I also think Abi-Maria is a bit unaware that reporting an editor to ANI does not by any measure mean an editor will agree with what is reported there or have the same view and can even backfire/ WP:BOOMERANG. As far as I can recall, I have only been reported to ANI once (by BlaccCrab), and the other times I was making a case about other editors. At any rate, it's just unfortunate for Abi-Maria that they're editing pages on my watchlist and I disagree and nobody else does. As you said, I think they should leave disputing charts alone until there is some consensus on their validity. Just in case it was unclear—the charts they're disputing were added to these articles by other editors (they're not charts I follow), I just disagree that they are unreliable. Ss 112 16:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and post a neutrally worded RFC. Let's try to get the ball rolling here so this can be resolved ASAP. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 16:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

This was an incorrect result, because there were no attempts to determine either notability or the alternatives to deletion.  All of the !votes had the opportunity to correct deficiencies.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It looks like there was a solid policy/guideline based consensus in favor of deletion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ad Orientem: Am I allowed to move Draft:Mykola Shevchenko to article space since it was accepted but was not moved? Thanks. Das osmnezz ( talk) 20:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Das osmnezz. You should contact the reviewing editor A Lenz with no contact. It's possible they may have modified the name under which it was published. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Das osmnezz & A Lenz with no contact, has this issue been resolved? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Lyrics and poetry. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi AO. I'm having a problem with the user Me-123567-Me on Same Love. I reverted an addition they made about the song reaching number one in Australia on iTunes (which is against WP:BADCHARTS and WP:SINGLEVENDOR) and it devolved into an edit war. This user is relatively new, has 9,000 edits and doesn't really appear to know how Wikipedia works despite being linked to the relevant guidelines ( WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). Before I knew it, it appears I went to three reverts (despite reverting an IP before that, they removed a number from the year "2012", so I assumed that was vandalism). Can you please send them a note and maybe revert them on this article? I understand you don't want to be involved with things but this is blatantly warring despite not getting consensus. Thanks. Ss 112 20:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

They've reported me to WP:AN/EW, despite them performing just as many reverts in this war... Ss 112 20:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a 3RR warning on their talk page. As far as I can tell you have not breached 3RR although they have if you include the original addition. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't actually reverted four times. But I suppose while my RFC runs I can change it back. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Me-123567-Me: I think you should self-revert while you get consensus for the good of it all. Ss 112 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Ss112: - You get more flies with honey than with vinegar. I already did this but now I am tempted to change it back. Sometimes it's best to shut up. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)When an edit is challenged and reverted the next stop is the talk page to discuss it. I am taking no position on the merits or lack thereof of the material you were adding, but your repeatedly re-adding it was a specie of edit warring. I am also advising Ss112 to refrain from anymore of this edit warring. Take this to the talk page, both of you.. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

AO, are you able to close the AN/EW notice now that the edit war is over, you've warned us both and there is a talk page discussion, or are you too WP:INVOLVEd? Ss 112 20:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I wish Ss112 ( talk · contribs) to be blocked, please. If another admin has to do so, I can wait. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not INVOLVED here. I am acting as an uninvolved admin. I will close it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't close it. See conflict comment above. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 20:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@ Me-123567-Me:, be careful what you wish for. Users are not automatically blocked upon being reverted to AN/EW. You performed just as many reverts. Anybody can see that. Ss 112 20:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked? For what? You were both on the edge of edit warring. Blocks are not punitive. Presuming you are both going to stop it a block serves no purpose. Now enough of this bickering. Go settle this on the talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The practice of Orleanist POV pushing has become prevalent over the course of the past two years. While still anonymous, I had even noticed (and rectified) the presence of Orleanist pretenders on the Legitimist page! This behavior is further exemplified in users periodically removing the moniker "King of the French" from Louis Philippe d'Orleans, the current attempt at associating the constitutional French Kingdom with the Kingdom of France, and wording which characterizes the Orleans as being natural successors to the Bourbons. The descendants of Philippe d'Orleans manage to find themselves on most pages covering the House of Bourbon.
This war of the lilies has been raging since 1830 – albeit among armchair intellectuals as of recent – can we not maintain healthy boundaries on Wikipedia? Have you, Ad Orientem, or anyone else taken notice of this behavior?
- Conservatrix ( talk) 11:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have not. However I also have not edited those pages. Please be careful that you do not edit in order to support a WP:AGENDA or with an eye to righting great wrongs. We merely repeat what is stated in independent reliable secondary sources. Sometimes that does not conform to our personal pov, nonetheless it is what we go with. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Understood. - Conservatrix ( talk) 05:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Per my report of Joshuakodrat to ANV and your reply about specifics, yes, while they did change "synth-pop" to the redirect "synthpop" in this edit, they also added the unsourced genre dream pop. They were warned about adding unsourced genres and continued on. Ss 112 05:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. This is now too stale for a block but I will ;post another warning. Let me know if this continues. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

