I must do a CU on that tomorrow. Any chance you can remind of the other accounts. I’ve seen them but can’t recall them. Thanks Doug Weller talk 19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a common thread that will be apparent:

• Saxsd12 (talk · contribs)
• Asax547 (talk · contribs)
• Ksax1245 (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

  Very useful. Asax547 is the sockmaster, all blocked and tagged now and SPI filled out. Thanks for the help. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Acroterion! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with the tantrum quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you add protection to this page so only administrators can edit it

User:Person12100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So that people cant vandalize it WashingtonFan9879 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)User:WashingtonFan9879

It’s not being vandalized, there’s no reason to protect it. At most we would semi-protect it. Your focus on protections and blocks is less than helpful to the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am transferring control of Person12100 that means protecting the page for infinite to administrators to you guys. I am doing this because I dont want that page to be vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashingtonFan9879 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

”Transferring control?” What’s that supposed to mean? Acroterion (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Protect Person12100 for infinite so that only admins can edit it--04:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)WashingtonFan9879 (talk)User:WashingtonFan9879

No. Acroterion (talk)

It appears that WashingtonFan created the page User:Person12100 though the account exists and was created a day ago EvergreenFir (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes - they seem to be awfully interested in playing with block templates and such. Acroterion (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Administrator changes Amalthea • Ihcoyc (deceased) • Kateshortforbob • Kirill Lokshin • Rifleman 82 • Ryan Norton • Wrp103 Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

CheckUser changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy Oversighter changes Cabayi • Donald Albury • Enterprisey • Izno • Wugapodes Opabinia regalis Casliber • David Fuchs • Newyorkbrad • SoWhy

Guideline and policy news

• Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

• Additionally, consensus for proposal 6C of the 2021 RfA review has led to the creation of an administrative action review process. The purpose of this process will be to review individual administrator actions and individual actions taken by users holding advanced permissions.

Arbitration

• Following the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Cabayi, Donald Albury, Enterprisey, Izno, Opabinia regalis, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes.

Miscellaneous

• The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.

[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.69.229 (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Point? Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:387:F:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs) continues spamming several talk pages. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured they'd catch on. I have an edit filter request in that should deal with it. Acroterion (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The edit filter is up and running. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this have any obvious use? Inspired of course by the recent tragedy. Oddly, the City of Brotherly Love has never suffered a "great fire." I suppose the wide streets help. --PaulinSaudi (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. We've got List of nightclub fires, List of hotel fires in the United States, and List of town and city fires. The only city lists are List of fires in Kyoto and Fires in Edo. I would call such an article List of notable fires in Philadelphia. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I am stuck on the title as many or most of the entries do not meet the standard of notability. Maybe Fires in Philadelphia? --PaulinSaudi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi I would like to get attention at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer and there are many other requests thanks! Yodas henchman (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The stuff I removed was all unnecessary conspiracy theory garbage that was only there to push a very specific agenda, either stuff about Epstein wedged into the "citation" parts of other people's entries or unnecessary links to CFR and Bilderberg to insinuate a conspiracy (these are favored targets of people like Alex Jones). I think that it is constructive to remove stuff like that, not vandalism. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the removals have now been challenged by two editors, you should discuss them on the article talk page and get consensus before removing the material again. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, I didn't realize how important it was to you that people know that "David Rubenstein building is just west of the Les Wexner#Jeffrey Epstein association|Leslie Wexner building". My bad. Definitely my removing this was vandalism. Good catch. 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And drop the snark. Yes, that article is a conspiracy-magnet, but you can work with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Just removing big blocks of text with no explanation isn't productive. Please use the talkpage to gain consensus for targeted revisions. Acroterion (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I'll just leave it, since it's clear that at least two editors are willing to fight to keep it in. I'll just take my snark elsewhere and you deal with cleaning up after the tinfoil hatters (or, not, whatever). 2601:647:C981:4D0:2DF8:6EB3:A3EE:EF00 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that text. People are dipping in and adding material that doesn't belong in the article. At one point a user, totally in good faith added a lengthy description of responding fire units, taken from a blog. Since you seem interested in fire-related subjects. I've proposed a name change to Skyscraper fire and would value your input. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As an architect, it's a matter of professional interest for me. I wrote the Winecoff Hotel fire article (since cluttered with poorly sourced lists of victims) and discussed the impact it had on building codes. I'm not so sure about "skyscraper" as a defining term - my personal definition would be for something to be at least 30 stories before it becomes a "skyscraper." A 19-story building in New York is rather stumpy.

