Your efforts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk are sincerely appreciated. You are a real gem!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For diligently overcoming the mind-numbing tedium and futility of working CAT:UNBLOCK -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add one here!
As JBW has pointed out ([1]), there is more than just one administrator who should get this barnstar, and if you know of more, please let me know!
~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Admin's Barnstar

Dealing with unblock requests is tough. A few years ago, CAT:RFU was my main activity for a week or two, but back then I eventually gave up on an ever-increasing backlog and enormous amounts of time spent per request, just to be rewarded with people continuing to do what they did before the block. Thank you very much for your patience and frustration tolerance in preventing CAT:RFU from breaking down. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I note Deepfriedokra's comment above. As I have said on my talk page in answer to ToBeFree, I do much less unblock request reviewing than I thought I would do when I first became an administrator, because in several ways I find it frustrating and depressing. However, I keep on doing it, albeit at a reduced rate, for two reasons. (1) Presumably because it's such an unrewarding task, there's a very small number of administrators who do it, so that there's always a large backlog. Therefore good faith blocked editors have a very long wait, which is unfair to them. (2) While well over 90% of unblock requests have no merit, a few of them are from people who will become good editors if they are unblocked, and the satisfaction I get on the rare occasions when I am able to rescue one of those goes some way towards compensating for the negative experiences from all the other occasions. I don't think it's any secret among the administrators who regularly review unblock requests that my thinking is somewhat out of line with consensus, in that I am more inclined than most to give the benefit of the doubt and unblock in doubtful cases. I am well aware that more often than not the unblock is soon followed by a re-block, but I think that is a price worth paying for the minority of occasions when the unblock is followed by years of useful editing. Also pinging Yamla, who is one of the noble band, and may be interested in my comments. JBW (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't want to see people blocked, I want to see people editing if at all possible. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, now that I think of it, my being more inclined to unblock than most is only partly to do with being out of line with consensus among administrators who review unblocks, and much more to do with administrators who block and are then unsympathetic to unblock requests, even ones which do have some merit. Theoretically the unblocking policy only reccomends consulting the blocking administrator before unblocking, and doesn't require one to accept their opinion, but in practice I find that it's often treated as though one can't unblock in the face of opposition from the blocking administrator, which can make things depressing. Of course there are many administrators who are perfectly willing to consider unblock requests from editors they have blocked, but a disproportionate number of unblock requests are from editors blocked by the more hard-line administrators. JBW (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JBW says his thinking is "somewhat out of line with consensus". Most unblock requests are obvious declines, but I particularly enjoy seeing someone lift a block when I would probably have declined. It gives me a chance to see how that turns out, and to adjust my threshold for what constitutes a "plausible unblock request". Reblocks are cheap. That said, I tend to have about 20 users or IP addresses I'm closely watching at any given time, to see if their unblock or expired block needs reinstating. Reblocks are cheap but sad. --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

<This>. Not sure if they can even use those, but I saw before. – 2804:F14:80CF:A701:1D38:7B07:9146:FD2D (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 21:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

hey! I'm just curious what you think about my contributions at the Teahouse—I want to make sure I'm giving the best advice possible. It's good that other editors give different perspectives on the same advice and say things in different ways, but I want to be sure there's not a sense where other hosts have to "fill in the gaps" for me, per se. Cheers! Remsense留 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about your comments stands out at me as problematic right now so you're probably doing pretty good. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself wondering about the utility of chiding people requesting unblocks for not using Wikipedia jargon correctly. I'm not sure how it helps at all to point out to a requestor that "blocking" and "banning" mean two different things within Wikipedia; all they know is that they're no longer allowed to edit, and the fine difference between the two of them doesn't have any bearing on their situation. Likewise, lecturing them on the terminology "page" vs. "article" doesn't really provide any useful clarification to the naive new users who only know they've been prevented from putting up the information they desire. Were I a blocked user, I'd be nothing but annoyed by such marginally relevant (and condescending) instructions. Maybe I'm wrong about this? --jpgordon 19:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that personally I try to be precise with language and it helps everyone to be on the same page, but perhaps there are times I should let that slide. I do think there is a tendency (especially amongst promotional editors) to treat or view a "page" differently than they would treat an "article", so I do sometimes point that out, but certainly if someone appears to not have English as their main language I would avoid doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to be condescending; just trying to provide clarity and help people out/ 331dot (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are, but I've never seen a response from a requesting editor to indicate any understanding of the corrections. And among the established community, we often use "page" and "article" pretty much interchangeably; after all, it is a Wikipedia page, and Wikipedia pages in mainspace happen to be articles. So they're not wrong when they say "pages" -- they're just being imprecise. Maybe something like "Wikipedia pages are more than just pages -- they are articles, and they have particular requirements to be included in Wikipedia" might be helpful? I dunno. But the terminology is the least of their problems if they're blocked. --jpgordon 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a few say "oh thanks, I didn't know" (nothing I could pull up right now) but that's neither here nor there. I appreciate your viewpoint and comments and I will take it under consideration. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always smiled when I've seen 331dot hit that pedantric tune. However, I do agree that a change in wording might better score a run. Words have meanings and are important. Getting the point across is also important. I know I've caught myself and had to backspace out the word "page" and replace it with "article" when I'm explaining, though less so more recently particularly because I've seen 331dot kindly chastise a problem user so frequently. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that some ducks have been recently been editing Loy Krathong & Muay Thai.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:MoviesandTelevisionFan#Unblock request -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, would you be interested in revoking <this fellow>'s ability to misuse their talk page like that? (went here from the active admins list). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:D01C:8A7:BA70:8AAE (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :). – 2804:F14:8085:6F01:D01C:8A7:BA70:8AAE (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've done what I have been trouted for in the past: WP:HD#Want to request English translation for Russian page. ColinFine (talk) 12:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. :) 331dot (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe he got muted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but preemptively? 331dot (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to that one. Presumably, user sent a series of emails? Anyway, I thought I addressed the very good reasons for blocking them in my decline. Please unblock if you disagree. Thanks for all you do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

User:Sjsjsjsisisisisk is repeatedly reverting block notices. This is like the 10th time I've reverted him, is there anything that can be done (I have reported him to administrator intervention against vandalism already, but as he is already blocked it is removed by the bot that patrols AVI.

 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 15:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he was blocked as I was typing that message.

 🇮🇱🇺🇸JayCubby probby haz NPOV on the Isr.-Pal. Conflict🇮🇱🇺🇸  talk 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AhmedGamal has been sitting a while. OK to unblock? Restore talk page access? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth an unblock. Happy with whatever you think, though. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you denied my draft about Axel Söderqvist, for not having any sources about him. However, the source i provided called lagstatistik is an individualized source that documents his specific footballing appearances? 987123Wiki123 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

987123Wiki123 That's not exactly why I declined it. I declined it because the two sources you provided do not have significant coverage of this person that shows what makes them important/significant/influential- what Wikipedia calls the definition of a notable person. We don't want a mere documentation of the person's activities, we need a summary of independent reliable sources that discuss the person in depth. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

broiled a pork shoulder steak before. Hope it came out alright. Temp 164F . Best -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the blocked editor never answered this question [2]. Probably doesn't matter now, as the other account looks dormant. Cheers, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• 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.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• 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
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Could you check the current unblock request. I had reblocked two weeks ago as I felt I had unblocked in error, and it languishes. Could you see if it's adequate for unblocking? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they need to find something else to edit about. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a load off my mind. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your unblock. I'm a low-frequency editor WikiSloth, I honestly just raised it because I thought it was weird for people on trains being blanket-banned from editing even if their accounts have a history of good citizenship, not because I was in dire need of a personal unblock. I guess that means I only wasted your time; I'm super sorry about that! v_v Thank you for unblocking me, though! I appreciate that kindness. Have a wonderful day. ♥ -pinkgothic (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to discuss with you third-party unblock request. I understand that the sanctions "ban" and "block" are different, and I used the word "ban" not in a sense similar to that of Wikipedia topic ban, but in a meaning of to "prohibit". I refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/key/User_talk:BeingObjective#c-331dot-20240207102700-December_2023 I wanted to ask to unblock the user. What can you recommend? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin Unblock requests must come from the blocked user themselves. I'm not sure what your interest with this user is, but if you want to discuss Bbb23's block with them, you should do so as non-unblock request comments(just pinging them should do it) on that user's talk page. (I initally said you should go to Bbb23's page directly, which you could, but the affected user's talk page is probably better.) 331dot (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I messed the users 331dot and Bbb23 because they looked similar, as an alphanumeric combination, so I mixed up the usernames. However, if you think that there is no reason to unblock the user after a few months have passed, than there will be no unambiguous consensus, so the user Bbb23 will probably notice the same patterns of behavior as you noticed. I am not an administrator and don't have experience or understanding on how to analyze the user's behaviour to make a conclusion that you made, or other administrator can make upon a reasonable review of the user's behaviour. Thank you again for your time, and sorry that I mixed up the usernames. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. No problem. Thanks for your message. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked on what my interest with this user is. My interest is solely in his expert knowledge and ability to dedicate time to editing medical articles. I found out that Wikipedia is somewhat harsh on measures. Theoretically, the rules state that minimally sufficient penalty should be applied, i.e. if there are two penalties that could prevent further bad behaviour, the lessser penalty of the two should be applied. Unfortunately User:BeingObjective got permanent block. I also cooperated with user User:Maneesh on medical articles, but he got permanent topic ban that practically blocked him from editing medical articles that we were working on, as these articles were related to sex hormones and other issues related to sex. I myself got permanent block on German wikipedia, mainly for using automated translation tools, although I asked a lesser penalty, such as an ability to edit in a sandbox only but not in the main userspace, and there were users who wrote they were willing to cooperate with me. Therefore, I think that Wikipedia is practically applying harsher penalties when there are alternatives, and I am concerned about it. I don't know why User:BeingObjective was blocked, and whether sanctions applied to him were proportional, because each case is different, but his contributions for the medical articles I was working on were valuable. I sometimes need a peer to check my edits, and I cannot find one, so User:BeingObjective was such a peer. That is the essence of my interest in unblocking. However, the interest of all Wikipedia community should be considered, and, especially the goal of making good encyclopedia should be considered as the primary goal. We are not a social network, we write Wikipedia. Therefore, all the pros and cons should be weighted on each particular case. I'm not competent to do analysis of User:BeingObjective behaviour, but his contributions to the articles I was also working on was very valuable, that is what I currently miss. Is my explanation sufficient? I understand that Wikipedia has strict policies and guidelines in place to maintain the quality and reliability of its content and the main goal is making a good encyclopedia, so that if interactions between the users was inappropriate but the content was good, all pros and cons should be weighed fairly, therefore, I do believe that contributions of User:BeingObjective should be taken into account when weighing all factors involved in this particular case. Thank you for taking the time to consider my explanation. Looking forward your feedback on my explanation and my reply to the question you raised on my interest in this case. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issues given as the reason for the block are difficult to handle with a block having an end date; the issues fundamentally related to failing to hear community concerns and attitude; in this situation we don't want the user to just wait out their block, we want them to address the concerns. The good of Wikipedia is not served by users disrupting Wikipedia with their attitude and failing to hear the concerns of said community. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for your explanation. I also noticed that the user was somewhat "harsh", but I was willing to tolerate that because his contributions outweighed that "harsh" attitude that he manifested sometimes. As an example, see the page that I edited: RCCX. I asked for an expert review using a template, and I also posted messages in related WikiProjects, but still could not find somebody to check the content.