---

Need some revision deletion of all the edits from the following socks on Sro's talk page due to extreme trolling/degrading content: 2600:1011:B160:8147:2DF1:A09C:4A9F:E04D and 174.238.143.103. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 09:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you. By the way, you missed the second IP's—174...—it looks like. Can still be viewed by clicking the date of its edit on the history page and by clicking "prev" on my "Reverted to revision X by Amaury" edit. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO, looks like we have an IP making exactly the kind of edits Tjdrum2000 did however many months ago: 2600:1700:e5d0:a9a0:e413:7bc1:22ab:c353 ( talk · contribs). Rearranging paragraphs, adding incorrect info they believe to be correct, removing labels and such as they please. This is exactly Tj's MO. Ss 112 18:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just a quick note that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morocco_World_News did not end up in consensus to keep the article. Not sure whether you paid attention but the longest comment was by the article creator who, naturally, argued to keep it, however his entire argument fails per WP:NOTINHERITED. Then, only two other editors commented - Gidonb and myself - one arguing against deletion and the other for. Therefore, the discussion can only be summarised as no consensus. Regards, — kashmīrī  ^TALK 21:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kashmiri. I don't see any comments by you anywhere in the discussion. And just to be sure nothing got deleted I checked the discussion history and did not find your name anywhere in there either. As of right now I see two arguments for keeping the article and one (the OP's) for deletion. Am I missing something here? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ad Orientem, my bad - I was the original nominator for speedy [7] which later got reversed upon original author's request [8] and article was put through AfD. I did not take part in this discussion (was on the road druing the last week). Sorry for confusion, was a hectic week. Still, the word "consensus" isn't the best here. Regards, — kashmīrī  ^TALK 22:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Kashmiri, sadly two votes is often as much as we get at AfD these days. That said, I agree that it is a weak consensus. If you would like to comment, I will reopen and relist the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Kashmiri I have reopened the AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Kashmiri Thanks, I will comment within the next 24 hours. — kashmīrī  ^TALK 22:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

JimRuckuss is abusing his talk page privilege whilst being blocked I had to revert those edits. Thanks!  
Felicia 
(talk) 01:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access removed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I was editing the page of Victoire de Rohan and took notice of her designation as "royalty" while the House of Rohan were longtime members of the French nobility. Her designation and those of her forebears were changed. However it was discovered that the House of Rohan enjoyed the ambiguous status of "foreign prince" under the style "Highness", claiming that they are related to or descend from the Dukes of Brittany.