Interestingly, the Winecoff ended up adding a fire escape after the fire to supplement the single stairway through which the fire spread..

The Dupont Plaza Hotel arson (~17 stories) and MGM Grand fire (26-stories) articles provide context on smoke-related fire disasters in tall buildings. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at recent logs of 1125 (hist · log). The recent active range might be a good target for a rangeblock, although there are (presumably) good contributions even on the /64 which is confusing. It could be dynamic, but given how active it is on Wikipedia (and the subject interest, and some other factors) I'm not sure that's the case. Not entirely sure what's going on there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:387:F::/48 is a fairly active range, with at least a decent proportion of good edits [2], and I think it would take a /48 block to cover the range they're using, though we could cover what they've used so far with 2600:387:f:5610::8/51 [3]. I would be reluctant to block the range if the edit filter is doing what it needs to do. The disruption is so specific that I think the filter is the best solution, and I think they'll get tired after a while. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. You closed one of the ANIs involving Invasive Spices awhile back[4], so I'm seeing if you could be of any help with additional issues? I asked El_C who closed this ANI[5], but they're too busy right now. In short, same message I sent to El C would apply to you. I see you're busy too though, but I was hoping someone uninvolved might be able to turn them away from the cliff they're heading towards with battleground behavior directed towards editors who are generally being friendly to them. I've tried a little bit at User_talk:Invasive_Spices#Tone_on_talk_pages to little progress. Thanks either way. KoA (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to keep an eye out for trouble. I see a continuation of their assumptions, or at least implications of bad faith under circumstances that would normally be worked out without so much resentment. I agree, a block is not what we want, but taking potshots at everybody they encounter is not a good trend. Their response at ANI where they tried to make my effort to keep them out of trouble as its own problem was not a good way for them to behave. It's hard to respond to someone who behaves like that. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Wgullyn (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to request revdel of this diff [6] per RD3, made by Gobbsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s a little marginal, but talkpage s aren’t meant to be fora for peoples’ paraphilia. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't quite sure if it met the criteria, but I went ahead and asked anyway just in case; no harm, no foul, right? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this [7] quite meets the revdel criteria, as it's a copyvio but the image didn't actually end up displaying. Mind taking a look? xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, simply trying to use an image via an external link wouldn't be a copyvio. It's a common error. Even if they'd copied it into Commons, we'd generally just revert it and go over to Commons to ask for speedy deletion there. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok, thank you. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. Could you please revoke talk page access for Fast Cocon? You blocked them last year but they are continuing to spam on their user talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

hey, so i posted a couple topics on the Nihilism talk page, a couple weeks ago, maybe, and there are no responses. i think the majority of that page is either wrong or largely irrelevant to nihilism (and most of it is sourced regarding the topic in question, like Buddhism or Kierkegaard, but there are no sources or explanation for how it relates to nihilism, to which i'd say...it doesn't), but don't know how to "get consensus" to make major edits if no one's responding. so...what can i do? Sera Toxin (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your talkpage notes are sourceless general discussions of your views on the subject, while you removed sourced material from the article. You will need to provide suggested references that support your assertions, and you will need to show, via sources, why the referenced material that you want to remove is wrongly attributed or incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

well, that's almost entirely untrue. i referenced specific essays and books, writers, and insurgents...and most of what i tried to remove was unsourced regarding any connection to nihilism. it's "sourced" in the sense that there are sources confirming that what's said is accurate, but no attempt is made in many cases to show how it relates to nihilism. furthermore, some of the sources (like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) are dubious secondary sources that really shouldn't be accepted as sources in the first place (especially considering the errors that went into the Nihilism page referenced on wikipedia, like a large portion of that page being centered on the attribution of Will to Power to Nietzsche, when it's well-known now that it wasn't actually him who wrote it).