I think that my explanation of my interest was sufficient, thank you again for your dedication. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, from a quick look at this user, there are very serious concerns about their editing behavior. That they made good edits shouldn't excuse these things without an explanation and committment to change. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you very much for your attention to this issue. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot - I'm LizziePEP, a COI/paid editor slowly making renovations to the Pacific Equity Partners Wiki page. I noticed you in the backlogs of other Wikipedia articles, and would like to ask if you might be able to give me some pointers on proposed changes I've put forward to other editors (from whom I haven't heard back for some time). Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! See the first topic in my Sandbox for the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/key/User:LizziePEP(New)/sandbox. Cheers LizziePEP(New) (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're more likely to get someone to look at your proposed edits if you propose them on the talk page in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). It looks like you have used the talk page previously, though not marked as an edit request- doing that will draw the attention of editors whom otherwise may not be following that article to be able to comment on your proposed changes. I would say based on a quick look that the proposed additions sourced to the Australian Financial Review are probably fine. Less sure about the investment schedule. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot, thanks very much for your timely response. I really appreciate the advice. I will try the edit request route. Thanks, LizziePEP(New) (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not engage this user on my talk page any further, but they also need to realize that uncivil comments are not okay. Could you take a look at my talk page here? (as I don't think they care much to hear from me any more)  ${\displaystyle Jayhawker6}$【💬】 08:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be editing related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all, only accounts that are 30 days old with 500 edits may do so. I warned them of this and against further incivility. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to stalk you, but how's Maine? I've never actually been there myself. I know their slogan is "The Way Life Should Be." NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Great to visit. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually been telling my mom we should go for spring break, but she says it's way too cold there lol. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, asking because you were recently active and I can't find the relevant policy (which I am sure exists but my Wiki-fu is failing me) - what should I do with this talk page diff (cw for hateful comments about a trans person)? I have already removed it from the talk page but not sure if it needs a revdel or similar more serious removal. Thanks for your time! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've revdeleted it. That should be sufficient. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot, much appreciated. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:331dot, you've made some insightful posts on the Emmanuel Lemelson talk page. Particularly in discussion regarding the use and interpretation of sources. Link 1 Link 2.

I've started, at the encouragement of an other editor, a new section for proposed edits here.

I hope you will continue to engage with the page as it would benefit greatly from more editors being involved. Link

Thanks for your consideration DownEastLaw (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in case you don’t get notified, I wanted to let you know that I resubmitted my draft (Draft:James Kall). I removed the unsourced claim that you listed in your comment, as well as added quite a few more citations to the article. This actor in particular has been in countless theater productions, films and television programs. Majority of which are discussed in the sources i provided. I wanted to keep you updated on this matter, and didn’t want you to think i was trying to go around you. Thank you for your time and for what you do on the encyclopedia. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, that's the correct process. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked an IP for evasion and I assume this is the same user[3] making disruptive edits at Talk:Al_Gore#Request_for_comment:_Al_Gore. Nemov (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are not disruptive. Kindly refrain from making accusations against other IP users. Remember, IPs are human too. 92.40.213.238 (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is also using .237. It might require a range block. Nemov (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would take me time to do that, I'm not an expert at it yet; may need to be reported. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll do that. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One day long ago, my dad got pulled over for 40 in a 30 zone. He pointed to all the other cars whizzing by and asked the cop, "what about them?" The cop replied, "You're the one I caught." LOL. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean... essentially your dad was speeding, right? NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or I'm mistaken that isn't your dad you're talking about. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you deleted Emannism, is it possible it isn't a hoax and only a misspelling [[4]] Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted a draft which described a supposed religion that worships Emma Watson called "Emmanism". 331dot (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok there went my AGF attempt right out the window. Thanks for clarifying, sounds like a good catch. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe User_talk:Worldanimalsfoundation has simply made a new account: Special:Contributions/Adilhassan77, they've continued to add those same links and articles that they have written themselves. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle That sock got blocked, probably in response to this post. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not sure why this user is pinging me for help after you politely asked them to disclose a connection at their user talk, but yesterday I had a string of similar pings from a sock of this master. The involved article yesterday was also connected to this master. Hope that's useful. Wikishovel (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The topics are pretty different, a Bangaldeshi person and a bank in the Congo. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking the same at first, but if it's a sockfarm, they're not picky about who they write about, or where the subject is located. UK bios written by subcontinental socks can be quite funny reads for this reason. But no particular knowledge of the DRC is needed to write about a bank. Wikishovel (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the SPI. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reopen this discussion per WP:BADNAC. Zsohl 12:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to properly evaluate this request right now, please go to WP:ANI. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

Hi, in your denial comments you said you agree with the other reviewers comments which has me confused. Each comment has been addressed and edited. Do you have any new comments? I talked with Star Mississippi who is happy with the new version as well a few different editors have changed the format so it is in accordance with Wikipedia format. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at present to take a deeper dive into the draft; if you have spoken with someone who finds it acceptable, you should ask them to move it into the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is their policy like it seems other editors to never review a page twice. If possible it would be great if you could take another look at the edit history and older comments. Like for example the comment below yours refers to a section that no longer exists and was removed and other edits format have been made. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my decline. The sources you have offered do not establish that your organization is notable as Wikipedia defines it. I understand that your organization thinks that what it does is important, and it may even be so, but we need independent reliable sources that say that. Your sources are

1. an interview on a blog, which is not independent and not reliable(blogs are almost never reliable sources)
2. the obituary of the founder of the organization which says that he was important; Obituaries are usually written by someone associated with the deceased person.
3. same as #1
4. an opinion piece that is paywalled but seems to be an opinion piece that may or may not have been subject to editorial review and fact checking
5. also an opinion piece

These don't establish notability. Organizations trying to force the issue of creating an article aren't usually successful, as they are too close to their organization to write as Wikipedia asks. I agree with the reviewer who said "This will not be accepted unless it's fundamentally re-written by someone with no ties to the Caucus." 331dot (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can try my best to find more sources Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to you, but that would not resolve the issue of you being too close to your organization. Were you directed to attempt this task? 331dot (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasnt it was a independent project but I do work for them. Luka At The Civic Caucus (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I think they are back at WP:ANI#Harassment by Star_Mississippi Doug Weller talk 08:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's either this individual or someone associated with them. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, 331dot. Just wanted to let you know, the IP you warned reverted your edit, calling you a transphobe and saying that Wikipedia is run by Nazis. I would recommend blocking them for a while. I know they might return under a different IP, but it's the best i can think of under the circumstances. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was reverted thankfully by another user, but the IP might need to be blocked nonetheless. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. :) Firstly, I see you commenting on unblock requests and on SPI all the time, so thanks for your efforts there!

Out of curiosity, I wanted to reach out and see if you have a particular script I might not know about. Your diff here ("This post came up as 73% likely to be written by a bot. If you are using a bot, please don't.") seems to suggest the existence of a script that detects bot-generated written content? I'd love to know what you used to find out if that comment was written by a bot or not.

Thanks again for your many contributions and long service to the project — That Coptic Guy (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are various detectors, I'm aware of GPTzero. They're not perfect, but it's a tool. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this vandalism warning with legal threat mixture familiar: Special:Diff/1212737774 – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:2155:6FF7:21E3:4759 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add The local bishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Timefordindins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), initiating SPI? Apologies I can't do it due to time constraints. Thx.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems they're trying to get the rise of you, here's another account: Alby Sebastiani (diff). – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:243A:A254:1976:1CDD (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I added a credible source (which is the only source online) for Marc Alaimo's (Marc Alaimo) theatrical history which was not accepted because it was a blog link.

Ms. Ward has written extensively on Alaimo (and knows him personally) and has published his complete theatrical history in 3 parts (with information directly from him) in her blog here: https://elisaward.blogspot.com/2021/02/marc-alaimo-theatre-part-i-1959-1971.html

This is the best (and most accurate) reference and should be considered valid in this case, even if it is a "blog post". Thanks! Eccentric Euphemism (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eccentric Euphemism I converted your link to the article to a standard internal link(double brackets like [[Marc Alaimo]]), the whole url is not needed.

Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources because they are self-published and usually lack fact checking, editorial control, and other standards of journalism. See WP:BLOGS. One possible pathway for this information is if the author is recognized as a subject-matter expert and has had other work published in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaimo has not had that much published on him (if anything) as he is a very private person. I don't know what other info you need because I know it is completely accurate and she is considered the "subject matter expert" by any fan I've come in contact with. It's frustrating that links to articles that are inaccurate are considered "valid" when completely accurate blog posts aren't accepted. Eccentric Euphemism (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered adding to the article about Marc Alaimo on Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki? This content would likely be accepted there. Wikipedia has stricter sourcing standards, especially when writing about living people. I don't dispute the accuracy of the information, but blogs are just not usually considered acceptable. Perhaps Mr. Alaimo would authorize her to write and publish a biography about him through a publisher that would have an editor examine it first.

If you are aware of sourced information about a living person that is inaccurate, or a source is not being accurately summarized, please point that out so it can be addressed. We are only as good as the volunteers who choose to participate. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Starcruexz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:EBikeGo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey i think some links are significant coverage can you suggest me https://www.dnaindia.com/business/photo-gallery-ebikego-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-two-wheeler-rental-platform-2801410

Starcruexz (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an independent source, as it is largely based on an interview with the founder of the company. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page for important information requiring a response, thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. I have just realised that some unwanted User pages was created randomly with my minerva.js during my sandbox Template initial test. I don't know if is right to leave them or delete them since it wasn't actually a real User page but a js bug creation. The affected page are as follows: User:Null/sandbox, User:Null/sandbox/sandbox2 and User:Minerva/sandbox/sandbox2. Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want them, I can delete them. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i definitely don't want them as they aren't a subpage Thanks. Thisasia (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks very much. Thisasia (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day @331dot Sorry to have bothered you, please I would like to delete these redirect pages, User:Thisasia/common.js/common.js, User:Thisasia/sandbox/common.js User:Thisasia/Status2User:Thisasia/sandbox and these sanebox doc pages, User:Thisasia/sandbox/Doc, User:Thisasia/sandbox/doc and then with User:Thisasia/StatusChanger.js Thanks God bless.
Thisasia  (Talk) 11:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi?

Thisasia  03:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, guess I missed this. It's done now; you may get a faster response if you just tag the pages for speedy deletion so any admin can respond. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oww thanks so much for these, very much appreciated. God bless and have a good time.
Thisasia   08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I should have signposted you to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review as you were involved in the block review. I think I pinged you in, but apologies for not notifying you here sooner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i want to publish the article regarding a program ruined by BBG group which helps girl child for there education.

What would you suggest and how can i publish the article.

Sakshi gilada (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please comment on the other discussion you started. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Sakshi gilada (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Thinker78 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy adminship anniversary! Hi 331dot! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of your successful request for adminship. Enjoy this special day! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user continues to use sockpuppets and IPs to edit enwiki despite being blocked - you last declined their unblock request a few weeks ago:

• Agpnt (talk · contribs · logs)
• 96.43.189.203 (talk · contribs · logs)

Some relevant discussion on Commons is here.

Thanks! Llacb47 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• 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.

