User talk:Ad Orientem/Archive 33

Hello, Ad Orientem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r

 Not done Edit does not meet the criteria for revdel. Please see WP:CRD. AFAICT that edit summary is gibberish. That said, I've indeffed the TA and blocked the underlying IP x 6 months as a proxy. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree the close was premature. I've reverted it once. I guess the next thing to do is raise the issue at the talk page of the second closer. It does seem dumb that we are supposed to respect a unilateral close but can't revert it as we might do in the article space. Springee (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Ad Orientem and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Myself and another editor have concerns about inappropriate comments made about a BLP, where an editor has twice implied on the article's talk page that the subject has down syndrome based on their personal observation, here and here, and then doubled down on their claim on their talk page here. An inquiry about Revdel was made on my talk page here, so just asking for an extra set of eyes and your opinion. Thanks.— Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

Back in October you blocked an IP and now it's doing the same disruptive stuff, very likely to be related to this LTA case. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Binksternet IP blocked x 3 months. TA indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

C'était rapide! Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem! I hope you & yours are well! In my travels fixing script errors I encountered the Runit Debbarma article. It has been nominated for deletion (discussion here) but unfortunately the editor who created the article, Brendonmotom, is resorting to constantly removing the deletion tags despite many warnings on their talk page. I even posted a polite message hoping to talk them round to discussing rather than edit warring but seemingly to no avail. Might need someone with more authority, like yourself, to nip things in the bud before an editor over there goes too far. Thanks if you are able to help! Take care, 14:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC) LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Ad Orientem! Never mind! The editor has been blocked from editing the article for a couple of weeks after a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Oh well, I did try to warn them. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear everything is under control. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Go 'ed ~2025-43401-68 (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Ad Orientem, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Ravenswing 19:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Ravenswing 19:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

@Ravenswing Thank you. And a blessed feast to you and yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they're back with User:Mrsns. Not 100% sure it's them but it looks pretty likely. What do you think? Lynch44 20:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lynch44 It certainly does look like them. My finger is hovering over the block button. But out of an abundance of caution I will seek a 2nd opinion from someone with CU rights. Ping ToBeFree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Confirmed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Thanks! I've updated WP:BKFIP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I wouldn't. Checkusers are aware. The behavior is not new and documentation-worthy. All we do is building a shrine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I will bear that in mind going forward. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Ad Orientem,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Abishe Thank you. Here's hoping for a better 2026. This last year is not one I will look back on with fond sentimentality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

	Happy New Year
	Happy New Year! May 2026 be your best year yet! BD2412 T 00:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412 Thank you. Wishing you and yours a blessed year as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I'll be working on it! BD2412 T 01:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this adequate? Would you like to comment or ask questions? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra Assuming there is no evidence of block evasion, I'm good with a standard offer unblock. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-96201 seems to be the same guy as ~2025-42703-87 based on Special:Diff/1331294186 and Special:Diff/1331316345; a larger IP range block may be in order. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I've blocked /42 range x 3 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

I should have come here first but I started a thread on WP:RFPP/D about this page. Czarking0 (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 I will respond at RfPP/D. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for adding protection to the Derek Martin page. His death is now beginning to be reported, so I was wondering if it might be possible to change the protection level to extended‑confirmed so that we can make some edits to the page and tidy it up ahead of a potential In the news nomination. I will hold off until better sources appear, but I would like to make some constructive improvements to the article. Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@ItsShandog Protection downgraded to indefinite semi-pp. Multiple RS sources are reporting his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

The same DirectTV lies have been re-added to News of the World (film) and The Father (2020 film) once again and I already reverted them. It looks like Dfrenzel9 is attempting to evade his block using temporary IP address like 2026-25709-2. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28 I've pending changes protected both pages x 6 months. As for the block evasion, no user named Dfrenzel9 exists. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I made a mistake. It was Defrenzel9. I forgot about the letter "E". - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28 TA indeffed. Underlying IP blocked x 1 year on the /32range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I see that another user I am currently in an edit conflict with, @Amigao, made a request on the page protection request page to have me blocked from editing the page Great Translation Movement, and in this request they have accused me of vandalism and disruptive editing. I would like to address these accusations honestly and earnestly.

• At no point have I made any edit that can even be construed as vandalism. I have not willingly inserted false information, nonsense/garbage, or otherwise disruptive material that could be qualified as WP:VANDALISM. You are free to investigate the edits made by anonymous users leading up to the current moment. I further hope you will look at the talk page, and see what the engagement between the two of us has been.
• This user has also equivalently engaged in disruptive editing, including violating the WP:3RR just to seemingly have the last edit in. None of my edits were disruptive, as I have incorporated their changes whenever they were appropriate, but their claims of "disruptive editing" fell under me adding additional sources that they themselves questioned the lack of, as well as me restoring additions that I clearly gave an appropriate policy.

