This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
If you leave a message for me: I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me, unless I don't respond when a response is expected.
This helps keep discussion easily readable and in one place.
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
The thought crossed my mind, but then I really needed to wind up lunch and get back to work. We'll see what use, if any, they make of my tolerance. Acroterion(talk)23:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious where this three-revert rule applies to me. Please provide evidence. I have actually not reverted a single page. I am not even on one, yet you flagged my account as three. Why is this?DivineReality (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that you've donne it once in a given article (I thought you'd done it twice in the Biden article, I was mistaken). However, you're bouncing from place to place adding lengthy digressions about a lawsuit that has a long way to go before it reaches a threshold of due emphasis. Warnings do not mean that you've breached a threshold, they are just reminders not to. I recommend that you wait until any court action becomes a significant feature of someone's life. Mere existence is not notable. Acroterion(talk)02:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind cease reverting the positive changes I make to the page
The statement I made was a highly neutral statement, that is pure fact, that is so embedded in Christianity- can it be more "neutral"?
Or how would you define "neutral"
It is not personal commentary, it is neutral explanation that is designed to make the text less ambiguous than it already is - as it seems biased towards the religion.
The sentence "19th century priests - including Donders - showed no respect towards existing beliefs (including Winti) is by any standard not neutral, since:
1. Is authos's presonal opionion not covered in bibliography
2. Contains only half of the truth: most (if not all) missionaries does not show respect towards existing beliefs, becuase it does not go on par with Christianity91.189.141.116 (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a messageboard for your personal views or analysis. I have no particular issue with the removal of that statement, but amplifying or explaining it strays into personal analysis. ff you persist in editorializing you will lose editing privileges. Acroterion(talk)13:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.
Technical news
Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)
Arbitration
Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.
A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
You recently blocked this IP range for personal attacks, but I'm seeing very similar IPs (like this one and this one) continuing to post on the talk page in question. Maybe not making personal attacks, but it feels like block evasion. Asking here because you did the original block and it's honestly not clear whether this is something that needs to be reported/where that would even happen/whether a block expansion is even warranted. Can't wrap my head around rangeblocks, but when I tried to look at contributions over a larger range the edit history seemed to line up. Paris1127 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Want to be clear I'm not requesting that you expand the block, just asking what the protocol is here... Wikipedia policies can be positively oracular at times. Paris1127 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On inspection of their edits, the first edit from that range was probably the most telling. I guess they've learned from the first block to tone down the personal attacks, but not quite enough. Iv'e blocked the new range. I suspect they'll find another /64 range, though. Acroterion(talk)02:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attention. A new block was more than I was expecting. If he does find a new /64 I'm not sure we can continue this game of Whac-A-Mole. Paris1127 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion. I know you keep an eye on Comicsgate, which is frequently targeted by irate editors. If you have some time, it would be appreciated if you could keep an admin eye on Ethan Van Sciver for a while, too; I anticipate some talkpage sealioning. Grandpallama (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the edit? It wasn't a question, it was a garbled test edit at best, and was not an edit request or a suggestion for article improvement. Acroterion(talk)00:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. I interpreted it as a child who had a slightly garbled idea of what had happened who was trying out editing. We see that fairly often, though less than we used to, unfortunately. Acroterion(talk)03:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Persistent removal of well-sourced content - Canada convoy protest
Would it be possible to help? A convoy supporter is removing well-sourced content. It appears that the edits are politically motivated - they wish to remove any content that is critical of the convoy occupation (e.g. anything referring to the class action lawsuit). They are also adding inaccurate content. Thanks! Helikon (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the issue is, you have both wildly exceeded 3RR. I’ll look it over and figure out what to do, but reverting like that is never a good idea - it should be reported at AIV or AN3 before it ever goes that far. Acroterion(talk)12:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help!
I'm not going to have the time to sort this out before I go to work, I'm going to leave a message at WP:ANI for other admins to look at. You should expect to be scolded for simply reverting instead of soliciting admin help from the beginning. I realize you didn't necessarily know that, but it leaves you open to sanctions too. Acroterion(talk)13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has protected the article. I contacted info-en@wikipedia.org to ask for help, but received a reply 9 hours later. Sorry, I didn't know who to contact - I haven't encountered these issues before. Helikon (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody expects you to know, from limited experience. In general, editors are limited to three reverts, at most, for anything short of really obvious vandalism or defamation, which this was not. In general, if you encounter this kind of thing again, I would advise reporting it at WP:AIV for simple vandalism, or WP:ANI for more complicated issues, and resigning yourself to the understanding that the article may have the wrong version until it can be dealt with. For flat-out edit-warring, like you saw, WP:AN3, but it's best to go there without having done it yourself,and formatting it can be tricky. WP:RAA is a good resource. It can be hard to find help in the North American nighttime hours. Acroterion(talk)17:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the detailed info. I will definitely seek help if I spot any similar issues in the future. In this situation, it looks like a former protester/occupier is really keen to remove or counter any negative coverage. In response, we can talk about the use of reliable sources, and the importance of maintaining a balanced, neutral point of view.
On the contact page: it could be helpful to add some more details there.
"3. For vandalism, it is best just to fix it directly yourself; however, if you cannot fix it, you can email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the vandalism."