---

The Arbitration Committee have declined the case request Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals. You may view the declined case request using this link. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woah almost 12 years now thats what I call an og! Bally125 (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see ExpertPrime's latest contributions. They've resumed the edit warring. 2A0E:CB01:10:1A00:146C:3E24:4E5C:2A09 (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the weirdest controversial pages I've ever seen. I have to admit, I'm tempted to section-blank the bit about sub-saharan Africa which is sourced to a single, rather old, article in a single journal plus the description of a chair in a museum. It's... pretty weak sourcing. But because I sense there is a history here I thought I'd check with you regarding landmines before I go and do my ogre routine. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, weird indeed. It sounds to me like you have a good case for doing it, so go ahead. You could post an explanation on the talk page or just in the edit summary if you prefer. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 331dot. Would you kindly take a look at this edit? I don't think it's fair for an editor to keep up an unblock request that falsely claims the block was based on a personal grudge, while removing a message calling out that misrepresentation. Beyond mere aspersion-casting, both the comment and the revert summary falsely imply that the original block explanation cited the disagreement he is fixated on. Now, WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME exists, but so does WP:NPA, and there is also a general expectation that editors will not deliberately deceive the unblock-reviewer. I was fine with leaving the PA up alongside a rebuttal, but, as he'd previously demonstrated minutes after you downgraded his block, Freoh neither understands what a personal attack is nor will he tolerate any comments on his talkpage that question his alternative facts about his editing career. I'd AGF'd up till now, even in blocking him, but at this point I'm fairly convinced he's just trolling.

All the best. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it I would tend to agree with your assessment- they shouldn't be deceiving reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard that involves you, regarding an appeal to remove a topic ban and 0RR restriction. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction. Thank you. Bcmh (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the appeal text shows no evidence of plagiarism or copying from ChatGPT, despite looking like it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does a user's efforts on being concise and organised now face such adverse scrutiny? Bcmh (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I would say a third of the requests I see are written by bots; if you didn't use a bot, okay. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for clarifying Bcmh (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I'm feeling at a bit of a loss. I was watching a thread at AN/I about racist inclusions at History of the Chair. Central to this was complaints about two sections: the section on sub-Saharan Africa, which was weakly cited and tiptoed up to the border of WP:SYNTH and a hidden edit comment, which inaccurately claimed that chairs did not exist prior to European contact in Sub-Saharan Africa and insisting the prior section not be removed.

Per a discussion on AN/I I deleted these inclusions on April 9 and didn't think any more about it until today when a user who seems to be a single-purpose account reverted this change and then seemed to imply I had some connection to another user, ExpertPrime, who, apparently you blocked over an edit war over this content? I was not yet engaged on the page when ExpertPrime was blocked which happened some four days before the AN/I thread which brought me to the page. But it appears to be related.

I've reverted my version of the article back with the suggestion that better sources be found for re-inclusion but I thought before I went farther here I'd actually check with you for some back-story here. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article talk page has been a target of racists posting racist comments. That particular passage you removed from the article is controversial in part due to race as well. I would suggest that discussion attempt to reach a consensus about the passage at issue first. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand there seems to be racist shenanigans occurring on the talk page, though this seems to have been cleaned up fully by now. On the other hand, there seems to be a concerted effort to have a section removed, using the racist comments as an excuse to do so. I have my concerns about Developed it entirely (talk · contribs), who started the ANI thread used to remove that section. It looks like a burner account which was reactivated shortly after your block of ExpertPrime (talk · contribs). Would you mind running a CU check on those accounts, and if confirmed I'd suggest reversing/striking the results of that ANI thread whilst we get a proper consensus on the actual talk page. We can't let bad faith editors like this influence the way we write articles. 195.11.188.203 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a CU. You would have to start an SPI. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promised to check out of this

discussion entirely and have done so. The constant veiled accusations that I am other users or that I'm secretly using burner accounts is really unprofessional and borders on WP:ASPERSIONS. If anyone insists on pushing racist narratives on this article, I can safely and proudly say that I did what I could, was punished for it, and left it alone. Please stop trying to drag me back into this. ly ExpertPrime (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were not punished for anything. Blocks are not a punishment. You were blocked to prevent disruption. You are free to pursue your grievances if you can do so without disruption. There are legitimate ways to do this. 331dot (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

semantics aside, I'm only replying because I've been passively accused of being multiple other editors and that needs to stop. I said I'd stay out of that racist argument and I'm keeping my word. Please just stop bothering me and accusing me of being disruptive. Have a good day. ExpertPrime (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything to you, you came here. If you don't wish to respond further, don't. I didn't ask you to stay out of anything, and I'm disappointed you have chosen to not be involved due to a misunderstanding. All you needed to do is stop edit warring. That's still the case. In any event, best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I don't know where or why you think I was socking to edit war, but I haven't, I've been away and busy, and I expect experienced users to assume - and those familiar with me to understand - that about my character. A gentle reminder to AGF. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif The IP made the same edit that you did, and that article(List of largest funerals) has a general history of edit warring. If that wasn't you, however, I apologize. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me - thank you for the apology. I noticed after replying at my talk that this was several days ago, so I've removed it and consider the matter closed. I don't consider you an editor who would sling wild accusations, so thought a gentle reminder would suffice on this end, but no worries. Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted per request) I don't want to prosecute or pursue anything, nor am I "protesting". I'm just trying to think of what would be beneficial for everyone and helpful for this valuable editor. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My having brought it up previously isn't an effort to harass, just seeing what people think. Your memory is better than mine, I only recall one other instance(but I believe you). I make dozens of posts almost every day so some get past me. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave Altitude Fitness Enterprise Holdings one final reply to give them a chance at a proper unblock. However, if they just respond by complaining about how unfairly they've been treated (which as you know, they haven't), maybe it's time to revoke talk page access. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I always want to help but people have to want to take it, and I'm not sure they will. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me to edit Draft:Vaibhav Palhade and to Publish it i tried it But I'm Unable to move it what to do need your guidance 331dot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbird1967 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered you at the AFC help desk. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cc:@User4edits:

Hi 331dot, I thought you would be interested in this SPI. I believe there is a paid editing campaign going on regarding Sri Lankan bios for sometime. My suspicions started with this SPI case. Because apparently they are sticking to "one article, one account" strategy, it is hard to observe patterns. I could be 100% wrong here. Cheers. Chanaka L (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Tyrone Jahir continues to “double down” despite your warning and is again stating that his claims that I am racist are true.[6] [7] I’ll take this to ANI if you wish, but prefer avoiding the drama boards. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to communicate with me or Acroterion? 331dot (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, they're blocked for two weeks now. I see no need for ANI, this is clear-cut abuse after many warnings. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both, should have said so. Thanks Acro. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just making sure I get it. :) 331dot (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up, this IP is a possible sock of the IP you just blocked: 124.217.63.44. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• 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

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

I made a mistake when reporting CraigMokhiber - I meant to report it as a misleading name, not a promotional name. Since then, they have claimed here that they are Craig Mokhiber. Is this a case where we would demand proof of identity? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, I've decided to do a well-known person block, which can be removed once his identity is confirmed. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a bit concerned his signature displays a link to his website. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've the chorus from Lady Marmalade earworming. And the self defense against fresh fruit skit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

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.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the age and the username (and now, the reference to 88), I'm on board if you decide to lift the block. The blocking admin is no longer active and I see no reason why this needs more than just one admin to decide to lift the block. There's no CU evidence of a compromise (I was a bit surprised by that) or sockpuppetry. I think if they are going to be problematic, it'll likely show up pretty quickly. WP:ROPE and all that. --Yamla (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I was leaning that way but I was expecting different answers, I guess. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is falsifying history, by clear false claim that Marin Držić was Croat! He was Serb! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.55.19 (talk)

You must not edit war, this is considered disruptive and is not the way to handle a dispute. You should use the article talk page to discuss your concerns and offer sources you have to support your claims, so that editors can arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. You will be blocked if you persist with edit warring, and as the topic is a formally designated contentious topic, sanctions may be placed on you. See your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also need a reliable source connected via a hyperlink to back up your claim (or in this case, many). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Since you're an admin, perhaps you might know of a way check whether there are any more files like this being used in English Wikipedia articles. I stumbled across this file via WP:THQ#What is the Wikipedia policy on AI generated images? and asked about it at c:COM:VPC#File:1OhitRcopyright.jpg because I wasn't too sure about the validity of the license. It doesn't appear that the uploader of this image uploaded any more, but they might have used another account or others might have done something similar. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a way to specifically check for AI imagery; where we found one by a particular editor and a particular subject area, perhaps those things could be examined to look for them, but I probably don't have the time to invest in such an enterprise. :) 331dot (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much (i.e. it's just a matter of chance) but just wanted to check. Thanks again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could look in on their recent editing at this article, I'd appreciate it. I've invited them to the article talk page to discuss but no response yet. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, My own Wikipedia WrestleMania 42 is of course created by me. But there was a Wikipedia with that name that was very vague and not quite finished after a user redirected it. Later, after I created Wikipedia, the article went under the previous creator's name. I want admin sir that wikipedia be made in my name. WrestlingWikipedian (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both know that one may work for two or more businesses simultaneously, though I am unsure whether their name is a common one or tends towards uniqueness. That each follows the other leaves my antennae all of a dither. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 14:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are too many coincidences, and too much dissembling, to ignore here. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:the archived COI report, [8], another likely sock/meat account can be added: RoaringEdits (talk · contribs). 331dot, you followed up there, and Jay Kenechukwu (talk · contribs) never responded, but did let us know that the guidelines don't apply to them [9]. Don't know that there's anything actionable there--on the other hand, sneaky editing does merit attention. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started an SPI. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I added another account, imperfectly as the formatting tries my competence. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sneaky edits? I have no relationship with subjects I edit their pages. Every edit I Carry out on Wikipedia is backed by verifiable citations from independent sources. It's never an opinion neither does it convey my bias.

I am done going back and forth on this topic. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a community project and you need to discuss your contributions with the community when requested. If you are unwilling to do this, you should not participate here. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe if you ask nicely I will. Instead of outrightly accusing me of having a conflict of interest.

A certain user even suggested I run the roaringedit account. Now these are blatant accusations I wont tolerate.

Like I said, every edit I Carry out here is backed by verifiable citations from independent sources.That I choose to pay attention to certain pages is my choice and within my right. Jay Kenechukwu (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where anyone has been rude to you. So, could you please answer the question? Do you have a conflict of interest, yes or no? 331dot (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you are now blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But worth keeping an eye on Ibru related articles for any future socking. Per some of my reversions today alone, the histories of the related accounts suggest they were undisclosed paid contributors. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do like "maybe if you ask nicely I will." 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you mind if I unblock Bennett1203? He basically renamed himself by creating a new account and has been trying to behave ever since, even though he didn't go through the formal procedure to unblock the original account, which he wishes to abandon in favor of the one you blocked. The edits he has made with this account have been good faith efforts even though his talk page indicates that much of his work gets removed, but that isn't unusual for a newbie. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this issue I'm content for you to handle it as you see fit. Seems reasonable. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were the blocking admin on this, and the user is requesting unblock. They were blocked as promo username, which I guess makes sense, but I don't see the promo edits, just a somewhat eager Rush fan. If you don't mind I am going to respond to the request and unblock. jp×g🗯️ 04:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thanks for letting me know. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, please I wrote an article about an Artiste and it's on mainspace and not yet on Google.