~2026-28706-2 (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-28706-2 There has been quite a bit of dicey editing going on at that page. My decision to protect the page was not based solely on your interactions with Amigao, which I concur does look like some edit warring. Going back several years in the page history it is clear that a disproportionate percentage of anonymous edits have been reverted as unconstructive. This is unfortunate, but not terribly surprising given the subject matter. Honestly, I'm rather surprised the page hasn't been protected more frequently or for longer periods. I suggest you and Amigao find a quiet corner on the article talk page and discuss your differences so things run smoothly once protection expires. That aside, I would gently encourage you to consider creating a WP:ACCOUNT. One of the many advantages is that as you go along you will find yourself able to edit pages that anonymous users may not. I hope that I am wrong, but based on the long term problematic editing by anonymous users, I would not be surprised if further protections are needed in the future. Thank you for your contributions to the project... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, any chance you could keep an eye on Frankfurt Airport? I do fully agree with your declining protection, just making you aware that the restorations are continuing. Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

le sigh… and now a long-term contributor restoring unsourced content and primary sources which were removed as they went against community consensus. Any suggestions, because it’s pretty obvious I’m fighting a losing battle… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 You have my deepest sympathies. Unfortunately this is an ongoing problem with a lot of airport articles, and for that matter a lot of articles where information changes periodically and/or that draw a lot of editors. I can add the page to my watch list. But as of right now I have 11,622 pages watch listed, so I'm not sure how much good that will do. You might get more help by posting an "extra eyes please" request at WT:AIRPORT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly at the point where I'm about to take this guy to ANI, as they've yet again restored screeds of unsourced content. Would you be willing to take a look in the immediate as an alternative to ANI (there's discussion on his talk page too)? No worries if not, but it's worth attempting. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 I've reverted their edits and left them a note. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks... I hope it can be resolved, fingers crossed... it just seems bizarre that an editor of their standing is ignoring PAGs like this Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, I did NOT add unsourced content, it is sourced to the general sources at the top of the list. These are verifiable, and if you can't see that, that's a you problem. It just seems bizarre that you keep removing accurate information rather than improving the project and adding sources yourself. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Reywas92. Thank you for your note. WP:BRD is what we go by in order to avoid edit warring. This appears to be a content dispute over sourcing which is a fairly common occurrence on the project. The way we resolve these things is to discuss the matter with the objecting editor, and if agreement remains allusive then we seek input from other editors on the article talk page. It's not a big deal and should not be taken personally. Your contributions to the project are appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be nice if Danners wouldn't slander me. I'm not ignoring any PAGs, the content is sourced and verifiable. — Reywas92^Talk 19:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I think he was referring to BRD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I asked Ad Orientem to have a look at this issue as an alternative to ANI, because as I have explained on your talk page, independent reliable sources are required for these tables - and yet you continuously ignore this consensus. What will it take for you to adhere to the contents of this consensus? I don't want to go to ANI, but this has been going on for more than 6 months now. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430, @Reywas92... I would encourage everybody to dial it down a bit and try to remember that we are all on the same team. Discuss the disagreement on the article talk page, request outside input if needed, and abide by the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ad Oritentem! Hope you are doing well. I wanted to let you know that after a recent ArbCom motion, page protections are automatically logged, so you no longer need to do this manually. See Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections § About this page for exact details.

I am reaching out as a fellow admin, not as an arb; you are absolutely not in trouble :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I am still a bit confused on how ~2026-78866 contributions weren't in violation of PIA's EC restriction. I thought I had a decent understanding of broadly construed. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 05:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs I may be misreading your report. I was looking at it as a claim that the entire article was EC restricted. That aside, looking at the edit I believe the sourcing doesn't meet our standards. X is obviously not a reliable source and the other source cited is also clearly not RS. I am going to revert the edit on that basis. Odd that the bot hasn't removed the report since the user is blocked. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I suppose I should have been clearer. I believe HBC AIV helperbot14 only clears the report if the user is fully blocked, instead of just partially blocked. See , where the next bot edit here didn't clear the report of ~2025-38704-07. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 06:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@45dogs (bot OP here) that is correct - as the bot can't really determine if the user has been partially blocked from the pages in question or if it's an unrelated partial block, without parsing the text and block summaries in greater detail. Mdann52 (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both. I cleared the handled reports at AIV and reverted the edits on the article. Those should not be reinstated w/o much better sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems like TPA may need revoking at ~2026-15573-9... based on what I've just reverted... Thanks for blocking them though, lol. Magitroopa (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Magitroopa, @EvergreenFir Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you revision history delete the just blocked user. The words are rather unkind, and not Wikipedia appropriate at all. Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy TPA revoked. The comments, while obviously unconstructive, don't rise to the level of requiring a revdel. Just run of the mil obnoxious behavior. Best to just ignore and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, happy editing. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