The Duchy of Brittany was integrated into the Kingdom and with it so ceases the sovereign status of royalty. Are the Rohan to be designated as royals of Breton ancestry, or as nobles within the Kingdom of France?
- Conservatrix ( talk) 01:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Conservatrix, I'd post that question either on the talk page of the relevant article or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. If you opt for the article talk page I suggest an FYI ping on the projects talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened and developed. - Conservatrix ( talk) 04:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO. Last month I informed you about MariaJaydHicky's then-latest sockpuppet account, and now it looks like they're back fighting over genres on Mariah Carey articles (which they've been doing as far back as 2012) with the account "Charm B. Fly". It appears every time MJH comes back, they will target a different singer or act each time they register. Very much the same edit summaries ( WP:DUCK) and all their edits appear to be disputing genres with little in the way of anything else. Ss 112 11:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Indeffed - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, last month, you blocked Tanapot2001 for being disruptive. It appears they just came off their subsequent one-month block (given by Ronhjones) by using an IP then their account when the IP's edits were reverted: here then here. It doesn't look good, as they've used this tactic before. Ss 112 13:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Indeffed Got anymore? You are one away from the trifecta. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A week or so later, but I have another now: 82.132.212.31, reverting edits at two of their favourite targets: a Jamelia article, and a Rihanna article. Definitely a MariaJaydHicky IP. Edit: Not another MJH sock, but the user AINYLOVIN has been warned for being a (blatant) sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso (editing Chris Brown articles, particularly) and they've kept editing... Ss 112 15:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 month and indeff respectively. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem, by any chance am I allowed to move my own unreviewed drafts into article space by any chance? Thanks. Das osmnezz ( talk) 00:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Das osmnezz No. If they have not been reviewed you may not move any draft whose subject is covered by BLP into the mainspace. However if your earlier accepted draft has still not been moved into the mainspace, then yes go ahead and do it. Just note in the edit summary who approved the draft. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem Am i allowed to move pages on my own userspace to article space then? Thanks. Das osmnezz ( talk) 19:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Das osmnezz. You may not create any new articles where the subject is covered by WP:BLP (this includes persons recently deceased) unless it has first been reviewed as a draft at WP:AFC. The editing restrictions I imposed only apply to BLPs. So if you have a draft either at AFC or in your own user space that applies to somehitng other than a person you are free to create it. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI seems a good idea. Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this is the best course for right now. I am just not comfortable unblocking them w/o some more input. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi AO, I know you're on a semi-break but when you get time: a user named 1996Larry is being persistent in inventing a credit for somebody who is not credited on a chart listing of a song at Perfect (Ed Sheeran song). It violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I have explained this to them at least three times now. Can you please drop them a note on their talk page about engaging in the discussion that's already on the talk page? Thanks. Ss 112 09:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ss112 On a side note please remember that newer editors may not be all that familiar with all of our nuances and the twenty-seven quadrillion (give or take) rules and guidelines Wikipedia has developed. Going straight to an edit warring template and then posting a final warning with a threat to block w/o first dropping a friendly note is not always the best course. This guy has all of 239 edits here and your approach looked a little BITEY to me. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise how new he was. I barely looked at his contributions page. I'll be a bit more careful in future. Ss 112 01:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen it, despite what I wrote on J7b's talk page, only 44 minutes later, these unsourced edits were made. I reverted, [9] and reported to AIV but no action was taken, just a recommendation to report to ANI, which I haven't done yet. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend. Yeah, AIV is really for clear cut vandalism or spamming so this is probably not where that belongs. That said, this incident is a little stale for a block. But if it happens again, ping me or drop me a line and I will block them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The latest incident was only yesterday. Is that really stale? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For edit's that were presumably not malicious in their intent, yeah. Also I dropped my note on their talk page after this edit. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Reported 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:F0A0:8479:98A5:C66 to ANI but was told to file an SPI. Looks to be MariaJaydHicky again. Genre warring on some old Sugababes album targets, and months after Kellymoat was indefinitely blocked, still has to revert an edit of theirs and call them as a "sockpuppet"... Edit: I get the feeling this IP will keep coming back. They've edited in three sessions already today. Maybe the pages they're editing could be protected for a bit? Ss 112 08:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they have been blocked by Widr. If there is more trouble on any of these articles let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've found an editor who looks to be continuing on two blocked IPs' edits on Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) that I'm pretty sure is MariaJaydHicky. MMLPiv registered only a week ago and quite a few of their edits have been disputing/edit warring over genres; never a good sign. Both the IP 2A02:C7F:708D:B600:10F:E519:A791:506 ( talk · contribs) and 82.132.242.145 ( talk · contribs) were blocked for abusing multiple accounts or vandalism after editing the article for Lotus, and MMLPiv then came around after they were blocked and restored the edits. Looks very suspicious. Ss 112 07:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It actually looks like you stepped in earlier this year and protected the page after Kellymoat and a confirmed MariaJaydHicky sockpuppet edit-warred over the genres. Edit: Well, they've blatantly broken 3RR (at about five reverts today on Lotus) and still... looks like the page was unprotected just last month and this has been happening for the past two days. Maybe it needs to be protected again. Ss 112 08:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it has been handled by Widr. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Albion. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Hurt4everKarma might just be another sleeper account to the multiple accounts and IPs adding the same content at Katie Gearlds since July of this year. Protecting the article for a long period might help kill this person's temptation to vandalize the article. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 05:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Since Ad Orientem appears to be off to bed, I've taken the liberty to semi-protect the article for 1 month for now. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ad Orientem ( talk) 05:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih Thnxs, hopefully the vandalism will stop after the protection expires. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 05:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I contribute to other sites on wikipedia providing updates at times I'm not logged in and my IP address becomes blocked? for disruptive editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrian13 ( talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Bbrian13, it does not appear that you are blocked, given that you have commented on this page. Primefac ( talk) 20:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC) ( talk page stalker)

When I'm not logged on I am blocked. The IP is blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrian13 ( talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what it says You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 2600:1700:0:0:0:0:0:0/30 has been blocked (disabled) by Ad Orientem for the following reason(s): Block evasion/disruptive editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrian13 ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there has been some vandalism and block evasion on that range (see this thread above). It is unrelated to you, and thus your account is not affected. Primefac ( talk) 20:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It affected my IP when I'm not logged on. Orinetem got the wrong IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrian13 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

