User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 8

Image Use
I have an image that is available for purchase on several stock photo websites but is of a portrait over seventy years in age, thus rendering it into the public domain. Are we able to upload this to Commons? - Conservatrix (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you are taking the image from a website without the consent of the owner then I do not believe it can be legally uploaded. Sorry. While the original copyright may have expired, the image itself (presumably) belongs to the owner of the website and cannot be copied without their permission. Ping for confirmation, -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is a 2D representation of a work of art out of copyright, the position of the Wikimedia Foundation is that it is also in the public domain (see Template:PD-Art). At the same time, the rule in the United States is life of the author plus 70 years (not just 70 years), so that needs to be kept in mind. I’d suggest you ask the question at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright with a link to the source. They’d be able to give you a better answer there then we would. I can do the basics of image copyright, but there are a lot more nuances there than with the en.wiki text copyright policy, which is what I’m most familiar with. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @ And that is why you are my go to guy for all things copyright. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping, : Discussion opened here. - Conservatrix (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ad
Hello Ad, how are you doing. Just wanted to request you to give a re-look at the re-listing of Articles for deletion/Masters in Strategic Project Management (European). Three of the four editors including the nominator have now agreed for a merge post the first re-list, with the initial fourth editor not commenting further. Absolutely at your discretion and judgement, if you might believe this could be closed as a merge instead of a re-list, it would be wonderful. And no problems otherwise too. Great to see you around. As always, warmly,  Lourdes  04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Lourdes  16:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Parliament of Catalonia
Thanks for taking care of that, and the IP hop as well. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see the reason for your edit summary. It goes by way of the images: File:Improved2017Catalunya parliament.svg (added by User:History1245789) and then File:Parliament.Cat 2017.svg (added by the IP, created on Commons by User:Smartcreative1234). The first file seems to be deleted on Commons (and wasn't on our wiki) so I can't see who added it; do you know a Commons admin who can maybe see what is going on there? I'm pinging as well; maybe we should run an SPI pro forma, for future cases (and I see your rangeblock now). These rarely travel alone (I found no other accounts). Drmies (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't spend much time on Commons and am not familiar with the admins over there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , do you have friends in high places over there? There's some cleanup to be done, and a CU run/range block from over there might help us all out... Drmies (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm going to be away from the computer for about an hour. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about the admin side of Commons, or this article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Be careful with this guy. He seems to be persistent as hell: I ran an SPI pro forma here in addition to the ANV once it became obvious this was him again, though another one could maybe be ran on Commons, where his History1245789 was already reported for vandalism there back in December (it was also subsequently blocked here for similarly-themed vandalism). He seems to have a continuous disruptive activity since at least August 2017, acting under similar patterns. The IP range seems to have been blocked for 2 weeks now (he was for 1 month before, see here). However, evidence points that he will come back again once the block expires or under different socks.
 * I guess could also give some light on the issue if needed, as he seems to have been dealing with this guy since the beginning. Impru20 (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the above (I forgot I had previously blocked this range), I've bumped the block to 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Blood curse
Hello! I first want to thank you for blocking that previous IP, however, another IP with similar digits is back. Is there a way to get temporary protection on this page? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Range blocked 182.182.111.197/32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's above and beyond! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, the editor is back again and is under the name IHateJuice666. They made one edit and it was to put back their previous work. Clear WP:NOTHERE to me. I hope I am not reading too much into this, I really do want to always assume good faith, but given this editors previous edit summaries I assume their username is supposed to mean "I hate Jews" and then the devil symbol, but they said juice to get around the system. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest me opening an ANI about this? This seems to be a persistent problem. I think it is more than a content dispute. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Troll indeffed and article protected x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've also bumped the original range block to 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your range block, Special:Contributions/182.182.111.197/32, is only going to affect a single IP address. For IPv4 addresses, a /32 is one IP (for example, 192.168.0.1), /24 is 256 of them (192.168.0.0 through 192.168.0.255), a /16 is 65,536 IP addresses (192.168.0.0 through 192.168.255.255).  In this case, I might block 182.182.0.0/17, which is pretty wide, but it would get all the anti-Semitic IPs.  That said, I want to make clear that I haven't run a CU, so this is not advice from a checkuser; it's just a passing comment from a random person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the random comment. With the page protected and the one IP range I know of blocked I'm content to wait and see what happens. If further measures are needed I will cross that bridge when required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @ it's getting late here and I will be going to bed shortly. If there is anymore trouble overnight I suggest pinging or posting at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. It is getting late where I am too so I guess we'll just cross our fingers nothing big happens overnight. Thanks for the help! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's just another day of cleanup in aisle six. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Jed Stuart
I dont suppose you will be surprised that I am still upset about personal attacks before and during the proposed TBAN at ANI. I am requesting an apology from MjolnaPants for his leading role in that.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is no longer relevant as MjolnaPants has deleted my request and told me to "Fuck Off". I put it in again and he said "Your going to get indeffed if you don't knock this dumb shit off." Back to the drawing board for me.Jed Stuart (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had been giving some thought to going to ANI about this, but had just about decided not to when I saw this, and figured I might as well say my bit here, since Jed decided to get the ball rolling, anyways.
 * But since we're here... You might want to note that Jed has not only broken his TBAN (on conspiracy theory-related topics) three times (, & ), but has been edit warring his over-a-year-after-the-fact demand for an apology at my talk page ( & ). And if you look through his contribs, you'll see that something like 80% of them since his TBAN was imposed were complaining about the TBAN and the ANI thread that triggered it.
 * you may be interested in this as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest a harsh warning to stay away from MKUltra topics. The problem with MKUltra is that its not technically a conspiracy theory in itself (as it actually happened). It does however crop up related heavily to conspiracy theories in the 'see this crazy thing? Its just another mkultra experiment' way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic ban was from "...all pages related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories.", and both MKUltra and the Stargate project certainly are related to conspiracy theories. It might be a little late now for a block over those edits, but it's certainly germane to the question of how best to view Jed's behavior at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

NeilN has given Jed a sharp warning about trying to re-litigate the 2016 ANI discussion, which is the main thing. But I suppose I could tell them not to revert you on your own page, "MjolnaPants". Bishonen &#124; talk 11:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC).
 * If that doesn't work, we'll deal with it later. Thanks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnaPants. I am fully respecting the TBAN in my view. Guy Macon did goad me into talking about the electronic harassment article once, but apologized for that. And I wont let that happen again. I did attempt to add something well sourced to MKULTRA. Project MKULTRA is a well established fact not a conspiracy theory. Stargate Project is also. I have not contributed anything to any conspiracy theory on either. As to your accusation of edit warring, it might seem like I was doing that, as I didn't describe what happened there clearly. I put in my request for an apology, which is in no way an attempt to talk about the electronic harassment article or the details of the dispute, it is simply to make the point that I was not doing what I have been accused of. I went back to your talk page to check it and found it gone and thought that I must have not saved it, so I put it in again. I didn't revert the first attempt. If you want to delete my request from your talk page then that is the way you want to respond. I will deal with the comments on my talk page there. Jed Stuart (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been handled. However if further discussion is required, and given the number of people involved and further that this touches on an issue already addressed there... ANI is that way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jed. My best advice is to drop the stick and move on. There are a lot of things you could be doing that would be more productive than continuing this conversation. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've given Jed Stuart a month-long block for their latest shenanigans on their talk page. Pinging so they're aware. --Neil N  talk to me 05:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

BlaccCrab block evasion (Coffee appears busy)
Hey AO. BlaccCrab appears to already be evading their indefinite block. The other day, an IP reverted me on Migos discography (a page BlaccCrab used to edit every so often) and edited Culture II with a very BlaccCrab-like summary ("makes zero sense" was something he used occasionally in summaries). IP 2604:2000:D05A:CC00:41A8:88E4:53D7:3442 also geolocates to the same area of the US BlaccCrab's user page says he lived in.  Ss  112   03:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:U990467 still edit warring after plenty of notices not to do so
Hi AO. Having issues with the user U990467 being too quick to press revert on articles like Camila Cabello discography, If I Can't Have You. They don't understand the concept of WP:BRD or are unwilling to follow it when being reverted. Can you please have a word to them? They have been asked in the past not to and are still far too trigger happy. Thanks.  Ss  112   10:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted on Camila Cabello discography due to noticing my own number of reverts, and the issue is being discussed on that talk page now—however, I still feel the editor is still far too trigger-happy in these matters. It's stopped for now, though.  Ss  112   10:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

