User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 11

1

I was creating some discography redirects earlier and happened to notice that the editor we discussed recently has also created discography redirects, "coincidentally" minutes after I started doing it. What do you think about that? Flooded with them hundreds 13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flooded with them hundreds: I believe you only posted here because you knew I'd see it. I don't even really think you intended this question for AO, who is on vacation. Are you now afraid to refer to me or something? Am I just "the editor"? And no, it's not "coincidence". You yet again move a page I made as a redirect last night (I believe it was "Love Me Better"), so I checked out your contributions and see you're creating discography redirects, and I thought "hey, I might do some of that too". I don't care if you know that because is it against the rules to do? No. Is that hounding in any way? No, because I'm not interacting with you. So what's the problem? But if anything, this just proves that even when I don't interact with you whatsoever, you're still checking up on my contributions—so you've implicated yourself as well in whatever this message is implying. What a silly thing to bother somebody over. Ss112 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to create Lil Xan discography but noticed you had already done it at just around that time so got curious and checked out. Anyways I'm done oofing. Flooded with them hundreds 18:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello AO, I read it somewhere that some confirmed editors here on Wikipedia are paid for their services to the organization. How true is it? Thanks. Wells.grace (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wells.grace. The WMF does not pay anyone for editing the encyclopedia. They do have a small staff that is paid, but it is not for editing. Editing for pay by outside entities, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly controversial and generally frowned on due to the inherent conflict of interest. Many editors, including moi, would like to see the practice banned. Please refer to WP:PAID for more information. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For when you get back...

There's a Giubbotto non ortodosso (the Chris Brown sockpuppet) to block... Wikipartylag has been editing Chris Brown topics extensively. Ss112 10:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography

The discussion has now devolved to such a point where a charming editor by the name of Amaury has thrown a tantrum and compared Flooded with them hundreds and I to racists and homophobes for apparently "discriminating" against visually impaired readers. In your opinion, is this really a civilised way to respond in a discussion? Ss112 19:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That was over-the-top, but everybody seems to have moved on. I am not going to get involved in this dispute primarily as I lack technical competence. But also this is one of those subjects where my eyes start to glaze over fairly quickly. I will confine myself to noting that guidelines are not Holy Writ and deviation is allowed when the encyclopedia as a whole benefits. That said this guideline is supporting an important policy so I would tread carefully. If a bold edit is made claiming an IAR exception that's fine, until/unless it is challenged. At that point consensus needs to be formed in order to sustain the exception. In this case I'd say that can only be done with an RfC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this editor's up to no good

Hi AO. There's been an issue of several users inserting the name of some aspiring Internet singer called "Robin Weisse" to pop and hip hop articles for years; the user Treadizdra appears to have made their account just to insert it again at an article (that I made). I suppose they're not going to start contributing with anything worthwhile—I'm actually pretty sure accounts have been blocked for disruptively adding the name in the past. Ss112 23:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Add Createcomp to that list. Added the name to another new article recently. Ss112 23:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. Could you take a look at these two accounts? It seems highly likely that they are the same editor and I would not be surprised if there were others. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have indeffed both of the accounts, the newer one as a sock, and the older as a spam only account though it may also be a sock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You didn't wait very long. I'm quick, but ... Anyway, they are  Confirmed, but I'm not tagging them or anything. No other accounts seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. After seeing the creation dates I figured this was pretty clearly a duck situation. I appreciate your quick response and no related accounts is good news. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

There's another one: Treashtrof. Also, if you're still online AO, would you be able to move Sunset Tapes: A Cool Tape Story to The Sunset Tapes: A Cool Tape Story? Thanks! Ss112 04:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the account and the move—you accidentally moved it to The Sunset Tapes: A Cool Tape Story? with a question mark though! I corrected it. (Should that article with the "?" be deleted?) Ss112 04:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleted the flubbed redirect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, would you be able to move Empty Space (James Arthur song) to Empty Space (song)—with that page history swap thing page movers do? I just saw it requested at WP:RM/TR and realised it's an article I originally redirected. Ss112 04:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Already done by AlexTheWhovian. I am off to bed. If there is anything else I will handle it in the morning. (It's getting late here.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a discussion, just saw the listing. Glad I could help out, fellas. -- Alex^TW 04:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism Inquiry

Resolved

John,

A page of great personal concern to me has been repeatedly vandalized over the last several days. For the sake of privacy, I cannot identify here the page, or the nature of the vandalism. I would appreciate, however, if you'd be willing to send me an email at superdeadsuperdead@gmail.com. I'd be happy to explain more there. Thank you. Donoharm11 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donoharm11 Hi. For security reasons I do not initiate email contact with new users. However you may contact me via the wiki-email system. In the sidebar on the left you will find a link under "tools" which will permit you to message me privately. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donoharm11 I have received your email and will have a look shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Donoharm11 Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. I have reverted the article to what appears to be its last stable version, sans the BLP violations, and I have indefinitely semi-protected it. This means that anonymous IP editors and brand new accounts cannot edit it. I hope this will resolve the problem. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ad Orientem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please delete this?

Hey AO, can you delete User:Flooded with them hundreds/Heard It In a Past Life? Said user just requested a move at WP:RM/TR and it was completed by a page mover. I was under the impression page movers could delete articles left as redirects when they've moved them—looks like I know next to nothing about how that process works, so can you do it? I nominated it for deletion per G7, as I'm the only "author" and I'd prefer not to have my name on another user's subpage. Thanks! Ss112 14:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

McDaniel College and WP:RPP

You declined page protection stating "Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This is a single IP. We don't do page protection for that. If you think their behavior is disruptive then after issuing suitable warnings, take the matter to ANI". The problem is that the content has being raised on the talk page, and the editor in question is hopping from IP to IP in the 2605:E000:A04E:FE00:0:0:0:0/64 range (and also appears to use 134.173.179.91) so their "own" talk page does not really exist to discuss or warn on. Is there an option you'd suggest, before going to ANI or simply moving on? Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Dorsetonian I have posted a final warning on their most recent IP. If this continues let me know and I will range block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Very many thanks - and, will do. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI - the content has been put back, but this time by another IP: 108.18.27.179. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok this is getting disruptive. I have blocked the most recent IPs and protected the page x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks again! Dorsetonian (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Reporting Rockallnight5

Resolved

 – Resolved at ANI

-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There is this editor using multiple accounts in articles like Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight, Kiss Land and Passion, Pain & Demon Slayin'. I have removed the recording dates off the articles because the sources didn't explicitly said these albums was recorded between these years. But this editor is being very disruptive by using multiple IP addresses, such as in Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight [1] [2] [3]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts I apologize but I can't deal with this right now as I am late for family dinner. If this is still an issue when I get back I will have a look. If the matter is time sensitive I suggest WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey!