I've never seen a mechanism via email, at least Iv'e never participated in such a mailing list. I'll figure out where such emails actually go, I'm not optimistic that it's very closely monitored I'd avoid email response and just contact somebody on-wiki. Nighttime requests would be very unlikely to get attention via email in any case. Acroterion(talk)00:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lower protection of United Airlines Flight 93 to semi
Hello. Extended confirmed did make sense on the 20th anniversary, but it’s been 2 and a half years and the page is still extended. It could potentially be lowered to even pending changes or no protection, but extended confirmed is overkill as of now. CharlieEdited (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed protection entirely, as the specific disruption has been dealt with. There are a couple of LTAs that might cause trouble, but they can be dealt with by semi-protection if needed. Acroterion(talk)17:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Acroterion, I see that you've protected the violence against men article. I personally disagree with your move and request the move to be reversed, however I am happy to hear your thought process as I'm not up to code with page protection. You cite an IP persistently removing material without explanation. There was an explanation for the move on the talk page. This user has also only removed this content once before, which was a day ago so is that considered "persistent"? Further, this user has added well-sourced content, so I've assumed that the editor is acting in good faith. From what I see, it didn't need to be protected. —Panamitsu(talk)12:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take a less benign view. The IP appears to be trying to turn around the article's discussion on domestic partner violence, flipping the statements on women vs. men (i.e., persistently removing content not to their POV). They added a source that at least on its face appears to support their apparent POV, and then removed the reference that supported the original statement, with a talkpage comment that effectively stated that they just didn't like the reference. This particular statement has seen disruption in the past. The IP can clearly find the talkpage, and is welcome to discuss why they think such a significant reversal should be made, with a consensus of sources. Acroterion(talk)13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, since I have commitments for the rest of the day and won't be available to respond, I've removed the semi-protection, since the IP appears to be able to present talkpage discussion. Please keep an eye on things, the article has been a battleground in the past for this very statement. Any admin is welcome to reinstate or modify if needed. Acroterion(talk)13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Acroterion! There is an ongoing discussion in the Amhara people talk page. This discussion began after a disagreement on when the Christianization of Amhara began, with me believing it started in the 4th century during the reign of Emperor Ezana and the other user "Socialwave597" believing it happened "in the late Aksumite period, as hinted in the missionary activities of King Degna Djan." Throughout the discussion I gave a lot of reliable sources, however to no avail. He (I don't kow if it is on purpose or not) misinterprets them and/or gives some excuse not to accept them as valid. He also provided some sources, however when you look at them they don't state what he said, on the contrary, some even prove my point. I saw that It was a waste of time and asked for a third opinion. Thankfully it was answered and the Administrator gave his opinion, which seemed to me that he wasn't certain or just tried to be as neutral as possible. Me and Socialwave597 made our proposals and have yet to been answered, it's been more than 2 weeks. I have no idea whether Admins respond back when giving third opinions but we really need a concrete answer so we can reach a consensus as fast as possible. Would you be able, if possible of course, to check the situation and possibly resolve this? Please let me know if I need to contact someone else or do something as I really have no clue of what to do, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia and I am just trying to solve this issue. Thanks! Javext (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On superficial reading, it looks like Ilywrch (who is not an administrator) did a very thorough review, more than I could do. But , at least while acting as an administrator, I can't arbitrate content, and I'm completely unfamiliar with the topic, so I would need to do a lot of homework to be of much use in any case. I would suggest WP:DR for a moderated discussion if you think the issues are intractable. Acroterion(talk)01:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I believed Llywrch was an administrator as it was stated in his profile page but in any case I'll see what I can do, thanks for the response. Javext (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's warranted. Good close to that discussion. I got caught up in an edit conflict with you, wrote: Quick response before I block you for personal attacks. Source1mag[5] is a conspiracy theory site. Eg "Shocking Mini Hidden Camera Shows – Corporate, Big Pharma Plot to Fire Tucker Carlson" and "Bizarre Oddities: Oh My, Obama’s Brother Says Barack Sold His Soul to Satan To Join the Illuminati" The American Chronicle is no better.[6]Doug Wellertalk12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion, it's been a while and I hope you are doing well. I decided a few days ago that I would see if I could make a low-key return to Wikipedia editing without too much anxiety, and the first thing I found was that Nsmutte had returned while I was gone... I came here to ask if you could help me with a renewed semi-protection of my user talk page, but I just noticed that you already did while I was typing the previous, so I'll change to a thank you! --bonadeacontributionstalk13:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are abusing your power to block, are not providing transparent justification for your editorial decisions, are asserting rules that are not present in Wikipedia policy pages, and are reverting edits citing principles that contradict Wikipedia policy pages.
I am contesting your conduct as an admin. You have threatened to block me 3 times, which I find to be an unacceptable way to wield your ability to ban users. If you ban me for contesting your conduct, I only take it as further evidence that you have been given too much power as an admin because you are apparently able to overrule anyone who questions your conduct.
I recently noticed that my Wikipedia user page, which was dedicated to well-known saints with followers worldwide, has been deleted. I'm writing to inquire about the reason behind this deletion. I've observed similar pages for saints from various countries, including the USA, China, Japan, and India. like similar content what my page was so if similar content with other page can work what is issue for my page..?
Given this precedent, I'm curious as to what specific issue led to the removal of my page.
Could you please provide me with more information regarding the deletion and any guidelines or policies I may have inadvertently violated? I'm eager to ensure that any necessary adjustments are made to comply with Wikipedia's standards.
As noted in my notice to you, userpages are not workspaces for drafts, or alternate hosts for articles. Additionally, the content included repeated links to what I take to be your personal website, yatharthgeeta.com. Wikipedia does not permit that kind of spamming. Please do not use Wikipedia as a free webhost. Acroterion(talk)15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… thanks for your kind reply
You mean if I do not use links of websites so I can Create a page for famous india saint..??