Please what's the solution 🙏🏿🙏🏿 Draykaayrg (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not appear in Google until a New Pages Patroller reviews it, or after 90 days(I think). 331dot (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Please is there anyway I can get patrollers to review it? Draykaayrg (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrollers are volunteers, there is no way to speed up the process. You can only be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I really appreciate your response you've been giving me🙌🏿❤️ I'll be coming to you each time I got questions 😁❤️ Draykaayrg (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for information! AnggaAle (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I know this is already at AIV but the IP has been adding racial slurs repeatedly. Could you possibly perform a block and a rev-as well.[10][11][12]. Bingobro (Chat) 15:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And not 1 minute later, the IP has made the same edit again. Bingobro (Chat) 15:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's being addressed. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot

Hello,

The editor who was blocked for personal attacks that you spoke to recently removed the block page again. However, it does seem to me based on the article history, that the main editor with whom the accused was arguing with did not in fact, read the article and was mistaken. I agree that what the accused wanted to add doesn't sound neutral, but it seems to be, strictly speaking, accurate. The other editor accused him of not reading the article despite not doing so himself. Again, per the definition of "ignorant" as being without knowledge, that appears to be accurate. He did not call the other person "stupid," or something. Here is what I mean: the supposedly insulted editor, after having claimed (apparently wrongly) that the now blocked editor was incorrect, said this, "anyone with an attention span long enough to read the entire lead rather than just the opening paragraph will come across the phrase 'gross negligence.'" The great irony of course is he didn't do that himself. While the response was not exactly polite, I don't think it can be remotely construed as an attack. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given probably dozens of blocks recently, you'll have to be more specific as to who you are talking about. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot

Hello,

Sorry if I implied you had blocked him, I believe that you only spoke to him. The editor is 143.58.205.157. He was blocked after arguing about something to do with a crowd crush in England. I believe I was mistaken in thinking that he shouldn't have removed the block text, as I think it has expired. If that is so, I guess it doesn't really matter what I said. I wouldn't have cared about this case, other than I happened to see it and thought it was unjust. I don't see how the word "ignorant" could be considered a personal attack if it's meant literally and confined to a particular subject or situation. Thank you,

TanRabbitry (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's moot now as the block has expired. I can say that if you would like the action of the blocking admin reviewed, you may go to WP:AARV 331dot (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

Hi, hope that you're well. I've sent you an email. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. 331dot (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please end my partial block by the end of 2024 instead because a single year is proven too long for me. 2603:8001:B202:3294:80DF:E286:FC51:D4EE (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make edit requests on the article talk pages to propose edits you wish to see. Once you have a history of having such edits accepted, then removing the block can be considered. We aren't here to accommodate your needs. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that for Croatian kuna article talk page in April, and it was accepted by a mobile review edit in May. 2603:8001:B202:3294:80DF:E286:FC51:D4EE (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's one. I said edits plural. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me.

It looks like I can peruse the Teahouse listing and find someone who might be interested in helping two friends update articles. Phrzbyphil (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice that you've made comments like this [13] on the talk pages of some users I've issued soft blocks to. This is essentially the same issue discussed a ways back [14]. By trying to make an unblock contingent on answering such questions, you are essentially retroactively making it a hard block when the soft block explicitly allows the user to just create a new account if they prefer. Just FYI I generally follow this set of unnofficial rules to determine block settings. Just Step Sideways 00:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information; I guess I just felt like it's better to get the issue out of the way when we have their attention, I'm not really trying to make it a condition of being unblocked though I guess it does seem that way. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different note, I'm not buying CroatianAceNDH's story at all. All of their recent edits have been related to the fascist puppet government in Croatia during WWII, yet they somehow didn't know they had the name of that government in their username? Just Step Sideways 00:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm trying to AGF but it's hard with this situation. 331dot (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to block the IP which you previously blocked another one for the "God bless you and Wikipedia" line: 117.208.124.91. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I got snappy at you at this IP talk page. That was wrong of me. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

Hi 331dot. There really does seem (at least to me) to be more than a purely casual connection being claimed between Damjana12 and Mark Kotter given Draft:Myelopathy.org, File:Mark Kotter headshot.jpg, Bit.bio and this. Do you think there's something to this? What should be the next step if there is? Given the concerns you expressed about AI being used on the account's user talk page and the lack of response to what I posted there, I'm not sure how productive further user talk page discussion might be. Maybe adding {{COI}} or {{UPE}} templates to the created pages could be a first step? -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's not a bad idea. I'm going to issue a UPE warning to them directly as well. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Damjana12 also meets WP:R2 since it's redirecting to the "Bit.bio" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, What does this mean? Do I need to delete the redirect? Damjana12 (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to tick off the redirect page I didn't noticed that before thanks for letting me know, I will pay attention not to tick that box to redirect anything of my articles. Damjana12 (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {{UPE}} to the two articles and one draft mentioned above. Adding both {{COI}} and "UPE" seemed redundant so I just chose one. Since File:Bitbio-logotype-with tagline-color-positive-RGB (3).png and File:Mark Kotter headshot.jpg have been VRT verified, there might actually be something in the permission emails that connects everything together. This might be something worth discussing with other admins offwiki or in whatever chatgroup you admins use to discuss such things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to get copy rights in order to add images in so I found email online and reached out to the company if they can give me the permission by the Wiki commons instructions and template that was highlighted to me. I hope everything is okay now and that the images can stay on the page as they said they will email to wiki to give the permission, otherwise let me know if I should do something more or complete anything else. Damjana12 (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very helpful—the problem on the page Historical rankings of presidents of the United States has been longstanding (a least four months). The subject of the two Presidents' ranking has been the news this week. It ought to be fixed quickly. The problem is not only the content, but also the mark-up for the charts.

I've posted on the talk page but it does not seem to get many posts.

I will look again and try to fix the citation and the chart. I will post a template (above the charts) that the charts are unreliable in content and performance.

— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 01:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

Neonorange I wasn't really referring to technical issues, but mostly to your claim that the content was not what the given sources say. I know that charts have had technical issues that have prevented their proper display and even use. You are also welcome to attempt to fix what you say are errors in the summarized information yourself without discussion, but should be prepared to discuss if need be.

You can draw attention to your talk page posts by marking them as a help request(as you already did on your user talk page) or as an edit request. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick follow-up. Two other editors have joined the conversation on the talk page.

The technical problem now seems minor; there is no computation in the chart templates. Just a very minor problem that may be specific to Safari browser on my iPad Pro. What worries me is that the rank entries in the APSA 2024 survey are wildly different as compared to the actual APSA report. I will investigate further. I am certain the three of us in the conversation will get it fixed.

My background is in journalism (retired long ago). I know Wikipedia Is Not News, but errors in basic information would very quickly be fixed on, for example, the CBS News Network programming. And "sweat seeking rockets" would be launched from the top. Thanks for putting up with my anxiety. Old habits never die.— Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

There's no problem. Best of luck to you. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a URL for a complete listing for the APSA 2024 survey Spectrum News].

I first read the rankings in the nyt a few days ago. Now I can not find it; the nyt archive search function is that poor. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

And here, finally, is the document itself, on the American Presidential Scholars web site, is the downloadable paper with the rankings Presidential Greatness Project.Thanks again; stay cool—it's in the nineties F almost every day near Atlanta 1000 feet above sea level; our electrical bill is three times that of the winter bills. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 08:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) —[reply]

Hey, this IP is back to editing and they are still doing things like this. ภץאคгöร 07:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• 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.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

Hi 331dot, Please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oshalah. Regards. Chanaka L (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The username block was only a soft block, meaning that creating a new account is permitted so that aspect is not sock puppetry. If you are saying that the user is creating multiple accounts to appear to be multiple people, or is coordinating off-wiki, those would be sock puppetry, but I'll let the SPI play out. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page constituting most of the reason why someone was blocked (and frequently referred to by dicsussion of such) seems rather crucial to understanding what happened and why -- if it must be blanked, then it should be blanked, but its existence need not be purged entirely.

Surely we have not reached the point where the rules forbid us to say what words are against the rules?

Can this be undeleted? jp×g🗯️ 09:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G10 states "This page may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject or some other entity." The entire purpose of the page was to disparage transgendered people, which is damaging to the community. There was no other content or edit history aside from one infobox which the user is free to restore. I believe the deletion was correct, however if you disagree, I will not object to you restoring it as I don't wish to pursue it further than I have. I'll also note that the user is blocked as NOTHERE(by someone else) a331dot (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, by me -- mostly on the basis of an AN/I thread that was quoting from that userpage specifically -- I am just concerned that it becomes impossible to have accountability in the system when people are blocked for something and then that thing is removed from the record completely. jp×g🗯️ 09:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think any benefit to keeping it does not outweigh the possibility of making transgendered persons uncomfortable; if someone wants to know what it says, an admin can look for them. Again, though(and especially given your reason) I will not object if you wish to restore it. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or (just putting two and two together) we can just restore the infobox, too. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the tearoom, you wrote "BLP applies to every type of page on Wikipedia." Yes, that figures, but it hadn't occurred to me – not that I recall ever having violated it. It was on Talk:Julian_Assange that I learned what was behind the Swedish rape accusation against him. I guess in principle I should dig through the many archives there, and ask for that explanation to be revdel'ed. Maproom (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a pretty good point(regarding the exact details) 331dot (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on searching through the archives, try the string "what are you wearing". Maproom (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

331dot. Is there a place where I can protest with a clear case of disrupting Wikipedia by admins. I have a clear case of disruption, but they are covering for themselves, block and delete comments, lie and manipulate, antagonize etc. I should be allowed to protest somewhere, as Wikipedia is not their project to silence this by force. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I want to report their disruptive behavior, but they just block and delete to cover themselves. There has to be some internal control within Wikipedia. I'm not familiar how it works on the top level, but some internal control must exist. Police has internal control, because of the same reason, because policeman can cover themselves by force. Please be objective, and tell me whether there's internal control on Wikipedia where I would be allowed to present my case. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC) There must be a way to report admins so that they don't delete and burry everything. Admins are also people, and we can't neglect that they also can be disruptive. If you don't know, could you please refer me to someone who might know. I think I'm aksing a reasonable thing. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I contact at info-en@wikimedia.org? 78.2.109.245 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC) I have contemplated of contacting media, but I would first like to see about internal control and what they will do. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The email address is not a grievance hotline. You speaking to the media is up to you, but it's unlikely to result in change here. You should air general grievances with admin behavior with WP:ANI. A specific admin action may be reviewed at WP:AARV. If you feel community discussion is not satisfactory, you can go to ArbCom.

I say all this on the assumption you are not evading a block. If you are, none of these avenues are open to you. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an info email, and I was going to ask for info whether there's internal control to talk to. I know it's up to me whether I speak to media. Not possible to go to WP:ANI. I'm not familiar with AARV and ARBCOM, but if it's anything like ANI, they will just delete and block. Also, they all know each other, and cover for each other. ARBCOM lists this editors.

Aoidh (talk · contribs) Cabayi (talk · contribs) Guerillero (talk · contribs) HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Moneytrees (talk · contribs) Primefac (talk · contribs) Sdrqaz (talk · contribs) ToBeFree (talk · contribs) Z1720 (talk · contribs) How can I know who of them are personal friends with people I'm reporting. Also, don't you have some conventions where you meet each other?