SNL troll
Special:Contributions/67.78.198.166 – Worth a long-term block. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thank you! -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

About Jaana Na Dil Se Door page
Hello, thank u very much for giving protection to JNDSE page. But the problem is that is the protection is only for a 28 January 2018, which is going to expire tomorrow and those IP would be again free to vandalised the article. I think protection date should be expanded. I hope you will reply and do something against this vandalisation as an Admin. ABCDE22 (talk)
 * We don't start off with long term protection. If the problem persists go back to RfPP and request renewed protection. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

New MariaJaydHicky account
Hey again. Looks like MariaJaydHicky has got a new account in the form of the account Kry$talmaize. Very MJH-like username, immediately reverting changes to genres upon registering several days ago (and the bulk of their edits thus far), and hitting up some usual targets—Nelly Furtado, Tulisa, Katy B, Alesha Dixon, Cheryl, N-Dubz (the biggest tip-off) and now Craig David articles.  Ss  112   08:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As for another block evader, quite sure Tanapot2001 is socking with FiRsTTNPOS. Working exclusively on Drake articles and restoring non-notable articles for Drake's songs, which was Tanapot2001's MO. Definitely a WP:DUCK.  Ss  112   13:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed both. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like Tanapot is already back using the IP 223.24.180.234. Restoring the same non-notable article.  Ss  112   07:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Abi
Hi Ad Orientem, I hate to be all WP:THERIGHTVERSION but could you revert back to this edit - Her full name has been in the article for the last 10 years so as per BRD the ips should've gone to the talkpage (I've since gone there) but I simply have an issue with that version remaining considering as I said her name's been there for 10 years or more, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 00:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thanks so much!, Have a nice day, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lonedirewolf continuing to restore changes despite being reverted
Hi AO. Seems every few days I find myself in a situation where I revert an editor who doesn't seem to have had much exposure beyond their own limited scope on Wikipedia and doesn't appear to be very familiar with what to do when being reverted. I have linked the user Lonedirewolf to the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS) but they are still restoring pointless changes to Peek-a-Boo (Red Velvet song) that another user had already previously removed (which I agree with). Can you please have a word to them about discussing their desired changes first, because I have tried and it's evidently not getting through. Thanks.  Ss  112   12:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I've found a sock of a long-blocked user,, still editing Drake discography and related pages under the IP address 69.119.28.7. Besides Tanapot2001, I forgot about this user—the Drake articles and very limited hip hop scope is a dead giveaway.  Ss  112   12:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note dropped and IP blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * AO, they've dropped a reply to you on their talk page that essentially says "I'll only stop if..." They removed a commented-out message on Peek-a-Boo (I'm not sure if they actually thought or intended to restore their content there) and reverted another user who disagreed with splitting the album and its repackage. I'm not sure this user understands needing consensus at all.  Ss   112   06:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I completely missed that Lonedirewolf broke WP:3RR along with the user "Joshua Zhan" on The Perfect Red Velvet after you first warned them yesterday. Now it appears Joshua Zhan has copied the edit summary I originally used to revert Lonedirewolf.  Ss  112   15:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Zak Abel besieged by sockpuppets
Hi AO. I've just discovered the article for the English singer-songwriter Zak Abel has been continuously blanked by IPs and registered editors that are clearly connected since Abel released his debut album in October of last year. Can you please protect the page? Now they're targeting the article for Paloma Faith's The Architect (album), claiming Abel didn't write on a track when he's credited on Tidal as having done so. Connected appear to be: 86.139.159.98, Temperament2, Thorinesque, and Reyserman55. I'm thinking this is some kind of sockpuppetry due to dislike. I can't see what else it'd be.  Ss  112   04:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @... Both pages semi-protected x 2 weeks. I also suspect sockpuppetry here but we should probably send it to SPI just to be sure. There might be other socks out there as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but I feel like if I report it, it'll take a maximum amount of time and they won't complete it because I've connected an IP address to registered accounts. Would you be able to make a short report on it to SPI? Don't cases reported by admins get fast-tracked? Hahaha.  Ss  112   04:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have asked a check user to have a look at the three accounts. We shall see. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Check user confirmed the three accounts as socks + one more that was detected. I've blocked them all. The CU also detected the IP and blocked that for three months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg None
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
 * Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news
 * A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your AFD closure
Hey, Just a question! Why did you keep the clear 1E case, when we are not sure of it's "SUSTAINED coverage" by RSs in future? You even kept the the current title when many keeps where calling for a title change to cover the event, not the person. "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person," the policy reads. -- M h hossein   talk 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that's what the clear consensus was. 1E is not an absolute. Which is to say there are exceptions and the consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of Keeping the article. The issue of SUSTAINED and long term relevance often take time to sort out. It probably would have been better if there had not been a rush to create the article. But we are where we are. In a month or so we will likely have a better idea if the subject has continued to receive a level of coverage indicating long term significance. For now however, the current consensus is quite clear and that is what I am bound by. [It's fairly late here and I'm off to bed. If you have any further issues I will reply later in the day.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but please note that at least three of the 'keep's have agreed with the 1E issue by suggesting to move the article to a title regarding the event, not the person involved. See this comment, for example. -- M h hossein   talk 19:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . There is no prejudice against moving the article. My close was only saying "No" to deletion for now. A move is fine as long as it complies with the usual guidelines and there is consensus. A merge if desired, should probably be discussed on the article talk page. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks again for the response. That would be much better if you had included the above in your closure comment. The way you closed suggests that you had no idea on the move and etc. Thanks anyway. -- M h hossein   talk 18:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you please leave AfD discussions open for the full 7 days unless one of the criteria for an early close is met. Some of your closes today were over 21 hours early with only 3 people participating in the discussions. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes, I had a brain fade last night and landed on the wrong date in the AfD queue. The result was that I closed a bunch of AfDs early before I learned how to read a calendar. When I realized the error I went back and reverted my close on several where participation looked low or I thought there was a chance that consensus could change. But you are correct and I am prepared to re-open any of the discussions I closed early on request, provided that the request is made within the next few days. If necessary I will relist the discussion(s). Sorry about that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A. B. George
Thanks for relisting Articles for deletion/A. B. George. I'm the one who nominated it for deletion. Per the ensuing deletion discussion, I see that the article subject does indeed pass WP:POLITICIAN as a former state legislator. However, there are copyright concerns. Enos733 has suggested blanking the page and rewriting it from scratch to solve this issue. I think that's a good solution, and I'm willing to be the one to do it. I'm not sure if you can withdraw an article that you've nominated for deletion, but if so, I'd like to do so, and I'm happy for you to close the discussion if you think this sounds reasonable. Marquardtika (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . You can withdraw your nomination by striking the text and posting a note to that effect underneath it or at the bottom of the deletion discussion. However as long as there are outstanding pro-Delete comments I can't do a Speedy Keep. However if you repeat what you have written above I think it likely that the discussion will ultimately close as a Keep with a rewrite in the offing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sina Ghanabri
Hello. Thanks for your work on the Sina Ghanbari article to keep it. Much appreciated for your good undrestanding of the issue. I learnt much.Alex-h (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protection?
Hi AO. Can you please protect Savior (Iggy Azalea song)? Different IP addresses are getting all up in arms about sourced content and continually removing a listing from the credits. It's disruptive and needs to stop somehow. Hayman30 listed the page at WP:RFPP earlier but there appears to have been no action on that front. I'm also quite suspicious this latest editor is using a proxy to edit from Portugal; I don't think they actually live there. I'm starting to think they're block evading, and their attitude reminds me a lot of PeopleEater143.  Ss  112   17:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected x 2 days. If you think there is possible socking one of my go to Check Users is Berean Hunter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

