331dot

Please place new comments at the bottom of the page. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please do so there. If you are responding to an edit I made to an article, please comment on the article talk page. I welcome talk page stalkers offering any knowledge or assistance they have.

I find the best thing about working with wikipedians

Has become my expanded willingness to work in good faith with others, especially when I'm called on error, disagreement, or judgement. Thanks as always for keeping me straight and upright (just by being you). Don't be shy when you see me fall short of the glory... I've got plenty of BOLD for others, but my own behavior requires mirrors. Thanks for reflecting well on me, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The same goes for me, I appreciate questions, comments, advice, and constructive criticism about my actions. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you seeing this mentoring suggestion take off? BusterD (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Hope it works out. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Roshan_G._Ragel

Hi & sorry to bother you, I saw that you unblocked Roshan G. Ragel on the condition that they don't write about themselves anymore, but they've been repeatedly editing and submitting their draft to AFC since then (it failed twice today alone). Would this be a violation of the unblock agreement? I'm not sure how best to report this, so thought I'd best ask you first as the unblocking admin. Blue Sonnet (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look at it. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Lemonrock

Hi, what do you make of this Lemonrock? I was minded to unblock them simply because it's been so long since their block, and as they now seem to want to edit on topics unrelated to their COI. But resurfacing after so long does seem remarkable, and then it turns out they've had at least one other account, and when I asked if they had more than that, they avoided answering (perhaps just an oversight on their part, perhaps purposely). So thought I'd ask for your take, if you care to offer one, before going ahead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

My view is similar to yours. Apparently Lemonrock according to the deleted edits is "a live music information website"(i tried to see it but it seems to be geolocked to the UK) so I feel like "web technology" may somehow be within their COI, but I'm not sure. I suppose they could have been just a reader these last 15 years, but it is a little curious. I would wonder if there was any recent block evasion but it's been so long I'm not sure a CheckUser would help. Maybe a WP:ROPE second chance? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right about "web technology". I'd say ROPE, but with specific exclusion of anything to do with their own website (unless they put it through AfC, natch). Unless you object, I'll offer that to them tomorrow, if no one else has by then. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I also see you reviewing blocks! Way to go! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Sanket Goel

Hi 331dot!

I have been working on this article for a while now and suggesting edits on the talk page for implementation by neutral editors. I’ve been trying to ensure that the draft fully complies with Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing standards, especially given my declared conflict of interest, by only suggesting edits. I’ve used the COI edit request process and incorporated feedback from other editors, and I’m trying to be careful not to overstep. I completely understand that AfC reviews take time and depend on volunteer availability, but I wanted to ask whether there’s anything further I can do to make the draft easier to review or if you might be willing to take a look when you have time.

Thanks! Shashy 922 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

You've provided 37 sources, which is far too many; most of them seem to just document his published work; Wikipedia is less interested in that then in a summary of what independent reliable sources say about him as a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is something really weird

Doug Weller talk 19:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. It's a subpage of their userpage, who's going to see it? (Leaving aside the merits) 331dot (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

But look out! Some people on Reddit are behind them. ;) 331dot (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Scary. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Global Traditional Taekwondo Federation

I’ve carefully reviewed and rewritten the entire article. I’ve removed all promotional language, restructured the text, and updated the sources. The draft is now completely revised and neutral, essentially like a new article. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look. Thank you for your time and guidance. I hope you can review the page again after these edits. Fahd Marei (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

You have submitted it and it is pending; I don't review drafts on request outside of process as once it became known I was willing to do so I'd be inundated. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Guide to temporary accounts

Hello, 331dot. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

Editing from a temporary account

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

How to enable IP Reveal

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Abiola Aderibigbe

@331dot thank you so much for taking a look at the article Abiola Aderibigbe and leaving feedback. As a recent editor to Wikipedia, I really appreciate getting feedback from more experienced editors like you (who I consider my superiors LOL!).

For context, editor @Ldm1954 did the last major copyedit a few days ago to take out any CV/resume tone, and he further educated me on Wikipedia articles reading as standard encyclopaedia entries. His words were "less is more". He also asked that I trimmed the citations on the articles which I did, with the kind support of editor @Bobby Cohn.

I would however be extremely grateful if you could give me a steer on what you consider still reads in a CV/resume tone.

On sources/notability, despite trimming references/citations, there are still 11 independent, secondary news pieces in national outlets ( E.g. Independent, The Nation, The Sun, THISDAY, etc.) which cover the subject in depth. My understanding is that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) but I’m happy to be guided if there’s something more I should do to make that clearer.

If helpful, my plan is to add two more independent national sources in the lead and reuse named refs to avoid over-citation (as advised by Ldm1954 and Bobby Cohn), move any duplicate coverage to a short “Further reading” section (although I have also been advised not to create too many sections), and double check that awards/recognition section is only kept to items independently covered (Ldm1954 also kindly helped with this a few days ago).

I would be extremely grateful for any and all of the wisdom you can spare! Thank you! I am looking forward to specific pointers 🎃 BBenebo (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The article as a whole just describes his activities and qualifications, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say about him and what makes him a notable person. The awards don't help because they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The article describes a proposed law that he has advocated for, but many people advocate for legislation or regulations. It doesn't say he aided in passage of any legislation or has been particularly influential in even getting it considered. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you very much for the insight, I am grateful. I feel like I learn something new everyday. I'll further amend the article as you have advised to summarise what independent, reliable sources say about the subject and why that's notable. As an admin I know you are very busy, so thanks again for your words of wisdom and for taking the time to respond to me. I truly appreciate it. BBenebo (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

BBenebo Are you acquainted with Mr. Aderibigbe? You took this picture of him on September 19th (and also cropped it) and appear to have had pretty good access to him. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@331dot Thanks for your question. I didn’t take the photo. It’s an image that had been published on the subject’s website and also used in national press coverage. I uploaded it to Commons so there would be a freely licensed version. The crop wasn't done by me, it was done by editor @Bobby Cohn (see file history, 30 Oct 2025). I have no paid relationship with the subject and I’m not editing on their behalf. If the Commons file needs corrected attribution/licensing (or a VRT permission), I’ll be happy to sort it.

I’ve also updated the article per your direction to summarise what independent sources say about the advocacy and why it was covered. I’ve revised the lead to note that national newspapers profiled the subject's five-pillar proposal, and I’ve added an “Advocacy and media coverage” section consolidating coverage from the Independent, THISDAY, The Nation etc. attributing what those outlets reported. I’ve also tried my best to trim non-essential detail.

If you’re willing, could you take another look and let me know if this aligns with what you had in mind? I’m happy to make further improvements. BBenebo (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

So since you did not take the photo, it must immediately without delay be deleted from Commons. (as well as the cropped one) I'll go do so. The photos currently state that they are your personal work and that you hold the copyright. His website states that copyright belongs to him, so you cannot claim that the images are your work nor can you release the copyright so the photos can be used on Wikipedia. He could upload them and do so, as the copyright holder, but you cannot.