( edit conflict) I am sorry for the inconvenience, but we are getting a lot of disruptive editing within that IP range. As long as you are editing from your account you should not be affected. If you are having trouble editing from your account or logging in let me know. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Followup I have temporarily lifted the range block while I get a second opinion on the depth of the range. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO. I can't believe I'm actually still asking for this user to be warned, but BlaccCrab made an edit to Gucci Mane discography the other day that I reverted. I told him to open a discussion and get consensus. He opened a discussion, but has not gotten any responses. Today he saw fit to revert because he found a Billboard article stating something different, thinking this is a matter of "this source says something different, so I can revert again". I told him to bring it up on the talk page, which he should have done in the first place. BlaccCrab appears to be very much of the mindset to revert first and ask questions later. It's gotten to the point their behaviour is almost disruptive and the amount of times they have been warned to discuss upon making a bold edit that was reverted, they forget by the next time it happens. Can you please stop by to give them a final warning of sorts on this matter? Ss 112 02:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the article talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

On this day, Dec 25, it has been an year since you became a sys-op. Thanks a lot for your services. :)
Also, it feels just like yesterday when you joined the wikipedia. I still remember when you were confused between whales, and Welsh. See you around. :)
—usernamekiran (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, we would like to know why did you delete Cognoance page on 00:52, 30 March 2017.

Julia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.84.130 ( talk) 14:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineBot ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted per an expired WP:PROD request that read...

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you."

- Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi AO. Would you be able to move a page for me that was moved last year for no real reason? The page is Sweet Girl (EP). I requested it at WP:RM/TR to be moved to Sweet Girl where it was until mid-2016, then later thought it should be put under "revert undiscussed moves", so put it there. However, Anthony Appleyard cleared the page and took my first request as being objected to because the user (In ictu oculi) who moved the page last year (for no real reason, as stated before) noticed when it was only under "technical requests" and commented. Now it's a "queried move request" despite the fact it should never have been moved because no other page exists for "Sweet Girl" and that namespace redirects to the current one, so it's entirely pointless. Ss 112 12:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Ss112... You should really discuss this with the already involved admin. Ping Anthony Appleyard. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I did. It looks like they've gone offline for the day. Ss 112 14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think I've spotted another MariaJaydHicky sock. The account "Buh-bling", restoring genres that previous MariaJaydHicky socks did on Who You Are (Jessie J album). Ss 112 14:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• @ Ss112 and Ad Orientem: This move is being discussed at Talk:Sweet Girl (EP)#Requested move 18 December 2017. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 14:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Anthony Appleyard: I'm aware of that, but I also requested to revert what was undiscussed in the first place. Ss 112 14:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply Anthony Appleyard. I will defer to your judgement on this. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@ Ss112 user indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Just discovered "AllyPallyworld", changing genres on Nicki Minaj and Ariana Grande articles in the first edits after registering. When reverted on one of the articles, removed the other genre that was listed saying it was "unsourced". Not entirely unique, but this is MJH's MO and approach. Ss 112 09:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Another: "Boom boom scramble" (the usernames are getting more imaginative!), reverting on Drama (Jamelia album). Samsara protected the page requiring autoconfirmed access, but it expired only 24 hours later. Ss 112 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ad Orientem. The SNL IP troll is back again, 67.78.198.166 ( talk · contribs). Thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 23:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

As I tremble with fear... with the jokes aside, wishing you early Merry Christmas and happy holidays, Ad Orientem! I hope the new year will provide myself with more opportunity to learn from your experience. Greetings from Kyoto, Japan. Alex Shih ( talk) 08:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and a blessed feast to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO, it's look like Tjdrum2000 ( talk · contribs) is back yet again by using another IP account: 2600:1702:B20:3240:5CAA:D417:1174:D644 ( talk · contribs). Unnecessary rearranging paragraphs, adding incorrect info they believe to be correct, the same thing Tjdrum2000 did before they got blocked. TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 17:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Was using 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:14B3:AC2F:BB54:1E15 ( talk · contribs) just earlier. Ss 112 23:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor is still using other accounts 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:F0A7:CE09:7604:F425 ( talk · contribs). TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 14:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Range blocked IP 2600:1702:b20:3240:5caa:d417:1174:d644/30. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The editor is yet again using another account 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0:D476:E71B:C4F:E6C7 ( talk · contribs). TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 19:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok I had to lift the earlier range block as it was too broad. I have now blocked 2600:1700:E5D0:A9A0::/64 x 3 months. Let's see if that slows down the pest. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like blocked editor Tanapot2001 ( talk · contribs) (Drake article-editing IP) is back working at Drake's song articles with 223.24.181.54, particularly due to their penchant for adjusting French charts. Ss 112 15:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

To save me creating a new section, it appears you warned Pinkzeppelin4 just earlier about adding unsourced material/genres. They just did this again at Huncho Jack, Jack Huncho and 17 (XXXTentacion album) earlier today.