This is why I have asked for internal control. I need an independent body. Ok, at this point, I summize that you aren't aware, or that internal control doesn't exist. I will go to info-en@wikimedia.org to inquire about that info. Thank you for your answer. Goodbye. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can save you the trouble, there is no "internal control" other than what I have described here. I've never been to a meeting or convention, and I don't wish to.

If your grievance is clear enough, it shouldn't matter who looks at it. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If people on ArbCom are "personal friends" with those you have a grievance with, they can recuse themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say all this on the assumption you are not evading a block. So, a blocked user has the only option to complain to the same people who blocked him/her through the block request? Do you think that's a good process in the case the admin is disruptive? Do you think it would be a good process to tell the victim of police violence to just go the the same police station and complain to the same person, or his friends there? Do you think that's a good process? 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If people on ArbCom are "personal friends" with those you have a grievance with, they can recuse themselves. Ideally, yes. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can save you the trouble, there is no "internal control" Thank you, but I will still inquire why there isn't internal control. I'm really not familiar with the law and whether such public companies like Wikipedia, Twitter , etc. should have such a thing. But they should have something. However, how do you explain that a blocked user doesn't have that option to use? Really, I'm asking you, do you think that's a good process? It's not rethorical. 78.2.109.245 (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a public company, it is owned by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which does not exercise control over day to day operations or editorial decisions by the community, except in the most exceptional cases. Unblock requests are heard by uninvolved admins. If an involved admin does so, that's an ArbCom matter. If you have suggestions to offer about improving any process here, you can offer them once you're unblocked(as I take your above statements to mean that you are blocked) 331dot (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, as you must be aware by now, no one here will listen to you while you evade a block. Violating policies to tell about others violating policies is never a good strategy- just as robbing banks to pay for a legal case against abusive police officers will not work. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If so, and since you have not, to my knowledge, been involved in it, would you have a moment to judge consensus if any, and close it taking action (or not) in any appropriate direction, at your discretion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I believe you have provided a pragmatic close. I was careful not to seek to influence you in any manner. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out regarding my edits. I would like to clarify that I am not receiving, nor do I expect to receive, any compensation, financial or otherwise, for my edits to Wikipedia. My contributions have been made purely out of personal interest and passion for the topics I have worked on.

I apologize if my edits gave the impression of paid advocacy. I fully understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies, including the rules surrounding neutral point of view and conflict of interest editing. I will make sure my future contributions are in line with these guidelines.

If you require any further clarification or steps from my end, please feel free to let me know. I will also refrain from editing further until this matter is fully resolved.

Best regards,

Blaerov Blaerov (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim to have personally created the logo of the band and own the copyright to it; the draft is also written as if it were written by a manager or PR person for the band. Please clarify you relationship to the band. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaerov You seem to be saying on your user page that you have a digital marketing background. Are you a digital marketer for the band? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your advice: [15]. Best, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Did you ever receive a response to your query at User talk:ManagementMo#May 2024? I only stumbled upon this user because of some recent files they uploaded. I was going to add a {{uw-coi}} because of the type of photos that were uploaded (they seem professionally taken by someone closely involved with the subject) until I noticed that you'd already done so. It seems like their username could be a problem as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also just saw they tried to self-review/approval the draft they submitted to AfC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried issuing another warning. 331dot (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you doing that; however, the account has been blocked as a SOCK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot. Thank you for your prompt review of this Draft:Hackolade. Depth can definitely be added. For reliability, I respectfully submit that, these days, Forbes will write about Blockchain and AI but not about less sexy but by no means less useful subjects such as data modeling. Resources such as "Data Modeling Tools". Dataversity. 2022-06-01., "Schema Design in MongoDB". DBTA. 2022-06-03., or "Cassandra Data Modeling Tools". Apache Cassandra. Retrieved 2024-08-30. are totally legitimate, reliable, secondary, and independent. They are sources for readers interested in finding information in this field. Books like Coupal, Daniel (2023). MongoDB Data Modeling and Schema Design. Technics Publications. ISBN 978-16-34621-98-4. and Hammerschmidt, Beda (2024). Oracle 23ai JSON-Relational Duality Data Modeling and Schema Design. Technics Publications. ISBN 978-16-34623-63-6. are real books by a real publisher, Official website Depth will be added soon. Gencamont (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• 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.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• 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.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

Hello, this is about my account User:Tochi Clement you declined for the unblock request. I didn't use my account because I couldn't log into the account, it keeps saying "This account is globally locked. You will not be able to log in to any Wikimedia wikis", that was the reason I request the unlock with IP. Please I plead you review it once again, because there's no how I could login to the account and request for the unblock please. I would really love to continue editing on wikipedia. Thank you. 102.90.65.76 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be using WP:UTRS to make your unblock request, not further evading your block. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you replace the phrase "racist stereotypes" in the the Reception section of the Lady and the Tramp (1955 film) article with the less controversial and more neutral "racial stereotypes", please? 151.18.96.207 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've come to me about this, but please discuss your edit on the article talk page to arrive at a consensus with other editors about this change. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for an administrator to do it, since no one seems to want to listen to me. 151.18.96.207 (talk) 09:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed it(truly) but I don't see on Talk:Lady and the Tramp where you or anyone raised this concern. You need to do that and achieve a consensus for your proposed change before making an edit request for another editor to implement the change(it doesn't have to be an admin, any editor may fulfill an edit request, the article is not admin-only protected). 331dot (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the talk has been deleted. 151.18.96.207 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be speaking with Ponyo, not me. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This, I very strongly suspect but haven't checked via CU, is Honest Yusuf Cricket, a massively abusive sockpuppeteer. You can safely ignore anything from this person. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you- I was starting to suspect as much. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you are an active administrator and I ask if you could check the draft and hopefully release it into the article space. Thank you. Lavictus (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor may conduct a review, not just admins. As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,725 pending submissions waiting for review." Asking for a review outside the process is in essence "jumping the line", if I review on request for you, I have to for everyone. Please allow the process to play out. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review?

Also be aware that, if your draft is accepted, you could no longer directly edit it until you are extended-confirmed(account is 30 days old with 500 edits) as it falls within a formally designated contentious topic, the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will post more information about this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I was unaware of these stuff. There is no particular reason I was requesting a speedy review other than that it is a recent and important event which people should have access to on Wikipedia as soon as possible. No worries though it has been accepted. Lavictus (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't carefully looked at the draft, so this individual may certainly merit an article(I would tend to say probably, if governments are commenting on her death)- but unfortunately you will need to wait until you are extended-confirmed to be able to directly create articles about topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's not currently possible for you to speedily create articles related to the conflict. If we had enough reviewers to review drafts as they come in, it'd be a different story. I've seen the backlog worse(I've seen it over 3 to 5 thousand and a six month wait in the past). It is possible it could be reviewed in the next five minutes, or three months from now, there is no way to know when. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just processed your comment that it was accepted. Very good. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I just wanted to request your help in merging the article Killing of Aysenur Eygi which was created shortly after I created the article Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi. I suggest we keep the article's name "Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi" as is the case with similar killings such as Tom Hurndall, Rachel Corrie, Iain Hook etc. Thanks. Lavictus (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not an area I have much experience in; I would suggest asking for help at WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this article in a contentious topic area ? and if so what should be done with it as the article creator has only 40 edits, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is about someone killed in Gaza by the Israeli military, so yes, it's related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As I understand it, it is permitted to submit a draft about a subject related to the CT area. (Happy to be corrected if in error) Once the draft is accepted, however, they can't edit it until they are extended-confirmed except via specific edit requests. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did approve an article in the same situation a few months back and was told that I shouldn't have, so Im going to leave it, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.....I might need to get clarification on that at some point. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, you messaged about a page that I would like deleted, which is about me. You said that it is properly requested. I read that it takes seven days. Is there a way to expedite the deletion, or is waiting the only protocol for this, thank you very much ! Harpo88 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the process needs to play out. You attempted to mark it for speedy deletion, but none of the listed speedy deletion criteria apply. Again, please understand that your wishes are only a very small part of this, what matters is Wikipedia policies, such as notability as Wikipedia uses the word for people. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've sent a mail to ArbCom, but for weeks they aren't answering. What now? Any suggesions? I've also sent mail to general information. They have answered, but weren't helpful at all. Coming from the premise that Wikipedia isn't owned by admins, I should be able to complain, but I and another person are being denied at every step. 93.141.178.20 (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot force ArbCom to talk to you. If they don't wish to hear your matter, you're just going to have to move on and find something else to do. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good way of working for Wikipedia. Admins shouldn't push article content by banning everyone who challanges their POV. 93.141.178.20 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDW. When someone says that my nationality should be considered when determining the value of my arguments, thats is a racist thing to say. They saw that comment, downplayed it and failed to take appropriatre measures. How would you feel if I had the power to attach a bunch of false accusations to your name, banned you forever from Wikipedia, prevented you from appealing, and said "you're just going to have to move on and find something else to do". I don't know why I contacted you, but this isn't a nice thing to say to someone. 93.141.178.20 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you have no interest into this, I understand. Goodbye. 93.141.178.20 (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Gtvrporte evading their block. I'll go block the IP address directly. --Yamla (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Abhiramakella (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tom Brady Patriots Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This deserves to be an article because unlike other induction ceremonies, this one, does in fact, have a lasting impact on the New England Patriots, as per WP:LASTING. If it weren't for Tom Brady, the Patriots wouldn't have won six Super Bowls.

Abhiramakella (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All induction ceremonies have an impact of some kind. They aren't typically done for no reason. What is the impact in this case? I'm a Patriots fan, but I don't see how this merits a standalone article. If it does, we need more than sources stating it occurred. What is the impact of the event itself, not Brady's achievements or impact on the Patriots(which is already discussed in other articles)? 331dot (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many unsourced sections. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, good day. I come here to seek help to ask you to block the IP editor above as they are engaging in mass vandalism act. Reported to AVI but no admin on patrol at the moment. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331 dot, believe is the same meat sock/sock mass vandalizing German political election pages for the past week. Pls help to block. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just to let you know the ip editor was blocked by PhilKnight.Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A possible sock account of a previously banned user here: Talk:September 11 attacks#Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all Butterscotch5 (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, you declined an unblock request for User:Wikiprediger]… related to his pattern of disruptive editing, would you please take a look at his user draft page at User:Wikiprediger/Freemasonry criticism. I have concerns that this amounts to a WP:Attack page, but I consider myself involved and need an uninvolved review. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my brief look (via a translator) it doesn't seem like a straight attack page to me, but I'm concerned the translation might not be entirely accurate as machine translators are not perfect. I don't know if a German speaker could look at it? 331dot (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok… thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you declined their block appeal here. They modified your appeal to make it look you personally attacked them in your rationale (which I have removed), and are generally using their talk page access disruptively. Do you think TPA could be revoked here? JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I probably shouldn't be the one to do it(though it's pretty clear). 331dot (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:AFCHELP § 21:25, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Marchjuly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Since you seem to be fairly active at AFCHELP, I though may be you could take a look at WP:AFCHELP#21:25, 17 September 2024 review of submission by Marchjuly and then take a look at Thomas Hui To. I might've posted my request in the wrong place, but wasn't sure because the draft seems to have been awaiting an AFC review when the creator decided to move it to the mainspace themselves. If there no issue with that, then perhaps you could just archive the AFCHELP thread I started. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AFC process is voluntary(unless they have a COI they haven't disclosed yet) so if they want to forego a review or disregard reviewers, they can- though now it's subject to deletion or other processes. I've tagged it with a couple tags. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can just remove the thread you started if you want to, I think. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey- since you were the most recent admin to handle this user, I figured you would be the right person to mention this to. TheDiamondMinecart1234 made a couple of edits to their talk page that concerned me a bit ( [16] and [17]). Figured you might want to be made aware. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have removed their talk page access. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism, plus this is a major national incident, misinformation is still goin' around. Makerofepic (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not protected preemptively, there must be a demonstratable problem with vandalism or other disruption. Articles are not protected to prevent the possibility of misinformation- unless edit warring is taking place. That's a content dispute that needs to be discussed on the talk page.