While you're here I have a question. I currently can't access my homepage, do you know what I can do about it? Thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@DafootballguyDo you mean your Wikipedia user page? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I mean the homepage that only the user who is signed in can access, I can get to my user page fine. Again, thank you for your time. Dafootballguy (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy Your WP:preferences page? Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, something come up. The page that shows impact and the ask your mentor stuff. Happy editing.Dafootballguy (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy Hmm... I don't work in the mentor department, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask. I suggest you request assistance at the WP:HELPDESK or the WP:TEAHOUSE. Sorry I can't be more helpful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically referring to the mentor stuff, just the page that has impact and others. By the way there is a user who has vandalized Saturday Night Live season 9 ect. They are going through every one and vandalizing despite warnings by cluebot. Thank you for the help. Dafootballguy (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy I've blocked the TA. Definitely think you should go to the help desk to sort out your page issues. It might be a simple tech issue. But that's not my strong point. Still trying to figure out the electric typewriter and cars with automatic transmissions. (Why is the parking break where the clutch should be?) -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help. How do I go to the help desk? Dafootballguy (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy Just click here... WP:HELP DESK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. Dafootballguy (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I can't believe I really have to say this, but @diddyepstien6767 name violates policy. Dafootballguy (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, they were blocked. Dafootballguy (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

An IP you blocked 3 times in 2024 and 2025 for personal attacks and block evasion, and warned in April 2025 when they resumed their disruptive behaviour after their block expired (they had also almost certainly conducted further block evasion during this period, though this went undetected) has now resumed their attacks. 2026-28839-2 and 2026-27025-0 are the accounts they have used so far.

They have a... tendency to attack articles for often imagined faults while proposing no solution and attacking editors who disagree with them.

Is it possible to (preferably indef) ban their IP range(s), now that Wikipedia has broken changed the system used for IP accounts? Redacted II (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redacted II IP reblocked x 6 months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Redacted II (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Block didn't work. Redacted II (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redacted II Ack. It looks like they have switched to a new IPv6 range. This is going to be complicated because, unlike the old IPv4 range, this one has a lot of obviously unrelated users on it. I'm going to have to try and narrow the range to minimize collateral damage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redacted II Ok, I had to get a little creative here, but I think this will slow the little pest down. Not going to go into details as I believe they are monitoring your posts and possibly my talk page. Any further issues with this user should probably be reported via email (link in the sidebar). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Redacted II As you may have noticed, our favorite troll made another appearance today. I indeffed their latest TA sock and block the underlying IP on a fairly wide range. I've also protected the talk page to give us a little peace and quiet for a week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

After acknowledging your warning, they went right back at it: , . It would seem your suspicion is correct. --Sable232 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sable232 Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Per my decline I think you can lift the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Done. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems there is still some leftover vandalism on the South Carolina Highway Patrol page. I'm not able to correct it due to it being locked. I just wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you and have a good day.

Colonel (SCHP Commander) The Rank Of Colonel is held by the Commander of the South Carolina Highway Patrol and senior seatbelt enforcement officer in South Carolina.

Lieutenant Colonel (Deputy Commanders) There are two Deputy Commanders. The Deputy Commanders are responsible for overseeing Seatbelt Enforcement Operations and Administrations. The Deputy Commanders hold the Rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

Major There are four Majors, overseeing Lunch Operations.

Captain A Troop Captain is the vessel in which all nonsense from headquarters flows down the chain of command and into the troop.

Lieutenant A Lieutenant commands the excel spreadsheets for the troop. BK1096 (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello BK1096. Welcome to Wikipedia. You may request edits on the article talk page until you have become auto-confirmed or the page protection expires. Thank you for your contributions to the project! -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 72, November–December 2025

• Renewed partnerships
• Spotlight: Strengthening Wikimedia Collaborations with and for Open Science

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:43, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Ad Orientem and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Please try unprot at Fortnite a page you extended confirmed protected six years ago Czarking0 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Czarking0 I've downgraded the protection to semi. The history of near pervasive disruption was such that I'm not prepared to lift protection entirely. Let's see how this goes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