AFD Close
Please explain your closure(s) over here (where you failed to weigh to the quality of the sourcing) and here (where all arguments came from SPAs or fitted AADD).Thanks! ~ Winged Blades Godric 10:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good morning . I took another look at both AfDs. Re the MB Gates one, the Keep arguments do not appear to be out of bounds. The OP conceded at least one source that they had missed and DGG's argument was not enough in itself to overrule what looked like a consensus to me. As for checking the quality of the sources, that's actually not my job beyond insuring that there is not something obviously out of bounds there. My job is to try to determine consensus which in this case I believe I did. If I had concluded that there was something clearly wrong in the consensus I would simply have added a Delete vote. In this case I am standing by my close. Regards Ashwani Mahajan, you may have a point there. The first Keep is clearly legitimate however I need to take a closer look at the editing history of the other two participants. Stand by... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, the second Keep is indeed a SPA and while that doesn't in itself negate their !vote, considering the overall quality of their argument, I am discounting their comment. The IP is a different story. There is an editing history there that indicates active participation in multiple AfDs and I strongly suspect that this is a contributor with experience who's IP address might change periodically. IPs are not prohibited from contributing to discussions and their arguments seem cogent and consistent with guidelines. Effectively what we have here is a Weak Keep consensus given the discounted SPA comment. I think that's enough, but as you presumably don't agree with the consensus and I will concede that it's not the strongest I have run across, I am prepared to revert my close and relist the discussion if you want to lodge a pro-Delete comment. Let me know and thank you for bringing this to my attention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki still edit warring after three blocks?
Hi AO. I recently reverted the user Hotwiki at Dancing (Kylie Minogue song) for changing to "14th" to "fourteenth" and linked them to MOS:NUMERAL, which says generally integers above nine are spelt out as words. Upon being reverted, it seems Hotwiki immediately returned to the article and restored their change, telling me to read the MOS (for what, I don't know, as their summary was cut off). I had earlier looked at their talk page and associated pages and found that they still have a tendency to edit war after minor reverts, and have been blocked three times for breaking WP:3RR (the most recent being October 2017). I told them to discuss then decided it wasn't worth it and self-reverted, but can you please have a word to them? I feel that if they keep this up, a fourth block is impending. They have around 50,000 edits on Wikipedia and made plenty of articles but they still haven't really learned from these, it appears. Thanks.  Ss  112   16:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dropping a line to them, I didn't notice until they pinged me just earlier. Don't think I'll bother replying on their talk page, because despite having made near 50,000 edits, I don't know if Hotwiki is too sure of the best approach to speak to other users civilly even after being warned. It's a constant learning process depending on the user and circumstance to be sure, but for me, responding to being called "the other one" and lines like "I don't know what you are yapping at" won't lead anywhere constructive.  Ss  112   16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Sometimes it's best to just move on. Hotwiki will either take the advice or they won't. Horses water etc. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Leonid Volkov (skydiver)
Hello! Can you check my new article and move it to the mainspace? Thank you! Юхапер (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Юхапер. I have taken a quick look at your draft and did not find anything that was seriously problematic. I have taken the liberty of submitting it to WP:AFC for formal review. This may take a little while due to the backlog there. But once reviewed you will be notified. If the reviewing editor finds no issues then it will be moved into the mainspace. Thank you for your contributions to the project and happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

John Mahoney
I seen what ya done there:

Besmertna Pomjat'!

μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
AO, greetings.

May I ask you what the purpose of the template is? I understand it has to do with the "pending changes" feature; the relevant help pages, however, appear to be less than forthcoming, and I haven't found any help in them. Or I might be too inexperienced to navigate them properly.

Many thanks! 79.49.127.89 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good morning. The PC1 protection simply means that edits by new editors and IPs are put on hold until they can be reviewed. You can still make an edit but it won't appear until either an admin or an experienced editor with the appropriate user rights has had a chance to look it over. This type of protection is typically applied to articles about controversial subjects that have a history of attracting unconstructive or overtly disruptive editing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Yes, I see the small padlock at the top of the Holocaust denial page. Thank you again! 79.49.127.89 (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem and happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Giubbotto non ortodosso sockpuppet
Hey AO, discovered a Giubbotto non ortodosso (mainly concerned with Chris Brown articles) sockpuppet account, again circumventing the page protection on Heartbreak on a Full Moon by making a bunch of edits directly before to other related topics so they can pass the autoconfirmed requirement. They are restoring the same content that previous sockpuppet accounts to this page did. Their account name is "Lilmamawanttofreaksom".  Ss  112   14:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Not bothering to tag per DENY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Found another Tanapot2001 sock: 223.24.174.39. Same additions to Drake discography and chart additions to his articles.  Ss  112   16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, looks like 80.6.99.232 didn't stop adding incorrect info after your warning...  Ss  112   00:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @... Can you provide one or more diffs where they are blatantly adding false information? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding information about 2012 charts using a 2011 .pdf (it didn't make the year-end chart in 2012 anyway), claiming an album reached 31 in a year-end chart when it didn't make the top 100.  Ss  112   00:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 24 hrs. Let's see if that slows them down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Please watch and the articles they've edited. In combing through the history, there's virtually nothing sourced, and a lot of pointed and sometimes malicious intent. Thanks and cheers, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually just left them a note. I was looking at their contrib log and came to the same conclusion to the point where I came close to changing the block to an indef. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Moving drafts
Am I allowed to move drafts if they are confirmed to have met the criteria by permission of the reviewing editor even if he did not accept the drafts? See Discussion with Legacypac. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand your question. If a draft at AfC was declined you cannot move it into the mainspace. However if you want to WP:USERFY it, that should not be an issue. You can work on drafts while they are at AfC as well and re-submit them when you are ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After Userfying the drafts can I move them into article space? Best regards, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. You may not move drafts directly into user space unless an experienced editor has reviewed them and approved them. AfC is the best place to do that. Make whatever improvements are needed to declined drafts and then send them back to AfC for another review. If you are unclear about what needs to be done contact the editor who declined the draft. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oakland Coliseum station. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky back
Hi AO. I know you're busy this week, but it appears we have a new MJH sock, genre-warring within their first few edits: Asfarasicangett. Now they're on Britney Spears articles changing formatting (against MOS:NOHIDE).  Ss  112   07:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like Widr took care of it. -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Indeed. Also, would you consider protecting Drake discography for a while? It looks like Tanapot2001 or Drizzy101 from back in the day are still updating peaks on there, coming back every few days using different IPs to add information if it hasn't already been added by someone else. I think the page was previously protected for this reason but it expired.  Ss  112   16:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Semi protected x 3 months -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey AO, an IP account that's now registered as a user account named "LukeBryanUs" is adding what I'm assuming is their own name to the credits of What Makes You Country as it's invented and isn't real. Quite sure it fits the criteria of vandalism; theey've been warned a couple of times now and are still continuing. I think this user account has only been registered to try to make this credit real. Is there anything you can do about it?  Ss  112   19:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, page was protected and both were blocked (for 31 hours, but quite frankly it should be indefinite—WP:NOTHERE for the right reasons and sockpuppetry already). Also, in separate matters, there's a user named Shakira111 who comes around every so often to Shakira articles and adds terrible sources (usually social media) for things like certifications. I reverted them for this earlier today but it appears they've come back to revert me again on El Dorado (Shakira album). I pointed out wP:TWITTER to them, but I don't think they get the message or care about warnings. Users like this usually seem to disregard standard Wikipedia convention and whatever is said to them lest it get in the way of the musician they're a diehard for.  Ss  112   20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

New user doesn't understand the concept of WP:BRD
Hi AO. Having a disagreement with a new user, Maxwel.Rugby, on Walk Between Worlds (album). Firstly they were adding templates that explicitly state in their documentation not to use them outside of infoboxes (as they don't have a use outside of them). Now they're fighting about the necessity of durations of singles being stated outside of the track listing section. I told them I'd report them, so can you please have a word to them? Maybe you can get through, because with some new users they don't seem to want to understand or have it any way but theirs. I've told them about the concept of taking disagreed-with edits to the talk page to no effect. Now they're retorting to me in edit summaries "it is disruptive to revert my edits!" Right... Thanks if you can, anyway.  Ss  112   13:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * @. Heh... blocked as a sock. I am not even remotely surprised. New editors don't start playing with templates right off the bat. I don't think I even knew what a template was until quite some time after I started editing regularly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Rod Coaxter, BlaccCrab sock, abusing on talk page
Hey Ad Orientem. Since Coffee is busy, can you please revdel this garbage? The account Rod Coaxter was blocked as a BlaccCrab sockpuppet, and now he's given up all sense of a facade and started abusing me on his talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rod_Coaxter&diff=prev&oldid=826772266 Maybe the account needs to have their talk page access revoked as well?  Ss  112   01:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Catholic Church-related controversies
You may, or may not, wish to restore Category:Catholic Church-related controversies in view of the fact that its deletion seems to be related to the claim that "Category:Society of St. Pius X is already categorised in Catholic Church-related controversies through means of top category Category:Schisms from the Catholic Church", and it is now recognized that Category:Society of St. Pius X does not belong under any category on schisms in view of Canonical situation of the Society of St. Pius X. Athmharbh (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping . Any thoughts on this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine to restore as a stable version pending the outcome of whatever the consensus is on that page re: schisms. One of the categories should be there, and I don't have a particular opinion as to which one. From a brief overview of the article linked above, I wouldn't put much faith in it for basing any choice of wording or categorization regarding the SSPX in other articles as it reads like a special pleading in favour of the SSPX position by quoting every positive statement said by any curial official at any point in history.You also have the distinction between the formal use of the word schism as used in the 1983 CIC and the common English usage of it (in which sense the SSPX is undoubtedly schismatic, regardless of the canonical situation). How to deal with this complicated situation is best done on the talk page, IMO, but there should at least be one category referencing it as a controversy or schism. I'd go with whichever one is more stable until there is consensus to change. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Soccer Fan Warning - Good catch
Thank you for catching my error on the extra warning at [[User talk:Soccer Fan]. It's appreciated.