Already blocked by Mz7. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 13:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I've spotted a sock of Giubbotto non ortodosso: Poppahalfofperc. First and only edits are to Heartbreak on a Full Moon, restoring same edits by blocked socks. This happened a bit a while ago too. Maybe the page needs to be protected for a bit? Ss 112 15:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sock indeffed and page protected x 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

They've obviously learned how to give themselves confirmed access now; socking on the same page with Closahcolsah. What's the next step up in protection level from autoconfirmed/confirmed? Ss 112 19:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I indeffed the new sock. I also took a look at the page history and saw two IPs that were recently engaging in disruptive editing. The two were far enough apart that a combined range block was too large, so I took them separately and range blocked them as 87.16.197.81/32 and 81.178.220.27/32. Lets see if that slows the little SOB down. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2018!
	Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 02:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A blessed Feast of the Nativity to you and yours. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or incubating the article in draftspace."

So my question for you is, should this be updated or removed from WP:NEVENTS? I don't see how the article would fail WP:EVENT as WP:RAPID is a part of that guideline. WP:NOTNEWS points to Notability which in turn goes back to WP:EVENT. I cant explain why some articles are kept per the guideline while others aren't which is why I wanted your take on WP:RAPID. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think RAPID has been used too often to save articles that should not have been created. IMO RAPID should be modified such that it is directed against the rapid creation of articles involving breaking news. Currently it is undermining AfD in its legitimate function, which is to remove articles that don't meet our guidelines and policies. But even setting aside RAPID, I think this article was going to be kept and my guess is that there is little chance of it ever being deleted in the future, because while we may pay lip service to it, the community by and large doesn't really support NOTNEWS as evidenced by this and many other similar AfDs with more or less the same outcome. This has been an ongoing issue for years. The Melbourne attack AfD is simply its latest example. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is judgement. An article that is labeled as "terrorism", but with 2 people lightly injured is going to be kept while the same for a non terrorism incident would be deleted. If the suspect survived then you would still have the legal process, it just wouldn't be as exciting. Take my example of 2017 Notre Dame attack, which by all means should be deleted as a non notable event... why was it kept? A mini biography was written on the suspect. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism is not mentioned in either GNG or EVENT as granting a presumption of notability. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. In retrospect though I feel that if you had joined Talk:December 2017 Melbourne car attack#Is an article necessary? before nominating then maybe more people would have gotten on board with deletion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

That is probably a fair point. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I completely support your concerns about the way the AfD ended up, but I think the issue stems more from the community's misunderstanding of WP:RAPID rather than an issue with the guideline itself. WP:RAPID and it's opposing section, when read together, are very clear. There is no rush to create, or to delete articles, and letting an article sit for a little while can avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target, but at no point does WP:RAPID provide actually provide an argument against deletion if the article is determined to fail our guidelines. WP:RAPID provides an argument about waiting to nominate, but by the time we're five comments into a deletion debate it's too late and the only policy that's relevant at that point is WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. If I was an administrator closing that AfD, I would have difficulty closing it as anything other than Delete or possibly Merge. I likely should not have created the article so soon, and I agree that the community in general has trouble supporting WP:NOTNEWS when it comes to their pet issues. I think the only solution to that is to aggressively push Wikinews recruitment. People are always going to want to contribute to the content that they want to, and it's far easier to ask them to switch projects than to stop writing their content. TheDragonFire ( talk) 03:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Only saw the withdrawn AfD now. 'Tis a pity, as I would have supported a deletion, especially as the entire circus of pageantry will be necessary again come January, when they realise that it fails due to recentism. Anyway, apologies for my delayed reaction, and am just letting the record show that I agreed with you strongly on this matter. Stormy clouds ( talk) 17:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi AO. Just a day ago, the user In ictu oculi stalked through my edits and re-targeted a bunch of redirects I created because evidently I didn't go through the entirety of music history and check to see if a song or other release of the same name existed. They insisted they weren't stalking me at Talk:José Capmany (even though they had to access my contributions multiple times to have seen what I made). Yet, it's still continuing: Just this morning (my time), they've targeted another three or four recent pages I've made that they would not have found existed if they were not stalking at me. This is blatant WP:Wikihounding and WP:STICK behaviour. I get they think they're fixing "mistargeted" rediects and all this business, but there is nothing that is inherently mistaken about what I've done other than that they don't like it/me. Can you please ask them to lay off? I already did and they clearly did not listen. Ss 112 23:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