Hi, I just saw you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Exchange but the closure template seems to be broken as it goes only by the table and then it goes like it was never closed at all with everything else being in white. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The correct close tag is at the bottom. It's possible the table gumm3d something up. The close is clear at the top though so I wouldn't worry about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Ad Orientem,

I wanted to thank you for adding "References" heading to the "Convert's Cognitive Development Framework". I also love your talk page introduction along with points about being part-time, and that you makes mistakes. I am still new to the Wikapedia community. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddstellito (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious

Hey AO, I've recently noticed quite a prolific editor of music articles, an IP editor using 83.248.186.87. They appear to have only begun editing in August 2018, and cite policies and guidelines quite readily. Their behaviour somewhat reminds of several blocked users, in that are almost entirely sticking to one topic and doing the same things, and when reverted almost immediately go back to revert again. This is Not to say regular editors can't learn these things and don't already do these kinds of things, but I was wondering if you could ask Bbb23 to take a look to see if they've used any now-blocked accounts from this IP. Ss112 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

CUs usually don't run checks on IPs for privacy reasons. But I will ping Bbb23 as he might recognize the behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought CUs did run checks on IPs, just didn't disclose the results? Ss112 15:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the ins and outs of policy, I'm unwilling to do anything in this instance. I'm not that up on music-related socking except for a couple of obvious masters, so it's unlikely I would recognize the behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thanks for your quick reply. @Ss112 If you can nail this down on behavior, or they become obviously disruptive, drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky socking again

Can you take care of this one? Someone deleted the SPI investigation I started.--NØ 17:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't explain why it was "deleted". If you're going to file SPI reports, do it correctly; don't make work for the SPI team. Notwithstanding, I've blocked the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

No need to take that as some personal attack. I was just notifying AO about what happened. Have a great day, both of you.--NØ 18:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@MaranoFan Thanks for the heads up. @Bbb23 Thanks for handling that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

MISLEADING CONTENT ABOUT Lachit Borphukan

SIR, HELLO... I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT THERE IS WRONG INFORMATION ABOUT LACHIT BORPHUKAN ON THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE Lachit Borphukan. HE DOES NOT BELONGS TO CHUTIA TRIBE .... HE BELONGS TO LAN FIMA FAMILY OF AHOM TRIBE.... ACCORDING TO OLD TAI AHOM SCRIPT WRITTEN IN HIS ERA . AS THE PAGE IS LOCKED ... SO I KINDLY REQUEST YOU TO CORRECT THIS INFORMATION .. Chow Mridu Pawan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be confirmed by independent reliable sources. Until then we can't make changes based on original research or personal knowledge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This user has been warned enough...time for a block?

Hi AO, just found a user by the name of Jeock whose sole contributions to Wikipedia appear to be edits like this. It appears I warned them in December 2017 (although I don't remember doing so), so that means it's been going on for nearly a year at this point. They have been warned enough times for a block—and it just looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. It doesn't appear this user has honestly contributed anything of worth in a year of being here, just unexplained edits where they remove spaces and content like so. Ss112 12:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Final warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice

Dear Ad Orientem,

I draw your attention to these edits (though minor ones) [4], [5], it seems the user did not understand that after one revert, place remains the talk until consensus, without it there is no continuation. Here [6] I don't see consensus (moreover the improper epithets and accusations/name-calling towards other editors in his edit logs as well concerns me)...I've checked also the other recent edits, noone else harmed any directive you and Amanda set up.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

Update...check here [7] and here [8]..definetely not understood (and this is "non-minor" content)...the same time still not understanding what vandalism is and continuing the accusation of other editors [9]...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

Oh Jesus...[10] third revert under discretionary sanctions....(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

And the fourth time he is reverting/readding material still without consensus [11]...nothing stops him...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

As I see DeltaQuad already acted...but also some innocent users may be affected who did not commit the same like presented here...will seek further info!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, I've been offline much of the day. It appears that this is now under control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad explained everything in her talk page...now I am fully aware of the bit complicated process, however worth to read in the Question/Clarification & One More Questions section. I think much of us not being native English speakers made some confusions!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

MariaJaydHicky again (jeez she's prolific); page protection?

Separate section for a separate topic—can you look into protecting Phoenix (Rita Ora album) and blocking 82.132.224.151 and 82.132.227.127 for a bit? A London-based IP in the 82 range genre warring—that's MariaJaydHicky, without a doubt. I'm not too sure about all these other recent cases of things being attributed to her, but this definitely is. Rita Ora's articles are one of her old targets too, I believe. Ss112 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

IPs blocked x 1 month. Page protected x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, can you G6 Play (Jax Jones and Years & Years song) for me? I've made an article for it and put a tag on it. Ss112 14:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hi ::@Ad Orientem: I am sorry for disturbing you. I was hoping If you could help me out with wikiedu.org. Will that be possible. If not can you recommend an Instructor who could help me. (Purplecart (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Hi Purplecart. This is not an area where I have any real experience. That said feel free to ask your question. Alternatively you can ask for help at the WP:Help Desk. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem @Ad Orientem:. And thank you for the acknowledgement. (Purplecart (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Another concern...

Dear Ad Orientem,

about the recent edits on the page (especially this [12]) of the user you not long ago blocked and then shortly unblocked (I admire your generosity and kindness, despite of his mass and continous violation of the rules over a month).

This a re-addition of a content without consensus yet of an original addition of him performed here [13], that was reverted to talk by this revison [14] (that anyway reverted not just that but the mass deletion of other sections without consensus), though the user pushed it again [15] and again [16] until it was reset finally when admins started to take care of the situation.

Thus, instead of following BRD that you asked (btw. I asked him since 1 month) and he formally agreed as per unblock, again I see a recurrent addition (and they are not minor copyedits, etc.)...as well I don't see anything regarding this neither in the talk page, nor in any "dispute resulotion" and not any RFC you proposed (having that even if anything by these would be initiated it would not allow to put the content in advance to the article, just and only when consensus have been reached or any arbitration would have a binding result...)(KIENGIR (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

@KIENGIR All of the diffs you have provided predate the block and subsequent unblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Please check the first revision that is recent [[17]], has been made today, I started with this in my first sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Do you have a link to where this was most recently discussed on the talk page? Unfortunately there is a wall of text that I don't have time to read through. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed another admin already acted (check the users talk page)...though I don't remember any discussion about this, believe me, daily I am checking every edits and I am fed up with so many mess already...(KIENGIR (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Ok. This appears to have been handled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Just as a note, I changed your block of 210.185.0.0/16 to be anon-only but allow account creation. It was a relatively wide block and someone came on IRC complaining about it. If they start socking with accounts, we can up it to account creation again. No issues with the original block, but think we can take a bit of a chance here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni no problem. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection for discographies

There seems to be a recurring problem for several discographies: an IP editor (obviously with nothing better to do), most recently using 90.220.147.232, goes around replacing cells with entirely fabricated information. They've targeted Little Mix discography and Zara Larsson discography most recently. If their IP is temporarily blocked, they just use a different one and repeat the same thing several weeks later. Do you think semi-protection is warranted for these? Their old regular target was Jess Glynne discography, which was pending changes protected because of it, but they still occasionally try that article. If there's any more I'll let you know. Ss112 22:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a history of vandalism on both those articles along with multiple protections. I have protected both pages x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed

The editor MakaveliReed have been blocked by Fish and karate for disruptive editing in January 2018. The reason for the block because the editor keep changing recording dates in album-related articles without explaining why [18] [19] [20]. It appears the editor is back again using another account and still doing the same thing [21] [22] [23]. The editor also using yet another account 99.92.229.186. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

