User talk:Acroterion/Archive Q4 2022

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg ScottishFinnishRadish
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Staxringold
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ahoerstemeier (deceased) • Ched

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Cyberpower678

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg GorillaWarfare

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
 * Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
 * Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.

Technical news
 * The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
 * A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
 * The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.

Miscellaneous
 * An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
 * Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
 * You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
 * An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
 * Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I meant to wikilink The Mote and the Beam on User_talk:Paullong22 but I accidentally removed a bunch of stuff. I'm not sure how that happened. Sorry about that. Andre🚐 01:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am probably wasting my time, but I figured I'd try to shift the editor's thinking a little bit from "I disagree, so it's wrong and I'm removing it dammit"  Acroterion   (talk)   01:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what happened, I somehow had the old revision loaded and then I edited that thinking it was the current version. My mistake - sorry for any confusion or inconvenience. By all means, I certainly appreciate your reasonableness even if he doesn't. Andre🚐 01:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

2600:6c5d:63f:1e39::/64 still trolling


But they're just asking questions, of course. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course they are. Blocked for longer this time.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus
Then let's discuss this to see if a new consensus can be reached on the talk page of albertan independence (to stay that way or to join another country soon after). Wikipedia according to its values of neutrality shouldn't perpetuate pejorative words that take a negative (or positive) position on any subject, even if the sources do very much so. Is this not right? 96.22.228.193 (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You changed, I disputed it, and we both posted on the talkpage, see WP:BRD. I note that Wikipedia isn't concerned with whether individual editors think something is "pejorative," we say what the sources say. You appear to be injecting your own views intro these topics, and I don't really see how one word is more "pejorative" than the other. The appropriate place for discussion is on the talkpage, not here.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wrote that here because your talk page said you were busy and to leave a message to make sure you're seeing it, geez. These evil scary separatists that will take this and that if you people don't stay loyal to their benevolant union of equals, unlike those courageous noble freedom fighters from the empire. Definitely not pejorative if it's used for fearmongering, right. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Revert on Anbumani Ramadoss
Hi, I am seeking clarification as to why my edit, which got reverted by you, on Anbumani Ramadoss, violated WP:BLPCRIME. I just read the article and it has written that we should not include accusations, which have not reached judicial conclusions or resulted in conviction, in the page of non-public figures. Mr. Anbumani is a public figure.I don't know why the rule is applicable to him. Also, I have mentioned only the fact that he was accused and no way implied he was convicted. Please let me know what is the issue. 24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have included keyword "alleged" in the title of the section and restored the text. I think that should solve the issue?


 * Mere arrest without prosecution or conviction is inappropriate emphasis on an accusation that was never pursued. I will remove it, don't put bit back in.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't these DS need renewing?
[[User talk:Neuroelectronic]] Doug Weller  talk 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Technically they do, since it's company policy, however pointless it appears to be when it's right there in the next section up.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you couldn’t sanction unless they had a recent alert, involved at AE, etc Doug Weller  talk 16:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's company policy, so we should probably template them again. I just think it ought to be enough to point up the page,but I can see some DS stickler arguing that it's invalid.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Note that Twinkle said they hadn’t been notified. There are not just sticklers but also editors who hate the system. Doug Weller  talk 18:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Reversion
I noticed this reversion and wondered what your reasoning was. I often add an autobiography welcome even if there is a generic welcome so that there is specific advice not to do so, and so that they have been warned if it comes to a block for persistent self-promotion. It's never been a problem before. I'm obviously missing something, but I'm not sure what, please enlighten me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No,it was me and fat fingers on a touchscreen, not anything to do with you.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Isabelle Belato · Whpq
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Atama · Astronautics~enwiki · Athaenara · Eddie891 · GraemeL · Marianocecowski · Natalya · Pratyeka · SB Johnny

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs · Firefly
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Joe Roe

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg DGG

Guideline and policy news
 * The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
 * An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration
 * Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
 * The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
 * , and  have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections.  and  are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
 * You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
 * Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like or.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

On Marxism-Leninism
Hello.

For a while now you have been editing the page for Marxism-Leninism, adding the term "Authoritarian" repeatedly over and over, and it would be great if you could give your reasoning.

We have read the citations used within the page and within the line.

Communism by Thomas Lansford and Soviet Marxism-Leninism: The Decline of an Ideology by Alfred B. Evans neither corroborate the claim;

We also were unable to find any part of the page's text itself in which comfirms said claim, and, with that, we'd be interested on the provision of a reliable body of work as by wikipedia's standards capable of corroborating said claim.