-- KNHaw  (talk)  00:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. It happens. I'm currently waiting for a check user on them. I may be wrong but my sock radar is flashing red. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Tanapot2001 socking again
Hi AO, found 223.24.174.235 editing on a song Drake features on, Look Alive (BlocBoy JB song). Editing only Drake topics, IP geolocates to Thailand, where Tanapot2001 lives. Maybe the page needs to be protected too or a rangeblock considered? I don't know, but clearly Tanapot's not going to give up editing Drake topics.  Ss  112   17:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month. If there is anymore trouble at the article let me know and I will protect it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like there's another Tanapot sock: TanapotOS this time. They've created a sandbox of chart positions for Drake, which is a dead giveaway: User:TanapotOS/sandbox.  Ss  112   07:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed and page deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Jrbuechler (blocked)
Jrbuechler was, as you stated, "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia..." Not quite every edit by this "user" (read: abuser) that I have checked was pure vandalism, just most of them... Not gonna be able to revert them all tonight & don't know if I can get back at it tomorrow... GWFrog (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Patricia CV most likely socking again
Hi AO. You said to notify you if Patricia CV got up to her old habits again. Well, today, the same day that Patricia CV decided to start editing again since February 21, Special:Contributions/Patricia CV, an IP address (95.199.12.183) returned to change genres on three R5 articles Patricia CV last changed genres on (Louder (R5 album), Sometime Last Night, and New Addictions here, here and here... Patricia CV on Feb. 18, Patricia CV again, and again). They last edited at 08:23 my time, then five minutes later Patricia CV returns. I find that a little bit too much of a coincidence...  Ss  112   22:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Patricia CV indeffed. IP blocked x 1 week. This has gone on long enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I am grateful for your vote of qualified support at my WP:AN. It is much appreciated. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Naive Question
Being relatively new, I was curious if it is normal that my userpage is logging 800/month views? Your own log counts 600/month as an administrator. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea as I have never paid any attention. However most people who are looking for an admin will land on my talk page. Side note: I like the picture on your page. Very classy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! She is meant to represent my self-identified role as a premiere femme de chambre. Too often monarchists subscribe to the ideology with delusions of grandeur, it being more about narcissism than true belief. Her attire is refined but not superb, she is a high servant and sentry to the queen's chamber armed only with her wit and devotion. - Conservatrix (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope my explanation was not too preachy. The gist is that she reflects modesty and refinement, and this I admire. - Conservatrix (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)



While I have you, how does one go about opening an RfC? The merging of the Kingdom of France and French Kingdom is bothersome enough that I feel like putting it to a vote. - Conservatrix (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to do this is to activate WP:TWINKLE. Go to that link and follow the directions. Then once you have TWINKLE running you will have some new features available. Click on the "TW" at the top of article next to the search box. Then go down the list of options and click on "Tag." A box will appear giving you numerous options for tags to apply. You will want to scroll all the way to the bottom. There is a section marked "Merging." Check the appropriate box, follow the prompts and then click "submit query" at the bottom. Twinkle will then apply the appropriate tags and create a discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So it begins. - Conservatrix (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ack. I misread your earlier post as wanting to know how to request a merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection; sockpuppet account
Hey AO, earlier, NeilN blocked an account editing Chaleur humaine named "NeonGoldRec" and various other pages due to promotional edits/an obvious conflict of interest (the record label name was the account's name). Directly after, another user named "Neycwby09" registered and attempted to restore the same edits. This is WP:DUCK behaviour. Registered directly after the first account was blocked then returns to one article out of five million on WP? Definitely the same person now pretending to be a legit editor. Can you please maybe protect the page for a bit and block the account? Thanks. Also, I sent you another email about a different topic.  Ss  112   21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ On a side note I am reviewing your email and will reply shortly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Shakira111 edit warring on Chantaje, has been warned countless times
Hi AO. Can you please have a word to/block or do something about Shakira111. All this editor does is edit war with users on Shakira articles. I have reverted them on Chantaje and they're not getting it whatsoever, refusing to heed warnings or WP:BRD/WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks. See the warnings on their talk page; I think this is past the part of having it explained to them. They appear to be a single-purpose disruptive user.  Ss  112   15:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They also think the way to discuss with somebody is by reverting them. They have now made four reverts, including reverting their most recent edit, just in order to more write things at me. (Actually five, if you count the original edit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.) I'm quite sure given this user's history they should have received a block to stop the disruption by this point.  Ss  112   15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have posted a final warning of my own. If they resume edit warring let me know. On this note though you also need to be careful. You have done your own share of reverting. As for Shakira111, if you think there are CIR issues that probably will need to go to ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Lullaby (Sigala and Paloma Faith song)
Hi AO. The user BeanoMaster originally made the text on Lullaby (Sigala and Paloma Faith song) as a draft, and then created it over the top of the existing redirect for the song. Earlier today, Bearcat redirected the article and said "wait for the draft to be approved". However, there have been substantial improvements/additions to the article since that time (mainly in the way of charts and formatting), and if the draft were to be moved over the top of the redirect, the contributions of those editors (myself included) would be erased. What can be done?  Ss  112   11:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with this. However it looks like this might have to be done manually which sounds like a monumental pain in the ---. I tried using the histmerge tool but the response was negative. You could also add this to the requested history merge category. But since you already have an admin involved (Bearcat), I would start there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Das osmnezz
Thank you for the note on my talk page - I appreciate the added context. I completely understand why the restriction requiring him to go through AfC was imposed, and it was a smart idea to try to minimise the damage.

I'm at a bit of a loss at this point though: he is continually creating articles on people who have non-notable careers but have played (literally) one game in random, obscure apparently professional leagues (violating the spirit of notability guidelines if not the absolute letter), writing truly crap articles about them that often don't even reference the claim to notability and usually consist of a couple of random anecdotes about individual matches.

Even that would be manageable if a user was open to improvement, but he just doesn't seem to be: I've never come across someone so absolutely determined not to improve his articles and to argue with AfC reviewers instead. Every time I decline an article I'm lucky if he adds one poorly-written sentence before trying to resubmit again. He's certainly producing a lot of articles - but the problem is, these articles are a) on subjects of really, really negligible notability in the first place, and b) on top of that, are simply crap.

I wonder if it might be an idea to try to get through to him that he's on his last chance - I'm happy to keep reviewing his articles if he's going to make an effort, but this practice of rapid-fire-submitting crap, and then adding a sentence and resubmitting with an argumentative excuse if declined is getting very old. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Jjhantsch is at it again
OK this has to be it... " Personal vendettas based on the fact that I disagree with you and those with whom you share beliefs are mob tactics, typically known as "Gestapo tactics" in the USA. Silencing me because I disagree was a Fascist tactic". 104.163.148.25 (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * thank you.104.163.148.25 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Alexey Klokov
Hello! I translated the article from the Russian Wikipedia. Can you review? Thank you. 22Artcriticism22 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your draft submission. I see you have sent it to AfC which is where it should be reviewed. While AfC is backlogged, in my experience the wait is unlikely to be more than a few days to a week. If it is longer than that drop me another line and I will have a look. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For the last week no one reviewed my article. Can you help? Thank you. 22Artcriticism22 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The exhibitions section needs references. Otherwise it doesn't look bad and I think it passes WP:NARTIST. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The exhibitions section needs references" — ✅ 22Artcriticism22 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! 22Artcriticism22 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NP. Good job on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
When you added a reference from The Guardian, there was already a reference named the Guardian. It created a conflict in the sources. I corrected a title, but the sources remain conflicting. Can you look at that please? Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually added two. I am guessing the first one I added gummed up the second one. In any event the first one has been removed, not sure by who. But I can't see any ongoing issues. If there is still a problem and I am missing it, let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that. The rate of edits to the article has increased significantly. Thanks for reviewing it regardless. MartinezMD (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pncomeaux (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)== Thanks ==

Thanks for locking the Bob Marlin page. I'm afraid all of the pages for UL will need to have the same thing done, as they are vandalizing them as well. How do we get this done?