There is no actual way of knowing that the claims of the four men being the ‘ones who organised a revolt’ are true. The only evidence is from reports of what happened which have changed over time, and their accuracy has been questions. There is no way of knowing that the four men actually were the only four who decided initially. That is just what is reported through popular media and what was reported as being said in unrecorded telephone conversations. Tge use of names when referring to the 9/11 commission report is also wrong as the simply says ‘native English’ or ‘native Arabic’ speaker. The voice recordings have never been made public just a transcript, so any attributions to individuals is not confirmed. The definitive claims of ‘these four men did x’ or ‘x said this’ when not a recorded call in wikivoice is a misuse of wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your language implies far more doubt than actually exists. Reliable sources are reasonably concordant on these matters. There is room for modification, but I don't think the may-or-may-not tone is helpful. We follow the conclusions of reliable sources rather than introducing our own analysis of primary sources. Acroterion(talk)16:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying ‘primary’ sources here where in fact you are using secondary sources.
also you have omitted that I have pointed out inconsistencies from official reports, to the non-official media reports. Also the primary source of the voice recorder has not been released.
the claim of ‘implies far more doubt than actually exists’ is not true as doubt as to who did and said what does exist. There is no way to know who ‘we’ or ‘they’ are when this is reported as quotes in media sources. It is unlikely the passengers all formally introduced themselves to each other.
The issue here is with flight 93 a lot of what is reported in the media is written as being factual and accurate, when it is speculation and conclusion creation on behalf of those organisations who wrote and published those. There is no way of knowing who was and was not involved in the passenger revolt. There is no way of knowing fair was just these four men or others unnamed were involved. It has to be written media and popular narratives attribute the events to be that this is what occurred. The official 9/11 commission report is not definitive but somehow popular media is. Remember popular media uses licence to create a story to sell the medium it is being published in. Stating things as definitive because it is in sources usually considered reliable negates that the accounts are not verified as what happened. Reliable and verified sources must be used, but just reliable. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses "the media" for sources. If you have wording that you think more accurately reflects the 9/11 report and reliable sourcing, describe it on the relevant talkpages. Again, your wording is more vague than I think is warranted. I think there are better ways to approach the issue of what is knowable and unknowable than inserting a bunch of waffle. Acroterion(talk)16:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the phrase ‘a bunch of waffle’ it’s not in good faith. Also attributions to who has said an individual thing is common on Wikipedia. It is more than common to go ‘according to newspaper’ or ‘publication stated about subject’.
what is being missed here is assumption bias of this is what has been reported for a long time by lots so it’s correct. Which is a form of bias to avoid. Lots of people saying something over a long period is not verifiability in and of itself. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful with the "not in good faith" accusations - I am responding to you in good faith.
Attributions are typically used when there are other widely discussed views. Take it up on the article talkpage - the onus is on you to find consensus for your changes. At the very least, they're awkwardly phrased and convey waffling rather than attribution. Acroterion(talk)17:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add my complete support for Acroterion's comments above. To repeat, the onus is on you to find consensus for your proposed changes. You do appear to waffle and find objections to other Wikipedia pages. David J Johnson (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your message to 49.185.208.16. (Thanks for the backup, btw. It's good to know that someone else found that edit sketchy) Do you know if there's a discussion/policy that specifically addresses the issue of "Jew-tagging"? Or is it something that is enveloped by wp:rs and wp:undue? Joyous!Noise!00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It comes up at ANI from time to time, and it's condemned each time. In the MoS it's specifically deprecated - see MOS:ETHNICITY. We get two kinds of editors that do that - proud promoters of Jewish accomplishments, and bigots. Before edit filters prevented it, we'd get Triple parentheses instead. I'll look around for a discussion, I know one exists, and I've probably quoted it at some point. Acroterion(talk)00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you said that consensus was to refer to ships without gender. I tried to find the consensus myself but failed to do so. Is it possible that you can share with me the link to the consensus? Thanks. —Panamitsu(talk)00:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Strictly speaking, consensus is not to change from one to another per MOS:SHIP, so I misspoke somewhat in the edit summary. It's sort of like sticking to one language variant once it's established. Personally, I think it's kind of anachronistic to use gendered language for ships.Acroterion(talk)00:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there appears to have been a group of accounts doing the same things there. I’m still looking at some earlier edits to see if they’re worth reveling. Acroterion(talk)11:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read your article.....and while I appreciate you asking me, I am not sure how much help I can be with it. (Although if you have specific questions from specific references, I might be able to help.) First off, I am not a bridge guy (I do mainly industrial buildings). AASHTO is kind of a world unto itself. Bridge design is a specialty area in structural (kind of like precast/prestressed). We use to gripe about the fact the SE exam was 20% bridge questions.....and we (i.e. building guys) were clueless. (I had to get AASTO's 16th/17th ed. and try to pick off the easy questions.....but I digress.)
All that being said, here is a good thread (with some references) on this topic on Eng-tips.com: [9]. Like some of the posters said: we tend to think more in terms of "redundancy" than "Fracture Critical". I am not sure if I've even heard that term before.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm an architect, so I'm worse off than you - my competency is in building structures, and as you observe, we generally think in terms of redundancy - there are few non-redundant tension-loaded elements in a building. Thanks for the clue, I'm going to try to stick to generalities and avoid getting down into the engineering weeds, and hope somebody in the AASHTO world looks at it. Acroterion(talk)20:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across another paper on this [10]. I am kind of fascinated by the history of this.....mainly because I haven't heard of it. It appears this has been a focus in more recent decades. (After most of the references I am familiar with were written.) Of course, fatigue checks have always been a part of AASHTO.....but I didn't know this was part of their intent (i.e. a overall failure of the whole system).Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 March 2024 you stated I don't see this as a matter for arbitration, this looks like extended forum-shopping. The Arbitration Committee is part of the dispute resolution process. I had legitimate reasons why I went to the ArbCom, which I will explain in the case if my request for extension is approved. You may even think I may have used a mistaken venue. But you stating that it looks like it is forum-shopping is an ill-considered accusation of impropriety and is not assuming good faith. You are an administrator, please follow Wikipedia guidance. The Assume Good Faith guideline clearly states,
Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. This is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. [...]
