331dot

 

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

 

Hello, 331dot. You have new messages at 7bot's talk page.
Message added 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.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 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 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).

  Administrator changes

 

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

 

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

  Bureaucrat changes

  Worm That Turned

 

  CheckUser changes

  Wugapodes

  Interface administrator changes

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno

  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/wiki/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/wiki/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^(Talk) 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).

Administrator changes   Sdkb The Night Watch   East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes   SilkTork

  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^{ping me!} (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  ^(Talk)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  ^(Talk) 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

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 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 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^{[cetacean needed]} (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).

  Administrator changes

  Nyttend

 

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

  Bureaucrat changes

  Nihonjoe

 

  CheckUser changes

  Joe Roe

  Oversight changes

  GeneralNotability

  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^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 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).

  Administrator changes

  Graham Beards

 

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

  Bureaucrat changes

 

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

 

  Oversight changes

  Dreamy Jazz

  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 ^{from this world ..... today} 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 ^{from this world ..... today} 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).

  Administrator changes

  Isabelle Belato

 

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

  Interface administrator changes

  Izno

 

  CheckUser changes

  Barkeep49

  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^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 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^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 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).

  Administrator changes

  Pppery

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery

 

  Oversighter changes

  Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

 

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

  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