This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Ad Orientem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pending changes[edit]

Billy Ray Cyrus is still behaving like changes are pending, despite now being semi-protected instead. Is there a way for the PC to be shut off, or is this behavior normal? Home Lander (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Nice job clearing out the backlog at WP:RFPP. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fuzzy Zoeller[edit]

Ha, I was about to take this up with you and explain why I chose indef protection. This is one of those rare cases where it may be the best solution. The vandal is someone with their finger on the modem, one single person with nothing better to do, and since you and I have no more power than the subject of the BLP in tracking people down, this may be the only thing we can do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. That particular type of vandalism tends to move me immediately in the direction of long term solutions as the vandals have an unpleasant tendency to being persistent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Das osmnezz[edit]

This editor's block expired yesterday, and the problems with their editing promptly resumed. One of the first things they did was to create an article on Phathana Phommathep with serious undue weight problems, since Das osmnezz based the article primarily on a puff-piece published by FourFourTwo. They've continued to use needlessly flowery language, describing football matches with wide margins of victory as an "obliteration" in Phathana Phommathep, and as an "annihilation" and a "demolishing" in Eric Williams (football coach). In Sam Schweingruber, they describe the start of a corruption scandal as "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder". All told, I think this editor still does not understand what POV is, and their English is too poor to be able to maintain a neutral tone. I think we're left with no choice but to block them indefinitely. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh... This is like a bad cold that I just can't get rid of. Have you tried engaging them on their talk page? I really would prefer not to indef the guy less than a day after coming off block. But if this continues then, I will do what needs to be done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I haven't, and frankly I'm done engaging this editor. I don't know how many warnings and several blocks later, and this continues to be problem? I don't think this is something the editor can fix, at least in the short term, and no amount of engagement will change that. Just because I tell them that there is a problem, isn't going to magically improve their grasp on the English language. All that will really accomplish is creating more cleanup work for us the long run. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Das osmnezz: You have been back for all of a day and are already causing trouble. If you are blocked again, it will almost certainly be indefinite. I don't know what more to say. You can be the most well intentioned editor but WP:CIR is not negotiable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And they've done it again. With this edit they've reverted my attempt fix the undue weight problems with this article, and reintroduce quotes from the aforementioned puff-piece. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This looks more like a run of the mill content dispute. The problem with adopting an "I'm done with engagement..." is that it makes it very hard to resolve low level disputes. It also becomes very hard to help new editors who have some shortcomings improve. If you disagree and think he should be indeffed take it to WP:ANI. But this seems like weak tea to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I have to say I'm disappointed. Here we have an editor who, immediately after coming off a lengthy block, resumes the disruptive behaviour that got them blocked in the first place, and you do nothing? The problem continues and you continue to do nothing? Anything I could say to them I already have several times over to no affect. You yourself say that you don't know what more to say to them, but then tell me off for not engaging? I hate to say it, but I expected better from. Anyway, I've taken the matter to WP:ANI as suggested. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry your not happy with my response. I've posted a comment on the ANI thread, which I do think is the best course for this situation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Protection[edit]

You protected the featured article with the message "Routine protection for Today's Featured Article." But it is not routine. Wikipedia:Main_Page_featured_article_protection is clear that the article should generally be unprotected. I was unable to find any recent discussion on the topic. (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Protection removed After a closer read I think you are correct. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Genre-policing editor[edit]

Hey Ad Orientem. Would you be able to keep an eye on/have a word to the user Exposur? I'm not sure if they will come back to dispute the established order of genres on Melodrama (Lorde album), but just asking preemptively. They opened a discussion on the talk page of the article last month with the opinion that the album should have electropop first but have not achieved consensus. I understand this may appear to be a minor thing, but all they appear to have done since registering in February of this year is contend genres on album and song pages and are still doing so after receiving several warnings. They have also added unsourced genres, such as here. Their edits on the Lorde album page also came not long after an IP changed the order of the genres, and it looked suspicious. I warned them if this was them editing under an IP to not do so and that they could be blocked for sockpuppetry, but just thinking a word from an admin might stop them from doing so again. Thanks. Ss112 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


I have re-opened Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Action at WASPI as there seems to be a bunch of work going on elsewhere at cross purposes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Facing issue of whitewashing[edit]

Fans of Frankie Grande are refusing to allow me to mention that a TV special he did was low-rated, cited false reasons of notability, accusing a reliable source of being unreliable, and claiming I am starting an edit war when they have no justification for removing other than wanting to treat his page as one with positive spin. The success and failure of projects is often mentioned for artists as it affects their careers and the projects require funding. Example Elaine May's page mentions that Ishtar (film) was a critical failure. Can you please assist so I can properly note (with my reliable source) that Grande's TV special "Worst.Post.Ever" was low-rated. One of the users immediately resorted to calling me an 'idiot' in their edit summary and threatened to report me. Thanks Ad! Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sdfakjdfjklklasdf. This looks like a content dispute to me. Looking at the article talk page I see no attempt to engage in a discussion. That's the first step. See also WP:DR. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for protection[edit]