When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.
When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.
Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should follow Wikipedia policies and perform their duties to the best of their abilities.
This is directly addressed in what I posted above. I am not seeking to be "immunized from criticism". But if you fail to understand the difference between constructive criticism and unfounded accusations and not assuming good faith, then I do criticize you. In fact, my track record can show that I do seek objective feedback for my actions out of my own volition. And I do accept and recognize objective criticism and even when I make mistakes. But I don't like when people make unfounded and false accusations or rumours against me, much more administrators, who should know better. Thanks. Thinker78(talk)22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're acting in good faith. That doesn't mean that everybody is compelled to agree with you, or never to criticize you. The tendency to filibuster the slightest criticism is another characteristic that I'm seeing on this page. Acroterion(talk)23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you got to within 400 miles or so the cities began with B and the states with M. However, I take your point, see my discussion on the talkpage about a pedantic insistence that the bridge ran from Dundalk to Baltimore, which may make sense in a legal sense, but is otherwise nonsensical, and I did say "outside Baltimore" or "to the east of Baltimore" would be fine. Acroterion(talk)10:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
This is not a hoax this is culturally significant local legend back by reputable news source. It also helps to further display the cultural impact the Chupacabra cryptid legend has stretched to other area of the world outside of mexico. Dancmaster (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sure that you can provide several references in reliable sources that actually describe the alleged appearance in Huntingdon Valley. The reference you used made no such mention. Acroterion(talk)19:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...a couple times for "Jew tagging" and in general bad editing practices has picked up where they left off after the latest 3-month block expired: 2601:883:C201:8590:0:0:0:0/64 A good number of their recent edits involve some form of apparent anti-Jewish animus (e.g. [11][12][13]) or whitewash well-known antisemitic conspiracy theorists (e.g. [14][15]), while others have simply been reverted for being unsourced or undue. As the most recent blocking admin, I thought I'd bring this to you first rather than give this person a platform at ANI. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this was their first rodeo I’d warn or give them more rope, but they seem to be trying to skirt on just the edge of what they were doing before. 1 year this time. Acroterion(talk)02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please restore my user page until after phabricator.wikimedia.org/T363024 is resolved? The example links for reproducing the bug are no longer working. Otherwise, could you please recommend where/how I might post the exact same history so there's a working example the MediaWiki/Wikipedia devs can reference? Thank you! RDuckDev (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth does a copied course syllabus have to do with that? User pages aren’t hosts for copyright violations or HTML debugging or whatever you’re trying to do. Acroterion(talk)03:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the delta (change) between the revisions that's relevant to the bug report. Wikimedia asks for "clear [steps in] how to reproduce the situation" (How_to_report_a_bug). Unfortunately, I only know the contents that trigger the bug in Parsoid and/or the VisualEditor/VisualDiff, not the root cause that I would need for crafting an example from scratch. There-in, the relevance is to provide Wikipedia's software developers with a working example of the bug to help make visual diffing work more reliably for us all!
All that in mind, I understand that user pages aren't the intended place for providing Wikipedia's developers with such an example for debugging the underlying MediaWiki software, my apologies for that oversight. Could you recommend where I should post a working example (solely for the lifetime of the bug report)? Please disregard. I've attached the information directly to the bug report. Thanks, again, for the guidance. RDuckDev (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that's what you would do. Putting a course syllabus, code source or not, in Wikipedia itself is a copyright violation from what I saw, and Wikipedia itself isn't a Mediawiki or coding forum. You might want to try the Mediawiki wiki for that sort of thing: [16]. Acroterion(talk)
Monsieur le ministre@heures, je ne veux pas vous faire perdre votre temps comme vous me le dites sur ma page de discussion. Je ne veux pas perdre mon temps. Vous pouvez fermer mon compte sur le Wikipédia de langue anglaise. Cordialement Laurange Jolicœur Héron du fleuve (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... damned if I know, to be honest. I'm not sure if the autoblock would apply only to the partial block topic, I hadn't considered that. I would think so, but it's outside my experience/understanding. Acroterion(talk)21:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpages are for specific, sourced, actionable suggestions for article improvement. They're not fora for the opinions of individual editors or for general discussion. Acroterion(talk)20:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1968 in Orangeburg, law enforcement officers shot thirty African American students, killing three. These students from Claflin College and South Carolina State College had been protesting a segregated bowling alley. Two year later, in Lamar, two hundred white men armed with ax handles, chains, and stones stormed three school buses transporting African American students to the high school. Topsecretsquirrel (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a terrible time and place. But this encyclopedia's article talkpages are for suggestions on article improvement, not for general observations on how awful things were. Wikipedia is not an Internet forum. Acroterion(talk)21:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a forum here either, please read Orangeburg Massacre, which has lots of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To Acroterion (04/15/2024 PST Northern California),
How do I say this "Wiki" Proper? I will do my best. But first I would like you to know a little something about me. I am a "FACT" checker from day one. My Grandmother imbedded in my little pea sized brain the following quote:
"Believe NOTHING of what you HEAR and ONLY HALF of what you SEE".
Let me start with 2 questions for you.