It would be great if you could come to the talk page for Marxism-Leninism to clarify what led you to the above conclusion.

Thank you for your time. ~ IJamm6I (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No, what I was doing was reverting unexplained drive-by removals with no discussion and the edit summary "typo," which is both inadequate and inaccurate. I have no views on the content, and am content with however the talkpage discussion turns out.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response.
 * Yes, it is completely understandable why you took your course of action and i agree it was the right decision in a vaccuum.
 * The issue here is that the original change within the page (in this case the classification of authoritarian) was done so without previous concensus or citation by a single individual. IJamm6I (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not entitled to revert until you get your way. Get consensus on the talkpage first. I am not unsympathetic to your argument, but your edits have been disputed and you are obligated to resolve the objections first.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. IJamm6I (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Billy Fiddle
Would you believe it? User:Billy Fiddle has been indeffed as a confirmed sock account though it doesn't say of whom and I can't find anyone on the Crimea history that matches his behaviour. At least i know what to lok out for, but I've got to be honest, the talkpage access was revoked from him and that I feel is a touch on the harsh side. The only one I have dealt with is User:LJstats/User:Prim96 and he (or they) didn't get talkpage access revoked. Still, I won't miss any of them! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on what I see, this is a long-term abuse case across multiple accounts and IPs. Since we're supposed to be circumspect about connecting IPSs and accounts (I'm not a checkuser, but still), I won't go into details, but it's pretty clear that this is an LTA.  Acroterion   (talk)   19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was late by a quarter of an hour to spot that you already added the information to the AN/I thread. I get your point about this being an LTA. His aliases (and by his, I mean that in the generic sense) are likely to be on other Ukraine-related articles and these I look out for routinely purely out of personal interest. If I see anything suspicious, I'll report it but I'll have to treat Billy Fiddle as the sockmaster. Thanks for your help today. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't draw a great deal of inference from my blocking log. Some things connect, some definitely don't, and some things are complicated. The old statement that checkusers know something you don't stands true. However, I think this one's the LTA known as Evlekis. You could do worse than take a gander at . -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. I can (sort of) see the connection between Justice for All People and Billy Fiddle, namely the former's first two or three edits on the topic of antisemitism in Ukraine, and in particular this propensity for Russia-bashing gone mad, and the accounts have made a similar number of edits since about the same time since beginning of November, but the former has gone off into British army-related subjects which look constructive, but I'm not qualified to remark there. As for Evlekis, I exchanged comments probably more than a year ago with User:Thomas.W and I told him and I'm saying this now that I am certain that these - while being the same as one another - are not this editor who was active from the early days of the project until 2013. Although he's not about for someone to ask him his opinion of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I see no connection between who he was/is and this other jerk (or two if they are different), I looked at some (indeterminate number) of accounts "confirmed" to be Evlekis as well as those "suspected" to be him and even as a non-CU, I tell you there are anomalies, lots of glaring anomalies. I'll happily share them --Coldtrack (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had an interesting discussion with - apparently - the real Evlekis recently (here), where I kind of agreed (although there was a lack of hard evidence) that this isn't Evlekis. Which is why I usually say something like 'the LTA known as..'. It's easy for CUs to get mixed up at some point in the chain of confirmation. But we are where we are. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We've got a lot of pretty smart and functional LTAs whose behavior may at times converge, or who may be able to mimic each other. BKFIP, for instance, has a style that is common to a certain kind of LTA like this, who can mostly edit usefully while raining abuse on whomever crosses their path. Others, like HarveyCarter, eventually can't help giving themselves away.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find much of HarveyCarter but I'm gonna have a good look at those (if I can find his sockpuppets). I'll check the other one too to see his MO. Thanks Acroterion. As for the thread included by Zzuzz! WOW! What light that has thrown!!!!! I'll migrate over to your talk page and tell you what I have found odd with this case. Now I need a stiff drink to get over the shock! LOL --Coldtrack (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a short note: Evlekis's claim about not having socked since 2018 is not true, it is him who is still very active here, and I know that because I have deliberately prodded him a couple of times with comments that only the real Evlekis would react to, and he has reacted exactly as anticipated (i.e. by going ballistic), even as late as just a few days ago (and no I'm not going to post any details about it...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just another short note: in addition to his regular "normal" appearances Evlekis has on a number of occasions impersonated other LTA's, and has over the years also been blocked under other identities, resulting in multiple SPI's under other names being merged into his own report there after a thorough check, including by CU's, have found that it was indeed Evlekis operating under other identities... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 09:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Why was I given a warning?
As far as I am concerned, I haven't even edited a page in a while, why was I given a warning? Signed, (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Kurds
Not questioning your sanction, I’m assuming it’s part of the AP2 sanction? I’m generally confused. I don’t edit in this area nor do I ever plan to, so I’m not sure what this is about Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, hell, you ought to question it, since it wasn't meant for you. My apologies, I have too many tabs open. Carry on. Go edit about Kurds and Kurdistan if you want to.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All good, haha. No worries. Toa Nidhiki05 02:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did my comments go ignored or missed?
Hello, please review the following carefully as there's a misunderstanding. From my original statement onwards here, I refuted false accusations against me with diffs, which appear to have been missed or ignored. I pointed it out a few more times in subsequent comments, and those seem to have gone ignored too. The historical stalking and direct insults notwithstanding, also demonstrated, which would have resulted in a case of WP:BOOMERANG (why was that ignored?), the accusations made in the first place were false. My last comment among others makes that clear.