so, i'll assume by "sourceless" what you mean is that i didn't provide links to the essays and other material i referenced? i've been pretty busy lately, i hardly have time for this, but i'll look into collecting some links when i can, if that's what you're asking for. Sera Toxin (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide very specific references to accomplish much, and detailed suggestions for edits, not just broad mentions of authors and essays. Other editors will need to have a basis for evaluating your suggestions; if you have the references, you should be able to be more specific than "so-and-so says this." It's certainly possible that earlier editors made assertions that aren't supported in the article, but you'll need to make a case to support your removals, rather than broad statements. I am aware of the difficulty of proving a negative, but since you were making wholesale removals, you'll need to make an effort. I am not a subject matter expert, I have been responding to your removals, which will need to find consensus among editors who can properly evaluate your changes before they will stick. This is not a highly-trafficked article, and a request for comment may be needed to attract interest once you've made your case, with specifics. Acroterion (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw that you blocked Assyria730BC last month and wanted to say that they have returned to removing well-sourced information (which mostly have been reverted by me now). --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Widr took care of it. I wasn't able to do a proper investigation at the time, but I agree with his action. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You must not believe supply/demand is a real thing. You must have also not seen the warning before reading the page regarding Hispanic stereotypes: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This section contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (August 2017) This section may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (August 2017) This article possibly contains original research. (August 2017) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a platform for your personal analysis. And this edit [8] is a very bad look. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So, you agree that supply and demand is a theory that doesn't hold water? You should really alert the economists! We all know the only workable economic system is to have an untethered capitalist world economy where national boundaries don't matter. Only then will we see a median rise in wages for the working class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CincoMayoBurger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia still isn't a platform for your personal analyses. Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hello. In May 2013 you caused the speedy deletion of the article Battle for Dream Island under criterion A7. In future, if you feel that an article is missing something, please consider adding it instead of unceremoniously destroying other people’s work. You are the reason nobody I know bothers contributing to Wikipedia anymore because “what’s the point, it gets deleted anyway”. Consider fostering a more productive environment. Thank you for your time. Timwi (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You're here to make personal attacks about a speedy deletion request from nine years ago, for something that was plainly short of notability standards at that time? How nice. And I didn't delete it, another administrator did, because I don't self-delete speedy nominations. Don't berate editors who nominate articles for deletion. And you're an administrator yourself, and expected to know better. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My apologies — I’m trying to be constructive. Obviously there are plenty of “contributions” that warrant a speedy deletion. I’m trying to highlight that this was a case where, even if it fits a speedy-deletion criterion, the more sensible thing to do would have been to make the small change necessary to honor the work and effort someone put into writing it. I apologize for the overly personal tone of my prior message, but it captures my frustration. Literally all of my friends are in the “why bother, it gets deleted anyway” camp and that should worry us. We are losing valuable contributions on a global scale this way and this is not in the spirit of a wiki. Timwi (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why draft space was created - in December 2013, in fact. One purpose was to cut down the number of A7 deletions, giving them space to mature if it could be accomplished. It has worked pretty well, and though I don't have any statistics at hand, I believe the number of speedy deletions and specifically speedies based on notability have dramatically declined. At least, I rarely see them for much other than spam or vandalism, since the non-notable or marginally notable articles get moved by non-admins into draftspace rather than tagged for deletion. So, in the context of articles getting deleted, the complaint voiced by your friends has been addressed for the past eight years. If they're adding poorly-sourced material, that's a different issue, since the sourcing standards and overall level of sourcing are dramatically better than they were ten years ago. Acroterion (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I made a request to move page name on Talk:Thai Airways International.. would you mind take a look and comment if you'll support or oppose. Thanks! Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not participating in that sort of discussion. Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian Army in Somalia Review essay: Hog Farm on American Civil War sites in the South and Midwest

But I never in my life even visitied the page Im told I edited (https://i.imgur.com/VO3bIfI.png). Now I think Im being told that "You have been blocked from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy." So im completly confused.