Also, if you haven't seen, the vandals are actually bragging about their actions on the lsu fan forum:

https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/lsu-sports/bob-marlin-wiki-page/75876477/page-2/Pncomeaux (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Send any additional nominations to RfPP. I will be looking in now and then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, and I'd like to follow your advice but I don't know what you mean by 'RfPP'....is this a user?
 * They are still vandalizing two of the pages: the basketball page and the main page for athletics


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Ragin%27_Cajuns_men%27s_basketball


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Ragin%27_Cajuns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pncomeaux (talk • contribs) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RFPP is where you make page protection requests. I've protected the article. --Neil N  talk to me 20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Email didn't send
Hi AO. I got a notification on Wikipedia a while ago that you had sent me an email, but it's not in my email inbox. Can you maybe send it again? I'll directly send you an email from Gmail instead of using Wikipedia.  Ss  112   17:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent again... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent you another on a different topic.  Ss  112   09:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sent you an email using the Wikipedia template again. If you respond, can you try through email? Thanks.  Ss  112   09:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

BlaccCrab block-evading on old IP address
Hi AO. BlaccCrab's back using the previously blocked IP 173.69.144.245.  Ss  112   15:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 3 months -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the IP 191.5.159.17 was unblocked after six months for blanking content and being a sockpuppet of Phantasus Magician. They're back with more of the same: here, here, and here.  Ss  112   16:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another instance of sockpuppetry: 82.132.233.96 is being used by MariaJaydHicky. Geolocates to England, and their first edit (before obviously unrelated past edits from the address) is to revert me at Who You Are (Jessie J album), which is an old target of MJH's.  Ss  112   21:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like Patricia CV is back with an IP address, 2605:e000:fc88:1000:484e:1ced:d8dc:1d7a. Restoring old genres at Free Me (album), adding content to Emma Bunton, and previously edited Downtown (Petula Clark song) (which Bunton covered), all things Patricia CV did and pages they edited. The IP also edited in January during Patricia CV's block then.  Ss  112   03:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another instance of block evasion: 82.132.213.63, MariaJaydHicky, again reverting on Who You Are (Jessie J album). Can you please protect the page?  Ss  112   08:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reported MJH's IP to ANV and it was blocked/page protected, but they later dropped this lovely comment on their talk page...  Ss  112   09:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked CV IP x 1 month / Revdelled abusive edit -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , an obvious block evasion of . Sounds like a duck. The user's attitude looks like here, here. Previous user Crystal Star2006 was earlier than Crystalstar2007 (same editing pattern). 115.164.203.77 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your report. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently familiar with the history of these editors to be comfortable blocking them. I suggest you take this to WP:SPI. Alternatively you can contact a check user and ask them to look into it. I have found user:Berean Hunter to be very helpful. Thank you again for your message and I am sorry that I am not able to act on your concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi AO> 80.6.99.232, the IP you blocked last month for their unsourced/fancruft additions to the rapper Chip's articles, is back and adding more fake info, like here and here (they're linking to a 2009 .pdf for songs released in 2011 and 2012 that didn't even make the year-end charts anyway).  Ss  112   06:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, there's a user by the name of "Beyoncetan 2" who generally appears to make a number of constructive edits. They previously used the account Beyoncetan and have connected the two on their user page. They previously worked on The Singles (Basement Jaxx album) with the account Beyoncetan, which I came across in January this year as half-baked, strangely formatted and bare URLs left on the page. I restored some aspects to their prior versions, however, they've now used "Beyoncetan 2" to restore some of the changes, which I have again reverted (they have repeated the track listing of the special edition of the album for God knows what reason and other strange things). They evidently still have access to Beyoncetan (having edited Beyoncetan 2's sandbox from it as recently as two days ago here), and have switched between the two a few times. I don't get what they're doing, as they hardly ever explain their edits (I have asked them to leave edit summaries, to practically no avail). Also, their behaviour just generally seems fishy to me.  Ss  112   06:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears this seemed fishy to Drmies last year too, with many of their alternate accounts blocked for undisclosed connections: Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoncetan/Archive. They appear to have learnt their lesson with using that many accounts and not disclosing them, however they are still occasionally using the main account to edit their other account's sandbox...  Ss  112   11:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP. As for Beyoncetan 2 I'm not seeing any behavior that is overtly disruptive. But I agree that it is worth keeping an eye on. If it looks like they are socking let me know or open an SPI. It's probably a good idea to keep in the loop since he has had previous experience with this editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I found the argument for all those accounts to be entirely unconvincing, but I didn't pursue it any further during or after the SPI since their odd socking was limited to user space, as far as I remember. I don't have much of a problem with these edits (as reported here) though I think it's needless, strange, and unnecessarily confusing to others. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

New user continuously making moves
Hi AO. There appears to be a user with only 496 edits, called TheRedundancy125, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to make undiscussed and quite controversial moves. Most recently, they decided to move Germany's Next Topmodel (which combines the two words on its official website) to Germany's Next Top Model and all of its accompanying pages to match without so much as a word. I have written them a message but I'm not sure they will start discussing. This appears to be a single-purpose account and it looks particularly concerning.  Ss  112   03:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Universal Medicine
Hi AO. You’ve provided great oversight and advice on this article in the past and I wonder if you could please do so again? There have been a fair few newly created IP accounts circling it recently. I’ve reverted a few of the changes as they were not substantiated. Can you cast your eyes over the article and see what you think please? 79616gr (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will take a look but if you think something is going on that is not kosher the best place to raise the alert is at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If it gets too out of hand I’ll raise it there. 79616gr (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Featuring An Article
Greetings, Ad Orientem. The Kingdom of France RfC concluded not in our favor, nevertheless I return with another ambitious pursuit. The Mary I of England page seems like an excellent candidate for nomination with it currently enjoying "good article" status. My involvement on the page being minimal, another more experienced editor should likely advance the nomination alone or perhaps co-nominate with me. Have any advice? - Conservatrix (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

It may also be worth nominating Louis XIV of France after twelve years demotion from FA. - Conservatrix (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest bringing this up on relevant wiki-projects such as WP:HISTORY, WP:FRANCE, WP:UK and WP:ROYALTY. At the least you should have some experienced editors take a look at the pages before moving to nominate for FA (or GA). -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A quick look suggests Mary I might be an article that with a little touching up could pass FA. Louis XIV unfortunately needs a lot of work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm
I seem to run into you quite often these days. Maybe we should meet for a beer and a grilled cheese sandwich. And you're a Jacobite! We can chat about Sir Walter Scott. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mmmm foood... beeer. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm?
I don't remember the helper script doing that. G M G talk  19:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a good choice but it gives you an option to write your own decline. :-) I just sent it to MfD.  -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No I mean we edit conflicted and it replaced my decline rather than adding yours. Maybe the backlog has been so big for so long I've just never had that problem before.  G M G  talk  19:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry about that. Well we are both clearly in agreement. If you want just re-add your decline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection + IP block?
Hi AO. I've requested Louisa Johnson be protected at WP:RFPP and the IP user 86.28.94.117 (now using 188.29.165.189), who was already blocked by NeilN last month for the same battleground mentality and using unreliable sources, be blocked again. They're again edit warring at Louisa Johnson. Can you maybe page protect/block? I know you don't like blocking but I don't see someone saying things like "I'm here all day", "Let the game begin!" (as if edit warring is a game) changing. It's just a terrible attitude to have and I don't think they can be persuaded not to use different IP addresses to continue edit warring. Thanks.  Ss  112   09:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * IP blocked x 6 months by Widr and I have protected the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please consider reversing your withdrawal of your excellent ITN nom 'Pope says there's no Hell'?
Can you please consider reversing your withdrawal of your excellent ITN nom 'Pope says there's no Hell' (for which many thanks)? Quite likely it will fail, but I think the community should at least arguably have a chance to decide that. If you do decide to reinstate it, please let me know, so that I can support it (if necessary per WP:IAR, WP:5P5, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc...). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