Q1). BEFORE Wikipedia, where did YOU get your "FACTS"? (Please answer below)
A1).
Q2). My last reply to you (Orangeburg 1968), is most definitely a "FACT" but not from "WIKI". It is straight out of The Smithsonian Magazine, and it is only ONE paragraph of "The Orangeburg Massacre" in 1968.
A2). You don't have to answer this question. You can try, but....
Moving FORWARD...
It is only ONE of the many "FACT CHECKS" I do when someone decides to, ohhh, "Underestimate Me". So, for you, I have attached a link of "The Smithsonian Magazine" article (Note that they do NOT have {#} please) as, quite frankly, I do not have the time to give all my FACT resources to WIKI.
Lastly (I really hope you read this article), I NEVER come to Wikipedia for FACTS. I saw a "Documentary" about it on a "True Crime" (I am a True Crime buff) channel I "TRUST" and when I typed it into my browser (NOT GOOGLE) the "Wiki" page was the 1st to POP up (I bet you all pay billions for that spot) and I foolishly clicked on it (Because I know UNEQIVICALLY better than to trust this info). I read what "Wiki" had to "SAY" about "George Stinney" (the youngest EVER to be EXECUTED), saw hundreds of your blue {#}'s which I know UNEQUIVICALLY that they mean it was either "Edited for WRONG FACTS" or "Misleading", "Sorry, wrong, here's an update", "Sorry you were fooled by a so-called Historian", blah, blah de, blah ditty blah.. noticed the "TALK" tab and like a dumbass, signed up so I could write what I did the first time. Which, by the way, is so very true and I saw many others doing the exact same thing.
In summary, Wikipedia is commonly referred to and known as (and ALWAYS has been from day ONE) "Wiki-Rumor-Has-It but we'll fix it with blue {#} if you call us out on something".
My knowledge comes from a lot of research, fact checking and being or living someplace where I SEE, HEAR, and WITNESS the TRUE goings-on of what I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW as a FACT still happen to this very day! And I am NOT afraid to say it directly to anyone's face who attempts to "call me out" on a fact that I UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOW, LIVE and BREATH due to incompetent hacks who crossed my path of life.
And finally, in the "Southern Schools" students are "NOT ALLOWED" to use Wikipedia for "ANY and ALL assignments or you will fail with a big fat F and have to do it all over again". That is a TRUE FACT that I know UNEQUIVOCALLY. And if you do not believe me? Please allow me to introduce my "Genius" son.
I will now leave you to spew more "wiki" and I will kindly unsubscribe to "TALK". Just for YOU :).
Here is "The Smithsonian Magazine" link. Enjoy and it has been my pleasure to tell you what IS.
it's preferable to find sources instead of summarily removing it, unless it's agreed to be dubious or unsourced and tagged as such for a long, long time. Acroterion(talk)23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
There really ought to be an article on the book first, and there really ought to be sources for the others, and for your addition. I've left it there though. Acroterion(talk)19:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get myself clear. RossoSPC's sandbox is a sandbox. Not an article, a sandbox. He's not making that a real article. Yes it is a hoax, but it's a sandbox, not an article. I do sound uneducated but I'm still somewhat confused that you deleted a sandbox
Which is perfectly fine, I understand your motivations for creating it, I've done things like that too (long ago, before the Internet). Acroterion(talk)02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And people who tell me I'm doing something wrong have to be punished for being meanies. I think they're a teenager based on the edit to Bearcat's userpage and the edits to their own userpage that had to be suppressed for TMI, so it all goes together. I think they're not yet living in the Real World and are finding out what adults expect of other adults the hard way. Acroterion(talk)14:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they're using a proxy? Or, is it just an assumption because that second Talk:AOC comment made it clear it was LTA? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is unpleasant. Maybe that /24 needs to be shut down. I think it's highly unlikely that person is in the Dominican Republic, but whether or not he is I think that range can get a longer block. Expanding to a /22 shows edits that clearly originate in .do. Antandrus(talk)22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, when I went to block the IP for awfulness, the Twinkle block window told me that the IP had been previously blocked twice by ST47ProxyBot,which also shows in the block log for that IP. Acroterion(talk)23:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d take a look at the user’s talk page history, at least, before continuing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Ironically, I warned all involved users in a discussion taken there that accelerating rather than trying to communicate leads to things getting heated and makes it worse - but they called the whole section ridiculous and removed it without, per their edit reason, reading any of it. I wanted to try AGF asa far as possible, but if that behaviour has got to the point of a temp block, the message isn’t getting through. I also don’t know how old the account is, but the aggressive weaponising of irrelevant policies rings a bell to me. Kingsif (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of conduct is something I see on a practically weekly basis all over the 'pedia, and it's not a subject area where I have an extensive knowledge of the perennial problems, but I'll take a look around. At the moment I'm trying to remind a bunch of people to stay out of trouble. Acroterion(talk)13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to comment on the article talk page itself because of my previous warning about the contentious topic marker, but I'm pretty sure PicturePerfect666 has just created a sock to continue their edit war. See the "Revert needed" section of Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024. The Satanator, signs up at 01:42, posts that topic at 01:47 with knowledge and opinion of the editwar, and then immediately retires the entire account (a process new users aren't normally aware of) at 01:48. Big WP:QUACK to me. BugGhost🎤07:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a simple question: does the 1RR on the article apply only to content that relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict or to all content? Traumnovelle (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added CORRECT info to the ``North Korea and weapons of mass destruction`` page which YOU have reverted, I have intelligence about this subject, b/c my Cousins in laws cousin is part of a mission discovering the EDP445 missile, thanks! -UI Uyiyughiuhiu (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion - just wanted to let you know that has opened an arbitration request about ARBECR - just thought you would like to know, seeing as we discussed it briefly the other day, and the arbitration request case relates to the same group of users, so you might have specific insight into the topic. Only posting in case you didn't see it and would like to make any statements - feel free to completely ignore this
