User talk:Ad Orientem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Usedtobecool. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to and I shouldn't have but I commented on your actions, so I am letting you know. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the thread is winding down and I'm not seeing any need to add to it. Thanks for the notification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice at WP:AIV[edit]

Regarding this - IMO you have to ping a person when placing AIV|sp}} adivice: I don't think occasional poster keep WP:AIV on their watchlist or notice your response during many fast changes. I did it for you. - Altenmann >talk 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging them. However it is not customary to ping every user who makes a report on a noticeboard. I do so if I have a specific question or concern that I think needs to be addressed. But otherwise decline message typically stand on their own. When an editor posts on a noticeboard, it's kinda their responsibility to keep an eye on the board for any relevant replies or actions. I think that is pretty much normative for most admins who patrol the various boards. That said, if I think they are a new user I have been known to ping. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I[edit]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User acting like they WP:OWN an article[edit]

Hi AO. Might you be able to tell the user Mirrored7 to stop the reverts of me and other editors on Ariana Grande discography? Their WP:OWN-like behaviour concerning this article has been going on since 2020. Here's the earliest thread by another user on their talk page concerning the article: User talk:Mirrored7#Ariana discography. A thread I made in December 2022: User talk:Mirrored7#Ariana Grande discography and separating "holiday" singles. Already today they've made three reverts on the article [1], [2], [3], with the last being a manual revert of what I added. Their most recent revert restored hidden messages directing users not to do things, in violation of WP:HIDDEN, because "the messages have been there for a long time". This was after I removed said comments directly linking to and quoting the guideline. I told them age is not a valid reason to keep things, and warned them about edit warring, but this sort of pattern looks like it will continue without admin intervention. Their block log for edit warring is concerning as well. Thanks. Ss112 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112 I've left a note on their talk page, but do not see enough for any formal intervention at this time. They have not edited the article since you posted your warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lower protection of Mobile Legends: Bang Bang[edit]

Keeping the page extended confirmed protected 4 years later makes no sense. It made sense back then, but not now. I don’t know how much vandalism it would get if you lowered it but all I know is this is overkill. I suggest maybe pending changes if you’re still wary about it but deprotection seems like the best thing to do. CharlieEdited (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharlieEdited. That page was a magnet for disruptive editing. From 2017 to 2020 when I finally put ECPP on it, the page was protected a total of 15 times, with many of those being EC due to disruption from auto-confirmed users. I am willing to drop the protection level to semi on a trial basis. But if the problems resurface, I will move quickly to return to the current protection. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Sounds good. Edit: Why was there even disruptive editing in the first place? What were the edits about? CharlieEdited (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieEdited You can take a look at the protection log here. You can also go back and look at the page history from the time frames in question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor doesn't seem to understand "do not post here again"[edit]

Hi AO. I reverted an editor who left a message about commas after MDY dates [4]. I thought this made it pretty clear I don't want messages from them. They came back a minute later telling me "Correcting your mistakes is your responsibility" or some such. I said I thought I made it clear I don't want them to post on my talk page, and directly told them not to in the revert summary here. They came back again, after my summary telling them not to post there, saying "no you didn't" and some paragraph I didn't read [5]. Can you please ask this editor to respect not posting on somebody's talk page (WP:USERTALKSTOP) when they have been asked not to do so? Clearly I can't get through to this person. Ss112 23:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112  Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]