Comments about the article itself I will save for the deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for flagging the image issue and for your guidance. You’re right, the Commons file was mislabelled as “own work”. That was my error. Thank you for removing the image from the article. I’ll tag the file(s) on Commons for speedy deletion pending proper permission, and I’ll contact the copyright holder to request a licence before any re-use. I also appreciate your forthcoming comments at the deletion discussion. BBenebo (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

My observations

@331dot @Jéské Couriano @Day Creature @GoldRomean

Following are my observations as peer feed back after reviewing Vipin Vijay article discussed at WP:BLP/N

1) Shifting particular message from user talk to the article talk is avoidable complication. Idk if it can be reversed.

2) This is a typical case where privacy support to ips in Wikis is weak and en Wikipedia has been behind the schedule to improve the privacy levels though I suppose from 4 th Nov improvements likely to be improved. (For this reason I am discussing the issue here and not at WP:BLPN.)

2) It's advisable that web archives of the news sources from archive.org be taken note of properly. (We need to note that rest of main stream Indian news media seem to have either did not report or back tracked may be due to legal aspects.)

3) Per Indian law respondent name too can not be reported until the committee reports seems correct. Legally complicated part/ grey area seems the Committee has once created a report (which got contested in high court) and high courts judgement is reportable or not? On that court may have to decide if Mid-day only main stream news media which reported can run the respondent name or will have to withdraw. If courts make Mid-day too withdraw news report in that case archives at archive.com are going to be important for Wikipedians/Wikimedia foundation.

4) As far as WP:NPOVN is concerned Presently WP article incompletely covers "(Vipin) Vijay challenged the process in the High Court of Calcutta, but the court refused to be involved" I suppose presently article is not covering "but (high court) emphasised that (Vipin) Vijay must be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses before the ICC proceeds further. The court also instructed the institute not to take any coercive steps against him until a final report is filed." (Ref:Mid-Day) I suppose to fulfill WP:NPOVN that needs to be covered.

May be above peer feedback would be helpful. Bookku (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with point 4 that as written now the line in the article at issue is simplistic and could be better written.

I think the legal stuff should be handled by the WMF as an office action. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have pinged @Tacyarg to request help in the update. Mean while an ip seem to have deleted the section with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Bookku (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Point 1 is noted, with apologies. Doesn't look like it, but let me know if I need to get involved further here besides that. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think let it be. eventually it will get archived any ways, isn't it. Btw MOS:LEGAL guidance too doesn't cover many many aspects and most users won't be aware of such a page on WP. Bookku (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Just for info and record. No doubt the case may be sub-judice, but almost every stage of the case in Calcutta Highcourt (even upto October 25) seems available online, court orders are usually reportable, I did not see any restraint on reporting the court order as such. At least search on indiankanoon.org, I did not see any case recorded against Mid-Day. Though for WP court orders are primary sources just jotting down two relevant links for future ref. if needed, September, 2024, December, 2024.

Thank you for warning

Thank you for warning...I shall make no more contributions to Wikipedia from this day on 2603:6010:BB00:288B:B566:2BB2:4C38:37B (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see your first posting for my reply; that's not what was said at all. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding 66.168.83.74

They evidently plan to RGW on their User Talk until access is revoked.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Taken care of. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your admin work, it is much appreciated Why vegan (talk) 12:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Carried out in the line of duty as admin Why vegan (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	On behalf of all beginner wiki-users, I thank you for your guidance with this Barnstar. ApoieRacional (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

Toadspike

• Elahrairah
• Juliancolton
• Magnus Manske

CheckUser changes

asilvering

Guideline and policy news

• The speedy deletion criteria U5 has been repealed, with U6 and U7 replacing it. See the FAQ for more clarifications.
• Community-designated contentious topics may now be enforced and appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) as a result of an RfC.

Technical news

• You can enable a handy user info card next to usernames, which when clicked displays edit count, blocks, thanks, and other information. To enable this feature, visit Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Transgender healthcare and people has been closed
  • Uninvolved administrators may impose an AE participation restriction on any thread at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2025 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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Not an paid advocate

I am not a paid advocate. I never take any sorts of payment and I want my knowledge to be put into good use. For me knowledge can not be bought. I work on my own and write everything on my own. Thehistorian999 (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thehistorian999 You disclosed a conflict of interest on your draft, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thehistorian999 Yes, I know. What is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The writer has a personal, financial, or professional connection to the topic . Right? Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I will block you from editing unless you describe the general nature of your conflict of interest with K.C. Das Private Limited. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

My earlier comment was a mistake — I do not have any conflict of interest or connection with the subject of this article. I have not received any payment or benefit for contributing. My edits are made in good faith and independently.I am a new editor i didn't know the meaning and I promise it appeared automatically there is no relation of mine with them. Even if I get banned I have no connection with KC Das I just wanted to make an informative page sorry it is my fault. Thehistorian999 (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you remove the COI disclosure from your draft and in the edit summary indicate you added it by accident. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed it, thank you for giving me a chance. Thehistorian999 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Help template

When you reply to an editor who has used the {{Help}} template, as you did in this edit, please remember to change the template to {{Helped}}, as I did here, so that the former template no longer flags the page as needing an answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't actually answer their request(for help with editing) so that's why I left it open.(as did the user before me) 331dot (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Maine Gov Election

Sorry, I realized it after the fact. Either my phone glitched or I just didn’t look carefully enough NathanBru (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It's no problem. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

Hi 331dot, I'm concerned about the block appeal at User talk:ATLANTICARTIST. The block itself was pretty evidently a mistake and should have been overturned pretty quickly (the chance that a dormant UPE ring would resurface four years later to write an article about one of the same topics is basically nil). But even more concerning is that you declined to unblock on the basis that this would be meatpuppetry in any case. It's not meatpuppetry to write about the same topic that someone else writes about, especially not when the editor most recently blocked for it was blocked in 2020. -- asilvering (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

UPEs can be very persistent and are often willing to wait, or the person hiring a UPE might give up for a bit and try again later(I wasn't the blocking admin)but I suggested a topic ban to see if they were willing to accept it, since they were, I agree with unblocking(even without implementing the Tban). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you know anyone in wiki project television

Anyone who sees this message do you know anybody in wiki project television if you do talk to them on my behalf because I want to join the talk of the project Thegiantmouse00O2 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You can talk to them yourself- you don't need their permission to join. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BruceKing36 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct concerns regarding 331dot and Helpful Raccoon in AfC discussion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

hello can i get my deleted page back

it was called martin zehnal could i atleast have the text i already wrote back to improve it up to your standards? please ~2025-32608-37 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Your text was wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Leaving aside the wholly negative aspect of it, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you just want to tell about Martin, you should use social media or other website with less stringent requirements.

You may ask someone else to review this at WP:REFUND, but I'm not willing to provide it, sorry. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

the thing is there arent any sources on him on the internet I could refer to, and I have to start somewhere, dont I. And since when are "negative" articles banned on wikipedia? When are articles about holocaust and other very negative things also getting deleted? ~2025-32608-37 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the last place to write about a topic, not the first, because it can only summarize what others have already published about a topic. If this person has no sources, they do not merit a Wikipedia article. Again, you should write about him elsewhere.