Here you reverted a junky comment on my talk page. It would be good if you'd at least use an edit summary to say why when doing such things. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. I'm thinking of founding a think tank too. Its first position paper will examine "Gelato vs sorbetto: which is more satisfactory after dinner?" Research is warranted. Acroterion(talk)22:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy stuff. :) Meanwhile, I advised him that this is a privately owned website and that his threats are meaningless here. I'm just wondering if he's going to yap his way into making a full-blown legal threat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was a little surprised that they're taking a leap off the high board, their editing history doesn't give any hint that I saw to lead to this Double Top Secret special security police business. Acroterion(talk)01:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. It was actually getting kind of comical. I've been here a number of years, and have been accused of various things, but I think this was the first time alleging I was a national security threat! In any case, the California-based IP has said enough by now that any recurrence of this rhetoric under another ID should be easy to recognize. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ad you have helped me in he past. My name is Einar, on wikipedia I am carptrash and today I was blocked from editing on wikipedia. When I tried to report it through the suggested channel I was informed that there was o block, but there was one everywhere else. I am now at a friend's house, where I am not blocked. How can I get unblocked at home? Thanks, Carptrash (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Carptrash, from a CU perspective I'm not seeing any blocks that should be affecting you. Were you logged in to your account when trying to edit? Most IP blocks will not affect registered accounts. Spicy (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unable to edit while logged into your account, please send me an email with the message you get while trying to edit, including the IP, and I'll look into it. Spicy (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, I have been unable to log into my account for perhaps a month but was still able to edit as a number, but no more. But I can at a friend's house. Carptrash (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and do that, the problem is that all that sort of information is on my computer at m house but I can't edit there. I need to email it over here. Maybe I'll try and do that now. It just involves some driving around. Carptrash (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why you deleted my artist about page? that was for my google page with all my social network, when you type slainix on google there's a page that show with social network etc, i don't understand why it got deleted, it's not to promote myself i do that, it's for people who don't know me yet this p*ss me off. Slainix (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
This IP address has beenblocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.
The IP address or range <redacted and sent to Spicy and Drmies> has been blocked by Drmies for the following reason(s):
longterm vandalism
This block will expire on 00:28, 6 June 2025. Your current IP address is <redacted and sent to Spicy and Drmies>.
Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.
Carptrash, that block is set only to affect logged-out users, so you should be able to edit as long as you are logged in to your account. If you're having trouble logging in, you can try resetting your password using Special:PasswordReset. Spicy (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - you hid a revision on my talk page ([19]) as grossly insulting or degrading. I do not find this edit insulting or degrading and did not ask for it to be hidden; can you please un-hide the edit? Thank you Chubbles (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We were more concerned about potential outing, not that I believed that any of it was real, but we wanted to err on the side of safety. As long as there are no concerns on your part, I will un revdel it. The "grossly insulting or degrading" was more a term of art for the revdel. Acroterion(talk)20:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can, but given a history of attempts to move titles, I am reluctant to do so. What do you think would need to be done with the redirect if it was unprotected? Acroterion(talk)18:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a moment! I mentioned extended-confirmed action for move-rights, not autoconfirmed access! Aside from that, I am alright with your changes to edit-rights.197.2.92.56 (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This time, I am the one who is uncomfortable. You mentioned that there are attempts to move titles, though not sure if you're typing about the target page or redirect, but that case was unfortunately true with gas chamber five years ago which eventually got admin-move-protected. Furthermore, with the ongoing calamity in mid-east, I fear that both the target page and the redirect would experience a move-war given that both of their current move-protections are non-extended. Are you still confident about half of your decision?197.2.92.56 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are always possibilities, but we can bump it up if needed. The general guidance for ECP is to not make it perpetual except in unusual circumstances, and I think most of the potential move warriors have gone on to hotter topics for the time being. Acroterion(talk)21:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ha, this reminds me that I have official FBI victim status--hasn't done a lot of good, of course. Comments by colleagues like you do help, and I appreciate it.
@Drmies: It's special, isn't it, having that status? We should form a club. People who never realized they'd be acknowledged as "victims" by the FBI for their participation in, and administration of, Wikipedia. Who knew?