	Merry Christmas and Happy New Year	Ad Orientem, ...	Lotje ( talk) 06:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look here [10] and perhaps give me some advice. You have interacted with this editor before. He may - for all I know - be entirely correct about the information but he refuses to give any evidence. Initially I thought there were 2 people confirming the details but it turns out the IP address which edits is also him. I feel like either it will end in an edit war or with people allowing him to make what ever changes he deems correct because he refuses to back down. I have no desire to fight with him but having noticed it, I feel there should be some follow up - but I haven't a clue what that should be - so I thought I'd ask an administrator for some advice. I have tried to remain friendly and assume good faith in all my interactions, I don't believe he intends vandalism, but it is getting frustrating to be told "The citation is wrong" or just ignored. I just want to make sure I'm not walking away from an issue without taking action but I am just an ordinary editor - with varied access and experience. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 14:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I dropped a line on their talk page. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey AO. As I think I said above, there's been a bit of controversy over at Perfect (Ed Sheeran song) since Beyoncé was added to the song and whether charts credit her or not. Another user who's been warned a fair bit, tagged around the place and asked to discuss is Gaknowitall, who's stopped discussing and started reverting again. Don't know what else is left to do about this user. Can you ask them to discuss first? Thanks! Ss 112 10:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Dropped a note. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for dropping a note, but Gaknowitall returned and did the same edits again :( - Max24 ( talk) 21:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Max24. I have issued a final warning. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

They've also been edit warring on-and-off with Cornerstonepicker at Beyoncé discography, restoring the same disputed information. I've undone a few edits here and there. They've just done it again: [11]. Ss 112 23:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately looks like it had to be done. Also AO, looks like we have another Beyoncé fan adding original research and edit warring with various editors at Beyoncé discography. I thought they'd have stopped by now but apparently not. They're claiming material is at a source that it isn't. Looks like they're a Beyoncé fan who wants to believe she's credited even where she isn't. Ss 112 01:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey again AO. On this topic: the editor Gaknowitall hasn't learnt anything from being blocked; they're claiming editors (me, in this case) are anti-Beyoncé now on Beyoncé discography because I added a note and removed the addition of original research that claimed Beyoncé is credited where she isn't. Ss 112 08:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I see you have issued more warnings. Let me know if this resumes. This may end becoming a CIR situation. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It's resumed somewhat; now they appear to be on a crusade to claim Beyoncé got a UK Christmas number one on List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number ones. They hunted for an unreliable tabloid source (The Sun) and also found a BBC reference, which if they'd read further than an edited headline, actually says "chart rules mean Beyonce is denied a credit on the Christmas number one, with Sheeran's original counted as the lead track." Publications can't really invent a credit that the Official Charts Company does not use in its article or on the official chart listing. By that logic, we should also include "Perfect Symphony", the version with Andrea Bocelli, as his sales were counted too. I haven't warned Gaknowitall again; I think they're beyond caring at this point. Ss 112 07:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I think this looks rather like a content dispute. It certainly doesn't appear to be malicious editing. At worst it's a CIR issue. Let's try a little WP:DR before we move onto admin intervention. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it was "malicious", just that it's a pattern of behaviour by an established Beyoncé fan trying to find whatever they can to credit her even if those sources are not official and themselves are inventing something the original chart website doesn't say. I will try again to bring this up on their talk page, but I have done this previously and it's been mostly ignored. Ss 112 10:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wishing Ad Orientem a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Nat965 ( talk) 05:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Amaury ( talk | contribs) 08:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

why are you closing something that is almost majority (if not so, I h ave not counted)? there si no reason to close it. Lihaas ( talk) 16:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you made a decision to remove FxPro. I made changes to the article, changed the details and drafted the article. Could you look? /info/en/?search=Draft:FxPro Darislaw ( talk) 14:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manzanar. Legobot ( talk) 04:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Our "introduce Americanisms to an Australian article" friend is back. As I've told them *Americans* "graduate" but Australians "leave school" or "Finish Year 12". Can you lock-down the article for a while, please. Paul Benjamin Austin ( talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Left a note on their talk page. There is not currently enough disruptive editing to justify either a block or page protection. Let me know if the issues persist. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi this is Seraphim System's alt-account (confirmed) for AfC - please add me to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so I can use the script SeraphWiki ( talk) 14:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

85.242.48.58 ( talk · contribs) continues with his vandalism and disruptive editing after being blocked and reported at WP:ANI. SLBedit ( talk) 01:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