An article about a living person cannot be wholly negative and completely unsourced, as yours was. Wikipedia could get sued for libel if such content was permitted. Please see WP:BLP. All content about a living person must be sourced to a reliable source. This is a hard requirement and not negotiable. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

so if i write about him elsewhere, then i can quote that as a source and it'll be fine? ~2025-32608-37 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

No. That's not how it works. You can't create sources yourself to then use them here. You are not a reliable source like a news outlet or magazine.

You should use a social media account to tell whatever you wish about anyone you wish. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your help on my draft article. Hvn85 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

my block

my block was given by a user canvased to the admin noticeboard by a ping from the person who made the notice board post this is the opposite of WP:APPNOTE

Daniel Case refused to hear from me, refuses to discuss the matter. I feel I am being persecuted without right to recouse, I try to read WP policies, I reverted after checking the time, if this was in error I apologise I said in my posted I wanted to go to the dispute resolution notice board. Instead straight block. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You may request a review of admin actions taken against you at WP:AARV but my advice is to let it go.

I actually missed that the block was expired, apologies to you. 331dot (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am very unhappy, I am considering leaving WP

Why should i let it go if it will just happen again, whats the point in staying...

it seems there is one rule for certain people are part of the clique and who go judging others.

When somewho bit me when i was very new continues to harass my talk page Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - Wikipedia

Canvasses an admin to really im at my wits end

Suffusive to say my position is the very opposite of What Daniel Case says it is they say I have a battleground mentality but instead I am simply frustrated that at someone who never justifies their position or gives sources. So that I can properly engage with it, understand or come to a new conclusion. This is the opposite of battleground - I want to have a discussion I feel I am being prevented from doing so.

I have tried my very best to learn about WP participating elsewhere - very productively in fact but all I see is one rule for thee and I get punitive blocks. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you truly feel wronged, go ahead and seek a review- I just think it's not likely to go the way you want. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

everyone is sorry nobody will help LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is you want me or anyone to do. You're no longer blocked, seek dispute resolution regarding the article if you wish- but edit summaries like "Fed up with Sitkah / M.Bitton clear coordination always the same two, likely canvassing they need a topic ban and for this article to be to not be made WP:Undue with excessive focus on a minor POV" aren't going to cause others to want to justify their views to you or otherwise engage with you. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

they never justify themselves when i am polite and patient I wanted to put my frustration on record LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

As I think I said at the time I reviewed the ANEW report and made the block it was compounded by the failure to assume good faith demonstrated by the quoted material above, as noted by 331dot.

And as for "all I get are blocks", my block was the first and only one you've gotten in a couple of years and almost 1,500 edits. It's up to you to keep it that way. I commend this to your attention if you'd like some guidance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

How do I know that, this IS EXACTLY WHY WP:APPNOTE exists, to prevent even the appearance of bad faith. I feel wronged you didnt listen to me and worse someone who didnt give me fair treatment was canvassed to the admin noticeboard. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You received a 24 hour block for clear edit-warring and assumption of bad faith. Nothing was “canvassed,” your conduct was reported to the appropriate noticeboard and appropriately actioned. If anything, it was a little on the light side. Learn from this and do better. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

nonsense if anything DanielCase failed to assume good faith of me...

Its absurd when I report clear vandalisum from IP hopping socks admins are oh so cautious yet when its me straight to the block hammer... what a joke LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You received a routine sanction for a routine admin board report. You appear determined to assume that everyone’s out to persecute you. I sorry you feel that way, but treating Wikipedia as a battleground and other editors as opponents to be defeated isn’t going to get you anywhere. Go forth and edit, lots of people have been sanctioned to a far greater degree and have managed to work within community expectations. Filibustering won’t work. The law of holes applies here.. Acroterion (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

polices should be followed by

I note you never explained why

why should Daniel Case not receive an administrative sanction for not following APPnote, andWP:NOPUNISH

As I said on my talk page;

At the time of my block I had not been on the page for hours and I was not returning.

"Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site."

I understood my actions to allowed by the 3R rule, instead of discussing and clarifying what substantive time means as per WP:BEFOREBLOCK

"In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking."

You knew this at the time I specifically requested dispute resolution in my reply.

__

I am hopeful you will consider your position and accept that the block was hasty."

All I want is an acknowledgement that Appnote and beforeblock were no followed, greater care has been taken in the blocking of vandals than for me I find that deeply disspointing. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you've switched your ire from M.Bitton to Daniel Case, WP:AARV is the appropriate forum, rather than clogging up 331dot's talkpage. But I don't think it will go the way you imagine. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Since LeChatiliers Pupper doesn't want me to comment on their talk page, I will comment here (apology in advance to 331dot).

When I decided to report them, I opted for AN3 instead of ANI simply because that was the quickest way to get them to stop both the the edit warring and the aspersions (ANI was and still is an option given the persistent bad faith assumption). I waited, but when it started to get very late for me, I checked which admins were active at AN3, and from what I could tell, there were only two (ToBeFree and Daniel Case who addressed all reports that day). Since ToBeFree had logged out by then, I pinged Daniel Case (who was kind enough to respond).

What I find most amazing in LeChatiliers' responses is their audacity to ask for excuses, when they should be offering them for everything that they did (assuming bad faith, casting aspersions and even doubling down on them when reported). M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2025).

Administrator changes

• Chaotic Enby
• Rjjiii

Valereee

• Fathoms Below
• Tamzin

CheckUser changes

Spicy

Technical news

• Starting on November 4, the IP addresses of logged-out editors are no longer being publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account associated with their edits.
• Administrators will now find that Special:MergeHistory is now significantly more flexible about what it can merge. It can now merge sections taken from the middle of the history of the source (rather than only the start) and insert revisions anywhere in the history of the destination page (rather than only the start). T382958

Miscellaneous

• The December 2025 administrator elections are scheduled from Nov 25 – Dec 15.
• An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in December 2025, with over 1,000 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

lecturing the subject

331dot:

I think you should reconsider your response at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Requesting_removal where you lecture the subject of an erroneous article on having patience. The person had been posting to the article's talk page to three weeks; the lack of response suggests that there was no frequent editor watching the page that would address her concerns, so she took it to a reasonable notice board, and explained why she was taking it there. While you did the right work of removing the error, your reply comes across as condescending to someone who merely didn't want Wikipedia to be spreading false information about her, and that seems to serve no purpose in this situation. (Perhaps you missed that she'd been posting about this for three weeks, because she did so earlier under a different account name, but even then it would do little good, as there was nothing left for her to have patience about.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I said what I said because the user posted three times within the span of 10 minutes.

I would respectfully disagree that one sentence is a "lecture". Wikipedia is a volunteer project, something which many don't understand,(including people with public careers like actresses) many think we have a paid staff here 24-7 ready to respond to requests. I was simply providing this information, no more, no less, and meant no offense. I apologize for giving it. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I removed the entirety of the information at issue, though some of the sources in the article mention her age, which would be enough to post a birth year, so it may be difficult to keep it out of the article. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you delete or hide the tea house archive discussion made in error?