99.92.229.186 blocked x 48 hrs. The original has not edited since the final warning. This particular form of disruptive editing unfortunately is not unknown so I am not certain that it is block evasion by MakaveliReed. You would have to open an SPI if you want to pursue that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Look at edits at Watching Movies with the Sound Off, MakaveliReed have edit this article before by changing the recording date without explaining why [24], the edits by the IPs recently look exactly the same as MakaveliReed [25] [26]. The edits also tagged as mobile edit, just like MakaveliReed. I could have reported the IPs at SPI but the administrators have said they only do existing accounts, not IP addresses. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked x 2 weeks for disruptive editing. However I am noting the circumstantial evidence linking the IP to the other disruptive IP and the blocked account. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is back again [27] [28] [29]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This editor won't stop 2600:1700:9A70:7AC0:A9F1:AF92:A9DB:C05C. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed is back yet again 2601:240:CF80:5250:B093:350:38F5:D479. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There's another account 2601:240:CF80:5250:1456:31D0:E0EE:852B. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Range blocked 2601:240:CF80:5250:/64 x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds still being petty

Hi AO. I tagged you in a post on Flooded with them hundreds' talk page, because just a day after I asked you to delete Body (Loud Luxury song) for me so I could make an article there (which was a redirect made by Flooded's old account "Zawl", which he evidently still holds strong protective feelings for), looks like Flooded has decided to make an article for the same artist's next single—and it's no coincidence that that redirect was targeted because I had made it and had just requested what I did the day before. Looking at these circumstances and the user's history of holding a grudge against me (which you're well informed on), I don't believe anybody could view this as anything other than petty oneupmanship. Can you please issue a final warning of sorts to this user? I'm about at my limit. Next time I'm going straight to ANI—I won't heed requests that he and I should have an IBAN, because that won't work—I was an editor long before he appered on this site, I've made far more contributions to music and so I'm not staying away from the topic—I'll be requesting he be blocked. As stated at his hilarious RfA nomination page by another user, he's already blocked on Commons and still evades his block regularly, but he's still allowed free reign to enact petty grudges about ownership and do what he wants here? That's confusing to me. I'm not trying to get too personal here but when someone makes it a point to make their age clear for all to consider, I must admit find it confusing that a teenager has no better use of his time than doing things like this (I know at 16 I had better things to do than spend all my time online). If you can't get through to him, I don't think anybody can, so ANI will be my last resort. Thank you. Ss112 18:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

At this point I have gone as far with this as I am comfortable. I suggest WP:DRN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I previously expressed to you that I don't believe there is any getting through to this user on my part and that I don't wish to have an extended conversation with them because of it. He has a lot of growing up to do and I think he's a mean-spirited person based on what I saw of his social media that he contacted me on. The comments he made on Commons upon being blocked there show his true colours, and the fact that, as pointed out by SQL, he is still block evading there two years later tells us all we need to know about what kind of person I'm dealing with. Looks like if you don't want to get involved further, ANI is my best bet. I'm not saying that you would outright block him or that it is your "fault" for not doing anything further per se, but I just want to say: it becomes evident to me at times like this that admins tiring of warning users is exactly what vindictive and petty editors count on and how they are still allowed to proliferate here because they haven't directly done something "wrong" and actionable. Ss112 23:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

So... what's next?

Re: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 27#Victims lists are becoming a source of constant debate and argument. It was good of you to bring the issue up, and it certainly garnered a lot of response. It seems that what we're seeing there is reflective of what is taking place on the various related articles and their talk pages; most people seem to agree there is no need to list the names of victims of mass-death events, but there is just enough people who feel differently, and they make numerous passionate, if not exhausting, arguments to support their opinion on the matter. But this discussion could only accomplish so much before it died out (as it seems to be doing) and now it's time for the next step (if that step is, as I hope, getting some additional language added to a policy or two, deprecating lists of victims names). So... what is that step? Cheers - wolf 03:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ping Jayron32 Thoughts? I like your #3 and am thinking it, or something very similar, should be drafted and submitted as a formal policy proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It would be good to let this run at WP:VPP since this will be a formal policy/guideline proposal. Would it do well to be an addendum to the WP:LISTPEOPLE guidance? That seems like the most logical place to propose such a change to be formalized. --Jayron32 16:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32 Agreed. If you want to prepare a draft proposal, I will be happy to sign as a co-sponsor at VPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32 Sorry, this completely fell off my radar. How do you think we should proceed? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

We did proceed. There's an active discussion at WP:VPP. --Jayron32 11:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Now how the bleep did I miss that? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep

Couldn't let DePiep make that decision? Trying to move forward here... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Particularly given this edit where they asked me a direct question on their talk page...--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

There is longstanding precedent that requests to stay off a user's talk page should be respected and failing to do so can be seen as a form of harassment. I suggest you post your note on your own talk page and ping him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand that but given that they specifically asked me a question on their talk page AND remove the content where the asked me to stay off their talk page... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I am still seeing this on their page... "To be clear, Zackmann08, I request you do not write on my talkpage any more..." While that is there, I believe you should stay off. If you want to initiate some kind of contact wait until his block has expired and then post a note to him on YOUR talk page. But honestly my best advice is to drop this. You had a legitimate grievance and he got blocked. But you don't seem to able to let this go. I am finding that a bit disconcerting. Anyways, it's late here and I am off to bed. If there is anything more I will have a look in the morning. Gnite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What I was trying to do WAS to let it go and move on... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

If I'm banned from posting on his talk page, then can I ask him to please stop pinging me on his page? Kind of ridiculous that he gets to ban me but repeatedly pings me in conversations... [30], [31], [32]. I genuinely tried to bury the hatchet... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I will drop a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, without getting sucked into drama, can you help me understand the archiving process here? The conversation was still ongoing. Why was the conversation archived? Let me be clear, not looking to stir the pot. If the consensus is to leave it block at 2 weeks, that is not a problem. What I don't understand is why the discussion was arbitrarily removed with no closure of any kind. There are threads on WP:ANI that have been going for a month so it doesn't seem to be a time issue.. Again, I'm going to drop this and as you have already seen I am more than happy to bury the hatchet and move on. My question is just about process and I'm hoping as an admin you can help me understand. Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Zackmann08, could you just mute DePiep in your preferences so you will no longer receive any pings, and unwatch his talk page. Since their unblock request is still open, I am sure outstanding issues will be dealt with. Alex Shih (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: that isn't the point... The point is that they have banned me from their page and keep pinging me. Additionally their block has expired so I doubt the request will even be looked at. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I also want to point out the very first action DePiep took was to revert the comments that were posted in the thread. I have not seen documentation anywhere that an archived thread can not have additional comments added to it. I'm not interested in edit warring but I find these edits highly odd as an attempt to hide comments made by myself and Snow Rise. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally I would seek clarification from DePiep on his statement about not making changes to an archive, but I'm banned from the talk page so I can't even ask for clarification... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep has responded to my query and he reaffirms his request that you not post on his talk page. You may read his comment there. I am going to give a final piece of advice, after which I am moving on. Let this go. Avoid DePiep to the extent that you can. If you must interact with him do so only on article talk pages. The ANI discussion is clearly stale, whatever the circumstances of its archiving. Nothing good is going to come from gnawing on this particular bone. I consider my role in this closed and will have no further comment on the matter. Happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it is worth, I do appreciate your advice and council. I know you may not appreciate some of the actions I took during this, but I do appreciate your willingness to give me advice. Know that I did read every message you left me and took them to heart. Thank you again. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please drop a line to an edit warrior?