Of the just couple accusations, I'll point one out again. The accusation Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as a "controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially" is unfounded. I include sources in my Talk page comments, even if I don't often see this on Talk pages, but this particular part is not unsourced anyways. '''There is a whole well-sourced section on the article about Galbraith's financial gains and conflict of interest since 2009. I did not say or introduce anything new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Galbraith#Oil_controversy''' I did not violate BLP nor was there anything unsourced, and this was on a Talk page. I made that clear on the Talk page: "This has already been talked about in a couple other Talk sections too and has been in the article and sourced since the 2000s." There are two lengthy Talk page sections about it, too. If the accuser had bothered to read the article and Talk page after stalking me to the page, instead of immediately casting aspersions, this would not be in question in the first place.

My edits on the article, too, had nothing to do with Galbraith's oil controversy either, making the accusation even more bizarre. To put it in simple terms, this accusation is as absurd as an editor stating on the Talk page for Adolf Hitler that he was involved in the Holocaust, and, assuming hypothetically he was alive and fell under BLP, another editor false accusing that the first is violating BLP despite a whole article section on the precise topic and relevant Talk page sections on that. Then editor 1 gets in trouble.

Relevant to this topic area, an editor calling someone an ISIS sympathizer got a free pass, with the admin explanation: "As for the ISIS/PKK issue, I didn't understand the context and I can see it's not black and white. You should obviously not be calling anyone a terrorist sympathizer, that's a personal attack. However I do acknowledge that the issue is complex; the PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization by some and heroes by others." Likewise, it looks like there's context you may have missed in this situation too as the above diffs and explanation demonstrate, and I didn't insult anyone either.