---

@ Ss112 Oops is when you are in such a rush to block a harassing IP that you forget you are still looking at the victim's talk page and accidentally block them. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a big oops. When did you do that? Ss 112 03:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Here. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It happens. Apparently more easy to do so with the silly MediaWiki interface...Apparently Twinkle's blocking interface is easier, but I refuse to use it. Alex Shih ( talk) 04:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a boring block reason. I much prefer what I have. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, accidents do happen. But it was embarrassing. And we really do need to come up with a way to clear bad blocks from someone's block log. Even if it is restricted to crats. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Neil. Yeah your block log looks much more colorful. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad blocks or mistake blocks? I am not sure I really deserve mine from 2007, haha. But yes, with the recent storm about bad blocks, a new RfC is probably due. Alex Shih ( talk) 04:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well definitely blocks that are obviously and uncontroversially a mistake. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO. Seems there's a user at Échame la Culpa called "ChrisMartinYoung" who edits charts from time to time being picky about the wording of a commented-out note on the page. I can't say I've ever been in the situation where a user has edit warred over a note, but here we are. This user claims I'm having a "breakdown" or something because I disagreed with the way the message was written. I've removed it altogether now but I think I've had a bit of an issue with this user before about their editing habits, and I believe I've seen them engage in edit wars with other editors interested in charts (IndianBio, if I recall, took issue with some charts they added, and they got into a bit of an edit war on several pages a while back). It always seems to be the case with editors around the 2,000 edit or so mark. They've been here for a while, but not long enough to know the best way to sort out problems is not through edit warring once they've been reverted. Can you maybe have a word to them about this? It would be appreciated. Seems what I've said so far on their talk page hasn't had any effect. Thanks. Ss 112 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We have an issue on the Legitimists page. Arbitration requested. - Conservatrix ( talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I have spent the past few hours refining my response. Here, for your convenience: /info/en/?search=Talk:Legitimists#Split_in_Legitimist_Branches
- Conservatrix ( talk) 08:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The conversation has stalled to word vs. word. Would you care to contribute? - Conservatrix ( talk) 14:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This account that you recently blocked is back making vandal-only edits. Shouldn't it be blocked indefinitely? I'll leave it to you. All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 05:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ssilvers, we do not indefinitely block IP addresses (though I have seen some fairly lengthy ones). Primefac ( talk) 13:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC) ( talk page stalker)

Ssilvers it looks like Primefac blocked them for a month. If they return to this behavior after coming off block let me know and I will impose a long term block. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they returned from the block and began vandalizing pages again. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ssilvers They were blocked earlier today by Primefac for a month. So if they come back and start being disruptive again after their current block expires then you should let me know and I will drop the long term hammer. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Their Talk page does not show the block. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac didn't bother posting the block notice but if you click on their user page you will see it there. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I would appreciate it if you could give your input regarding /info/en/?search=Talk:List_of_naval_ship_classes_in_service#Split_this_article_into_multiple_articles Thanks in advance Dragnadh ( talk) 14:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that this is the latest IP of a block-evading hopper from Southern/Southeastern Michigan who has been propagating hoaxes since at least March. You should take a look at [12] and [13]. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI. I bumped the block to 3 months. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO. Coffee, the blocking admin of BlaccCrab, is currently on vacation. However, the IP he blocked that BlaccCrab was using to evade his block, is back in use: 173.69.144.245. The edit summaries and topics are all BlaccCrab's usual tone and haunts. Can you please block this again and maybe up BlaccCrab's block for continued evasion (as it was already blocked once)? Unless this is out of your jurisdiction and it would be more appropriate for Coffee to do so when they get back. Thanks. Ss 112 08:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, the user Gaknowitall who I've warned you about before has continued about making disruptive edits on Beyoncé discography even after being reverted. I don't even know what they're trying to accomplish on that page at this point. I really think their behaviour goes beyond a mere content dispute. They will not discuss and keep reverting. Ss 112 10:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Ss112. Blocked and final warning issued respectively. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO. Looks like a user got irate at what I wrote on their talk page about some old edits of theirs yesterday, and decided to delete it there and reply on my talk page today for some reason. They asked me "not to reply" in general, but upon their reply being reverted (it's still beyond me as to why users decide to blank their entire talk page and then start a discussion they didn't want on their talk page elsewhere), decided to edit another user's earlier talk page comment in order to write a potshot edit summary at me, telling me "Behave your manners!" and linking said phrase to Internet troll. (Ironically, they had just told me my talk page message was "badly written" and then wrote a phrase that doesn't make much sense.) I sent them a warning about refactoring others' talk page comments, but perhaps it might hold more weight if you do so because apparently I'm just out to "troll"... Ss 112 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note dropped. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I meant about not refactoring others' talk page comments. Their edit summaries are getting ridiculous and unnecessary, even after you just said to drop the stick: [14]. I asked them not to personally attack in me a summary, they reverted that. I then sent a warning about no personal attacks, which was also reverted. I'm done with the talk page messages to them, but it appears they think they're allowed to be as uncivil as they like. Ss 112 20:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Have another editor, Wikisian, who keeps being uncivil on their talk page. My replies probably aren't helping, but with each message they levelling silly accusations—first I rack up my edit count by editing talk page messages, and now I'm "projecting" onto them because I apparently said "it wouldn't be your first time" after saying they would be reported if they continued (which I believe was said after I had a glance at their talk page). I just think this is another editor (editing since 2011) who doesn't have that much experience and doesn't know how to compromise or when to stop with the messages. I think the best approach from here on for me is to just try not to bother replying after the initial warning. This bickering with editors is annoying and tiring. Ss 112 22:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. This looks like a run of the mill content dispute to me. I'm not seeing anything that requires my intervention. I will however gently suggest that you should try to be a little less dogmatic in some of your comments. Sometimes you sound like you are looking down your nose at people you are having a disagreement with and that is rarely conducive to a collegial and friendly discussion. Also try to remember that we are a community of near 30 million users. Even conceding that most don't edit frequently, many not at all, if we throw in the IPs we still probably get around a half million who contribute at least monthly to the project. Some of them are going to be people with short fuses. Some will be people who have had a bad day. To work here with regularity I think requires an ability to grasp what is important and what is just background noise. Sometimes people are going to be snarky and rude. That's just life. And we need to know when to call someone out for being out of line and when to just let things go. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well put. The "no, you're wrong!", "no, you are!" back-and-forth is so tiring, it's like "how did I get into this?" after a while. Countless times I've been replying on someone's talk page and then they try to go all Psychology 101 and pull out the "projecting" card on me. Wikipedia is definitely too serious for some sometimes. WP:CALM... Ss 112 23:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