The only thing I remember editing some time ago (I think) it was the Germanic New Medicine page. Changes that were reverted almost immediately. If this was you, let me tell you... there's a lot of harm being made to humanity by lying so much and by being functional to the systems methods of confusion. People need to know that the germ theory is a lie and the territory is everything. The GNM explains this perfectly. Anyway, I don't care about being blocked here, it does not surprise me tbh. Sorry for my poor english. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.167.115.74 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to guess about what this IP did and didn't edit, since all the edits made from it are listed here. You should consider the possibility that the IP number you have now is not the IP number you had in the past - that your account was re-assigned to another IP number in the meantime. Many providers do that frequently. If that's the case, ask your Internet provider about it, or create a Wikipedia account for yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

However, if you're planning on making edits to the point that "germ theory is a lie", you probably shouldn't even bother, because you wouldn't last very long as an editor here. We don't exist to promote WP:FRINGE theories. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Somebody did something bad in 2020 using the IP that was eventually reassigned to you by your ISP. You can disregard the warning. Acroterion (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Administrator changes AustralianRupert • Cimon Avaro • Euryalus • Jehochman • Nunh-huh 28bytes Bureaucrat changes 28bytes

Interface administrator changes Evad37 • Galobtter Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• The Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines have been published for consideration. Voting to ratify this guideline is planned to take place 7 March to 21 March. Comments can be made on the talk page.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
• The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

• Community input is requested on several motions aimed at addressing discretionary sanctions that are no longer needed or overly broad.
• The Arbitration Committee has published a generalised comment regarding successful appeals of sanctions that it can review (such as checkuser blocks).
• A motion related to the Antisemitism in Poland case was passed following a declined case request.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2022 Steward elections will begin on 07 February 2022, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2022, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey is open until 11 February 2022.

I know you blocked the user a fairly long time ago, but do you think that NapoleonX = Chesapeake77? I'm looking at the moves, the detailed similar edit summaries associated with the moves, and the edits to the Al Gore Talk page (political articles). I don't have as much to go on with Chesapeake77 as they started editing only a week ago (and they certainly don't act like a new editor).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not feeling it very strongly. NapoleonX is excessively concerned with what they think are correct names, and spends a lot of time fussing with titles and intros. Sooner or later they come back to Mount Rainier and try to take out Tacoma/Tahoma with a lengthy edit summary. I think Chesapeake77 is somebody's sock, but I don't think it's NapoleonX. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

They both edited dog articles; does that count? Thanks for your thoughts.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule them out. Diagnostic edit summaries for me are things like this, focusing on naming: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] The Holly Williams edits are the closest things I see to NapoleonX's naming focus. Acroterion (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The reason I even found NapoleonX was because of the intersection of the two editors at Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter) with NapoleonX and Chesapeake77.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

These edits complicate things.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, let's keep an eye on them, and if it is NapoleonX they'll show their hand sooner or later. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry I will not do that anymore. Hi I am 1000 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Three minutes after this timestamp, new user made this edit. BusterD (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Oliver tractors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

On 10 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hoosier Slide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Hoosier Slide was a popular tourist attraction until it was turned into glass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hoosier Slide. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hoosier Slide), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

saw your actions, you might also want to have a look at 2A00:1FA0:4469:1975:0:63:8FCF:2501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits this morning. Fram reverted but I don't think anyone took admin action. I didn't as I'm only tangentially familiar with the editor Star Mississippi 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect we'll all get familiar with this sock, at least until some edit filters slow them down. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Please block 149.57.28.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), it is a new Windscribe VPN range. wizzito | say hello! 03:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Scrap that, please block this range instead: 149.57.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The whole /16 is the VPN. wizzito | say hello! 03:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly a busy range, but Nate will have to find somewhere else to play for a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, This is just to let you know that I have requested the unprotection of C.S. Lewis at WP:RFPP. I had already filled out the form there before noticing the "take it to the original protecting admin" clause. According to the protection log, that is you; accordingly, I have left this note on your talk page. ChromaNebula (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully the national partisans have given up. Acroterion (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've also filed a request for this task to be done by a bot (i.e., notifying admins about old indef-protected pages). ChromaNebula (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