For now, I've proven the primary accusation against me to be completely unfounded, as I'd done along with the others on the AE section. We can go through the other couple false/misrepresented accusations one-by-one too. Given this, what did I do wrong regarding this particular accusation given this was a proven false accusation? I understand you deal with a lot of varied, complicated situations daily so I can only assume this mistake was made in good faith. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I read your comments. You are so focused on a feud with other editors that you failed to address the substance of the complaint, which concerned your conduct. Since there is ample evidence of your disruptive conduct in the topic where sanctions are applicable, and since your behavior in the arbitration request mirrored the complaint, sanctions are warranted. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. Simply put, your conduct has been tendentious to the point of disruption.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "that you failed to address the substance of the complaint, which concerned your conduct"
 * This unfortunately makes it clear my comments were not read, because I absolutely addressed the accusations against me like I am here. Are you saying I did not do that? Why was that ignored? There isn't "ample" evidence of my "disruptive" conduct except false accusations like above considering practically all of it was refuted, and I provided plenty to the contrary too.
 * Can you explain, now that it's clear that false accusations were made against me like the primary one demonstrated above as completely unfounded, how the above refuted false accusation counts against me? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:TE and WP:IDHT, because that's what you were doing, what you did at AE, and what you're doing now.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, what I'm doing is demonstrating you took an action based on a mistake or possibly partiality, and that, as you admit, you missed my refutations of false accusations in the complaint against me. Had you not missed that, then it would have been a no action or boomerang case. That is, an action was made on the basis of false accusations against me which I had refuted. Also everything except the likewise false Peter Galbraith accusation were previously brought up in ANI and disregarded by admins as aspersions and misrepresentations, no action taken.
 * Why did you say I "failed to address the substance of the complaint", when I refuted every false accusation and thoroughly addressed the complaint? I'm attempting to understand for the future to make sure admins don't miss my comments again. Please give a straight response to my questions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that you're right and it's all cleared up now is not refutation, and unwillingness to consider any voice but your own under any circumstances is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Taken as a whole, your conduct has been tendentious to the point of disruption. That's why you're sanctioned, and trying to litigate individual issues away misses the point. That you consider every encounter with another editor as an opportunity for argument or disputation is fundamentally problematic.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not what I'm saying at all. I already refuted the accusations and proved with many diffs I was "right" on the AE section. You said that I "failed to address the substance of the complaint" which is blatantly false as you now concede, and is evidence you didn't read my comments on the AE section. I had already refuted those accusations and show you had ignored that. We can both agree it was not a fair judgment, and is need of more competent administrators.
 * It's not about "individual issues" either, and I made that clear. I just pointed out the primary false accusation in this Talk section above so that the comment didn't get too wordy, and as a reminder that yes, I did refute all the accusations and it's clear the accuser was acting in bad faith and had plenty of problematic conduct and editing.
 * > "That you consider every encounter with another editor as an opportunity for argument or disputation is fundamentally problematic"
 * Could you please not cast aspersions (if anything, you're describing TheTimesAreAChanging who fights each editor that dares fixes his disruptive editing, as I'd already proven too)? There is that precise one user that has harassed, stalked, and insulted me on various articles which he had no prior activity for the last couple years because of an irrational grudge he has against me on. I already proved that. With other editors, I have had no problems like here. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How many ways shall I tell you that you’ve listened to no voice but your own, and that it’s a consistent, ongoing problem? All you’re doing is confirming this perception. Now you’re graduating to making your own statements in my voice. Stop that. The heart of the complaint is a consistent pattern of bludgeoning discussions, which you were doing in the topic area, which you tried to do at the beginning of AE, and which you're doing now. Far from refuting that complaint, you've made it amply clear that it's a pattern of conduct that is problematic and sanctionable.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand now. You believe that building consensus and mutual agreements on a Talk page with well-known editors like Buidhe and others is "listening to no voice but my own", but TTAAC's only involvement was insulting multiple users and bludgeoning to push his disruptive editing over on Talk:Anfal campaign is not disruptive or bludgeoning. He then created an RfC, whose editors were still on my/Buidhe's side. Everything and everyone was against him, and he wouldn't listen to anyone but himself and started attacking multiple editors. Could you explain how that's not bludgeoning?
 * That you mistake the situation which was almost entirely discussions and agreements for constructive improvements with @Buidhe as "bludgeoning" adds to that you hardly looked into the matter. It was only when TTAAC came in with a comment full of personal attacks, that things went south, and multiple users including GregKaye on the article's Talk page and Novem Linguae on his own Talk page condemned him for it, calling TTAAC's comments a negative and apologized to me.
 * I'll remind you again, he's brought up everything but the Galbraith disproven accusations before in August on ANI, and more competent admins expectedly threw out his accusations as false and misrepresentations. Other admins saw the matter a lot differently than you do. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * > "Far from refuting that complaint"
 * See previous comments. Repeating this unfounded aspersion doesn't make it true. My statements were entirely about refuting the complaint and pointing out a history of stalking and harassment by an immature user with an established reputation and consistent history of personal attacks and disruptive editing in many topics and against many editors. If I didn't refute it in (too much) detail, I'd hardly have had much to write.
 * No, I'm not making my own statements in your voice. I understand it's rational to defend a poor decision to save face as an admin. I understand it's easier to go with false accusations and misrepresentations than consider evidence refuting that and diving deeper. There's a thousand admins and some are clearly less competent than others, even to the point of excusing a designated terrorist organization in the topic area as "heroes", which is shockingly bad bias for anyone nevermind an admin.
 * This has been a constructive conversation, as, likely accidentally, you've conceded that you hadn't really looked at my side and the sidetracking and aspersions is further evidence that this was a very partial decision. My applause to those admins who are competent and trying to keep this site, despite its overwhelming flaws and universal disgust from academia, running. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

please explain how my comments are wrong
I am not leaving Wikipedia until this is dealt with 2600:4040:403C:F300:2442:F8E1:9402:6E15 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