@331dot - My earlier discussion, post was made in error - without understanding of the wikipedia process. It unncessarily creates misunderstanding about the intennt and reputation of others. As per Wikipedia police, can I request to consider deleting or hiding that discussion from the archive? Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1268 - Topic was - about Kapol Page. Thanks in advance for your support. Gicarke (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Being archived should sufficiently bury it. We don't remove discussions between contributors. No one will hold past misunderstanding of policies against you if you demonstrate improvement and understanding, which you have. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for responding

I felt it important to address the elephant in the room directly and head on. I am wondering if we are also looking at block evasion since they have declared that this is not their first rodeo.

I think the poster just after your reply is wrong im this case. Some trolls require sufficient hemp, flax, and sisal in order to be able to have sufficient to create a decent rope. It's also important to call out racial slurs. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I have no tolerance for any racial slurs. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Your block of User:AromaSA for username

@331dot: I see that you "softerblock"ed User:AromaSA for the username. However, given that the editor created a draft promotional article on Dubai Aroma SA at User:AromaSA/sandbox, I wonder if the editor should have the block updated to {{spamublock}}. — ERcheck (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to do that. Must've hit the wrong one. Thanks 331dot (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

UPE account sent to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org

Hi 331dot. I don't know if you get sent reports of undisclosed paid editor accounts from the VRT, but I just sent in one for the account Rachel.Mandart. Is there a backlog in that queue? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I look a couple times a week usually. I'll look later today. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for being active on the Teahouse

Hello 331dot: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Requesting revdel

This edit has been reverted, but I think it should be revdeled. Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I also sent it off to WP:EMERGENCY, out of caution. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello 331dot: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Volten001 ^☎ 03:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Volten001 ^☎ 03:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello 331dot, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Question about my first DYK nomination

@331dot: That's this one. I'm a bit worried that I messed up here. I'm not asking for a quick review, but this is my very first time doing this and unlike with GANs, I'm not really too sure on how it works. Did I mess up? Is this good? I apologise if I'm wasting your time. Thanks in advance! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 15:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

My knowledge of DYK is limited; I would suggest asking at WT:DYK for questions related to the process, or the Help Desk if you want others to evaluate your nomination for correctness. Good luck. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry but thanks for your response. I assumed that you'd know since if I read these correctly, admins help out with this process, but again, thanks nonetheless! I'll ask at the help desk. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 15:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Just for your own information, admins are the same as non-admins in that they help out in the areas that interest them or know about, there are few areas of mandatory work for admins. Just for your awareness. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware. We're all volunteers at the end of the day. I apologise for my ignorance, but you were the first admin that popped into my mind for this (probably because of a recent teahouse thread that we're both in), so I went to you. Next time, I'll find admins that actually do this sort of thing. S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Contributions) 15:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

New Years birthday world 🌎 2026

Hello 331dot: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ★Iluziya7 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

★Iluziya7 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2025).

Administrator changes

• Epicgenius
• Left guide
• LEvalyn
• MPGuy2824
• The4lines
• Yue

Fathoms Below

• BaronLarf
• Firefly
• kelapstick
• Opabinia regalis
• Pbsouthwood
• Sethant
• UtherSRG
• Whouk

CheckUser changes

• Giraffer
• HouseBlaster
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Oversight changes

• Asilvering
• Giraffer
• Girth Summit
• Guerillero
• HouseBlaster
• Izno
• SilverLocust

• Liz
• Worm That Turned
• Z1720

Guideline and policy news

• All general sanctions imposed by the community may now be enforced at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) as a result of a recent RfC.
• Due to the result of a recent RFC, the administrator recall process is amended to extend the deadline for a re-request for adminship to 30 days or the next administrator election, whichever is later.
• Changes to the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy's disclosure rules include broadening the consecutive-blocks exception to cover all admin actions and removing the requirement to revision-delete permissible disclosures once they become unnecessary (instead requiring only their removal). See WP:TAIVDISCLOSE for more information.

Arbitration

• Following the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Asilvering, Girth Summit, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, HouseBlaster, Izno, Sdrqaz, SilverLocust.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been suspended.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Polar Star Films

Dear 331dot, thank you for taking the time to respond regarding my draft for Polar Star Films. I am new to publishing on wikipedia, so there's plenty of room for learning and improvement. I do work for PSF, and have made a paid disclosure on the that page and a COI on my user page. Is this sufficient? Then regarding the question of AI generated or not - the content and links are human generated, but I did use AI to format the infobox and tables suitable for wikipedia. I may have unwittingly left AI generated ticketing or coding in the draft, can you advise on how to clean the draft up? Owl Oaks Skier (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You say you wrote on your user page(User:Owl Oaks Skier) but there's currently nothing there, so if you thought you did, you didn't. I'm just suggesting that you put it there for clarity purposes, it's more visible than the disclosure on your draft(which is only visible to people who view the draft).

If you didn't generate the draft with an AI, okay. AI tends to put a decline notice on drafts(among other potential issues, see WP:LLM). My advice is to not use AI at all- tables and things like that are just gravy- they're nice to have, but not required; the draft process is only concerned with the text and sources. The other stuff can be done later once the draft is accepted; in some cases using AI is okay, but we much rather people do the work themselves, it's more authentic. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot, I see I had the COI disclosure in my sandbox, now I've published it on the user page. Thanks also for the AI advice Owl Oaks Skier (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	This is for blocking the user who kept stalking and attacking me. Thank you! I didn't expect something like that to happen to me so soon, but I guess you never can tell on Wikipedia. Again, thank you! S.G. (They/Them) (Talk) (Edits) 21:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You give me: Tutorial, i give you: Cookie

Have a cookie. Thanks for the tutorial, Dot! Lemurik the Historian (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Toterre6&7

I'm not sure what I should do but it looks like Toterre6&7 has violated his topic block here and many more. I'm not sure what is meant to be done but it seems that they have only made 78 edits out of the 500 to be allowed again. Killertrant (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th Anniversary of Wikipedia!!

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ako Defang Mengot has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ako Defang Mengot. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

JohnCaldwellCalhoun1782 edits on James A. Garfield

Is most definitely a sock. I clearly remember other serial vandal accounts using the exact same edit summary of "I have no citation at this time." ElbridgeGerry1744, GeorgeClinton1739, & JDVance1984 among them. The sock & its puppets have vandalized at least vandalized (at least!) Mary Ball Washington, Martha Washington, [& [James A. Garfield]] etc. - Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for this information. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your help!