Richhoncho is a prolific editor when it comes to categories, but he is incorrigible when it comes to not observing WP:BRD and looks like he's happy to continue approaching WP:3RR as he sees fit. Can you please tell him to stay put when he's reverted instead of thinking he knows what's best? Looks like no admin ever has. He also seems to believe that an editor removing his pointless talk page discussions means "I can revert again"—what a mindset. Thanks. Ss112 00:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I have dropped a note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

MaranoFan tells me not to post on their talk page, then posts on mine

Hey again AO. Can you please point out to this user, because I'm not getting through to them, that if you don't want somebody to post on your talk page, you should not then go and start a discussion on their talk page? They also edit warred at the Billboard Hot 100 article, essentially claiming Billboard is not an official source for its own chart updates, which is ridiculous. Can you please tell them to in future disengage, follow WP:BRD (by opening a discussion on the article talk page, and not post on my talk page if they wish me to not post on theirs? Thanks. Ss112 06:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Asking others to meatpuppet for you when you've been asked not to post on my talk page is not a good look. Anyway, I've already "disengaged" and your inaccurate edit is still in the Billboard Hot 100 article. I'd request Ad Orientem to ignore this bogus request.--NØ 07:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Excuse you? How is it "meatpuppeting" to ask an admin to talk some sense into you—that if you don't want a user to post on your talk page, it's pretty damn stupid to then go rant at theirs? Practice what you preach—nobody would want you on theirs if you don't want them on yours. Learn the actual definition of that before you throw it around—it's pretty ridiculous to say I can "meatpuppet" an admin into doing things for me. This is not the first time you've misused terms as if you know what you're talking about. And you're acting as if I'm the one who regularly updates or even came up with the wording on Billboard Hot 100. Check the edit history, genius—Bryan McLaude updates it most weeks and that wording goes back literally years. Get your facts straight before you accuse me of things. Ss112 07:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

BlaccCrab block evading

BlaccCrab is back using 173.69.157.86—the attitude in edit summaries ("sloppily jotted down run-on"), IP geolocation and topics are a dead giveaway. Ss112 13:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

McDaniel College

Hi, Ad Orientem. Why are you removing my revisions on McDaniel College web page? ElKevbo has his on-sided view of the College that and he tries to remove all negative material. He suggests to discuss, but refuses to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A04E:FE00:DC17:D2A7:5CF2:A8ED (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This has been challenged and removed by another editor. The challenge does not appear to be frivolous. Per WP:BRD this needs to be resolved on the article talk page. The material should not be re-added w/o consensus. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The other editor, ElKevbo, refuses to explain his position in talk. I waited 10 days before reverting the changes. What else do you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A04E:FE00:24E6:41C5:D8CE:1A45 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually it looks like he did explain his objections. Your not agreeing with them is not the same thing. Seek consensus. See WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Passengers of the RMS Titanic

I'd like to invite editors who participated in the deletion discussion to give their input at article talk. There was considerable interest in cleaning up this article in one way or another, but there have been few responses to my proposal to trim the passenger lists. Alternative proposals are certainly welcome as well; I'm hoping that we can build some sort of consensus for the scope and direction of the article moving forward. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 21:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Happyminecrafter12

Please revoke TPA. Thanks ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 02:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You have to be kidding me... I'm continually trying to move on and yet he seems incapable of assuming good faith... NOTHING about this was a "jab". [33]... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Your idea of moving on and mine are clearly different. I have advised you to have no unnecessary contact. I am repeating that advice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

SO I shouldn't have taken care of their template request as a WP:TE? Seriously you think my smile was a jab at them? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No. I think you and DePiep have a history that is past being fixable. Unless the issue at hand is urgent, I STRONGLY advise both of you to have no unnecessary interaction with one another. Almost any communication is a potential source of misunderstanding that could aggravate things. I would have let someone else handle any request that was not on the level of "Hey buddy, your house is on fire." That was my advice. And it is still my advice. And it applies to both of you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Read this. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a needless post and a jab, Zackmann08, after your TE-edit. Also, you were asked to undo your deletion of the diff. (sorry to bother you, Ad Orientem). -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

non-notable victim names

It just takes me awhile to figure out to do the right thing, vis-a-vis this. Couldn't you rethink your position on this. This proposal truly flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but this has been a pet peeve with me for years. I am deeply opposed to lists of non-notable victims in articles. I respect that other people have differing opinions, but this is not a subject where I am going o change sides. I urged Jayron32 to post the proposal and I was the one who raised the issue at VPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

SNL troll, again

Hi, Ad Orientem. See Special:Contributions/71.41.49.243. Evading the block you carried out at Special:Contributions/24.73.197.194 – This IP should also receive a long term block. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeeeeeez that's long! :O

86.26.124.15 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing under IP without socking

Now I have one question and please don't block me for this. Now before you say that I'm socking, the sock article states that if you make problematic edits on another account, then you will be blocked. Now it has been eating me away and they are a few edits that I really want to fix but I can't because of this block I have on my real account. I'm not going to cause trouble I just want to edit with good faith can I do that? 2601:C5:8180:910:CB8:14AF:D853:9A1D (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What is your account? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Flasty Jam 2. That is the one that I would like to use since I made better edits on there (but still got blocked). 2601:C5:8180:910:CB8:14AF:D853:9A1D (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

What was the name of your original account? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Flasty Jam. But I rather use Flasty Jam 2 instead of Flasty Jam. 2601:C5:8180:910:CB8:14AF:D853:9A1D (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am checking... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, no you may not edit anywhere on any Wiki page affiliated with the WMF. Your account is globally locked. Neither I nor any admin can unblock you. Your account must be unlocked by a WP:Steward. You may appeal your lock here. Unfortunately I must block your IP now. I wish you good luck with your appeal assuming you wish to edit here constructively. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please have a word...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To Flooded with them hundreds, who has forbade me from posting on their talk page, about respecting existing reference styles per WP:CITEVAR? He's changing Marshmello discography for seemingly no other reason than what seems to be extensive contributions to it so he can nominate it for GA status. As I'm sure you know too, this is not the right way to go about getting a GA. There are other things one can do on an article to work on it than change references. I'm being accused of "picking" on him, despite the fact the article has been on my watchlist for years and I've made more contributions to it than him. If you can get through to him about this matter (as I don't think it's the first time) it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Ss112 11:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI - I created the page and wrote the entire prose myself in 2016, I have had more bytes added contributions to that page than you and now you're making unnecessary changes to prove a point because for some reason you just don't like having my contributions supersede yours. Twice changing 60 to 16 for "Alone" in the Singles charts, for someone who knows the charts better than most other editors, indicates ill-intent. Just when I'm trying to expand the article and make it better you're there to find fault with every small thing because you insist on having your preferred style there and are willing to edit war for that. Flooded with them hundreds 11:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you haven't had made more edits to the article in total than I have across your two accounts (If my count is correct, I've made 288 edits to it, you've made a total of 51 on your current account and 23 on Zawl). Don't oversell yourself—you didn't "write" the content to begin with. You split the discography section of Marshmello here. "Wrote the entire prose" yourself "in 2016"—please. We can all access the history, who are trying to fool here? Splitting content absolutely does not mean you wrote it yourself. And no, I just disagree with you changing the reference style to get more edits on the page so it can be eligible to be a GA for you. I'm not afraid of you "superseding" what I've done (superseding generally means improving, and I hardly see how inserting spaces and changing date formats is an "improvement"), I just disagree with unnecessary changes—which is what most of your edits were and have been to the article today. Also, in case you weren't aware, my "preferred style" is the way the article was, so it's not evidently not just my preference if that's the way it's been up until this point. Ss112 12:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