If necessary you could always add words like 'Newsweek reports' and 'unofficially' to the blurb and/or to an altblurb (if you didn't I probably would add such an altblurb myself), perhaps also wikilinking 'unofficially' to some suitable section about ex cathedra and other papal statements if one can be found. Tlhslobus (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Tlhslobus. I am not really inclined to re-open it. However my closure was not an admin action so if you think it has merits you can re-open it. In general I don't like nominations that have little chance of passing and the Pope's remarks being of an unofficial character don't carry any magisterial weight. That with the Vatican trying (rather unpersuasively) to throw cold water on the whole thing, I think makes this nomination WP:DOA. But like I said, if you disagree feel free to -re-open the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but on further reflection I think I'll give it a miss, as your understanding of what's got no chance of success is probably a lot better than mine. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I think we got a winner with this one. And I think Larry is looking pretty good too. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Anon block
Thank you for blocking this IP. His IP changes often, so a range block on 2602:302:D1A2:C740:0:0:0:0/64 would be needed for the block to be effective. This editor has an extensive history, some of which I documented at SPI. Toohool (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Range blocked x 6 months with TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another MariaJaydHicky sock... when will it end?
Hey AO, I believe I've found another MariaJaydHicky sock in the form of "ABurkinator" (they really reach deep into the creative psyche with these usernames). Registered at the beginning of this month and began genre edits almost immediately. MJH tends towards English R&B acts' pages (they've edited Jess Glynne and Liberty X this time around), and has also edited some Nivea (the R&B singer, that is) and Mary J. Blige topics, which MJH has hit up before. The way they speak in edit summaries is very much MJH's style:,.  Ss  112   15:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have another sockpuppet of Giubbotto non ortodosso, the Chris Brown article-editing sockpuppeter: this one's editing Heartbreak on a Full Moon as PorshAE.tattoosonmyneck.  Ss  112   15:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news
 * Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
 * Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
 * The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
 * The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news
 * There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous
 * A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
 * The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd behaviour
Hi AO. There is a user named "Big universe" who makes a lot of minor edits to Wikipedia. This is generally whatever—most of their edits are fine, even if their edit summaries are a bit odd and it appears like they're speaking to somebody or signing off a message with ":) xx" (also, they prefix most with "NS", whatever that stands for, and even after being asked who they're speaking to in their summaries sometimes/the meaning of these, they have not replied on their talk page) but generally harmless. However, I've just noticed this: User:Big universe/Love never fails. They appear to be using Wikipedia as a message board or speaking to themselves/with another who uses their account(?) They also sign off all their edits to this page with "pls rd <3 xx". What do you make of this? I'm nominating it for speedy deletion because it has no use on Wikipedia.  Ss  112   22:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @ I am inclined to agree. This is odd behavior. I am going to temporarily remove the CSD tag and ask for a 2nd opinion. This being Easter (for most ppl) I may not get a speedy reply. But I am going to look into this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Ss  112   23:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and Happy Easter. I was wondering if you would mind giving me your thoughts on the above. I have dropped an interrogative on the user's talk page but I'd like a second set of eyes and opinion. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it's downright weird. However, I see no indication of socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't get what on Earth all this is about. Who are they speaking to? They're adding and removing spaces on this one image just to write edit summaries at...themselves? I think they're using this account to send messages to somebody they know will be looking.  Ss  112   01:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Weird behavior is not in itself an issue unless it is disruptive. But I do agree that at the very least there have been questionable and quite probably improper edit summaries. And that subpage needs to go. I will give them until sometime tomorrow in case they want to save anything, but whether by G7 or U5 it is going away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Buckingham Palace
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Buckingham Palace. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

