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[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[reply]

Hello, 331dot. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Doug Weller talk 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what it's worth, the blocked editor never answered this question [1]. 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[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[reply]

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

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

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

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