According to xTools, my contributions to the article amass over 20,000 bytes and you made 152 edits, excluding minor edits because most of your minor changes are to chart positions (i.e. 10 --> 1). Your edits make up just 11,000 bytes of the page. Most of the lead section was written in this edit by me. My recent changes to the page are very necessary as the article needs to be perfect for a good Featured List nomination, and by undoing my edits you're basically saying "no need to make it perfect because my style should be there and not yours". Flooded with them hundreds 13:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh...as far as I'm aware, minor edits still count as edits, and sorry to break it to you, but not every edit I mark as minor is a chart position update. There's plenty of things one can do with a minor edit—as we saw with your most of your edits to the article today. Regardless, I was only talking about the number of edits, and this whole deal about bytes contributed smacks of you thinking you're the owner of or the most significant person to an article just because you pretty much only contributed the very overstuffed lead (there is no need to talk about every single someone has ever released), as we established most of those bytes were you essentially copypasting a bunch of other editors' work to start the page (which you're very used to doing with all your discography splits). No article is "perfect" and GA or FA status is not an indication of perfection—I'm sure AO, if he reads this far, will tell you that if you aren't already aware. Again, you keep complaining about the article bearing my style versus yours rather than it being the totality of every contributor up until this point. You're the only one wanting your style on it because you're the only one who made unnecessary changes to the existing style. That's the way it is. Any claim to the contrary is bogus. Are we done with this pointless little tit-for-tat yet? I merely wanted AO to explain that changing an article's reference style is not the right thing to do...that's why we have CITEVAR. Ss112 13:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP back adding unsourced personnel sections

I've previously reported several of these IPs that go around adding unsourced personnel sections/making unsourced changes to them to you, as they're not making clear where the very specific credits they're adding/changing are from. One's back using 152.208.57.111 and doesn't appear to have learned not to do so. Ss112 01:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their contrib log it looks like they are adding a lot of unsourced content. Their most recent edit on the 13th added quite a lot and it and that has not been reverted. I am going to issue a warning. If this continues I may have to block them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Editor fixated on the rapper Chip and adding unsourced info relating to him is back

Using 80.6.99.232. You've blocked several IPs they've used before. Ss112 16:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year 2019!
	Hi Ad Orientem! Thank you for all the hard work and effort you put into Wikipedia. God bless! Onel5969 TT me 14:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Hello Ad Orientem: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Thank you. A blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

	Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
	Hi Ad Orientem, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year, Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,    –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 22:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. May you and yours enjoy a blessed feast. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank You and Merry Christmas

Thank you for dealing with my AIV report. Your efforts are very much appreciated! Merry Christmas to you and best wishes. -=Troop=- (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

A blessed feast to you and yours. I will be observing the feast on January 7th (Old Calendar Christmas). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasonal Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Ad Orientem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas! -Fwth

File:Restaurant Bob l'éponge (1).jpg

Merry Chr1stmas and Happy H0lidays, Ad Orientem!


Hey Ad Orientem, i lOvE yOu and wish you a pleasant Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year.
Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia. 🐇🐇🐇
Flooded with them hundreds 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Greetings !

Hello Ad Orientem: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Ostrovok.ru

Hello, Ad Orientem! Merry Christmas and happy holidays! Can you review my article Draft:Ostrovok.ru and accept the submission? Thanks! Parsadanyan (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Parsadanyan. Welcome to Wikipedia. I have taken a look at your draft and am unable to accept it. This is due to the fact that the vast majority of references are in Russian and I lack the necessary language skills to review them. Please feel free to submit your draft to WP:AfC for review. This is done by adding {{Draft article}} to the top of your draft. When you are ready to submit the draft for review just click the blue hyperlink at the bottom of the template that reads "Finished drafting? Submit for review!" This will place your draft in the queue for review by our AfC editing team. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

East Germany and West Germany both need protection

A long term vandal has returned. They habitually edit infoxbox caption text to read "FRG/GDR in 1989" even though the GDR existed until October 1990. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Both articles protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it got busy here last night

@ Flooded with them hundreds & Ymblanter thanks for keeping the trolls at bay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock

Hey AO, looks like the user Aoi has found a new sock of MariaJaydHicky: Keyshia130 Looks like they've restored some edits made by a UK IP that Maria was accused of using. Ss112 16:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

this one is WP:Quacking too.--NØ 14:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jaeden Lieberher

Jaeden Lieberher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you please take a look at my RFPP concerning this article? I've been waiting 2.5 hours now for someone to act on the request, and the article is repeatedly being hit with BLP violations by multiple IPs and new accounts. General Ization ^Talk 02:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Protected x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ad Orientem!

Happy New Year!

Ad Orientem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Trying to move on...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per your advice I have completely walked away from the Chembox project as well as ANYTHING that would cross paths with DePiep. I would ask you to please comment on this post which I undid here. I want no part in the discussion about that template and want no contact with them, because as you have pointed out, it never ends well. You rightly reprimanded me (for lack of a better word) for continuing to attempt contact with them. I would ask that you please hold them to the same standard. To be clear, not asking for a block or any drama BS. Just requesting a reminder to please not contact me. I am over this and don't want any part in it. Thank you and happy NYE. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@ Zackmann08 You ask me to drop a leave me alone note, based on your wanting to drop the stick and move on, which I do... and then you immediately post a broadside aimed at DePiep. Seriously? If this reads like I am irritated, it's because I am. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for irritating you. What I asked was that you remind DePiep that if they have banned me from having any contact with them, they can't then ping me in a discussion while throwing accusations at me and continuing to assume bad faith. What you did was post a generic "Zack's leaving this thread" that wasn't directed at anyone. No one but DePiep continues to bring this up. The issue was put to bed by me walking away, no one is pushing it except for DePiep who decided to dredge up old drama and yet I'm somehow the one in the wrong here? So not sure what you expect of me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when you say you are done and ready to move on, that implies dropping the bleeping stick and letting go. Your comment makes it abundantly clear that you are still fighting this battle. I however, really am done. If you have any further issues with DePiep please take them to either ANI or request assistance from another administrator. I do not want to be bothered with this any further. Yes, I am ticked. Good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Same blocked IP editor...

...that was disrupting Harry Elmer Barnes -- the guy who says "please respect the sources" -- is doing the same thing on Theodor Morell, just as they did in November. [34], [35], [36].