the incel page pushes for blanket surveillance and the stripping of civil liberties from a population which is not deviant by default. This is no joke and it that page has caused many people real world harm 2600:4040:403C:F300:2442:F8E1:9402:6E15 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wp should just call the bad thing to label "blackpill" or something, the 'incel's who don't self-identify as blackpill do not deserve a terrorist response or stripping of civil liberties or blanket surveillance from weird NGOs 2600:4040:403C:F300:2442:F8E1:9402:6E15 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Ask Bella Freeman what she thinks of the page. SHe ran one of the forums before the toxic ones. she also does not appreciate what you all are doing, its way beyond the pale and childlike. Maybe you are not among the people doing it on the incel page, but whoever is still or who have in the past, its really not mature 2600:4040:403C:F300:2442:F8E1:9402:6E15 (talk) 14:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Talkpages are for discussion of specific, actionable improvements to articles based on reliable sources. They are not fora for musings on feelings or personal reflections, nor are they for speculation abou nebulous surveillance campaigns by ... somebody That particular talkpage has been the target of extensive disruption of that kind.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user
Well, this gave us a scare. Glad the deletion log exists. Sarrail (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to startle you - they were really determined to make their spam stick.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, looks like their contributions do also include spam as well. Deleting it would be helpful as well. Sarrail  (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably not necessary, I only revdeld where the edit summary would show in the history.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, all is well. Sarrail  (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ever thought about...
...running for ArbCom?I I think you'd do well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your confidence in me. Drmies tried to get me to run a couple of years ago, but my response is the same. Real Life intervenes, and I have clients, deadlines, family, and 40 or so people to help keep employed, and I would not be serving them or WP well to divide my attention.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely understandable. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Shutterrepairservice
You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 09:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

FYI… 39.116.182.33 is back as 14.46.200.34
Regarding this block, has returned as. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My patience with creepy trolls in mass shooting articles is about nil. I don’t see any more obvious candidates in the articles they’ve been frequenting.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The user is still there, and just voted three times or more on the RFC as . Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

N924G not race modified
N924G is stock Seafury flying with a Bristol Centaurus 18 engine. not a one off just a stock bird that races at Reno 2601:600:4380:7A40:6D5D:8BE3:BA68:CE29 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You will need far better sourcing than you were using.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19_vaccine
10 seconds is way too short to reflect on the deletion of this: You were quick to lecture me but are mum on this. And the subsection in question is about a health claim that has currently no peer-reviewed source, it's only this article. But I didn't erase the old text, I only added a contradictory outcome that is based on the results of a peer-reviewed study with large database: To scold me it only took you one or two minutes, but silence for over an hour when I want a explanation on the substance. The substance is that this Wikipedia article makes a health claim, in theory people read that and possibly act on that. I want more seriousness here! Myosci (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * May I quote this article: Study after study has shown that people who receive two different COVID-19 vaccines generate potent immune responses, with side effects no worse than those caused by standard regimens. So "study after study" shows "no worse than" but not one footnote to back-up.
 * And yes there are three articles in the literature list BUT the mix-and-match there only applies to the combination: first dose AstraZenca vaccine, second dose mRNA. It's not mRNA-BNT and mRNA-MOD as I'm talking about. AstraZenca fell out of use in many countries for more than a years now and in the U.S. is was never used. So mix-and-match now means Biontech and Moderna. And there is no source in the article to back up the health claim. And you attack me? --Myosci (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Administrators don't regulate or arbitrate article content. You are obligated to follow consensus, and you are not entitled to set terms under which you will or will not accept the views of other editors.   Acroterion   (talk)   21:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I do not set terms, it's one of the other users that says that 10 seconds are enough for reverting my edit (including a peer-reviewed source that's brought up by me). This is clearly ad hominem and you take this side by not engaging on my complaint. You fail as a referee. --Myosci (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a referee. I was concerned that your conduct was escalating to a sanctionable level. Please reconsider your approach to working with other editors, because a confrontational, oppositional approach is not working there, nor is it a good approach here.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you say that about me? Did you really explore the back-story? Did you see that on the topic of myocarditis the stated rates were erroneously low and other editors corrected. See point 3 in the subsection COVID-19_vaccine now and before. The source article is btw. the same I advocated before, see Talk:COVID-19_vaccine, the discussion topic that was closed (like so many other) before without any consent. So I'm the one who's subject to constant confrontational action by the "top editors"(*) – but I'm the one that cites studies! And when I bring in data one "top editor" got full ad personam, see . So void of substance. I bring in the data again and again but when I finally complain about this constant distraction and obstruction I'm the culprit?? Classical. --Myosci (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Def. "top editors" in this post should refer to editors that often use actions like closing a discussion topic without consent. I never closed a discussion, and I don't like to erase other edits, I don't want to be a "top editor". I don't need that on this topic, regrettably.--Myosci (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you've stopped disrupting the article talkpage with accusations against other editors - by the way, experienced editors are allowed to disagree with you and may be consistent in the way they interpret policy - and since you've moved into trying to discuss article content here, this discussion is at an end. I am not and will not be involved in content discussions. Please resist the impulse to argue at great length with other editors. This is a collaborative enterprise, and you need to convince other editors that you're right rather than bludgeoning discussions or trying to discredit them.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Lord saturnus
.....may bear taking a look at. I kinda get the impression that they're not actually a new editor, and they're editing in some sensitive areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Their rather patronizing style reminds me of someone, or at least of a certain sort of editor who would be attracted to that kind of subject. I'll keep an eye on them.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