Hi, I'm Drmies, and because I do things on a website people email my bosses and tell lies about me, threaten to kill me, and threaten rape and murder on my family members. My case against one of these abusers (just one) went pretty far, all the way to the California State AG, apparently, and then--well I don't know what happened then. It's been quiet for a few years. What I'd love to see is the WMF taking these concerns seriously, and pressure law enforcement and start civil procedures. The real kicker? As a boy I have it relatively easy compared to our female colleagues. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, do you reckon the page should just be semi-protected indefinitely? I don't think the issues are going to go away. We aren't going cover (what are typically) symptoms of psychotic disorders in an in-universe way, so I think our coverage of the topic is always going to be upsetting to its proponents. Endwise (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I won’t do it tonight, I’m about to signed, especially since it would turn into an argument about involvement, but feel free to ask at RFPP. Acroterion(talk)04:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)
On the Tupac Shakur page on the lead where it says "african Americans" can you put the word "other" in front of African Americans since Tupac was also black. Action heroes are real keeps removing it and vandalizing the page. Thanks HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so if ActionHerosAreReal says in his edit summaries "this is original research", even though he's removing multiple sentences in this Tupac article that is sourced, and he says "we agreed with my edit on the talk page" "see talk page" even though everyone disagreed with his edits even administrators and he's still warring with people, that's not vandalism? Ok it's not, since I didn't Read the rules about vandalism, but I'm pretty sure it breaks another rule. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should go back and review at least some of those based on their recent editing history and consider self-reverting. While it might be correct for not all of those to have the tag, to have removed all of them includes cutting out the kidneys with the cancer. Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign just as one example where this absolutely is being affected by the latest shooting and we should at minimum leave the tag in place for days, if not weeks. This was a world changing event. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a couple when I reviewed. No, your spammed templates were unnecessary and disruptive. They can be placed if needed by someone, but not the way you were doing it. No, it's not a "world-changing event," it's the kind of awful crap we have to deal with without overdramatizing. Acroterion(talk)02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, so you left a response to something I said and when I said; "Who asked you?" You felt the need to say that just because you were an administrator nobody needed to ask you. Can you tell me why you feel like nobody should need to ask you even though you're the equivalent of a glorified hall monitor? Aj631314 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you think aggressive comments like this help us write an encyclopedia? If you just want to treat people badly, find someplace else to do that. I see that another janitor (we like that term better) has blocked you. Acroterion(talk)04:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After the second trolling/forum post at Talk:Antifa I had decided to block if they did it again. I didn't see your warning at their talkpage until after I'd blocked ,and considered unblocking and leaving your note there, but decided to leave it, since I was more concerned with the trolling nature of the comment than with the issue you'd warned them for. I'm OK with unblocking and giving them a little more rope.Acroterion(talk)15:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to unblock, I was just curious, for my own benefit, whether you disagreed with my handling of the issue or if you just didn't see it. Either approach is fine. – bradv15:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We were just looking at two different aspects of their conduct. Recent events are likely to encourage this kind of soapboxing, and while we don't need to get to Barney Fife levels of bud-nipping, I think it'll be another thing we have to contend with. Acroterion(talk)15:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting early admin attention at concerning edit
Came across this edit on a user talk page requesting sort of offline information prima facie might sound innocuous but to read with their user page sentence not a very good vibe and I suggest some early admin look into the issue. Bookku (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a legal threat here? I reverted the post but thought an admin who had edited the article or posted on the article talk should probably check it out. I also notified Jpgordon since they had edited the article/article talk as well. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I blocked them for the legal threat, but I suspect they were not long for this project anyway. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with the WP:ANEW report regarding this editor. Could you follow up with them regarding WP:AGF once more? Their first edit after your warning about personal attacks was to double down on this notion that I somehow have an ulterior motive to supress the truth here. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, you seem to have already done so. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI they are now trying to circumvent their partial block by canvassing others to change the article back to their preferred version [20]. I've just noticed this after reverting some interesting SYNTH and OR of theirs on a different article. Black Kite (talk)05:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've returned from their week block by claiming that Marca (newspaper) is a "fake news" website (it's Spain's foremost sports newspaper) [21] and reverting more material to their preferred POV. I've final warned them, but I think we've run out of patience here - what do you think? Black Kite (talk)15:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you deleted my comments on that talk page instead of providing any reply: Maybe you might answer here on your own page? Thank you and greetings from France's Atlantic coast. We do not have mountains here where you could remove any tops so all we are afraid of is that heaven might fall on our heads. Gwele kloz (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.
Miscellaneous
Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
I see you rev-del-ed (is that a verb?) one revision in the page history for Molly White today, but there may be one other, by the same user, also earlier today. Same reason (RD3). The revisions are five minutes apart. Thanks for looking into it. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordination of separate contracts and timelines for rootop HVAC unit replacement and a re-roofing project could be more exciting than you might think, but alas, it isn't. Acroterion(talk)14:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I *think* I'm responsible for the initial discovery of the issue. I started reverting the Storrs-Mansfield after he had been doing it for a while and the wall of text summaries for the reverts was what brought in even more users to the issue. Yeah, sometimes the users just don't realize that the mops can become lightsabers. I've got a few of the Storrs -> Storrs-Mansfield pages on my watchlist, and I'm trying to keep a count of how many remain as I do cleanup. If I see any changes from Storrs to Storrs-Mansfield, which course of action is preferred, commenting here to you as the blocking Admin or putting a comment at WP:ANI? Naraht (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not to blame for this person's obsessive pedantry. I don't think they're compatible with WP; we deal with lots of ambiguity and either-or issues, and this kind of absolutism isn't productive. Acroterion(talk)16:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I am, though this is probably the first time (and I have more than 100,000 edits) that I have seen someone immolate is such a pendantic way. So *when* he shows back up, I'm not sure where to report it...Naraht (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me, or Cfred. I've seen people like this before, who are willing to die on a hill to prove that "The Beatles" is better than "the Beatles," for instance. Some people can't coexist with ambiguity or contradiction. Acroterion(talk)17:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done undoing. In mainspace, only The Daily Campus, the UConn Student newspaper still has the string Storrs-Mansfield. At least two other experienced editors left it in the address for the main office for the newspaper while reverting other changes. Inside a street address, I don't think common name applies, so I think we are good, I'll do a check in a few days after his block expires.Naraht (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I'm immune to that kind of puerile crap by now, but I've gotten rid of the one that got him blocked - I'd meant to circle back but was probably distracted by my family acting like normal people, instead of this obnoxious child. Simple vulgarity (without any particular non-bot target) isn't eligible for revdel. Is there another specific comment made about another editor somewhere? Acroterion(talk)19:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
As with the Chad McQueen article, they've been accusing us of 'advertising' for adding information that's relevant, and it looks like they are deliberately shifting around IPs.Yogue (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I saw you were on the list of active admins and I think we've edited in some of the same spaces before. I just wanted to keep admin aware that the GSL talk page is especially active these days which is of course partially my fault (involved). Just giving a heads up that there is current discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN.