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Page protected x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

NP -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
• Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

• Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

1. At least 8 characters in length
2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
3. Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

• Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
• {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

• Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

• Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
• Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Ad Orientem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Wishing you and your family good health and all the best during 2019. Keep up the good work that you do for the project . --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock suspect

Hi AO, pretty sure Cruddersfield is a MariaJaydHicky sock. Maybe Bbb23 can help confirm it, but edit warring over genres a month after registering on Ciara and Ariana Grande articles, edits to Mariah Carey and Christina Aguilera albums...seems like a MJH clone to me. Ss112 15:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. Happy New Year! -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Think I've found another one: genre-warring on Fear of Flying (album) and plenty of edits to Never Leave You (Uh Oooh, Uh Oooh) (where MariaJaydHicky socks have been found before)...using the IP 2605:E000:4F09:AB00:4009:5A8D:9059:55B4. Ss112 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion by Cardi B fan

Hey AO, I'm quite sure we have another block-evading pop music fan on our hands, this time of a Cardi B fan: Cardicharts is reverting back their unsourced edits (which I've already warned them for) and calling me "dumbass" now, a week or so after registering to the site using this account. Can you maybe ask Bbb23 to run a CU? If not, I'm quite sure this is getting close to disruptive behaviour and could result in a block soon. Ss112 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112 Any idea who this might be? Bbb23 usually needs an editor name for comparison unless he has some personal familiarity. I do agree that the circumstantial evidence suggests socking, but this is not enough for a block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"I hope you die dumbass" is not enough for a block...? [37], [38] Ss112 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Their vitriol suggests they could be of the MariaJaydHicky ilk but I'm not entirely familiar with these shady Cardi B fans that have popped up—it just reeks of socking. Ss112 21:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you please literally step in and block them? Besides the blatant personal attacks, they are edit warring and this is without a doubt socking. No ordinary editor reverts this much. Ss112 21:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not acceptable. Time to drop the hammer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardicharts is now block evading using 79.52.27.56, extensively editing Sweet but Psycho, La Modelo (Ozuna song), Invasion of Privacy (album). Would you please be able to protect those pages as well? They look to want to be persistent. Thanks. Ss112 14:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually in disbelief—they're already using a different IP, 5.169.231.176, that geolocates to the exact same area of Italy, and updating Cardi B articles again—this time Money (Cardi B song). Ss112 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and page protected. He's a persistent little pest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that; was trying to click a watchlist entry as it auto-updated. CIreland (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. I assumed it was a mistake when you self reverted. It's happened to us all at one time or another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Dispute on the page of Vladimir Plahotniuc

Hi!

Recently I have made some changes on the page of Vladimir Plahotniuc, a Moldovan politician.

The modifications made by me, in which I put in the foreground the NPOV,VER, NOR neutrality policy, were canceled by Gikü user, reverting to the last changes made by AlberPenfold (who actually has implications only on the page of this politician!) either vandalizing the page or posting information with obvious negative connotations. More than that, there is an insistence on irrelevant, outdated information with the same repeated content in all posts (especially Chapter Controversies!). Gikü as the admin of rowiki is presumed to be in compliance with policies and rules of work, so demands compliance. He removes my proposed changes, returns to the changes made by AlberPenfold, arguing blatant polishing, removal of negative coverage - but does not take into account that much of the information has been revealed and written in a neutral form. Let's admit for the moment that my actions have a blatant tinge of polishing the image, of removing the negative, as they are insinuating. Why then the actions of Gikü, or the same AlberPenfold user are not considered a violation of BLP policy?

As a result, he requested that the page be protected and maintain its edits, “Protected "Vladimir Plahotniuc": Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (indefinite))”

Following the exposed ones, how do you think it could be solved this situation? In my opinion I would see as follows:

• Reviewing the latest changes;
• Returning to access for possible changes;
• Taking into account the wiki rules and requirements (ex. Wikipedia editors are very careful when adding information about living people to any Wikipedia page.)--Jeremydas (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

You will need to open a discussion on the talk page and raise your concerns there. You may also wish to review WP:DR. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll come back with details on the discussion page, on which would be ok, if you also will participate, to reach a common denominator on this dispute. I also have some ideas that I would like to expose to, but I will already return with feedback after the discussions are completed, to be neutral and impartial at the moment.--Jeremydas (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I am currently acting as an uninvolved administrator. This means I am not going to take sides in a content dispute. But I will keep an eye on the talk page to ensure that things stay civil and orderly while pursuing consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Emperor Norton

Just read about the guy because I saw him mentioned in a little box bottom of your page. What a brilliant read, thanks for that, gave me a good chuckle. :) Govvy (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Джангр_Намруев

Hi Ad. Why did you block this LTA for 36 hours only? Please extend it to indefinite. Thanks. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Nvm it has been locked. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Damn. I intended to block indefinitely. I must have clicked on the wrong time set. :-( -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

AlecGargett

"Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. ... objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable." It was objective prose. In fact it was direct citations of expert organisations and individuals. Alec Gargett (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@AlecGargett Please see WP:UPNOT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I have done do. I didn't meat any of those criteria. Perhaps if it was a sub-user-page instead of my main user-page it would have been OK? Alec Gargett (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and the next time I "vandalize" Wikipedia ?

Hello,

Have received the following :

"Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dorothy Kilgallen, you may be blocked from editing. Do not post WP:FRINGE theories that have been discussed and rejected by the community. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)"

1) Afraid the language used makes this rather sound like I'm 12yrs old and being lectured by a stern teacher ? As I'm not 12yrs old, I don't appreciate the 'threats' and language used ! 2) Why is it "disruptive" when I considered it to be a valid (and substantiated) theory ? 3) "Vandalize" ? Really ? 4) "Do not post WP:FRINGE theories that have been discussed and rejected by the community" - how does anyone know that happened, surely a simple 'I'm afraid these theories have been discussed and we found them to be unsubstantiated' would be better ?

Without wishing to fall-out with anyone, may I suggest that to avoid causing further offence the language used is reviewed, the highly aggressive dictatorial stance be toned down, and in future things be politely and carefully explained ?

Kind regards 109.157.10.4 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an edit notice that cannot be missed when you click on the "edit" button for Dorothy Kilgallen. So plenty of notice was given and you clearly chose to thumb your nose at the community's consensus. That is disruptive. I also note that immediately after being reverted and warned not to post that material, you went back and posted it again. To be clear, I don't think you are a twelve year old. But your behavior does suggest that you are a disruptive editor with an agenda who has demonstrated a clear disregard for our policies and guidelines. If this pattern of behavior continues, you are likely going to end up being blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

MakaveliReed block evading

MakaveliReed is back again using 64.53.195.227 to change date ranges without explaining why. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

They back using account 99.92.229.186 again. [39] [40]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

MakaveliReed seems to be using 2600:1:9223:5712:3DF7:6561:B8E7:2A1E [41] [42]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

They using 2A01:CB00:8F4:300:69B3:AFF7:93FE:298A. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

Hey AO. There's another editor socking on various pop articles. Three days ago, Bbb23 blocked IAMTHEBI as a sockpuppet of Decemberboyl. This editor has extensively edited articles like List of number-one artists on the Billboard Artist 100, Camila Cabello discography and Ariana Grande's songs, and lo and behold, they're back on those same articles/topics with FanTasticlife55. Ss112 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Noneofbussiens

Is a sock - check usertalk for spi RhinosF1 (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Red Frame / White Light

You keep deleting my addition to the article . Disruptive comments!