A temporary IP user keeps restoring non Valentine episodes to List of Valentine's Day television specials without any reason. I suspect that it is Matildafan100 evading his/her block. I'm too afraid to go over the 3 revert limit. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28 TA indeffed though I suspect they are IP hopping so it might not stop them. Page protected x 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey. Can you revoke TPA for User:Buzz Aldrin is FUII OF BEES? Pretty sure this is WP:LTA/BMX. They've haven't made an unblock request. The reason TPA should be revoked is to prevent the user from making an abusive unblock request, ~2026-71744-3 (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-71744-3  Not done Sorry, I'm not seeing any justification for revoking TPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

They just made a troll unblock request. Please revoke TPA ASAP. ~2026-71744-3 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

TPA now revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

MapReader keeps restoring British in the lead sentence of The Lion (film) which contradicts what the Infobox and the FilmLead guideline said. I did take it up to the talk page, but he/she didn't notice. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @FilmandTVFan28. This looks like a classic content dispute. As of right now, I'm not seeing a need for admin intervention. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I did stop restoring my preferred version of the lead sentence after the third time, but even though the 24 hours are up, I have no desire to continue editing the page nor watch the film. If MapReader doesn't want to follow the FilmLead guideline, that's his choice. At least, I chose to follow it. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Ad Orientem and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Somewhat new to Wikipedia backend. I like what you post and how you think. How did you become an admin? Do you use email? ~2026-17356-65 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

my email is (Redacted) ~2026-17356-65 (talk) 03:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello ~2026-17356-65. Thank you for your kind comment. I was asked in December of 2016 by an admin and a number of experienced users to consider WP:RfA, which I passed on Christmas of that year. I use email for admin related activities that need to be kept confidential. Otherwise I prefer to conduct Wikipedia related business in the open here or on other relevant pages. Thank you again and happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Would mind an email? I have a question related to your expertise on wikipedia. ~2026-17356-65 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for replying btw ~2026-17356-65 (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Please feel free to ask any questions here. I prefer to keep email for those situations where commonsense indicates an urgent need for discretion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that would apply here. It would be brief and appreciated. ~2026-17356-65 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a private matter. Not for wiki discussion. But if you don't want to continue via email. np. ~2026-17680-42 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think you will find that most admins don't give out their email addresses casually. I thank you again for your kind comment above, and wish you the best in your time on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, could you reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Ashton? Ashton is primarily notable a union leader and Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour was not notified of his nomination. A day or two is probably all that is necessary in order to give interested editors a chance to weigh in. Thanks!--User:Namiba 14:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done @Namiba There was a strong consensus against keeping the article. One of the issues I considered when looking at the page was the not just the question of his political candidacy, but the quality and level of coverage in general. Unfortunately, if you take out all the sources that are primarily focused on his political candidacy, there isn't much left. In other words he seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Unless you can find significant reliable source coverage unrelated to his political candidacy, we are still stuck where we are. That said, the article was not deleted. It's a soft redirect. So if he either wins, or substantial coverage dealing primarily with his union activities is discovered, then any experienced editor in good standing can BOLDY undo the redirect and expand/update the article. Unfortunately, the AfD was open for two weeks and consensus was pretty clear. As of right now, I am not comfortable setting aside that consensus on a "maybe." Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I reject the assertion that there was "a strong consensus against keeping the article." Three redirects, two keeps, and one delete without the input of the editors who pay attention to labour issue is not a strong consensus. I'm simply asking you to allow for those editors who edit labour-related articles to have their say in the discussion.--User:Namiba 16:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Namiba Including the OP, there were six comments favoring either deletion or redirection vs two favoring Keep. The arguments presented were sound and reasonable. That's a pretty strong consensus by my reckoning. Again, if other sources can be found I have no objection to restoring the page and expanding/updating it. Users from the Organized Labor project are free to look for those sources and rescue the page if they find enough coverage unrelated to his political candidacy to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - A quick search on Newspapers<dot>com shows a half dozen articles about Rob Ashton, including a nice biography in The Province (Vancouver, B.C.; Oct. 3, 2004, page 1), The Vancouver Sun (June 24, 2015, page 7), National Post (March 5, 2022, page A12), and The Leader (Surrey, B.C.; July 6, 2023, page A1). I haven't search the specialized labor press, which would contain more news (mainstream media coverage of trade unions and labor issues is notoriously poor). It would have been quite simple to upgrade the article had anyone bothered to tell the Organize Labor Project about the delete proposal. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Tim1965 Please feel free to open a discussion on the article's (now redirect) talk page. Ping the involved members of the AfD and present your newly found sources. If there is no serious objection within a reasonable time frame (a couple of days), you should feel free to restore the article and expand it with your new sources. Thank you for your work on the project. Best regards... Ad Orientem (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I hope this message finds you well. Just wanted to drop a quick note that the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (WP:SOFTR). Just fixed ~8, all of which I believe were your discussion closures. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Phlogiston Enthusiast Thank you! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ad Orientem. I found and reverted an edit that is potentially eligible for RD2 or RD3 redaction. The edit in question has no encyclopedic value and looks to provide false and gross information. Khrincan (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@Khrincan