Sorry if this isn't the right place to say thank you but I really appreciated your help yesterday and with your advice, I was able to make a draft. I'm sure its got a lot of problems but I just wanted to say I appreciate it! Mustbeotherwise (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Anthony David has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Anthony David. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Vijay Senathipathi

Hi 331dot. Could you take a look at Vijay Senathipathi? The creator, who also might be the subject of the article, moved it back to the mainspace after you draftified it. Technically, I guess the next step would need to be AfD, unless there's some other reason to re-draftify the article. FWIW, I only came across this after checking on the infobox image; I've got no idea as to whether this person could meet WP:NACTOR or whether the creator has violated WP:IMPERSONATE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I was tempted to delete it immediately as a vanity page, but I thought I'd give him a shot to do things the right way, but he decided not to. As all of his edits have been to promote himself, I've blocked him. 331dot (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Understand. Thanks for taking a look at this. FWIW, the file they uploaded for use on Wikipedia has already been tagged with {{nsdnld}} per WP:F4; it will end up deleted in about a week. What should be done about Draft:Vijay Senathipathi? Just let it be deleted per WP:G13? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not abandoned, but it's promotional too, so I deleted it on those grounds. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

By Just let it be deleted per WP:G13?, I meant to post "Just let it be deleted per WP:G13 in six or so months?". I left out that last bit; so, sorry about that. It's a moot point now, though. Thanks again for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Mount Kenya region Dispute

Hey Admin, I need your help regarding an article about the Mount Kenya region. I am experiencing ongoing difficulties with another editor, which have made it impossible to reach consensus despite multiple attempts at discussion. The issue began when the editor claimed that the article attributes Mount Kenya to a single tribe and proceeded to remove approximately 90% of the content. From the context, it appeared that they were referring to the Kikuyu community. I pointed out that the article clearly includes five different tribes. Subsequently, the editor shifted their claim, arguing that the article attributes the region to a single ethnolinguistic group, specifically stating that Nilotic communities were excluded. On this basis, they again removed the majority of the article content. I explained that the Mount Kenya region is predominantly Bantu and that, if they felt Nilotic groups were underrepresented, they could have added relevant content rather than deleting most of the article, especially considering that Nilotic groups form a minority in the region. The editor did not respond. I then added sourced content acknowledging the presence of the Maasai in the region, which the editor reverted without explanation. After further attempts to seek clarification on the Talk page received no response, the editor introduced a new claim regarding inadequate sourcing. I explained that the existing sources were sufficient or close to sufficient, and that if they believed otherwise, they could have initiated discussion or applied an appropriate maintenance template such as {{More citations needed}}. No discussion followed. The editor then changed their rationale again, stating in the edit summary that the Mount Kenya region is not an administrative region. I responded that the article does not state that Mount Kenya is an administrative unit, and that the term “region” is used in its geographical and socio-economic sense. This concern was then abandoned. The editor further claimed that the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) does not recognize the Mount Kenya region as a statistical entity. I clarified that the article explicitly states that the data presented is an aggregate of the ten constituent counties rather than county-level figures. Additionally, numerous reputable sources and media outlets refer to Mount Kenya as a recognized geopolitical region. Throughout this process, the editor has repeatedly removed large portions of sourced content and raised shifting objections in edit summaries without engaging in meaningful discussion, making collaboration and consensus difficult to achieve. Anyrmson (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I've suppressed the display of the citation needed template; it served to mark that this page needed citations. :)

You've brought this to AN, which is probably a better forum than my personal talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Space Shuttle astronauts

The user who added the change to Palestine in 2025 is NeoSyria whose userpage has numerous anti-Israel infoboxes. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Delderd (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Users are permitted to express viewpoints on their user pages. If you wish to accuse another editor of inaccurately summarizing sources due to undue personal bias, take it to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

they also didn't source it and im not seeing any legitimate articles saying they actually died there. --Delderd (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

If you are saying the provided sources are not being accurately summarized, discuss that on the article talk page(you could just start with one, you don't need to start 6) and detail the errors, but do not impugn the motivations of other editors in such a discussion or draw a connection to the Arab-Israeli conflict. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not unsourced, it's in the provided sources. I highly suggest that you self revert or you risk an edit warring report. (I will take no admin action myself) 331dot (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

i went through the sources and saw no mention of Palestine. nor is it mentioned elsewhere in any of the wikipedia articles. --Delderd (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I again suggest that you self revert and discuss, but that's up to you. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia help desk question regarding BANREVERT

Could you please take a look at these revisions? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uncle_Max&oldid=1335547559 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Jam:_A_New_Legacy&oldid=1335547817 I think these may fit under "positive contributions" that can be kept. I can't access my temporary account anymore. ~2026-69540-5 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Temporary accounts at best are accessible for 90 days, less if cookies are cleared from the browser.

As a member of the community, you have as much ability as I do to determine if an edit is beneficial. If either of us is wrong, it will be rolled back. If you want others to review it, I would suggest asking on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Best practices

I strongly recommend that you avoid phrases like "do not merit", as it can be seen as a value judgement and lead to people being upset. I try to stick with "meet the criteria" or "meet the requirements", which feels more neutral. DS (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I will take your advice under advisement, thank you; but it is a value judgement- that a particular business or person does not meet our criteria. It certainly may be just me but I guess I'm not seeing a distinction between "merit" and "meet the criteria/requirements". 331dot (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Your revert

What does ‘Not EC’ mean? -—~2026-69845-4 (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see User talk:~2026-69845-4, but only editors with non-temporary accounts that are "extended-confirmed"- 30 days old with 500 edits-.may edit about the Arab-Israeli conflict. This applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages, and the restriction is interpreted broadly(such as Ms. Rachel's comments about the Gaza War). 331dot (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I had read that, but the comment there doesn’t seem to include anything about talk pages, and I hadn’t remembered the username and therefore not noticed that it was the same user who removed my comment, namely you. Restricting contributions to articles about sensitive topics is one thing, but even talk pages, excluding constructive thoughts from outsiders just because they don’t have a sufficient amount of edits? This is ridiculous! Besides, since outsiders shouldn’t be expected to know insider slang, maybe mark your shortcuts so that they link to wherever one can read what they stand for. Damn, another constructive comment of mine, but not on a problematic talk page! Will you delete it anyway? --~2026-69845-4 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I posted the explanation on your current user talk page, but I will take your advice into consideration for the future.

Certain topic areas have attracted much disruption, so the Arbitration Committee placed the restrictions to prevent disruption. The extended-confirmed requirement is intended to make sure editors particpating in the topic have a basic understanding of relevant policies and can be civil when editing in a contentious area. As you can imagine, there are strong feelings on each side of the Arab-Israeli conflict, so civility is especially important. 331dot (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The problem with the explanation on my talk page is that it didn’t imply that even talk pages are considered a problem and even constructive thoughts are deleted.

No doubt about the disruption, nor that your last sentence fits this specific topic. As you can imagine, I have my own experience with ‘strong feelings on each side of the Arab-Israeli conflict’ and therefore expressed understanding for ‘[r]estricting contributions to articles about sensitive topics’ regardless of my disagreement with the deletion of what (as far as I can tell) clearly wasn’t a disruptive comment. You (not just yourself but your community as a whole, if I may generalise) might freak out people willing to contribute and therefore should think of a less problematic way to deal with comments on sensitive talk pages. At least you were ready to explain your actions and their background, which unfortunately doesn’t go without saying. Have a nice day/evening/whatever is appropriate for your time zone. --~2026-69845-4 (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The notice does specify "any page within this topic", "any page" being broader than just articles. The experience of the community is that lesser measures were ineffective- or the restrictions would not have gotten to this point. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

So I misread it, but even after your comment, I still have the impression that it can be interpreted differently. I’m pretty sure that it’s not just because English isn’t my first language. It rather seems to have something to do with the way you insiders (or at least some of you) communicate about internal stuff, tending to forget about how to convey things to outsiders (which obviously includes beginners not acquainted with the rules). No offence, this is something that happens and can be fixed, preferably by having such texts checked by outsiders who aren’t accustomed to insider slang and can tell if they are intelligible. I’m sure that there are trustworthy people who are willing to do that. How outsiders can contribute constructive comments could be more obvious than what I read on my talk page, too. --~2026-69845-4 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For taking out the trash with regards to that particularly disruptive LTA. Thanks! JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't do it with this editor anymore

I found this editor on Pro Bowl and 2026 Pro bowl games who has been making some weird and unsourced edits and I can't do it with them anymore because I'm a sports fan who likes things being sourced I've already reverted many of their edits Thedevilif (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of approaching an admin directly, it's usually better to go to an appropriate noticboard; disruptive editing may be reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to delete my account

Hello,

I am the owner of the account "Crewstor" and I would like to request its deletion. Unfortunately, the email associated with the account no longer works, so I am unable to confirm the deletion automatically.