Protection is requested at WP:RFPP, where you will get a faster response than approaching an admin directly. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your decline of this request for the lifting of an indefinite block of a new editor for a few cases of potential overlinking is deeply troubling. The rationale you provided was really poor - the fact they didn't appeal within "minutes"? It's pretty disappointing. There's no point of an unblock process if such obvious cases of improper blocks will be upheld on such spurious grounds. AusLondonder (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to make you feel that way. I call them like I see them at the time based on the information that I have. I don't claim to be the last word and the user could have made another request if they were dissatisfied with my review. I take every interaction I do here as a learning experience. We all have different perspectives and different ideas and different methodologies. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I'm not an expert but just concerned if such a flawed and baseless block can't be picked up through the appeals process whether that means there's a more fundamental problem with unblock appeals. AusLondonder (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're all humans and we won't get everything right every time. The fact that other admins can review subsequent request will usually catch most issues. I'm not sure what changes could make to the unblock request process that wouldn't add more steps and bureaucracy. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by another admin, a few weeks ago, that we weren't semi-protecting stuff that they were screwing with; I'm glad that's no longer the case. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The individual seems to have free time today, it's particularly incessant. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of North Coast Football (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Left guide (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have started a RfC here [18] and it was informed to me that it is malformed [19]. Please guide me in drafting a proper RfC. Also , requesting your opinion in that matter. DwilfaStudwell (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are okay to unblock now, the rest looks like newbie stuff rather than COI. What do you think? Secretlondon (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well disable anonymous editing entirely. This affects 25% of AT&T’s US IPv6 block. 2600:1015:B036:99D6:A830:E468:572:C91B (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not affecting you right now. An account is more anonymous than an IP. Some abusive users who care little for others use as wide a range as possible precisely to make it difficult to block them and/or to inconvenience as many people as possible when they are blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except now I’m evading a ban? 2600:1015:B036:99D6:A830:E468:572:C91B (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're admitting to being the target of the block? 331dot (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best to ban all of Verizon too. Can’t be too sure. 2600:1015:B036:99D6:A830:E468:572:C91B (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice. Is one or both of you a Wikipedia Editor? I am going to take the trouble to try and understand how wikipedia works as the entries currently are wilfully and maliciously misleading. If I offer a fully referenced alternative, is there a way for it to be considered, or does it have to be put forward by a third party? One outrageous example of the present deliberate smearing of me is the claim that I am not registered at the Bowlby Centre or as a chartered psychologist. The reference for the Bowlby Centre is to therapists there who want to be contacted by clients, it is not a list of who is registered at the Centre. I am listed now as a therapist at the Centre: https://thebowlbycentre.org.uk/locator/ Re the Chartered Psychologist link, it is to the HCPC website, one at which I am not registered. Whoever put this link there will have known perfectly well that I am not registered there. In fact, it is with the UKCP, you can find me on their website https://psychotherapy.my.site.com/DirectoryApi__Directory?autonumber=SD-00000003&site=a0d24000001VW3nAAG I remain mystified by how Wikipedia works: how can it permit these wilfully misleading links to encourage the reader to suspect that a practicing clinician is a fraud. I suspect a lawyer would regard this as a serious offence? Another example is the account given of my television career. It picks on a few of the many programmes I made, I am not quite sure why it picks those ones. The truth is these are the programmes which I produced, assistant produced or presented, 1982-2003: Under Fives (ITV, 1982), The Man Who Shot John Lennon (ITV, 1988), Men On Violence (ITV, 1988), 2 series of Room 113 for Network 7 (C4, 1987/8), The Last Day (C4, 1990), Wot U Lookin At? (BBC Horizon, 1992), Prisoner 4235 (BBC 40 Minutes, 1992), Rape (BBC 40 Minutes, 1992), Prozac Diary (BBC Late Show, 1995), The Chair (BBC2, 1997), Britain on the Couch (C4 series 1998), Affairs of the Heart (C4 2000), Through The Eyes of the Child (ITV This Morning, 2 series, 2002-3). I can provide links to many of these whole programmes on youtube. So why does the creator of my misleading wikipedia choose to delete all these and replace them with some of my least significant ones? Also, why is there nothing about my journalism? I wrote columns for nearly all the national newspapers. eg I did columns for both the Guardian and Observer, as well as numerous features and opinion pieces (see https://www.theguardian.com/profile/oliverjames), in all about 250 pieces: why were references to these and the columns I did for the Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Express, Independent and Financial Times all deleted? It would not be hard to substantiate these. If you are an editor, can I suggest that you do whatever you do to stop whoever is doing this to my entry and let me offer you an alternative? Oliver James Singleton4321 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Singleton4321 (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anyone who participates here is an "editor".

You are welcome to go to the article talk page (Talk:Oliver James (psychologist)) and make a formal edit request(click for instructions) detailing changes you feel are needed. A volunteer is more likely to review your request if it is small- don't propose a wholesale rewrite, propose incrmental changes. Preferably your proposals should be sourced to independent reliable sources, such as sources that discuss and evaluate your journalism. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to identify who is vandalising (and that is what is happening, in Wiki definitions) my entry? And if so, how do I report them, to whom, so that they are prevented from doing it? I thought there were people who are recognised by Wiki as 'editors'? Singleton4321 (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, an effort to deface an article. Adding information in good faith- even if inaccurate- is not vandalism. In examining the edit history of the article (which you can do as well) I don't see anything I would consider vandalism, though I may have missed it. You may report vandalism by a user to WP:AIV

That said, Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living people are written about. All information about a living person must be sourced to a reliable source, preferably an independent one. If the sources in the article are not accurately summarized, you should detail the errors as I described in my previous post. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• 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.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @331dot

You said: "You're allowed to say it on a street corner in the US(heck, politicians of all stripes in the US say that of their opponents every day and newspapers print it), or on your personal blog on a computer that you own, but you can't say it on Wikipedia just because, because this is a privately operated website that can have rules about what is said here. It's not the government enforcing rules."

I admit that people in China may not be able to speak as freely as the people in the US. BUT, it is much better now than fifty years ago, and you're allowed to say it on a street corner in China.

You are right that we can't say someone is "stupid, sadistic, or delusional" on Wikipedia, but the rules are never enforced, on the contrary, I was the one who was blocked, but not the other user, and they just won't stop. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position remains unchanged. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I would do something about THIS and THIS in the capacity of an administrator. BUT, I am not you.

[20], [21], [22] 202.40.137.197 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am not an administrator, all I can do is post on their talk page: [23], [24], and taking the risk of being blocked again (!) Sincerely, 202.40.137.197 (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you fnd another topic to edit about. If you are dissatisfied with this, go to WP:ANI but that is more likely to result in your being blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit any articles of that topic. I do not know how to follow your "advice".

I perceived your comment as threatening to have me blocked again. Here, administrator is the god. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to "have you blocked", I'm just saying that if you intend to pursue your grievances further, that's a possible outcome.

I can't help you with determining what it is that you should edit; I'm simply saying that if the topic of Chinese scientists arouses too much passion in you that you should find something else to contribute about. If you don't wish to, or can't, that's up to you.

I am not a "God"; I have some extra tools. Other admins can and do disagree with me. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the "God". You are saying that "grievances" are something "blockable".

The topic of Chinese scientists does not arouse too much passion in me. The defamation of Chinese scientists does.

Other admins can disagree with you, but they will not say it.

They will not overturn your decisions to block either. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 09:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grievances are not blockable. How you handle them is. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the "God".

The topic of Chinese scientists does not arouse too much passion in me. The defamation of Chinese scientists does.

Other admins can disagree with you, but they will not say it.

They will not overturn your, or others', decisions to block either.

I believe I handled my grievances correctly but I was blocked and you are telling me that "if you intend to pursue your grievances further" that is more likely that I will be blocked again.

Here, administrator is the god. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say about this. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am an insane maverick who fears no man I edited your comment. Please forgive me. Polygnotus (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me, although I write most of my posts the way I do for a reason. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing someone else's comment and not even telling them is too bold even for a daredevil like myself. Although I did remove that link from that linkspammers comment. Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. You left a puzzlin warning on my talkpage. Why? Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your personal attacks on the Teahouse. We try to keep the Teahouse a civil, friendly place. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a personal attack. As you should know, as an admin. So revert yourself and retract your false accusation please. Polygnotus (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack is personal, and an attack. This is not an attack, just a bit of fun with alliteration, and not personal. Polygnotus (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I believe you, as I said, we try to keep the Teahouse friendly and civil. That sort of language doesn't contribute towards that goal. You clearly were referencing a particular individual. Unless you have evidence of bias and bigotry that you have brought to WP:ANI, you shouldn't make such comments. I stand by my actions. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is silly, and not in a good way. I'll give you some time to think, because this is very obviously a very bad mistake. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The infamous Trout Star
	I love silly stuff. I love alliterations. Let's be friends. Polygnotus (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess. I'd suggest you use WP:AARV in the future unless you are seeking a more serious sanction against the user with whom you're having a dispute. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this wasn't a dispute, just a mistake. The trout star is multifunctional; it is also in recognition of a huge amount of perfect edits. Polygnotus (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps "dispute" was a poor choice of words there, my only point is ANI should be the last forum to go to, not the first. AARV is specifically designed for what it is you were doing. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the purpose section on that page. Anyone can post {{uw-pa}} so I doubt that that counts. Polygnotus (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were seeking community input as to my actions as a administrator("Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.") I'm really not trying to bust your chops here, just pointing you there for the future. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we are friends now, and you are invited to my barbecue on Sunday. 4PM, bring beer. Perhaps I was unclear. On the WP:AARV page there is a section called Purpose which states:

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

1) an administrator action

2) an action using an advanced permission

When you follow these links there are 2 lists. The advanced permissions are, for example, File mover and Page mover.

The administrator actions list lists those actions that require extra buttons (e.g. block/protect et cetera).

Since leaving {{uw-npa}} on a talkpage does not require extra buttons most users don't have, I don't think it falls under the scope of AARV. Hope that helps, Polygnotus (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I was trying to play a hoax on one of my English classes by creating a fantastical story about one of their textbooks. Please do delete the page and apologies for taking up your time. MrFranzEnglishDept (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hey @331dot, nice to meet you. I noticed you were currently active and was hoping you might be able to help me out if you're not too busy.