wowza. Thanks for that. I'm getting a feeling he doesn't like me much. Sniff. Antandrus (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. I was wondering if you could have a look at this edit by Mbsyl (talk · contribs) and their response to the warning they received? I was going to give them a DS notice for BLP and FRINGE (in the course of a larger warning for edit warring, egregious personal attacks, and GENSEX violations), and then saw that you've already sanctioned them for BLP issues in the past. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Crikey. I see you've warned them, so I'll hold off and see what happens, but it's going to mean a block if it recurs. Thanks for the note. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I see GeneralNotability indeffed them - I did not check the Andraka edit. I concur with the block. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It only belatedly occurred to me what their username is if you try to say it aloud. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The page was Peter Phillips. I fell asleep and didn't realize until now. What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioooaoaoap (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This [15] certainly wasn't "accidental," but Cluebot reverted it. So my answer would be to never do that again. Acroterion (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, you have flagged that my recent edit of the British isles is interpreted as my own personal view. However this is not the case, the term 'the British isles' has not been used for many years in any official capacity by either the Irish or the British government and it is advice is not to use the terminology anymore. The term 'the British isles' is entirely subjective, and its consistent use is no longer apt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.202.225 (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia articles are not soapboxes for complaints or personal analysis about perceived imperialism through naming, or the legacy of imperialism, and this has been discussed may times before. Until a consensus term is adopted and in wide use throughout the English-speaking world, the name will remain as it is on Wikipedia. See WP:COMMONNAME for the guideline, which applies to many such nationalistic disputes. And we have an article on the topic, British Isles naming dispute, which covers it in some depth, with sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

And if you wish the British Isles to no longer be the commonly used name, I suggest you start with the Irish government and get them to stop using it. While the government of Ireland uses it internally, the argument can't really go any further. Canterbury Tail talk 13:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Can someone please answer me here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here? Anyone? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I have no interest in the matter, and you should not forum-shop like that. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I gone cross-eyed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I see you smited my friend. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm in a less smitey mood today than yesterday, at least. If Comcast hadn't been down at lunchtime there would have been more that got smote. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think you were both amazingly mild-mannered in your smiting. Bishonen (smitten) | tålk 13:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC).

Unlike the biblical Deity, I need a functioning internet connection to exercise my wroth. Acroterion (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The Ukraine troll is back with a new IP [16]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Can I ask you to delete history from my userpage? I saw your name on the list of administrators dealing with this kind of issue.

Thank you!

--Governor Sheng (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to delete it entirely, or just up to the present? Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Up to the latest change. --Governor Sheng (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D on World War II in Europe

Why did you revert? Fleisher was Jewish. The Poles did not consider him Polish, and he did not consider himself Polish. It is more accurate to characterize him as a Jewish-American, or alternatively as a Jewish immigrant from Poland. Palindromeami (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSETHNICITY, we don't conflate ethnicity with nationality. It is also abused by editors who think they ought to tag Jews. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I email you for RevDeletion? SoapDispenser94 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. Acroterion (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Administrator changes Modussiccandi BOZ • Brookie (deceased) • Jackmcbarn • Jamesday • Jonathunder • Master of Puppets • Saravask

CheckUser changes Callanecc Oversighter changes Callanecc

Guideline and policy news

• A RfC is open to change the wording of revision deletion criterion 1 to remove the sentence relating to non-infringing contributions.
• A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.

Technical news

• The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
• Special:Nuke will now allow the selection of standard deletion reasons to be used when mass-deleting pages. This was a Community Wishlist Survey request from 2022. (T25020)
• The ability to undelete the talk page when undeleting a page using Special:Undelete or the API will be added soon. This change was requested in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. (T295389)

Arbitration

• Several unused discretionary sanctions and article probation remedies have been rescinded. This follows the community feedback from the 2021 Discretionary Sanctions review.

Miscellaneous

• The 2022 appointees for the Ombuds commission are Érico, Faendalimas, Galahad, Infinite0694, Mykola7, Olugold, Udehb and Zabe as regular members and Ameisenigel and JJMC89 as advisory members.
• Following the 2022 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AntiCompositeNumber, BRPever, Hasley, TheresNoTime, and Vermont.
• The 2022 Community Wishlist Survey results have been published alongside the ranking of prioritized proposals.

I am not being disruptive, and you don't get to lecture me on such matters! Stop jumping to conclusions and actually do your job! Thecleanerand (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I do get to lecture you. That's why the community made me an administrator. Stop posting vexatious reports. Acroterion (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Acroterion. Thanks for your notices. I couldn't understand why you have sent me a notice stating that I have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan. Are you sure I have done so? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs)

I'm sure. Tunceli Province is part of Turkish Kurdistan. Also, if I see you accuse another editor of vandalism like this [17] I will block you. Acroterion (talk)

I see your point of view. Although I've written nothing about the Kurds (I have Kurdish, Armenian, Turkish, Greek roots. I am an avid rival of any kind of nationalism.), you have such a claim.