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning behind this close? Based on the arguments made (and not the number of votes),the 3 Delete votes said they were Delete because there were no sources. I and the other Keep vote proved otherwise, which also changed the opinion of the nominator. Doesn't that invalidate the reasoning of the Delete voters entirely, considering they never returned to make any alternative deletion argument? Silverseren^C 01:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren On closer examination, I think you are right. I will amend the close accordingly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you mentioned in the close that merge discussions should continue on the relevant talk pages, that process for formal discussions is being deprecated though so it seems odd for the close of a formal discussion to refer editors to an informal venue. Could you take another look at the close? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon That's a fair point. There is still clearly no consensus, and after two relists I see no reasonable likelihood of that changing. However, I have amended the wording of the close to indicate that a future renomination is possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense, hopefully editors will get used to having merge discussions at AfD fairly quickly after the processes are done merging. I think the cool off period makes sense. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Good day! Why not re-list the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nope Your Too Late I Already Died (2nd nomination) instead of closing as no-consensus? I also would make an argument that the Keep !votes were largely not based in policy...and I'm not entirely convinced there wasn't some sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting going on, too. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol That one was kinda close. Based on the amount of participation I had doubts that a relist was likely to be helpful. But if you feel another week might end with consensus, I will reopen the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

You're probably right, odds are that there won't be a ton of extra discussion, but I think it's worth one extension just in case some more people chime in. Like I said, I don't think the keep votes were really based in policy, so I think there's a good chance that if there is any other engagement it'll result in a more thorough consensus. I'll try to do a source review table in a couple days too if you open it back up. Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

,As an aside, would like some feedback if you are willing... I mentioned above that I was concerned that there was sockpuppeting happening. To be specific, I am suspicious about the accounts ~2026-19876-40 (talk · contribs) and Coutureeee (talk · contribs). The temp account only has edits to this AFD. The Coutureeee account only has edits to the AFD and a single minor edit to the Wifiskeleton article, and was created on the same day as the first AFD edit. My hunch is that they are somehow related to one of the two dissenting !vote accounts from this AFD, but it's unclear which one. Am I being paranoid, or is there enough to punch it to SPI or ask a Checkuser to take a look? nf utvol (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Nfutvol Based on your evidence, I'm assuming these are the same individual. I have struck the most recent of their !votes and left a warning on the newly registered accounts talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, how do you evaluate AfDs based on WP:NPOL? Recently, you closed five Keeps and four Deletes as Keep. Another AfD with three Keeps and two Deletes was closed as Delete. An AfD I participated in was closed as Redirect with two Keeps and three Redirects. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Good morning Kelob2678. Thank you for your note. I generally do not insert my own judgement in AfDs. Rather my job is to evaluate the strength of the arguments, per WP:NOTAVOTE. In the first AfD you linked, the actual count was 5K - 3D as the OP switched sides although they rather confusingly failed to strike their nomination. Ultimately I found that there was a consensus among the participants that the subject was in fact notable. In the second AfD I found the examination of the sources leant weight to the view that they were not adequate to ring the WP:N bell. That wasn't cut and dry, but after reading it through a couple times that is where I landed. The last one looks more run of the mill to me. There was a clear consensus that the subject lacked sufficient coverage at the time for an article. A redirect was the logical course because it preserves the page and its history for easy recreation if and when better sourcing is found. Here I do have to acknowledge an error on my part. I closed this as a "soft redirect." I have since been informed that that type of close is not intended for the mainspace. This was subsequently corrected by another admin into a straight redirect. Of the three discussions you have pointed to, I think the first and last are relatively straight forward. The second was a judgement call that another admin might have called a no consensus. But alas, I was the one who did the closing review. I thank you again for your note and your many contributions to the project... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

You are correct about the first AfD. Regarding not a vote, I prefer this essay, Wikipedia:Of course it's voting. To me, all three debates look identical, one side says "Keep per NPOL" and another says "Delete per GNG". To close a 5-3 debate as Keep, the NPOL-based argument should be a bit stronger than, or at least equally strong to, the GNG-based argument. To delete 3-2, the NPOL argument should be completely dismissed, which I think is inconsistent. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)