Please let me know if you need any additional information or verification through my editing history.

Thank you very much for your help! ~2026-80627-2 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Its not possible to delete an account. WP:VANISH may be an option, but you need to log in to your account; but looking at it, it has never edited and doesn't even have any talk page posts, so just forget about the account. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@331dot Sorry about the revert, I completely misunderstood what was going on. – LuniZunie_(talk) 18:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

No worries, it happens. Thanks for the extra eyes. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel ok about it, I just want it deleted. Idk if it has an e-mail attached to it because I made it 5 years ago and I don't know if the e-mails I used aren't attached or just doesn't ~2026-81313-3 (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not possible to delete an account. For legal reasons, all edits must be attributable to someone. As I said, vanishing is an option, but the account you name has never edited. I can't tell you if there is an email address attached to the account, but I can say that it doesn't have the ability to receive email from Wikipedia. You can just forget about your account, virtually no one knows it exists. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I am following up regarding my previous request to delete my old account “Crewstor”, which was created by me about 5 years ago. As the deletion request was declined, I would now like to request a username change for this account.

The account in question:

- has never made any edits and has been inactive;

- does not pose any privacy or security issues;

- I am the original creator of this account.

Reason for the request: I would like to free up the username “Crewstor” for personal use, as it is my player name and I do not want it associated with this inactive account.

I suggest renaming the old account to something neutral, such as “CrewstorOld” or “Anon12345,” so that the account remains on Wikipedia without affecting the platform.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration! I hope this request can be granted! ~2026-86072-9 (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing if you are the original creator or not because you are not logged in to it. If you are saying that you are unable to log in to your account but you want to resume using that username by renaming it so you can then re-create the account, that's not how it works. You would need to request an usurpation on Wiki-meta, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes 331dot (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

exactly my thoughts

You were more direct! Thank you 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:51, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2026).

Administrator changes

Vacant0

• Crisco 1492

• Deepfriedokra
• Hbdragon88
• Karl Dickman
• Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Daniel Quinlan

Vanamonde93

Mkdw

Oversight changes

Daniel Quinlan

Arbitration

• Due to the result of a recent motion, a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may impose an expanded topic ban on Israel, Israelis, Jews, Judaism, Palestine, Palestinians, Islam, and/or Arabs, if an editor's Arab-Israeli conflict topic ban is determined to be insufficient to prevent disruption. At least one diff per area expanded into should be cited.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2026 Steward elections started on 06 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC) and will end on 27 February 2026 at 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process for current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

2 questions

1. May I delete the declined unblock requests now. They take up an awful lot of space on my talk page and serve no purpose.

2. It truly is not obvious to me, what exactly was the block for? Near as I can figure it was the result of attempting to air a legitimate grievance. ~2026-83159-8 (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Since the block is expired, you may remove the notices, though it's only "your" user talk page for at most 90 days.

It's not that you were airing a grievance, but how you went about doing so. 331dot (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

forgive my ignorance, what would have been the correct means? Based on the communications I received from the user in question, both before and after, I had every indication that discussion was unlikely to be fruitful. ~2026-83159-8 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You still need to try- and consider if starting a discussion about what seems to be a relatively minor issue is worth it. Do you want to be right, or do you want to help us build this encyclopedia? 331dot (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Then I'll do precisely that here. Your referring to the ANI as the "dramaboards" ought to be kept as an inside joke rather than casually thrown around as it reduces the respect people might otherwise have for Admins. As things stand now I've seen maybe one editor communicate effectively through this whole process. There is this air about Wikipedia suggesting that the people with the most consistent involvement seem hold the project in high esteem and yet relatively minor issues (to use your phrasing) are addressed apparently more rapidly and harshly than are attempts at correcting belligerent behaviors; and they are from what, I am able to view, true patterns of behavior rather than simple one-off issues. This particular incident might be about me but, again from what I can read which may very well be to extensive to be able to be parsed with any useful comprehension, it suggests a deeper (perhaps fundamental) disinterest in administration of the site. Perhaps this is due to burn out but given that the expectation is to assume positive intent when that doesn't appear to be the norm among interactions here I can only conclude that you and several other Admins are too indifferent to be bothered with behaving like Admins. Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is a community. The user in question very clearly shows a pattern over at least months of belligerence without any apparent consequences and when that happens the community suffers. That might sound overly dramatic but we see this in my own country right now, though I'm sorry to say the disparity is much worse in my country than it is here. Some people are dealt with far too harshly while others remain intouched. You say it's a difference of wanting to be right vs wanting to help build this encyclopedia. You fail to see that in this case they are mutually inclusive. That is likely because you don't see this as a community but rather just a project. Were this a physical building rather than an online database it would be equivalent to using outdated building techniques when more efficient and longer lasting options are available if the builders in question would care to learn them. I hope that you are more effective in your day job than you are here. I can appreciate that this is likely not something you are able or willing to put any actual effort into given that I'm fairly confident you don't receive any compensation but then: why are you here? If you aren being compensated I would have thought you were passionate about your purpose here. You aren't simply an editor, you're a and administrator. You may not want it to be but your role here inherently involves community-building which seems to be completely disinteresting to you. Its unfortunate because Wikipedia is a laudable endevour but if you're any indication it is inadequately served. Do better or make way for someone who will. Feel free to say whatever you like in response. I will be exiting this session at this point and so will receive no further notifications. My goal here was to get you to think but I have no expectations; I know better. ~2026-83159-8 (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. Not one word of them is accurate, but you're entitled to them. Good day. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I have not referred to ANI as "the dramaboards" that I recall. Diff, please. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Continuing to remove my Wikipedia updates

Hello - I believe you made a mistake by reverting my edits. Please assist. Kate Little (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I did not remove all of your edits, but one of your edits had no sources provided. All potentially challengable information about a living person must have a source, see WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

331dot made no error in reverting your unsourced changes, Kate Little. Do not restore this information unless you've provided sourcing for every potentially contentious detail. BusterD (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Updated the information with sources. How do I update photos to provide more up to date images? Kate Little (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a connection to Mr. Weggeland?