1. By following your logic of calling Tunceli Province as Kurdistan, Eupen is Belgian Germany, Kardzhali is Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis is African USA. Would you also agree with these?

2. What is wrong with accusing someone as a vandal a. who claims the official army of a country is an invader of its own land, b. who deletes official statistical "real" data (please see the above percentage of Armenian-speaking community) for no reason, c. who adds a biased death toll (see: Dersim Rebellion for neutral sources of the death toll), and engaging in many more manipulation?

Poor Wikipedia. I thought it was a serious, neutral source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say in your first statement. If your'e trying to obscure or remove the existence of a geographical area called Kurdistan from Wikipedia, I am convinced that you should avoid that topic.You appear to be trying to denigrate people as vandals who dispute your edits. Disagreement with you does not make someone a vandal. If this kind of behavior continues, I will not hesitate to restrict or block your editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The corresponding article claims the following "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."

As it is not possible for the official army of a country to invade its own lands, the article is biased, misleading, and provides a perfect example of Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. By having a stance against removing this phrase you are violating Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Regarding the first argument: If geographical areas should be called by names of the dominant ethnical groups residing there, Eupen should be called as Belgian Germany, Kardzhali should be called as Bulgarian Turkey, Memphis should be called as African USA or a similar term.

Hope we find constructive consensus. All the best! Meurglys8 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You've made your arguments at extensive length on the relevant talkpage. My concern is your behavior, not the content of your arguments.When you posted your complaint at ANI, you asked for the attention of administrators, who concern themselves with editor behavior. You are presenting yourself as a textbook example of a tendentious editor. Your addendum above is not helping your case. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Whenever I edited a phrase having Hate speech, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing or similar acts of violating Wikipedia's policies, Armenian nationalists persistently reverted my edits. Do neutral people need consensus with nationalist manipulators who resist on keeping phrases such as "The Armenians lived quietly in their mountain villages until 1938, when Turkish Armed Forces soldiers invaded the region to put down a Dersim rebellion, and in the process blew up St Karapet's Monastery and killed around 60,000-70,000."?

I see that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Good reasons to revert supports my intention to contribute to Wikipedia by removing Hate speech and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Am I wrong? Should we keep phrases such as the ones in Tunceli Province#Demographics?

I really want to minimize your and my time to spend on this issue. My intention is to clear Wikipedia from hate speech and misleading claims. Meurglys8 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

If I may interject. I must defend myself here because I feel Meurglys8 has made some serious accusations directed towards me. Claiming that editors are using "hate speech" against you or your edits is malicious in it of itself. None of the editors who have restored content have directed hate speech towards you or have acted "hatefull" in their edits. I myself have continued to maintain courteous dialogue with you. Your strong words against myself/others are completely unwarranted. You have also now bypassed our on-going conversation on Talk:List of European countries by population and started a new thread about the exact same topic we were discussing previously. This confirms that you are not genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of others. I apologize, Acroterion, for discussing this on your talk page but I am uneasy reading the negative comments above. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and have blocked them for personal attacks on those who dare to disagree with them. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You read my mind. :) That sockpuppet investigation you just deleted: I was just wondering if that should be closed or outright deleted.... —C.Fred (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Since it was clearly meant as retaliation and in bad faith, I deleted it. I wonder how an editor who was new today knew how to go there in the first place. Acroterion (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Given Special:AbuseLog/32259383, it seems to me that the IP you just blocked, 66.165.1.180, was being used by an LTA. I don't know if that changes how long you want to block it for, or if you were already aware; just thought I should give you a heads-up. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hitler as a military leader

There was an extra space on the Lex Luger page to the sentence stuck out a bit so I (me not you) removed it. Not a vandal edit not one with no sources so why did you revert it. Probably just jealous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consider using a other than your real name (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You took out a space entirely, so that words ran together, and advising you of that is not “abuse.” Acroterion (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for your help with this situation. The user you just blocked, VonJarred (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), is the latest sock puppet account of Jinnifer (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), a banned editor who constantly makes sock puppet accounts in order to harass other editors into restoring Jinnifer's original research opinions to Horror film.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've seen Jinnifer before, at least by name. I'll adjust accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much again.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

A user you blocked two days ago for two days for edit warring, The.Barbaryan, just returned to engage in the same behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Acroterion. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)