There's an editor over at my talk page that seems to be having a pretty bad day, can you help me out and let me know how to proceed? RachelTensions (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is to not respond further, at least until their attitude changes. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. RachelTensions (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feels a bit flat, doesn't it? :-( One question altogether on the whole page so far, theoretically for me, but looks to be actually for Bishzilla... I suppose people may be feeling opined-out after just having been expected to ask questions/comment/vote on some 30 admin candidates. Though in fact there was very little community input in the July round also. Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Could be. I wasn't even sure it was "open" for comment yet. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open from the 26. Bishonen | tålk 13:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I'm the person who made User_talk:2001:2D8:E3EE:CB33:31BD:9EB7:3411:C2EC this unblock request, and I'm at home now. I can edit wikipedia or create an account now, but I feel worried about all the other editors in that range, since this range is a SK telecom, a South Korean carrier's entire range. I heard that I need to contact User:Drmies directly, but his talk page is protected, so I can't talk with him, the blocking admin, directly. Can you help me? 221.148.179.216 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ping Drmies to your own user talk page. Just make sure the same post in which you ping is signed. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:221.148.179.216 is this right? 221.148.179.216 (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should work. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was surprised when I found that nothing is (almost ever) permanently deleted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• 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

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

Hello,

I think banning the IP for 60 hours is not sufficient, as it shows extremely albanophobic and racist statements [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. It's obviously not the same IP, but I think that a pattern can be seen pretty easily.

Thank you. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long term blocks of IPs should only be done with care, as they theoretically can be used by different people. I blocked the other IP too. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user you blocked just now, User:Miazid9197, wrote some pretty demeaning and dangerous threats through their contributions. You might probably want to revdel it as RD3. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done 331dot (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you might find some similarities between Special:Contributions/221.148.159.100 and Special:Contributions/1.53.4.193.
Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...as well as Special:Contributions/222.99.189.152 --CiaPan (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and Special:Contributions/175.205.44.26 --CiaPan (talk)

Yep, the person is using a proxy, it seems. I assume that since the WMF doesn't want to talk to them and they are banned from IRC that they are evading a block. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for the reply. I noticed you blocked one of them, and the other one made exactly the same edit elsewhere (Teahouse vs. Help desk), so I guessed it could be the same person, hence the other IP address might deserve block as well. But the other IP apparently does not continue disruptive edits, so no action against it is necessary.

Then I saw multiple other IP addresses involved in same edit war, most of them already blocked by other admins, so I guess I bothered you unnecessarily. CiaPan (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for coming by. :) 331dot (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it might be time to close this discussion. The advice given to this user is basically a repeat of what was given in the other thread they started, and now things just seem to be going in circles. People have advised this user to WP:DTS and just move on, but they seem intent on litigating whatever issues they're having on Hebrew Wikipedia here on English Wikipedia. A glance at their contributions seem to indicate that they're WP:HERE at WT:MEDICINE, but they seem unable or unwilling to understand that there's nothing anyone here can do for them over at Hebrew Wikipedia; moreover, it seems like there seeking some form of cross-wiki WP:PROXYING. I was going to close the thread myself, but get the sense that they'll just start another one about the same thing. Any ideas how to proceed here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it and said they would be blocked if they persisted. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly and 331dot: The global account information shows the editor is 'NOT_HERE' at Hebrew-wiki, either. --CiaPan (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mistreated and Inhumanity blocking to Royiswariii and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Royiswariii Talk! 05:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case request has been declined as premature because other dispute resolution steps would need to be used first before requesting arbitration. SilverLocust 💬 10:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Newbie question: could you please take a quick look and let me know what to do with this User:Alphacommbv/sandbox? With my old AfC hat on, I would have requested G11 without a second thought, and would put any money on it being enacted. However, in my admin election discussion a couple of people said I was too trigger happy with my G11s, so now that I'm wielding the mop myself I'm suddenly not quite so sure. Should I:

1. Delete this, and hard-block the user (note: user name = company name).
2. Leave the draft, and only soft-block the user so they can change user name and return to edit this.
3. Something else that I've not even thought of?

The draft is promotional in the sense that it just tells us what the company does etc., and is almost entirely referenced by their own website; however, it isn't glaringly promotional in tone. This draft represents the user's entire edit history to date.

Thanks in advance, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry, only just spotted the message above mine. You may be pre-occupied with more substantive matters, in which case feel free to ignore my request, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. I would do #1. It's sourced almost exclusively to their website and talks about "comprehensive" and "solutions"(WP:SOLUTIONS)- all just marketing speak and spam. I'd hard block because I don't think this editor is likely to change this mindset. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the swift response! Option 1 is what I was in the middle of doing, when I suddenly got cold feet. Glad to have it confirmed I wasn't completely off the mark. :) Thanks again, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth pointin out that nothing stops you from adding speedy deletion templates even though you're an admin - I did that all the time when I wasn't confident enough to press the delete button myself, and occasionally they were even declined. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) For the most part, I only delete what has been tagged by others. User:DGG would also tag rather than deleting himself as a double check. Sometimes they are/were declined. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's another interesting point. On one hand, acting alone as the 'judge, jury & executioner' feels uncomfortable. On the other, finding pure advertising like Draft:MommyKidz, I can't see how any admin would not delete that on sight, and me just tagging it and leaving it there for others to clean up seems like doing only half the job. But yeah, less obvious ones probably should be dealt with that way.

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone; helps me triangulate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot,

Its me Noam, good to see you again mate. I changed my name from noam atadgy to Namelesss. I remember being a little rude or disrespectful to you a few days ago, by saying you sound angry and accusing you of a few things, and so on. I'd like to apologize about that, Im sorry. Do you accept? Evne if not, I'm just leaving you this small message to let you know I'm sorry. My friends and parents have taught me to apologize if I do something wrong. Actually, its not friends or family who taught me, its life taught me. A life lesson. So yeah, I'm here to let you know I'm sorry about it, mate. If you forgive or not, thats a different story. But can you tell me if you forgive? I am also unbanned now on Hebrew Wikipedia. I talked to the admin who banned me and we're good friends now. Namelesss (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad your situation worked out. Best wishes to you 331dot (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the CheckUser team following private and public consultation:

• TheresNoTime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition, the following administrators are appointed to the conflict of interest volunteer response team following private and public consultation:

• 331dot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Robertsky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024

Dear Mug

I am Prince Great Scammer from a country you may never have here'd of. You have been left an unfathomable sum of money.....

---

What a weird help request! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Faddle 🇺🇦 22:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse. Thank you. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. Given the latest post Winipitia made on their user talk page after their latest unblock request was declined, consideration probably should be given to revoking their TPA even at this early stage since any additional comments from them will likely only make things worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks for bringing it up for attention. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for the permablock of a user with the IP address 2A0A:EF40:47B:4B01:A557:FC62:41B:865A for persistent vandalism, please. 151.38.189.125 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a report to WP:AIV, I don't have time to look into this now, though IPs are almost never "permablocked". 331dot (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had time to take a look at it; the reported IP was doing valuable work cleaning inappropriate content out of an article. The IP that reported them might be acting in good faith, but if anyone is raising suspicions here it's not 2A0A:EF40... Girth Summit _(blether) 14:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, Dot: User:HejRonja is trying to ping you (not doing it right) on their page. Bishonen | tålk 10:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page watcher) Don't think of it as failed. Think of it as not having reached its fullest potential. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course, the American way of putting it. I'm Scandinavian; we do it the Dutch way. You may possibly have noticed that about me. [Bishonen looks forward expectantly to young Fritter agreeing about her bluntness, but only in the nicest possible way.] Bishonen | tålk 15:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

chacun à son goût. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben Duits; een echte diplomaat -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Bishzilla happily flexes her poetry muscles:] Bin gar keine Russin, stamm’ aus Litauen! Echt Deutsch! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, Dot. We'll stop now. Bishonen | tålk 16:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

No worries. :) 331dot (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen Methinks I'd fit in well in Scandanavia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen | tålk 10:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, can you check If I have disclosed the Paid editing disclosure correctly or do i need to add something else aswell. Ateeb Ali Syed (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you disclosed on your user page correctly. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well can you help me with one more thing?

The head office is located in Zurich, with branch operations in Kenya and the United Arab Emirates, and subsidiaries in Canada, Hong Kong SAR, Pakistan, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. The bank also has representative offices in Bangladesh, China, Hong Kong SAR, Pakistan, and Türkiye. As of 31 December 2023, the bank employed a total of 7,629 people [5] in 559 offices.

Is this correct way to add this information, I wrote it being quite neutral, and gave the necesery reference, if not what could I do to alternatively? Ateeb Ali Syed (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am probably stating the obvious, but the IP editor complaining about Belästigung in German is probably the same person(s?) as the IP editors complaining about Harassment. TSventon (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see their latest posts- yes, you're correct. Thank you 331dot (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	You're a quick guy - I was going to report it but you blocked him already The AP (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• 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.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---

Suppose a user is blocked. If an IP comes and discusses on the user page with "I" statements acknowledging or clearly implying they're registered user whom the talk page belongs to, is it considered "self disclosure" enough to discuss the outcome of that IP's "(WHOIS (alt • old)" feature at the bottom of "IP contributors" and that of dynamic IPs that's been making COI edits in similar area? Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain but I do know care should be taken because accidentally editing while logged out is not uncommon. On the flip side it's done to evade a block too. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Diff/1261885855 and I was mindful of the rule the whole time. I felt there was enough of self-disclosure in context of discussion to suggest it wasn't forgetting to log-in situation. Although if you believe it would be problematic I'll be more conservative in the future Graywalls (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's not forgetting, you're probably fine. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not forgetting. I was the one who wasn't sure if accidental outing occurred, I'm happy to learn that this was not the case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably late to bring this up, but I think this fully was a trout moment on my part.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, editor, I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). There is a new discussion open at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) § Killing of Brian Thompson, and I'd like to invite you to participate. Thank you. BarntToust 19:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropiate to RevDel this revision for criterion RD2. Thank you.

Milo8505 _(talk) 16:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to WP:ANI; I'm not able to right now. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Thank you very much. Milo8505 _(talk) 18:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can a blocked user delete the block notice, initial unblock request and subsequent comments by other users [25], and post a condensed yet similar unblock request [26] raising those very points which were already answered in the now deleted part? Or they are supposed to write a new unblock request? Courtesy ping @Cullen328 and Chaotic Enby:. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A user can remove most content from their own user talk page, with exceptions described at WP:BLANKING. One exception is declined unblock requests for an active sitewide block. (I haven't looked at the edit yet) 331dot (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not supposed to remove the declined unblock request, but are free to make a new one below it (which the reviewing admin is also free to decline if it makes essentially the same points). However, out of sheer practicality given the size of the first unblock request, I wouldn't be opposed to collapsing it with {{hat|reason=Declined unblock request}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby: OK, but they have also deleted comments that are connected to the points mentioned in the first unblock request. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this today. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I informed them that they couldn't remove it and linked to WP:BLANKING. As 331dot might be getting unwanted pings from our conversation, feel free to answer on my talk page if you have anything more to add! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.El Beeblerino 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. I'm writing this to let you know that I seriously considered hitting the recall button over this single incident that was brought up in the above AN thread. The 4im-into-block by Bbb23 was horrendous and your decline reason comes off as being very punitive by indicating that the user would stay blocked until you...have an edit you wish to make.... The users appeals looked very reasonable, and indeed were declined the second time by Yamla only because they forgot to mention a specific edit they wanted to make. They then had to wait nearly a month on their third appeal before finally being unblocked with a rationale that says in part The user is clearly acting in good faith....