If you personally took the pictures with your camera, you may upload them to Commons, see WP:UPIMAGE. If you didn't, it's a little harder. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes - I know him. He has a specific photo he wants used (that I did not take). How do I go about using that image? Kate Little (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

First, you should disclose a conflict of interest on your user page(User:Kate Little), please see WP:COI for more information. As you have a conflict of interest, generally you should be using the edit request process to propose edits instead of making them yourself(though you don't need to remove what you did already). Certain exceptions do permit direct editing, they are listed at WP:COIU.

If the image has been explicitly released with a copyright that allows for reuse by anyone for any purpose(including commercial) with attribution, you may upload it yourself as WP:UPIMAGE describes with the appropriate information. Note that this may not necessarily be Mr. Weggeland's copyright to release, copyright typically rests with the photographer, not the subject of an image. Sometimes a contract can reassign the copyright, but this is uncommon. The editors at Commons can give more specific guidance- especially if you have a particular image in mind.

In short, it would be far, far easier for you to upload an image that you personally took, as you can release the copyright. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds great thank you for explaining. Kate Little (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:DE

Hey 331, if you're still online by chance, was hoping you could look at the following. Multiple warnings, multiple blocks, not getting the point. The latest back-and-forth testing of the boundaries seems to be unfolding at Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

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

Thanks in advance. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Trying a month block. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Block Appeal

This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia

This does not effect your ability to read Wikipedia articles...

This type of message is coming if I am trying to edit anything but it is saying NinjaRobatPirate. WantedChemicals (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you could edit this page means that you are not currently affected by a block, even if you were previously. You may be on an IP address that changes. I can't tell you more without knowing what the IP address you see in any block message says. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Citing

when summerizing what is being said about something (i.e Citing), is it allowed to quote or describe the Source in youe article? Pippiberyl (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You can make limited use of quotations, see MOS:QUOTE. It's important to avoid using too much of a copyrighted text. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

How about mentioning the Source? Like the place were you sourced the article? Pippiberyl (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean other than in the citation itself? In the article text? It depends. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

yes, in the article text, It depends with what exacly? Pippiberyl (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Instead of me prejudging something I haven't seen I would suggest you just do what it is that you want to do, if it is wrong, someone will tell you. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay Pippiberyl (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 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!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Second closure

Taking this to user talk - I'll admit I was being a bit cheeky with that second close. I mentioned to the TA that closing the initial thread rather than getting their temporary account kicked for legal threats was actually being gentle but, if they insist in going on about race and IQ and such, I'm not at home to engage with them. That being said, had it been any situation more unambiguous than a temporary account making complaints on behalf of a man whose most frequently used online nickname is "the crying Nazi" I likely would not have done what I did and, if you do feel I overstepped, I will self-revert that one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it, they know what legitimate options are available to them now. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to check in. I think we know each other's editing history well enough to know that, even when I push an edge I never want to step over it and am always open to feedback if I may have. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Consultation

Hi @331dot. In our last discussion, you were among the few editors who offered me advice and help. I followed your recommendations and edited the article Draft:Spotahome (it is now pending review). My concern is that it may be rejected again because other editors might not be familiar with all our previous discussions. I hope you now have more free time and could review the draft (in case it still needs additional improvements) or determine whether it can be moved to the main space. I tried this option, but due to a restriction I cannot do it. Since this is my first article, I am trying to treat it as responsibly as possible.

Thank you for the help and advice you have provided! Veronikasuss (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If I were to formally review it, it would be to decline it, as it still just summarizes the routine business activities of the company; funding rounds, changes in personnel, and company acquisitions. To establish that the company is a notable company as Wikipedia defines one you must summarize "significant coverage", critical analysis and commentary about the company. Depth of coverage is important.

Most companies on Earth actually don't merit Wikipedia articles because the only reporting of them is their routine business activities. If that's the case here- and not to put too fine a point on it- you're just wasting your time. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please make elvis's sales 500 million to 1 billion and then vanish my account, i mean remove my account and everything, a courtesy vanish

please ~2026-14823-43 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Good heavens, who would have thought that being a Wikipedia editor means you have to buy millions of millions of Elvis records! --bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Admins don't impose content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your recent reverts

You recently reverted comments at Talk:Israel and Talk:Palestine with the edit summary "not EC", but those comments are very clearly edit requests (albeit malformed). I have reverted your removals and added {{EPER}} to the edit requests. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

They seemed like requests that require discussion, which isn't permitted for non-EC users in the A-I topic area. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sarthak Sai Mohapatra

You unblocked this user as their request was that they wanted to edit other pages other than The 50. However, that is the topic they have gone back to. CNMall41 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify my involvement? I didn't block or unblock them, they are parblocked from Article space(which is why they created a draft). I turned down their unblock request and encouraged them to submit requests. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

My fault. I only read the last unblock request on their talk page and saw your comment. Thought it said "you are now unblocked." Looks like they may still be blocked from the mainspace. Sorry to raise a concern that wasn't warranted (should say "yet" warranted as this is likely a case of WP:ROPE). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted to make sure. I've done that myself. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--CNMall41 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Just acknowledging receipt of your message. Will respond fairly soon. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Follow-up sent. Will do full filing tomorrow. Did a full behavioral analysis which I know will be needed as there is knowledge of the CU process and history of avoidance of such. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Notifying you since you were involved in the original block. See here. Not sure if it is appropriate to ping anyone previously involved in these discussions but they may have additional information to share.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your ANI comments

You wrote I hang out at ITN much less than I used to ... because as time went on it has become more toxic. That pretty much describes my relationship with DYK. Sometimes I think we should just blow up the whole main page and start over. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

And you could probably get consensus for the general idea "change the main page", the problem has always been that there is no consensus as to what to change it to. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Where help is needed

Your recent comment (elsewhere) that The Wikipedia of your primary language likely needs the help more than we do strikes me as an important point that isn't emphasized often enough when we deal with editors whose English is too weak for them to contribute here at enwp. (a) I wonder if it's already captured in an essay or guidelines somewhere; (b) If not, we should find a home for it. (I don't think WP:CIR is the right place.) EEng 17:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps. I do think it's a balance- perfect English is not expected, but one must be able to get their points across. There are plenty of good editors who are not anywhere near fluent in English, but can still communicate with us.

A lot of poor English speakers are starting to use AI or Google translate- which presents the same issues a fluent English speaker using an AI does.

It's not a matter of not wanting such editors, but of them spending their time where they would be more comfortable and more useful- just worrying about their contributions and not worrying about trying to talk to us in English. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that go into the question of whether an editor "belongs" more here at enwp, versus some other language (or it could be both, of course). I'm just saying that usually the conversation revolves around helping a problem editor see that their English might not be "good enough" (though what qualifies as good enough depends on what kinds the editing the editor wants to do), and only infrequently does anyone make the point, as you did, that the WP of their native language needs them more -- which is a much more positive way of putting things.