The phone box is now looked after and maintenance is done by a friends group ...... I am a member of the group that is tasked with this group. I also run the Facebook / twitter and Instagram pages

Why is our additional to the Wikipedia pages so wrong

Andy Angus Deerhound (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardicharts is back

Using Thosebalenciagas this time, editing Sweet but Psycho extensively again as well. Looks like they've been racking up their edit count on other unprotected articles (List of awards and nominations received by Cardi B) so they can edit protected articles, like Cardi B's album Invasion of Privacy (album) and Sweet but Psycho. These sockpuppeters know how to circumvent the basic protection... Ss112 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, have sent you an email. I never know if I should send you an notification here or not... Ss112 01:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Szm Sock

Check for sleepers on User:2019szm. 7_qz (ゆっくりしていってね!) 16:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to contact a WP:CU. I do not have that tool. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry! 7_qz (ゆっくりしていってね!) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

NP. I blocked them as a WP:DUCK. It was not a CU block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Bridgette Andersen

Can you new/unregistered users it for a small period? Thank you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Can you give me some details regarding this? I took a look at the editing history and no recent edits have been reverted. A lot of the recent editing just looks like copy editing. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

On further examination some of the additions are clearly unsourced. I am going to revert them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the unsourced additions. If this continues to be a problem, let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey AO, sent you an email. If the IP hasn't added enough unsourced content and made enough WP:NOTHERE admissions to be blocked, somebody really needs to have a stern word to them. The actual fact that they continue to tag me on their talk page telling me to not stalk them although they have to be stalking me in order to know this...the hypocrisy and contradictions are past the point of being funny to being mind-numbingly inept. I've given trying to get through to them. They've admitted to using multiple IPs and "trolling", and were still adding unsourced content despite saying they would stop. I don't know how much more can be done here. Ss112 10:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Okay I know I shouldn't be looking at your edit history but the fact that you have claimed I admitted to "using multiple IP accounts" is a lie. I had no choice but to ping you and call you out. Where did I say that? Why are you so adamant on gaining justice? Let it go. (101.189.88.33 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC))

...Proof positive this IP editor has no capacity for any self-awareness and is WP:NOTHERE for anything positive. If you could also kindly tell this self-admitted "troll" to stop pinging me, it'd be appreciated. Hopefully, if they're blocked, as I believe they should be, they shouldn't be able to anymore. Ss112 11:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Looking at the IP's contributions, they don't look like a WP:NOTHERE account at all as they're making quite a few constructive edits. They have been called "you poor inexperienced editor", and have also been told to "shut up" in one of the replies on their talk page. Thats not really in line with WP:DBN.--NØ 14:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I'd advise you to stay out of drama that doesn't concern you. Considering your comments to me in the past few days, we all know you're just trying to look like the bigger person by being all welcoming when I know for a fact you don't regularly welcome new editors. Besides, they are not a new editor. They have used multiple IP addresses over the past few years, and I know them from their terrible attitude. Ad Orientem has even said they were equally just as bad in their talk page comments, so there's no "newbie" to "bite" here. I also didn't tell them to shut up—I said I told them "goodbye" in a reply to "get them" to shut up, which is not the same thing. But as we know, you don't always get your facts straight. In future, AO, I won't be bringing this stuff here lest petty snipers like MaranoFan chime in again (oh, but then my contributions can always be stalked...). I called the IP a NOTHERE account because they admitted to "trolling" (wow, must be here for really positive reasons if they admit to "trolling" people) and added unsourced content to no less than five articles in their apparently "constructive" editing spree. You had nothing constructive to add here at all, just bias and misinformation against me. Thanks for nothing. Ss112 22:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Addressed on User talk:101.189.88.33. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cardicharts is back, part 3

This time using Avasavatar. Extensively editing Cardi B topics, Sweet but Psycho yet again... looks like they're not giving up any time soon. Can you also maybe look into protecting:

• List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj
• List of awards and nominations received by Cardi B
• List of awards and nominations received by Shawn Mendes
• List of awards and nominations received by Selena Gomez
• Ava Max
• Finesse (song)
• Girls Like You
• Taki Taki (song)
• I Like It (Cardi B, Bad Bunny and J Balvin song)
• List of awards and nominations received by BTS

And increasing protection on Sweet but Psycho and Invasion of Privacy (album) as regular targets of this user? As I don't know if you can rangeblock or how much else you can do... Thanks. Ss112 01:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, please delete Draft:Blood, Sweat & Tears (Ava Max song) and this useless one-sentence sandbox they made: User:Avasavatar/sandbox Ss112 01:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist (thank you). I will take a look at the pages you listed but unless the socking is very intense and persistent, I am reluctant to throw down protection due to the effect on constructive IPs and new users. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The socking is definitely persistent on List of awards and nominations received by Cardi B—all three of Cardicharts' registered accounts (so far) have edited that article. The editor said Ava Max was their "favourite artist" (despite having a Twitter account dedicated to Cardi B) and extensively edited her article with their most recent account. I still believe their draft and sandbox should be deleted because both are useless and were made by an indefinitely blocked sock account, and they keep coming back to edit Sweet but Psycho and Invasion of Privacy (album) after racking up their edit count on others (to pass the protection currently on those articles), so the protection should be increased on those, but that's just my opinion. It's getting a bit tiring to extensively revert their socks on each article, so to prevent them editing in the first place would be ideal, right...? Ss112 00:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have bumped the current protection to 3 months but I am not going to extended confirmed. That's using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. The fly may be annoying but the sledgehammer is likely to cause more disruption on balance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem and @Ss112: it appears Cardicharts has made a new account FrancescoPirchio05. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

AO, this loser, using FrancescoPirchio05, actually spent over an hour reverting my reverts of Avasavatar's edits. Obviously they have no other hobbies. This is getting out of hand. Is there any way that you can coordinate with Bbb23 to privately deduce their IP/rangeblock? @TheAmazingPeanuts: Next time this happens, can you please revert them if you see them? Ss112 20:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: The reason I didn't revert the edits because I was busy at the time and decided to revert the edits when I get back home. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Although I said rangeblock, I just assumed they were using multiple IPs. If they're just using one IP, I mean, hopefully Bbb23/you can find that out and block that. Ss112 21:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ping Bbb23. This has been a rather persistent pest. Unsure what, if anything, you can do. But if you have any means of making it a little more difficult for them to continue their serial socking, it would be appreciated. There is another thread above with a different sock and there are two very different IPs that I blocked [43]. @Ss112 Please don't feed the trolls. I realize he is irritating but when you react and stamp your foot and tell them off it just feeds their ego. Whatever they are up to, if you see them just report it and don't interact with them. If I am not online report them at AIV and courtesy ping me so I have a record. I may have to create a subpage to keep track of all their IPs and socks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Another CU has already looked at this, and I don't think it would do any good for me to revisit their work.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping TheAmazingPeanuts. Thanks for your help. See also my above post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ping Ss112 and TheAmazingPeanuts. See User:Ad Orientem/LTA Cardicharts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Claudius

For what it's worth, MOS:ERA states: AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD). So for a longer date, such as 13 October 54 AD, particularly when compared with 1 August 10 BC, it probably makes more sense to keep the AD after the year rather that sticking it between the month and year. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

It's grammatically incorrect, our MOS not withstanding. (See also User:Ritchie333/MOS for Dummies) If we are going to use an abbreviation for the era after the year it would be better to use the more politically correct "CE" which is fine. But translating the date 54 AD into long form comes out as 54 the Year of our Lord. Which is not fine. Almost all generally accepted manuals of style indicate AD belongs before the year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet of BlaccCrab