“On wheels”
This is the wheels person. Willy on Wheels has done a lot of damage to the encyclopedia in the old days. Sarrail (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been around long enough to remember the original WoW. Nowadays it's a bunch of lame imitators.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Eddie891 · Euryalus · TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alex.muller · Excirial · RedWordSmith · Ron Ritzman · TheresNoTime · Stephen

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Oversight changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
 * The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
 * An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news
 * A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget.

Arbitration
 * Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
 * The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
 * The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
 * The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
 * A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous
 * Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add  to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please help
I've just got another one from anonymous user 2604:BFC0:101:FD31:8583:18C5:5AE4:795B, and he writes this:


 * Brian K Tyler May have been disrespecting Jeff Bergman characters thinking that Jeff Bergman hasn’t voice a character for a while and he thinks what at least two or three of the most recent productions and projects and Brian said in his British accent I Think we should just stick with two current voice actors for Tweety Bob Bergen and Eric Bauza and one current voice actor for Daffy Duck Eric Bauza since he thinks Jeff Bergman hasn’t been able to do These Characters for a while, Brian K Tyler quote I don’t think Jeff Bergman hasn’t voiced These two unforgettable Chracters in long time I Don’t Cared Jeff Bergman Characters I’m just Going what the other sites said and told me to do and please do what I Brian K Tyler the Smartest Guy on Wikipedia And You will respect me since I’m cleaning up the errors, mistyped my words and whenever I Get into trouble Call me Love Brian K Tyler. You Ungrateful Crybaby, He’s Three questions One Please Bring Back present for Tweety and Daffy Duck Articles for Jeff Bergman’s Part as Tweety And Daffy Duck and Removed Bob Bergen’s part as Tweety. Two Brian I don’t known what country your from whether England or Australia or the United States. And Three Stop Hating and Disrespecting Jeff Bergman.  Brian K. Tyler (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Photo caption Ukrainian Nazi collaboration
Please review edit battle for the top of article photo description. There are users insisting on using their own opinion rather than an appropriate citation to revert an edit correcting what is depicted in the photo. Gmw112252 (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My sole action is to warn you that there are arbitration sanctions that apply there, and that you've been edging toward attacks on other editors. Administrators do not arbitrate content.  Acroterion   (talk)  

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Teenpattiappapk
You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

AE appeal notification
Hello, as required, this is notification of my appeal. You were the enforcing admin. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Inevitability, I'm afraid
They just achieved an indef block both here and on Commons. See Com:AN/U. It may be worth seeking the global locks you suggested as a preventative measure since they are still able to voice their unusual opinions on all projects. They have not yet done so. That's above my pay grade.

Thank you for your quiet and considered help with this editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am unsurprised. However, I don't see anything outside their disruption of enwiki and Commons that would cause a steward to take action. I'll keep an eye onm their global contributions.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * After reflection I concur with your view. Another editor has already requested a global lock. You'll be aware of that because I've pinged you there, offering my own paraphrasing of what I believe to be your view. If I have misrepresented you please let me know. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Tone doesn't carry well over text
Hello! Regarding this, I had no "new grievances". You may have missed it, but Dallavid had "grievances", to use this word, against me for just earlier debunking their AE section's accusations against and pointing out their multiple attempted actions against Olympian, and they noticed I had made an open AE section. Dallavid, not happy about my comment on their AE section, used this to express grievances on my AE section against me by accusing my comment on their AE section of being a "personal attack". All I did in response to Dallavid's was provide the diffs I provided earlier in Dallavid's AE section showing I made no personal attack.