see this. 203.87.156.0/24 and 121.54.54.11 can be blocked + tpa-revoked. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→ Message me. ←} 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding those three Dragon Quest Heroes vandals here: [15]. – Skywatcher68 ( talk) 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
Are you still online? I recently closed an RfA, I saw your comment on the candidate's talkpage. I am not sure if I closed it properly though. Would you take a look at it please? —usernamekiran (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have never closed an RfA. That said, I'm not seeing anything that looks obviously wrong... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Xaosflux or Ritchie333 would know. —usernamekiran (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Usernamekiran: you should also update: Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/U. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@ xaosflux: The chronological list was automatically updated I think. And the alphabetical list was already updated. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The user Smithjulian982 has damaged the Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou and Louis Philippe I pages with ideological edits. I only recently acquired pending reviewership and have not the rollback powers necessary to counter clustered disruptive editing. - Conservatrix ( talk) 15:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

 Edits reverted and user cautioned. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - Conservatrix ( talk) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you know about the French throne and laws of the house of Capet( Smithjulian982 ( talk) 23:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC))

You are asking the wrong question. The correct question, is what do you know about our guidelines for editing here? Right now I have serious doubts about your generally competency in that regard. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:AGENDA, WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:RS as a starting point. Best regards... - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I know neutral point of view but this is my second day of my wikipedia account in learn every second . I follow that rule now but why do we to do that ( Smithjulian982 ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia, not a debating society. Nor are we an organization dedicated to promoting points of view. In order for the encyclopedia to be taken seriously we must avoid taking sides in controversial issues and repeat only what is reported in reliable independent secondary sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So only information , nothing else ( Smithjulian982 ( talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Only information that has been stated in reliable independent secondary sources. Also please remember to sign your posts using four ~~~~. And you can indent your comments by using a colon. Each (:) will indent your comment by one degree. This helps to maintain the flow of a discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How do you know so much ( 24.27.184.119 ( talk) 02:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)) - 09:44 PM 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian presidential election, 2018. Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You are cautiously invited to consider renominating December 2017 Melbourne car attack now that almost a month has passed, in line with my original comments. TheDragonFire ( talk) 12:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ad O, a few days ago you warned Zixuan75 pretty sternly for disrupting other users' userspace. Today they edited for the first time since the warning, and one of their first edits was to remove the warning (which I know they are allowed to do) and then they immediately created User:SA 13 Bro/Archive 3. Sigh. I think it's a complete lack of competence rather than malice (I'm sure they use a machine translator) but the effect is the same. -- bonadea contributions talk 17:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Blocked x 48 hrs I honestly have no idea what they are trying to do, but clearly it is disruptive. Whether or not this is deliberate or a case of gross incompetence is an open question. Either way though, it needs to stop. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 18:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)