Fans of recently concluded drama keeps on removing reliably sourced information in an attempt to whitewash the poor reception of the show. Edit wars and removal of content by IPs: (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Is this Sdfakjdfjklklasdf by chance? If so, please be careful to avoid editing while logged out as an IP address. In a content dispute this might be seen as trying to stack the discussion via sockpuppetry. Beyond which, again we are talking about a content dispute. Please attempt to engage with the other editor(s) on the talk page before seeking outside intervention. There is lots of useful advice on dispute resolution in WP:DR. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit wars continue. (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, those are more likely sockpuppets/proxies of User:Bertrand101. See: [1][2][3][4] and more recently, [5][6] (both not blocked yet, but I suspect them to also be socks). They refuse to engage with other editors when it comes to making controversial changes, and always resort to using IPs to ask admins to protect pages when they see people opposing their viewpoints. Just my two cents. (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability[edit]

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

Protection on Maryam Mirzakhani[edit]

Hello again. When the full protection on "Maryam Mirzakhani" ends, may you please re-enable original semi-protection? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I left it in place, but if not I will restore it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Less than one hour left until the protection ends... --George Ho (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision deletion request[edit]

If you need specific links if you're not quite sure about what to remove from public view, don't hesitate to ask.

Could you be so kind as to revision delete all versions and diffs that show "User A, User B, and User C" followed by text? Here is where it was started by me: [7]. Scroll down a bit. (Again, if you need more specific links, don't hesitate to ask.) One of the users in question whose name I didn't reveal seems to think it's an invasion of privacy even though nothing private was revealed and it was general banter, just to avoid drama, I'm honoring and respecting their wishes of wanting it to be removed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amaury. Are all of the edits that need revdelling located in the section "Okay, then..."? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
OK that makes it easier. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I got them all. If I missed any just send me the diff link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So I completely goofed up when I answered your question. I think misunderstood it as I was somehow thinking of where the content was rather than where it was shown. The content itself is in that mentioned section, but there are plenty of other versions and diffs where it can be seen. All revisions and diffs between the link above, which was already RevDev'd, and my new section last night (including it) also show that stuff. Here are two screenshots to make it totally easy. I've highlighted everything that shouldn't be clickable: and
I am so, so, so sorry for the trouble. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
OK I think I'm going to just go and revdel pretty much everything from your initial post (already done) up to where you deleted that thread (also already revdelled). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. Thank you so much, and sorry again for any trouble. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of edits from other users in here. Are you sure the talk page proprietor and the others are all onboard with this? I don't want to step on anyone's toes with a mass revdel on an editor's talk page and have them complain about it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Geraldo Perez, MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H, any issues with this or no problems at all? This of course isn't deleting any comments, it's just making it so we can't view diffs or the version the page was at when your comments were made. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
My comments were in context of what is being deleted so remove at will. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just so everyone understands... we are talking about a mass revdel of a large chunk of the talk page history. All of those comments would disappear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering about the revdels, but I do understand that there were privacy issues with other people's comments from outside of Wikipedia being added to my talk page. But yeah, to make it publicly inaccessible, all the revisions as far back as when these were added on July 9 will need to be revdeled. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty then. I've revdeled all of the likely contaminated edits. Hopefully this resolves the problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The edit stamped 06:08 July 9 (UTC) still is accessible, and is another revision that contains the discussion from these people. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, AO! By the way, you did happen to miss this one, really good considering how many you did. That will solve the problem perfectly. Thanks so much. You're awesome! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
OK I think that's it. And it was not any trouble, just part of the job. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Continued protection needed[edit]

Starbucks6789 continues to try to edit articles and articles' protection has expired. See recent ones at Need lock term lock on Real World: Ex-Plosion (they tried to edit on the 14th), The Challenge: Rivals, The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II, The Challenge XXX: Dirty 30, The Challenge: Invasion of the Champions, Ink Master (season 9) (tried to sockpuppet talk to editor about getting changes), Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Battle of the Sexes, and Real World/Road Rules Challenge: Battle of the Seasons. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok I've protected a couple of these where I have a high degree of confidence about the socking. But most of them I'm not sufficiently up on either the article subjects or the socks to be able to identify malicious editing disguised as legitimate edits. I suggest you take these to RfPP or NinjaRobotPirate who I think has more experience with these subjects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Starbucks6789 should be gone for the next six days. I got fed up with his disruption and did a pretty wide range block yesterday. That's why some of these articles weren't protected yet – I figured it was easier to range block him than go around chasing after his IP socks and semi-protecting every article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