I didn't do it, for two reasons specifically: 1) This instance, though clearly part of a pattern of denying requests to appeal bad blocks, is 13 months old now. 2) Beeblebrox's stated intent with bringing the AN thread was to de-escalate things before something fresh and this egregious happens where a recall does result.

Assuming good faith, I assume that with Pbnjb1, your request of them to state an edit they wish to make (which Yamla took to mean specific edit[s], is an interpretation of where WP:GAB says [y]ou, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators: that the block is no longer necessary because ... you will make productive contributions instead, but comes off as needless interrogation of a user who was given a bad block to start with, made a few edits post-unblock, then vanished.

If someone else were to start a recall right now, I would absolutely sign it because the other instances linked, though not as egregious as this, show a clear pattern. I hope some reflection is in order regarding how your unblock request responses come off as overly interrogating to other people. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 06:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear about your concerns. It's always been my understanding that there must be a benefit to the project in unblocking someone- which is why I asked for an example of something they want to do. My intention is not to be punitive as blocks are not a punishment. This also indicates their understanding of what led to the block. When I unblock someone I'm putting my reputation on the line and I want to make sure that I have good cause- or I'd be facing grievances from the other side("you're unblocking too many people who shouldn't be!!"). I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

I don't think that asking one question about what they intend to do once they resume is being "overly interrogating". Hindsight/Monday morning quarterbacking is always 20/20 and I always am thinking about what I can do better, and I appreciate you telling me of your concerns. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, direct time.

I pretty much said all I wanted to say in the AN thread- those blocks were bad, and I wish you (as an editor who has been an admin as long as I've had this account) would say something when you see blocks like that. At the end of the day, the community trusts you. When you're "damned if you do, damned if you don't" I sort of wish you'd make your decisions based on what you feel is right, not what you feel will be least damaging to your reputation. General "you" there, not "you, 331dot".

I didn't bring these examples up before because I don't know how you'd respond - and, also, I genuinely wasn't looking at you. Again, those blocks were on my radar for an entirely different reason. But, anyway, I saw the AN thread, saw your name, and thought "hey, isn't that the one who kept that newbie blocked....oh yeah, they are." AGF, I do really think you weren't ever expecting to be put in a situation where an experienced admin gave such an egregiously bad vandalism warning & block. You probably thought it was accurate, and didn't confirm yourself what the issue was. But some admins really don't seem to understand what vandalism is. I've seen an admin give uw-vandalism3 to a newbie who added a well sourced paragraph to an article but put the citation in the edit summary, an uw-error2 to a newbie who fixed the spelling of a living person's name, an uw-vandalism2 to a newbie who fixed the spelling of a place name, uw-vandalisms 2 through 4 to a newbie who was trying to add factual information about somebody's career to an article but didn't cite a source, an uw-vandalim2 to somebody who tried to create an article about a videogame from a redirect, an uw-vandalism3,4, and then immediate block to a newbie who was making some poor copyedits, an uw-vandalism4im for a newbie who accidentally re-created an article while trying to contest its speedy deletion (yay lag), and an uw-vandalsim4im to a newbie for citing imbd or accidentally creating a malformed citation (I still can't tell).

But anyway, no, I don't think it's fair to you that other admins block for things like that and respond in the way we know they will, because it puts you in the really awkward position where you either have to fight them to unblock, or you have to be complicit. I do think this AN thread should be evidence that the community doesn't mind as much as you think about unblocking editors who were obviously victims of bad blocks, and that hopefully they will back you up more than you think. But I also don't think it's fair to the editors who get blocked for bad reasons. You have a lot more power than they do in these situations, you have a lot more experience, and you are (ultimately) meant to be one of the people who we the community trusts the most when it comes to figuring out situations like that. But the proverbial ball is in your proverbial court now, I guess. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extra notification). And I do know you can, and will, have have challenged bad blocks. For example, you directly challenged @The Anome: over their username block of BigDick555. I just wish something like that would have happened in any of the examples I brought up. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. I will consider them- as I do with all such comments- carefully. I don't claim to be perfect and I make mistakes. I'm always trying to do better. I try to do what I think is right but I'm not always right and sometimes I miss things or they otherwise get past me. I'm always working on it. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there must be a benefit to the project in unblocking someone – You're probably not alone in thinking this, but I believe it to be backward. The standard should be whether they continue to pose a threat to the project if they are allowed to edit. If we're neutral on this question, or we lack sufficient data to make a determination, we should just unblock. This aligns more with our AGF policy, as well as our mantra that this is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". – bradv 23:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this under advisement. I do know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@bradv, how widely held do you figure your opinion is? I ask because I've learned unblocks by watching how others handle them, and I'd say "there must be a benefit" is the dominant if not exclusive view among the people who are handling them. Personally, I'm a big believer in second chances (and WP:ROPE), but I've been getting the strong impression that most experienced admins think this is crazy. -- asilvering (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's the dominant view, although perhaps not among some of the regular RFU patrollers. But I could be wrong on both counts. – bradv 01:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or among the regular blockers... but perhaps that's the wrong cue to take. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to make sure you know that, although I might disagree with you here or there about a specific case, I greatly appreciate your willingness to tackle the unblock backlog. A thankless task, which almost no one else besides you and Yamla and DFO (and maybe one or two others I'm forgetting) seem willing to regularly do. I've tried, and get frustrated/depressed after looking at 2 requests. I'm sorry that the current AN/ANI shit-slinging mindset has latched on to you. You seem to be handling this with more grace than I probably will when the pack comes for me; being willing to listen to people while they're yelling and insulting you is an admirable trait and a skill I do not have. Thanks, and hang in there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things would be pretty boring if we all agreed on everything. I appreciate your words. I understand criticism comes with the territory and I do appreciate advice. I do wish I had been personally approached first with a "hey, I think....." instead of going straight to AN, but it is what it is. I credit Ghost of Dan above with coming to me. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See? Like I said, a better person than me. I would have seen "I seriously considered hitting the recall button over this single incident" (emphasis mine) and doubt I would have read further. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the scorces are a polygon article, a youtube video, and a thesis (Consoles made by the big 3 (Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo) are manufactured by Foxconn and Foxconn used 3 fonts since 2002 and the PlayStation Portal used the third font, the one since 2020). 2603:8001:6940:2100:BC77:1C6D:706B:1BF9 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Theroadislong: "cough,cough" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops sorry! Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relating to the controversial, but not so prominent article Talk:Rene_Gonzalez_(politician) which you've participated in a discussion in one of the COI editor's page.

Special:Contributions/Trexiane Mentioned this to HJ Mitchell already, but made a mobile edit on October 2024 as their first edit on a 2009 sleeper created before people really even used the internet from their mobile. Special:Contributions/Stevewhite16 SPA'ing from a 2016 sleeper.

Do you think these could be abandoned compromised old accounts sold for politicking purpose to avoid new user restrictions? Graywalls (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not impossible, but it's not an area I have much knowledge in. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are aware of it (I can't find anywhere you have been pinged), but today I noticed a large 9 day old thread/rant about yourself, Ponyo and Yamla on Wikipediocracy [27].

I'm not involved in it (I don't even have an account on the site) but I do believe at the very least you deserve the courtesy of a ping. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of it, but I might not have been, so thank you. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited a talk page that does not have the 30/500 restriction, I don't appreciate a threat especially when the person at fault was the person who deleted my post. Do abuse your admin privlidge.Solarsilk1000 (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours as a regular block for personal attacks. I don't do CTOP blocks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

★Trekker (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, you made a comment viewable only to other admins and not a message to the blockee.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I did. Thank you 331dot (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no, they do not. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my James Earl Jones voice, "the WP:IDNHT is strong with this one." -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already blocked the range, though you can't tell from the individual IP's log (very irritating). I did not revoke TPA. Thanks for taking care of that silly unblock request. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is irritating- I've run into that before. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello 331dot, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You welcomed Jamesmoddy, but they then proceeded to edit their user talk to post a link to what appears to be a phishing website. (Only registerd a few weeks ago, only rented for one year, hosted by Hostinger, using the Spotify name and logo). It's a bit too subtle for AIV and a bit too boring for AN/I, so idk do you want to block and maybe yank TPA if they try to post the link again? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Yeah, I'll(or anyone) watch to see about TPA. I don't know how much I'll be on today. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch them for a week -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While doing routine patrols, I ran across User:3301dot5009. Not sure if it's an attempted impersonation or not, but it seems too close to entirely ignore. No activity from the account as yet, but I thought I'd let you know. Also, given how long your talk page is I added {{Skip to bottom}} to the top. Please feel free to remove if you don't like it. Just trying to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on both counts. I was planning on archiving this myself around the 1st. I just haven't got around to setting something automatic up. I'll probably keep your addition anyway. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello! this account is named after my alias, "3301.5009". to my knowledge, it's impossible to create an account name without using a letter character, therefore, i wrote it this way. i apologise for any confusion. 3301dot5009 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming good faith here. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their message here is unusual for an impersonator/sock, so I soft-blocked them, which is unusual for me. If they request an unblock, we might want a CU to check them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Maybe a upol block to encourage a name change? - FlightTime (open channel) 17:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, isn't that what I did?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I randomly picked your name of out the list of administrators page, to request full page protection on this article. An editor is repeatedly disrupting it with tendentious edits that are reverting sourced corrections and other contributions, and reinstating their previous version of the article that has irrelevant and speculative content and policy and guidelines violations, including WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and Manual of style violations. The lead alone inappropriately and inaccurately uses WP:CLAIM, which is not neutral, when that is a factual statement sourced in the article. A discussion was started by myself on the talk page, but the editor refuses to seek consensus to restore the disputed content as per the policy WP:ONUS and continues to revert and restore it. Lapadite (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection may be requested at WP:RFPP, though it sounds like action against the editor themselves may be sufficient. I'm not sure when I can look at this. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @331dot,

Thank you for your feedback on the draft for the SinDelantal article. I have reviewed your comment regarding the lack of sourcing in the "Impact and Legacy" section and have made the following changes:

1. I have replaced the section title with "Role in the Food Delivery Market" to better align with the content and avoid subjective phrasing. 2. I added specific references to reliable sources to support the claims about the company's pioneering role and leadership in Spain and Mexico:

  - Its role as the first food delivery platform in Spain, cited from El País.
  - Its strategic acquisitions in Mexico, including MiOrden, cited from Emprendedores.
  - The recognition of its founders among Spain's 100 most outstanding entrepreneurs, cited from Emprendedores.

These changes aim to address your concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia's sourcing and neutrality standards. I appreciate your time and would welcome any additional feedback.

Thank you for your guidance!

Best regards RSA-Axp (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you chose to write about this now-defunct part of a company. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for asking. I decided to write about SinDelantal because, even though it now operates under different brands (Just Eat in Spain), it played a pivotal role in pioneering online food delivery in both countries. It’s also notable for having been acquired by the same company (Just Eat) in two separate transactions, one in Spain and another in Mexico. Though no longer active under its original name, its story remains significant in the evolution of food delivery startups and one of Mexican first internet exits. Even the TV ad music jungle is popular in Mexico.

Considering its origins and impact in Spain and Mexico, it might even make sense to have a Spanish-language version of the article? If you see any areas needing more context or sources, I’m happy to make further improvements.

Thanks again! RSA-Axp (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]