BlaccCrab seem to be back again with a new account called Croftonite99, while I don't know it's really them but do to BlaccCrab's history of using multiple accounts before, I wouldn't be surprised. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112... thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked and tagged. A bit more difficult because the master and socks are stale, but with the behavior and CU logs, it was fairly clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of socks of BlaccCrab, he's back using 173.69.157.86. And appears to have attempted to insult you here. Ss112 17:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Need consultation

I apologize for the inconvenience, I need a consultation. If I do not receive an answer to the initiated discussion (here, for example [44]) how should I do next and what would be the more correct steps to follow in the future in such situations?--Jeremydas (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on the article's talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Cardicharts sock

IP geolocating to Italy updated a peak on Backin' It Up (Cardi B song) earlier today using 95.74.17.161. I would bet it's Cardicharts. Ss112 11:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks likely to me, but only one edit. I need a little more before I can pull the trigger. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrestling vandal back under newest IP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.156.0.215 65.26.211.68 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hyperius1255

This article is just there to show a dick picture and should not be there as there is already an article penis. In other words, its unnecessary. Hyperius1255 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The article deals specifically with the human organ and is perfectly legitimate. This was a very bad judgement call for a CSD nomination. If you disagree you can take it to AfD but I would make sure you are wearing your asbestos underwear first. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

More block evasion by BlaccCrab

This time using 2603:3003:2D07:F000:5D77:DD08:95DB:9B41 Undid my revert of his last account's additon to DJ Mustard production discography, and edited one of his favourite singers' articles. Ss112 01:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked x 3 months & page protected x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tony85poon (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This was moved from my user page where it was posted, presumably by mistake. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheOdd1sOut_(2nd_nomination)

I'm writing here more as a confused user who wants to learn than anything else. My first association with the article was here in late September. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_September_30#TheOdd1sOut In November, I noticed it was back at AfC, and I declined: [45]. My comment was removed by an IP a few days later here who may have moved it to mainspace at some point, since the "has recently been created" box was on the page: [46] It was finally moved to mainspace on January 19 by a non-AfC user: [47]. (EDIT: I only noticed it was on mainspace since it was on my watchlist - I have no memory of involvement between November and January.)

Noticing this, I decided to WP:G4 it instead of moving it back to draftspace, but Szzuk removed the prod here [48] with the rationale of "Needs to go back to afd, result of last afd wasn't categorical." I'm still not sure what that means, and Szzuk is right the original AfD was a bit odd with a lot of IP socks voting delete. After the AfD started, the page was moved back to draftspace and then moved to a different page altogether, being moved back both times.

Only Michig discussed WP:G4, and two of the keep !voters also !voted keep back in September here. I don't have a copy of the original deleted version, but a source comparison shows a couple non-GNG links deleted and a couple links added for the "Streamy Awards" which isn't WP:SIGCOV. A loose noose's vote was very similar to DGG's in the first AfD as well.

I'm mostly just frustrated since this seems to be a complete albeit bizarre end-around of our deletion process and am wondering if you have any advice on what to do if a similar situation happens in the future. Also, I need to figure out how to get the first AfD and deletion review on the talk page - is this something that happens automatically? SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, once something lands at AfD the end result is pretty much determined by who shows up. And yes, that means that at times we can have inconsistent results. As someone who has had a few frustrating, even infuriating experiences at AfD, you have my sympathy. Our system does work... most of the time. But the last word in any dispute is almost always WP:CONSENSUS. We live and die by it. And yeah, it can change. You can manually add the earlier AfD using template:old afd. DRV notice templates are likely at WP:DRV but I will see if I can find the template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If you go to Template:DRV and scroll down you will find a whole list of DRV templates. I am sorry about your AfD nom. Anyone who has spent any significant time there has come out on the losing end of discussions that left them a little (or a lot) ticked. It happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. I appreciate the response. Still, there's no way I can talk you into a relist, is there? It was a 4-2 numerical count, but the keep votes were really soft and didn't go into sources (including the one that said we could cite his youtube videos?!?) SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Relisting a discussion when there is a discernible consensus would be unfair to the four editors on the other side. I suggest waiting a year and if you still think it doesn't belong you can renominate. Consensus can, and often does change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I will say if it is relisted, I would most likely be a person who would !vote keep. (talk page stalker) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, good morning, could you protect the pages Benjamin Burnley and Sam Hunt please, they have been a subject of repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.19.180 (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have protected Benjamin Burnley x 1 week. There has not been enough recent disruptive editing on Sam Hunt to warrant page protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The Paternoster Gang

My close conflicted with your !vote. I still think "no consensus" is the correct outcome, even though there were only two "delete" !votes since the last list. If anyone challenges the close, I'll recommend they wait a while and re-nominate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm... seven delete !votes (+1 merge) to three Keeps. And I was pretty unimpressed with the Keep arguments most of which seemed to fly in the face of GNG. I'm not going to contest it. But I do think there was a rough consensus against keeping this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
• Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

• A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to refer to people as an "illegal alien"?

Hey AO, not involved in this particular dispute but a user who seems has to have a history of following controversial news topics named The brave celery has removed the rapper 21 Savage's nationality because it's come to light he was arrested by ICE after they learned he immigrated from the UK when he was a teenager. The brave celery has saw fit to label him an "illegal alien" and edit war to continue the removal of "American" from more than one article [49], [50]. Isn't that a controversial term? In your opinion, is this removal of his nationality justified? Ss112 02:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a content dispute that I am not inclined to jump into. But if he was not born in the United States, and is not a naturalized citizen, I am having a hard time seeing how he can be labeled an American. The term "illegal alien" is perfectly descriptive of persons who enter another country unlawfully. I have never been a big fan of PC terminology like "undocumented migrant." The apparent implication being that they weren't really doing anything wrong. They just forgot to get their passport stamped while passing through customs. That said, we should use the language being applied by reliable sources. Which most of the time I disagree with, hence my aversion to getting into these kinds of debates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't have any preferences for the term(s) used, I just thought it might have been a controversial term that they're throwing around in edit summaries now that they've learned he wasn't born in the good old USA and they feel they've been hoodwinked because he presents the image of an Atlanta born-and-bred rapper. Is he technically an illegal immigrant if he outstayed his visa and nobody noticed until 2019 that he might have been born in the UK..? It seems awfully quick that all these people who up until this month would have quite happily considered him an Atlanta native now dismiss him as an illegal alien, but that might just be me... Ss112 03:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well if RS sources are saying that he was born abroad, and is not a US citizen that's what we go with. However this is early and we should be careful to hedge the language if RS sources are not firm on what is going on here. If these are being presented as "allegations" then that is how it should be written in the article until RS sources state he is, or is not, a US citizen. BLP comes into play here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism of his articles has already started: being verbose is very British, it seems. Ss112 03:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to apologize for my edit warring, my problem with the removal of "American" because there no source in 21 Savage's article saying he's an illegal alien. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@ TheAmazingPeanuts It's ok. As noted above we need to stick to what is being reported in RS source and as far as possible avoid editorializing or jumping to conclusions not confirmed by sold sources. It sounds like there is a credible doubt about this person's nationality. That should be reflected in their BLP article and appropriately sourced. Given the doubt I think keeping the term "American" out for now is probably a reasonable course pending further developments. I'm off to bed. Have a good night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)