IP vandalism continues
Your recent final warning to 186.88.45.63 has apparently gone unheaded. The IP 190.207.236.56, which edits many of the same articles as 186.88.45.63, has performed the same controversial edit at Kongfrontation (diff). It's pretty obvious it's the same person or an acquaintance. Thought I'd let you know, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 24 hrs -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I owe you an apology
I owe you an apology, so I apologize. I figure you saw my post on Alex Shi's talkpage, and that led to the block. But thanks for fixing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. You did nothing wrong. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I tried.....
I tried to help Collin understand what they did wrong but I don't think they get it. <b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing"</b> <b style="color:Blue">Talk to me</b> 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think he means well, but he has the competency that one would generally expect from an 11 year old. Unless someone wants to adopt him for mentoring, I'm not unblocking him. At least not for a few years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the patience lol.<b style="color:Red">Chris "WarMachineWildThing"</b> <b style="color:Blue">Talk to me</b> 00:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a great podvig of the sort normally associated with saints. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Shakira111 still edit warring
Hi AO. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but even after your final warning, Shakira111 is still edit warring at El Dorado (Shakira album). Doesn't seem likely to stop, and revisiting their talk page, I actually only just noticed I'm not the only editor warn them of this either...  Ss  112   10:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Further Dispute the Declined Report towards me
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=835446579 The user who reported me is under investigation. I did no such rule breaking, and i already speaking to Admin before user some reason reported me (There no rule broken or copyright rules broken) I am just a Wikapedia try not think of breaking the rules and edit info in (miskates can happen) 🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not under investigation. What are you talking about? I saw the final warning, and I reported it. Get over yourself. TBMNY (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Expectations
Hi AO. A while back, I asked Anthony Appleyard to protect the page Expectations (Bebe Rexha album) from being recreated because several users were intent on creating it when the word "album" had not yet been officially attached to it (it was only announced as a "project"). Can you maybe unprotect it and create it as a redirect (to Bebe Rexha) yourself to avoid any "Ss112 you just did that so you could create it first" business? I thought about asking Anthony Appleyard but I don't know if it's really a protocol-type thing that I have to go back through the protecting admin for when it's a matter of fact now that it's been confirmed as an album by Rexha herself. Thanks.  Ss  112   03:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Courtesy ping . This doesn't look controversial to me but if you have any issues feel free to revert. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal
Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Shtove (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! deisenbe (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Hampton (Author)
Hi Ad Orientem. I am trying to submit Ryan Hampton (Author) to wiki pages for creation. It's coming up as a global ban on the name. I will disclose upfront that I work with Ryan's publishing house Macmillan. I do not want to create the article myself, rather submit it for an editor to check out for submission. Ryan is the U.S.'s leading activist on the opioid crisis. His work has been published nationwide and he has a major book published by St. Martin's Press titled AMERICAN FIX (see here: https://us.macmillan.com/author/ryanhampton/). He has been recognized by notable news orgs such as NYT, WSJ, Slate, etc. for his work. It's kind of crazy that Wiki has a ban on his name. The submission page said to contact an admin for help to get this article created or the ban lifted. So I found you. And it seems that you follow politics in the U.S. so you might be familiar with Ryan's work. Can you please help with this? Thanks so much. -Garrett D4g2018 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi I am going to suggest that you post this at WP:AN as I am regrettably unable to shed light on this issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They have already started a thread here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, seems like Requested articles/Biography/By profession under the author section would be the place to start.  He  iro 03:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh. ANI works. I don't have much insight into the workings of the inner sanctum. This is definitely a subject where I need to punt. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi AO, I've just been told that the IP 172.56.11.138 is, and this certainly seems to be the case—changing dates against MOS:DATERANGE seemed to be MakavaliReed's MO, and that's all this IP is doing. The IP was blocked in September last year, last time they were really active.  Ss  112   04:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For example, MakaveliReed's edits  and the IP's edits , in the article Be. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by .-Ad Orientem (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MakaveliReed is back by using this IP and just as usual changing date ranges again. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This editor don't know when to stop . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Range blocked 172.58.0.0/17 x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor is at it again . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And blocked again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The editor is now using this account . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month and I extended 's range block of the 172.56...IP to one year after looking at the block log. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Also picked up on this: undoubtedly block evasion by BlaccCrab: 2600:1003:B121:6A12:94F:1B37:F82E:333C. Same articles, same way of speaking.  Ss  112   08:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, just earlier, noticed the accounts Swagswag6999 and Helpingoutherelol were vandalising and tag-teaming Mic Drop (song) earlier today. They appear to be run by the same person and don't appear to be here to edit constructively (especially judging by their names).  Ss  112   12:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Everybody blocked and article protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Different topic, but is there any way that you'd be able to delete No Tears Left to Cry, No Tears Left to Cry (song) and No Tears Left to Cry (Ariana Grande song)? I nominated them for speedy deletion (R3), but Ansh666 declined the speedy deletion(s), because apparently the title is a "valid search term", despite the fact that it's OR based on fan speculation and Wikipedia shouldn't be trading in rumours or catering to fans who think we're going to have an article on the assumed title of a song. It's not backed up by reliable sources whatsoever and it's not even mentioned at the target article. It meets some form of speedy deletion criteria. The user who created the redirects, "Love on the Brain", has already been asked not to create redirects based on pop music forum speculation, but is still doing it.  Ss  112   18:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ Sorry, I'm not going to second guess another admin on something like that. I just don't have enough personal knowledge to express an informed opinion. I suggest WP:RfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like BlaccCrab again: 2600:1003:B113:6C3D:787D:A351:C71B:335E...  Ss  112   11:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 1 month. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, but BlaccScab BlaccCrab is back again using 2600:1003:B113:6C3D:D45C:D29A:FF2E:765D on The Chainsmokers discography. Can you maybe protect the page? His edits are becoming persistent and annoying.  Ss  112   18:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked 2600:1003:B113:6C3D:0:0:0:0/64 x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Also, would you be able to block 190.46.58.73? They are undoubtedly the same user as 173.67.188.226, who adds unsourced personnel sections to country album articles (173.67.188.226 is currently blocked).  Ss  112   19:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 2 weeks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chip (rapper) IP vandal, 80.6.99.232, is back and adding hoaxes to Chip's and related rappers' song articles...  Ss  112   06:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the category vandal, 2601:248:C400:CF0:8492:32AA:DA69:2537, is back at Dream on the Dancefloor. Can you please block them and maybe protect that article? It's a common target: Thanks!  Ss   112   07:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Both IPs blocked. Not enough recent disruptive editing for page protection. Let me know if it resumes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BlaccCrab back again using 2600:1003:B12A:BCA9:1CF3:6075:406E:F4B0 at The Chainsmokers discography . Would you be able to protect this page?  Ss  112   22:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * MakaveliReed is back again by using this account . TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BlaccCrab have made this uncivil edit at Ss112's talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked and edit revdeled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey AO, sent you an email about the revdeled edit.  Ss  112   01:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied by mail. This is getting long. I think I am going to archive this thread in the near future. Time to start a new one for all the block evading IPs and other general disturbers of the peace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:KingAndGod
Hey. Since you interacted with User:Zawl the most before they "retire", I thought I'd leave you a message on this matter. Zawl appears to be editing via a new account called KingAndGod (joined on 23 March and has already made 3k edits), they share extremely similar editing behavior, such as Huggle reverts and page moves. I'm more than certain that Zawl runs this new account, and while this technically doesn't count as a sock, can you maybe ask them to disclose their connections between these accounts per WP:ALTACCN? Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hayman30 They removed my message with the edit summary saying it was not applicable to them. I am interpreting that as asserting that they are not Zawl. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite clear they are Zawl; very much still the same activity and topics. I believe they said it was "not applicable" to them because they had already added a notice to the top of their talk page claiming they had another account that they can no longer access (probably to preempt your warning after seeing Hayman30 send you a message). Zawl was known for repeatedly visiting other editors' contribution pages, so it would not be a big surprise for them to still be doing this...  Ss  112   15:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Basically confirmed... Edit: Apparently my message was "aggressive" (despite there being no aggression in it whatsoever; I'd really like to know what was aggressive about it—all I said was that they should have opened a move discussion for a recent page), and I'm making assumptions (I said it was not a good look for them to be contributing to controversial page move histories, especially if they are Zawl, not that they are Zawl). Also, after two messages, they're telling me not to post on their talk page (I'm really not hanging out to do it again, so it was a bit of a silly overexaggeration). I'm actually in disbelief that they're still trying to pretend they're not Zawl when all signs point to them being the same.  Ss  112   15:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Tanapot socking + image deletion request
Looks like Tanapot2001 is back with a new upgraded : editing Drake song articles again. Also, a user by the name of 3three39 uploaded File:Ric Flair Drip - Official Single Artwork.jpg, but gave Genius.com, an unreliable source, as the location for it. Genius are well known for uploading fanmade artworks, and the user has restored this to Ric Flair Drip after being reverted. Can you maybe delete it? Can't find it sourced anywhere else.  Ss  112   05:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @ I indeffed the sock. Regards the image I am not seeing a clear rational for CSD. I suggest you send it to FfD. If it's deleted again then I think any future re-uploading might merit a formal warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They've now uploaded a second version at File:Offset & Metro Boomin- Ric Flair Drip.jpg...  Ss  112   16:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically, what are your concerns with the images? Is it copyright? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * They are sourced to a website that is not reliable and is well known for uploading fanmade covers of songs and passing them off as the official artwork. I can't find this artwork uploaded anywhere reliable.  Ss  112   01:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Unfortunately that is not grounds for speedy deletion. You are going to have to nominate that via the usual methods, probably FfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have a new Giubbotto non ortodosso sock restoring the same content at Heartbreak on a Full Moon: Betterthenuloveurself.  Ss  112   01:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed and page protected x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Euphemism for suicide
Hi AO. I've noticed something a bit odd: Do you believe it's stigmatising language to state "commit suicide"? An IP user has edited the Meshell Ndegeocello song article Leviticus: Faggot here and substituted that phrase for "take his own life". Is this not a WP:EUPHEMISM like "passed away" for "died"? I believe this is overt political correctness, as I saw this same thing in another site's article the other week that to be sensitive around suicide, we shouldn't say "commit" (I forget for what reason), but along the same lines as with "wheelchair-bound" (rather, we should use "wheelchair user" to communicate that disabled are not 'bound' by what their body cannot do, I believe it went)... what are your thoughts?  Ss  112   09:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fairly common euphemism for suicide and I see it used quite regularly. I suppose it is possible that some people prefer that expression as "suicide" may sound harsh. Language evolves over time. Suicide used to be referred to as "self murder." I don't think it's a form of PC censorship but rather a matter of editorial discretion. There are a lot of different words and phrases that are used to describe the same or similar things. ,I lean towards the direct sort of wording and favor suicide. But that's just me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now they're claiming they're "removing" a euphemism? I don't see how "committing suicide" is a euphemism...  Ss  112   11:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have handled that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Whippy7 / Whippyice will using IPs to tandem-edit pages
Hi AO. A user previously known as now uses the account "Whippy7" (for what reason, I don't know) and has been engaging in some disruptive editing practices. Using the IP account 79.64.234.70, they removed the first name from a producer in that column on Dirty Computer here (whereas normally the full name is repeated once in each column), then after the page was protected and they couldn't edit using the IP anymore, came back using Whippy7 to make the same edit with an edit summary. Sometimes what they do is fairly innocuous but is proof they use IPs at times they have disputes. For instance, on The Knocks discography (which I have just edited to remove an unsourced wikitable Whippy7 contributed to), Whippy7 added to it then hours later they're using the similar IP 79.64.233.75 to contribute to the table. One of Whippyice will's old habits was starting out unsourced album stubs, and the IP did that too: The IP has also edited an article Whippy7 started, Sasha Sloan, and contributed to Frank Dukes, which Whippy7 also recently edited. This is not the first time "Whippy" and their series of accounts have socked or been warned about it (as I warned them back in November '17: User talk:Whippyice will. Doesn't look like anything's changed.  Ss  112   02:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Warned. If this continues drop me a line. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

3 hours to site ban?
Are you quite sure you want to close that discussion already? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi He has effectively pleaded guilty and self banned himself . I think that is enough. And to be honest if someone had not opened a ban discussion I would have blocked him indefinitely on CIR grounds based on everything presented. No need to keep the discussion open just for pile on purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism
Issue with User:Bam8ino99 on George Pickett. Warned twice. - Conservatrix (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely Clearly WP:NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

SNL troll
Special:Contributions/97.76.226.66 – This user has been making disruptive edits for five years. Believe a long-term or indefinite block is necessary. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 3 years That's about as long as we can block IPs for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