I am assuming good faith in that you missed these details preceding my response to Dallavid and that tone doesn't carry well over text, which both led to this misunderstanding mixing up who did what, and not the first one. I hope this clears it up for you. If I may ask, please look beyond the surface level when making these observations and decisions. Thanks for all you do and I know you're busy, but the details matter. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * We're not going to relitigate your conflicts with other editors here. I'm well aware of the problem of tone in written communication, often between people from different cultural backgrounds, and the potential; for misunderstanding. With that in mind, your repeated assertions that I am somehow confused or negligent, or that you have always been impeccably correct do not sound the way you think they do.
 * I do not make a practice of following sanctioned editors around to see if they've done something wrong. If you think you are in doubtful territory where the topic ban is concerned, let me know and I'll give you my opinion on whether you're too close, without judgment. Acroterion   (talk)   02:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To explain more clearly, I have no conflict, any prior activity with, or know who Dallavid is. Having been on AE in recent days, I noticed an AE section by one editor I have never seen (Dallavid) with mispresentations against another editor (Olympian) I've never seen. I commented on that AE section, and then Dallavid afterwards, to quote, raised "new grievances against" me about that with the ill-intentioned comment on the AE section I had opened.
 * I am not litigating or asking you to do anything, if that wasn't clear. My only intent is I demonstrated with diffs that your statement of me having "new grievances" was in error, and emphasizing why details and a close-look matter so that (presumably well-meant) aspersions and misunderstandings like this can be avoided, especially in the capacity of an admin on (in my opinion) an important part of the internet. Regarding doubtful territory, thank you for that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan kipnis entry
Why was that reverted? 173.69.145.69 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a sourceless appendage. Please source everything,e specially where it involves living individuals, to reliable mainstream sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion
= 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm wondering if is related, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:8D29 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably - their conduct is indistinguishable from the other accounts, so it amounts to the same thing  Acroterion   (talk)   04:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Revision Deletion Request
Hey Acroterion, I recently found a revision by an IP that violates the BLP policy, which I swiftly reverted. Can you please delete the revision so it doesn't cause any problems? Thanks.

Revision in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Buckley_(actor)&oldid=1128061729 Khrincan (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Orluud
Can you also block User:2A02:8084:A82:A600:E530:C27B:28FB:1ED0 as well. It is also a sockpuppet of Orluud you blocked. -174.95.137.59 (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding conspiracy-pushing editor
I noticed that you recently reverted this edit at Texas School Book Depository. I have been dealing with this editor for a little bit because they continually promote conspiracy theories (examples here, here, and here), POV push (example here). They haven't headed anyone's warnings so far and I was wondering what the next steps would be to prevent the continued conspiracy-pushing (ANI maybe?). Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would leave a polite, custom-written note explaining WIkipedia policy and the importance of consensus first. ANI would be needed if the conduct continues after discussion, or after a couple of attempts at explanation have been ignored.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

eh Harry Potter?
Yes, I'm going to join the rest of the family and watch Harry Potter--I know, it's a sacrifice. At least I have coffee and chocolates. Enjoy holding the fort! Drmies (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Watch out for that noseless guy - Voldewarts, or whoever he is. I'm going to knock off in a while and eat - a friend of my wife has shown up with presents, but I don't want to go banging around in the kitchen and imply that something's being held up.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you mean He-who-must-not-be-nosed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * PRESENTS!!!! So I got a million things that came in from Amazon and one box was for me--a set of windshield wipers and I managed to order the wrong type. Ah well. Did you get better presents? BTW my kids are at an age now where characters in the Potter movies are becoming sexually attractive to them. It's very disconcerting. They should just stop growing at 8. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will take a picture of the early present from the neighbors, after dark - an inflatable holiday dinosaur for our yard. I think it's so they won't be embarrassed by theirs. As for your kids, your disconcertion is going to keep increasing for a while.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Warring editors
You can engage with the content, or allow those two bad faith editors to continue their tactics. Up to you. Twasonasummersmorn (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I put a post on the UNHRC talk page that had support. Selfstudier is vandlizing my edits. You can sanction him. and Should.JerusalemisthecapitalofIsrael (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)