I missed this AfD completely, article may not have been tagged for the wikiproject. Can you do a WP:REFUND to my userspace? Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 06:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Which AfD/article are we talking about? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Montanabw: ? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Omar Khadr[edit]

Could you possibly look into the disruption that is occurring at this article? There seems to be a content dispute, and I wonder if a temporary full protection would be necessary. Thanks. (talk) 00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that unrelated vandalism has also occurred on the article amidst the back-and-forth content dispute issues, which might be why pending changes is currently set on the article. (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
This does indeed look like a content dispute but it doesn't look out of control. In fact the PC is probably helping to put a break on what might otherwise be a lot of edit warring. I think the situation is OK for now but if things get really crazy drop me a line. Thanks for keeping an eye out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Well that's odd, they were just blocked for 2 months by a proxy bot... (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That likely means that (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a proxy as well... (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hrs and I've protected the article talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Would you mind disabling (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s talkpage? Also rev-del the edit summaries on their talkpage as well... (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Also bumped 182's block to 3 months and disabled their talk page editing rights. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
They're attacking me now from (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Will likely need to set another 3 month block. (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked 3 months and I've protected your talk page. Obviously this will also effect your ability to post there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL I just saw that they called me a Communist. What a herb. If there is an admin whose politics are farther to the right than mine, I'm not aware of it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
FYI I'm about to go to bed and I've had to temporarily protect my talk page. This should be short term but if you need any admin help post on ANI or AN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Need some eyes on Talk:Cuckservative please[edit]

I noticed you have edited this article in the somewhat recent past. There's an IP/SPA editor who is posting accusations & now verging into WP:NPA territory - they are posting at a rapid rate so who knows what they've posted since I started here. But this article & its talkpage have a tendency be a hornets' nest so would like some backup around before I decide to wade in. (FYI: I have also posted this message at Czar's talkpage.) Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Just dropped a note before noticing yours which is quite good. Hopefully this will resolve the prolem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Alas it did not. I've blocked them for 48 hrs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


It looks like you missed an account when blocking/semi-protecting the article. (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And another User:Nsnsnsnnsnsnnsnsnnsnsnsnnsns. (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again... got it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

Did you mean to block this IP for 2 days, or 2 years...? Cheers. (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Good catch. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Allied Independent Wrestling Federations, AIWF World Heavyweight Championship & AIWF World Cruiserweight Championship page restoration.[edit]

Good evening, I would like to challenge the ruling of these articles June 2017 deletion and I would like to ask for its full restoration of said articles. The individual that falsely filed for these articles deletion was vindictive against this organization due to some controversial acts that this individual's wrestling promotion took part of. I believe that this matter of said individual abused the right to file an article both based on false pretenses and out of spite shall not go unpunished. Will you consider restoring the following articles listed above and punish the person that filed for its deletion for no reason? Thanks!

Not done I'm sorry but the articles in question were deleted following a community discussion which can be found here. This was not done unilaterally and two other editors concurred with the nomination. For me to overturn an AfD I would need some form of compelling reason. The argument you presented above based on accusations, without evidence, of bad faith on the part of the nominator does not meet that standard. If you wish to appeal the deletion further you may file that appeal at WP:DELREV. However I must advise you as an experienced editor that I think it extremely unlikely that such an appeal would be successful. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


I was going to create an article about Intacct when I found that a previous article about them had been deleted. I know there are a fairly substantial vendor of finance software. I was going to create a stub article with some general corporate information using the Infobox organization template. I can't see the full reason(s) of why the original article was deleted other than it being advertising. I should add that I'm not connected to Intacct in any way. Could you explain the reasons why the article was deleted? I don't want to create an article if a consensus was already reached about Intacct's notability. Thanks.Seaweed (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted per WP:NOPROMO, but it was done as a Prod. So if you want to give a shot at recreating the article taking care to observe that policy, I don't tnhink it would be an issue. I'd suggest doing it as a draft and then submit it to WP:AFC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

I decided to request a global block for this IP, but in the process of compiling evidence, I discovered that the IP's already been globally blocked. You should be fine now, unless the operator decides to go IP-hopping. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good news. Thanks! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In The News[edit]

Thanks for updating the "In The News" column of Wikipedia. But, can you assign the photo of Ram Nath Kovind in place of Lula Da Silva? I assume that you haven't assigned it earlier because the previous image had poor quality but now an user had uploaded a better quality of image and its used in the article by now. Please check and update the ITN.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)