IP changing year spans back again
Hi AO. The disruptive IP reported several times by TheAmazingPeanuts appears to be back again using 2601:240:C300:58D:5CC3:8727:4BC6:6F4A. Is this yet eligible for a wider range block?  Ss  112   18:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked x 2 weeks and reverted all of their edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey AO, a user that was known for socking on Simple Minds-related articles is back restoring the edits of the banned user Maxwel.Rugby (blocked by Ferret) on Walk Between Worlds (album). They are "Dakota.rider" this time...  Ss  112   14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just found two more credit blankers on hip hop articles that fit the criteria of WP:NOTHERE: CRRight and Trjdn0900.  Ss  112   15:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeffed -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

30/500 protection for Syrian Civil War-related articles
Hi, we discussed the protection level of Iran–Israel proxy conflict in 2017 and it was fixed by yourself as requested. However, i see that the article is still marked with 30/500 extended protection, which had so far not been extended to WP:GS/SCW topic to the best of my knowledge. So, should the 30/500 extended protection tag remain or be removed?GreyShark (dibra) 07:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the page protection which does not appear to be covered by WP:GS/SCW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 19:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . There were a whole series of obviously related and mass created accounts that I blocked late on January 5, 2018. See my logs for that date... . -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Even if I were convinced (which I am not) that their appeal was on the level, I might well suggest declining it just on the basis of what looks like very poor command of English. There is a reason I don't edit the German Wikipedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Please unblock my student
User:SungMinSeung is a student in my course. I can assure you she is here to "contribute to encyclopedia". And she is using reliable sources. In her edit which somehow got her blocked she is using the perfectly reliable Doosan Encyclopedia. The fact that "doopedia" sounds perhaps silly in English doesn't make it unreliable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues at No Tears Left to Cry
Hi AO. A user by the name of Coolmarc has been involved in at least two edit wars with two different users at No Tears Left to Cry now. They reported the first user they had an edit war with, Fan4Life, to WP:AN/EW and Fan4Life was told to stay away from the page for a week. Coolmarc is getting to the point where any change they don't agree with on the page, they will revert. I'm quite sure multiple times they've broken 3RR (perhaps even today they might have, with these, , , ). Now they're reinstating a change I undid yesterday, to denote that a chart on the page is specifically the International Chart and not the overall one, which without the word being there it's implying it is. They think the best way of conveying this information is with a footnote because the name of the chart might get too long, which doesn't make sense because "South Korea International (Gaon)" is shorter than several of the entries already in the charts table. As I said, I changed this back yesterday, and they did it again just earlier. I'm quite sure this is their fifth revert in the space of 24 hours:. Can you please tell this user to stop with the WP:OWN behaviour? That's absolutely what it's looking like to me.  Ss  112   09:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently the two messages I left on their talk page were not calm or civil, and I'm "nitpicking" (says the editor undoing every change to the article they don't like, no matter how big or small) and "starting drama".  Ss  112   09:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am actually stunned! What kind soap story line? There is absolutely no edit warring or WP:OWN issues here. The dispute with Fan4Life was between several users (not only me) and was resolved on the talk page. I have not broken any 3RR rule either - besides the revert of Ssilvers which suffices for WP:BRD as is being discussed on the talk page, I was reverting unsourced content by IPs and had the page requested for protection because of this. All I did was provide an alternative to show that South Korea chart is both a digital and international chart and you did not like it and have now gone on a witch hunt.  Cool Marc  09:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You have openly edit warred on the article and made five reverts in the space of 24 hours. WP:BRD no longer applies when you've made as many reverts as you have. Unsourced content is not naked vandalism (so is not an exception to the three-revert rule), and you are absolutely acting like you own the page. It's funny that you would quote WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me when you've reverted any change to the article you don't like.  Ss  112   09:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not edit warred with anyone. All my edits and reverts have been constructive and in good faith or discussed and resolved on the talk page. I don't think the condescending edit summaries and the way you went about this is right, but I found this quote helpful "The online community requires editors to work in good faith and behave in a civil manner with each other. When editors make false accusations against other editors on Talk pages, this is the type of negative behavior that can lead to editors leaving the project." Regards  Cool Marc  11:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, it appears you don't understand the definition of an edit war then: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." You absolutely did edit war with Fan4Life last week (it takes at least two editors to edit war; they can't be edit warring with themselves) and you did a back-and-forth revert with Ssilvers just earlier, which arguably meets the definition of an edit war. Editors can still think they're doing the right thing and be edit warring. Also, you're linking me to "Don't lie"? Anybody can see what I am talking about. I directly linked to five reverts on one article you made in under 24 hours just above. That is not really ever acceptable unless it's vandalism, and none of the edits you reverted today were, so you did break the three-revert rule. Nobody is lying about your actions or making false accusations about you; something is not a lie or a false accusation just because you disagree. I implore you—go ask another admin or editor. They will tell you that you have edit warred on this article. I have been nothing but civil in my interactions with you. You can try to paint what I've said as uncivil or a "witch hunt" if you wish but that's not what's going on here. Five reverts on an article in under 24 hours, you're going to be called out on it and it's got to stop.  Ss  112   11:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be called out for anything. The links you give do not suggest this. In fact, I have never been warned or edit warred in the 4 years I've been on Wikipedia. I even had a civil conversation with you on my talk page yesterday. This whole story of yours has just come out of nowhere. If anything, you need to be called out for your POV railroading.  Cool Marc  12:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply @ & - Enough. This is clearly a content dispute. No more reverting. Discuss this on the talk page and seek consensus. If you are having trouble getting enough editors to join the conversation then post a neutral request for input on the talk page of relevant wiki-projects and point them to the discussion. I would suggest WP:MUSIC. See also WP:DR. I am not interested in what the current version is. Leave it alone until a resolution has been agreed to on the talk page. You are both sensible and experienced editors. I have confidence in your ability to handle this w/o getting snippy or edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AO, this is above a mere content dispute between two editors. I'm not even really involved with most of what I've just talked about. As I said and pointed out with the revisions I linked to—,, , , —isn't that breaking 3RR? Really the only content I had anything to do with here was the name of a chart, undone in their last revert to the page. The rest goes beyond me.  Ss  112   13:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of those do not appear to be repeated reversions of the same edit. While I don't see this as actionable, again, everyone is urged to discuss these issues on the talk page in order to keep the heat to a minimum and avoid the kind of irritation that causes edit wars or complaints about WP:OWN. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * AO, I don't mean to be persistent here and believe me, I didn't come into this intending to get anybody blocked, but doesn't 3RR say "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period"? I think that's clearly been violated...  Ss  112   13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct. you do need to be careful about your repeated reverting on pages. I do not believe this was intentional edit warring, but consider this as a friendly caution. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Among the links Ss112 provided, I reverted users adding a poorly sourced genre and adding an unsourced next single

- surely this is something that should be appreciated and not used to frame someone as part of a POV railroad campaign?  Cool Marc  13:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is among the reasons why I don't see this as a big deal. Everybody needs to take a deep breath, assume good faith and move on. Surely there are some articles out there that need improvement... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clarifying, my agreement above does not extend to allegations of POV Railroading. But again, it is time for everyone to drop this and go work on something constructive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Blood curse
Looks like they are back at Blood curse, see here. I don't understand their fascination with this topic.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has been handled by . They also protected the page indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BlaccCrab at it again
Found 2600:1003:b118:68e1:1c91:954b:8197:5b5f. Very BlaccCrab edit summary on J. Cole discography, also removing info without placing it elsewhere. Also edited a Sum 41 article, which BlaccCrab edited heavily. Just can't stay away apparently.  Ss  112   18:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the contribs for 2600:1003:b118:68e1::/64 and let me know if you are seeing a pattern of editing that would suggest socking across that range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's definitely him. Very concerned with what is a full single or a promotional single and what isn't.  Ss  112   20:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Range blocked x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Random question about the orient
Out of curiosity, are you aware of a feast in Eastern Christianity that corresponds with the autumnal equinox? The traditional explanation in Western Christianity for the solemnities around the change of seasons is that at Christmas light begins to grow in darkness (Winter solstice), at Easter light overcomes the darkness (Vernal equinox), at the summer solstice, the light begins to decrease (John the Baptist "He must increase, I must decrease"). The only seasonal change that doesn't appear to have a Northern Hemisphere feast with explanation is the autumnal equinox, though, I suppose commemorating when darkness overcomes light is not something many religious groups would want to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * None that I am aware of. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)