OK, but unless there's clear-cut misbehavior administrators won't intervene in a discussion one way or another, at least not in an administrative capacity. Acroterion(talk)02:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look at the talkpage and while it's a voluminous, unresolved discussion, it looked like everybody's being reasonably respectful, or at least are not actively fighting. In any case, it's getting late and I'm wrapping things up for the day. Acroterion(talk)03:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most current airliner pages are on my watchlist because they're favored by two or three LTAs, so it was pretty clear somebody was acting up. Glad I was able to cut that short. Acroterion(talk)12:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion. Would you mind restoring the visibility of the reverted edits made at this page? I've previously discussed with two other admins about the issue of hiding death-related revisions from this talkpage, which can be seen here. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Primefac's view that "we get death notices all the time, they're easily checked and not that serious of a BLP vio." In my view, maliciously stating that an elderly (or any) person is dead is as serious as it gets, and we have enough ghoulish fascination with being first to report someone's death that we don't need to encourage the trolls. And this is an LTA, so "purely disruptive" comes into play, with WP:DENY. Primefac's entitled to his opinion, but I see no value in unhiding the abuse. That said, if someone else thinks it's fine, they are free to do it. Acroterion(talk)23:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RD is somewhat subjective. I have stated my opinion on the matter, but I don't necessarily feel strongly enough to push the issue or reverse the RD. Feel free to take it up at a more centralised noticeboard if you feel that these sorts of things should be more standardised. Primefac (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the boundaries aren't clear. I tend to resist defining things rigidly, since rigid boundaries can be tested or exploited, and we have as much instruction creep as anybody can stand already. I am not wholly in disagreement about death vandalism; checking really famous people is trivially easy. It's the less obvious or easy-to-check cases that are more pernicious. Acroterion(talk)13:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
It certainly earns a block for racist vandalism. It's not awful enough for revdel though, it can remain as a memorial to that editor's behavior. Acroterion(talk)19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no unanimous opinion on the threshold for revdel, which is probably a good thing, since over-specificity is a temptation for the malicious to see what they can get away with. Another admin may disagree, and there are things that I revdel that other admins might not. The most important thing is that the vandal is blocked. Acroterion(talk)19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I can't quite place where it was or the possible socking... I seem to remember something about an obsession with adding numbers to articles, with adding ages at the time of death to articles, numbering people's stations in life in articles (including infoboxes for First Ladies of the US). Please see this edit history. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I've seen that particular editing pattern, at least not that I remember.. I would think it should be easy to spot via a properly constituted query, which might give more clue. Acroterion(talk)15:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol you assume I can put together a properly constituted query? (not even sure what a query is, I just edit stuff around here...) I'll continue to poke around my old edits over the next few days, I know I've seen this editing pattern before... Somewhere. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was deleted by another Wikipedia administrator after it was declined for non-notability. The deletion reason was that it was promotional. If you have questions about that, you should contact the deleting administrator. Acroterion(talk)12:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Your account was just registered after the other account was blocked, you're demanding retribution against one of the editors involved in that discussion, and while not particularly kind, you're not being insulted. Acroterion(talk)01:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Because undiscussed pagemoves are disruptive. Articles should not be moved on a whim. New editors don't necessarily know that, so they are warned. The warning was given nine months ago, I assume you have a better understanding of move protocols now. Acroterion(talk)17:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to know why you gave the level 2 warning instead of the level 1 warning (I've attached the level 1 warning below the level 2 warning so you know what I'm talking about):
I looked at your edits around that time and decided a slightly stronger wording was appropriate. It's a mild admonishment, not a stain on your Permanent Record. Do you really think it's a good use of your time to come back nine months later to wrangle about it? Acroterion(talk)23:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hey there Acroterion. I just came across an IP address that you previously blocked. I blocked them again for a period of three days (due to messing around with pages). They have been repeatedly warned in the past, and blocked twice. Was I correct to block someone after being blocked twice in the past and having repeated warnings, or should I have done a warning first? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they're doing the same sorts of things that got them blocked the first two times, we can assume they know better already and are just blowing us off. Technically, warnings aren't required, but AGF would demand it until we can safely discard that courtesy. Acroterion(talk)00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Acroterion, sorry to disturb, but the IP you blocked for edit warring at the Moorgate tube crash article has come off their block and jumped straight back into reverting again. They have, at least, commented on the talk page, but I’m not sure that anything said there is going to stop the disruption. Should I apply for temporary page protection to focus their efforts on the talk page alone? Thanks SchroCat (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about not lying about me, not trying to force jargon that nobody has used in decades into the article, not reverting just for the sake of reverting, and talking to me instead of childishly trying to get me blocked again. 81.111.22.107 (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking too? I have not lied about you: you have come off a block for edit warring and carried in with the same disruptive behaviour. I have explained the rationale on the talk page as to why the current phrasing is better, and it has nothing to do with ‘reverting just for the sake of reverting’: that’s an untruthful claim right there. How about you use the article talk page to try and counter the explanation put forward, rather than just edit warring? SchroCat (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both. If they return at a future point, hopefully they'll aim for the talk page first to discuss properly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpeg){kind=small}
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Admin Acroterion will not let me refactor talk pages and is not engaging in an open way. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
On 29 March 2024 you stated 
Interface administrator changes
.jpg)