So I think it would be good if that point was made more often, and memorialized somewhere. Like you said: It's not a matter of not wanting such editors, but of them spending their time where they would be more comfortable and more useful. Another good point you made: English Wikipedia ... is not the premier Wikipedia. EEng 20:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Email

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Help with Draft:Jenks Farmer

20 days ago I submitted a draft for Jenks Farmer. I was hoping I could get some advice on what sources I need to take out, and how I could improve the draft. Chance Anthony Price (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I don't really have much to add beyond my comment at the top of your draft, regarding sources that are interviews and brief mentions. My advice is to take the top three absolute best sources that are not interviews/press releases/brief mentions and summarize what those say. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for being such great admins for this site! (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:33, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

User:BluegrassEditor22

Hi 331dot. I totally understand why you unblocked BluegrassEditor22 and think it was appropriate. Could you, however, please ask them to stop refactoring or modifying my comments that I posted on my user talk page, their user talk page and at Talk:Boyle County High School. If they want to blank their talk page and remove my posts, then that's fine with me; moreover, if they want to strikethrough their comments on my user talk page or on the article's talk page, that's also fine with me. I'm trying to be understanding here, but if they want the diffs of the posts made under their old username revision deleted because they now regret making some of them, then that's what they should request. Otherwise, there's no need to really remove thimgs per WP:REDACT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll look. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying, but they've gone back and done it again (1 and 2) despite you advsing them not to do so, which by the way was pretty much the same information I gave them a few days ago. I also wouldn't characterize the second of the two as a minor edit. At this point, my further interacting with them seems kind of pointless because there's no way to know for sure what they will decide to change after they post it. If you feel this is something that should just be dropped, I will; however, if they're allowed to do this now, they might possibly try to do the same in the future with others. Thank you again. --Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Renew ipblock-exempt right

Hi 331dot, could you please renew my WP:IPBE for another 12 months? You last did this here. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

All done. :) 331dot (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Mission C1000

"instead says 'Mission C1000 exp...) " has me on tenterhooks..!

See also . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Got to be a sock or meat of somebody. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

What's the quote from? 331dot (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Your (truncated) deletion rationale for that article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks 331dot (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You forgot something...

When you was blocking Hibatullah Akhundzada, you forgot to revoke their talk page privileges BoxOfThings123 (The inside and the outside) 13:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, I was too late BoxOfThings123 (The inside and the outside) 13:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Was giving them a chance to be honest, they weren't interested. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a sock. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I once saw a user while looking at the edit filter translating their text into an Asian language different times on their userpage, blanking and then redoing it. BoxOfThings123 (The inside and the outside) 13:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

FilmPoster

You probably know, but USER:FilmPoster, along with the comment that you pointed out at the Teahouse that got them blocked, also said at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse&diff=prev&oldid=1347261648 (sorry if it's not formatted right) said "I feel like there is some fault in your brain maybe…" to user:Athanelar. Then they removed that part. David10244 (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. They seem to have been a sock. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Hallo!

Let’s talk! How are you doing? U aisian face (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Range block needed

Hi, noticed you've just blocked ~2026-64424-8, but they're clearly operating several TAIVs, including ~2026-17688-76 and ~2026-61387-9 given the crossover in behaviour and targets. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm starting to see that...... thank you. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries. I reported them to AIV a couple of days ago and it doesn't seem to have been taken seriously. Think we might need to lower threshold for "obvious vandalism" if this doesn't count. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't do a lot of range blocks, but I think I've done the relevant ranges under partial blocks.

I do appreciate this. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Floq

Looking at Floq's page, I don't think that Mary... understood anything. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Sigh.....it seems not. I was hoping otherwise..... 331dot (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

~2026-72635-4 issues

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to talk about this user, but you did have issues with ~2026-72635-4 making drastic, unexplained edits of long-time content to the 2020 United States Senate election in Maine. They have persisted doing this, including here, here, here, and here, for example. Frankly, this is getting ridiculous with the large, unexplained removals and the unwillingness to discuss and compromise with other users, especially regarding sourcing issues. I think it's clear that they are not willing to listen, and I was wondering if anything could be done about this. GigachadGigachad (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you; however, since I was involved in a dispute with them(as you noted), I shouldn't be the one to take any action against them. I would start a discussion at WP:AN, if you did, I'd post a comment along with you.

The thing is that most of their edits are okay, but as you note, they have a poor attitude and don't like collaboration. That needs to change. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I started a discussion. Thanks again for your help. GigachadGigachad (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Request for clarification on draft decline

Hello, thank you for reviewing my Draft:Mukesh Mishra. I’ve tried to include reliable sources and would appreciate clarification on what specific improvements are needed, particularly regarding notability and sourcing. I’m happy to revise accordingly. Yogiin (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not clear how he is notable. A lot of his athletes have been successful, but I see no discussion of this man's particular influence on them. Did he have a particular coaching style? Did the athletes say he was a particular influence on them? Something like that. Same goes for his work as a sports administrator. Has he made particular, influential changes to the sport? 331dot (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern regarding demonstrating his individual influence.

However, the news coverage included in the draft does indicate his approach and influence in the sport, particularly in relation to his coaching and involvement with athletes. I will review the sources again and try to present this information more clearly in the article, so that his specific contributions and impact are better reflected.

I appreciate your guidance and will work on improving this aspect of the draft. Yogiin (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yogiin Are you associated with Mr. Mishra?

I looked over your edit history; it looks like you have created many drafts but I don't see where you have had even one accepted yet. You have several going at the same time; I would suggest that you focus on one at a time. Please know creating new articles is not the only or even best way someone can contribute to Wikipedia. Many people are successful editors without creating even a single new article. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@331dot

I am not directly associated with him; I only share a connection through the place he is from Bihar Yogiin (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank You. 🙏🏻 Yogiin (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ??

Old G5-deleted article recreated under a new title: Anik M Iktear Uddin ReporterAS7 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You've already posted this to a noticeboard, a better place than approaching a specific admin. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

UPE reported to VRT

Hi there - I know you are always super busy, but I wanted to ask about a report I submitted to the VRT about an undisclosed paid editor on April 12. The account in question is Manju M J. If it's still pending review, no problem... thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Ill try to find it, there are some technical issues with the queue. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft: El Gato Negro (café)

Hi, can I ask a favour? Can you accept this draft submission? It is a translation from the Spanish wikipedia that passes wP:GNG. Unfortunately, the user had run it through Grammarly and it came out smelling of AI because they accepted its suggestions on style. I draftified it to allow them to fix it and it is fine now, but if I move it myself I won't be able to mark it as reviewed. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Based on my quick reading I'm not sure that I agree it meets GNG, and some of it is unsourced, but if you feel that it is good enough to accept, you should just accept it and let the NPP process play out as it would for every other draft. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It has multiple independent reliable sources, one from La Nacion and one from El Clarin, in Argentine terms these are sources comparable to the Times or the Washington Post. I was asking you to do it because I feel I made a mistake draftifying such a well-sourced article because of the AI-situation. If you prefer not to, that's your prerogative.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't want it anymore. Like I said here I don't even sure if a Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina is relevant since we are not Cornwall. Carlos Manuel Muñiz and Julio Héctor Simón weren't important here, e. g.. I should have known that I cannot write about Argentina here.

Thanks Boynamedsue for being nice to me. MinervaAustral (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for all your contributions to the English Wikipedia since 2012, especially your contributions as an administrator. Pachu Kannan (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks

...for responding. I'll try that, see how it goes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Need assistance

...with someone who has a promotional username but is communicating en espanol (in Spanish).

TRAZOS grupo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What template (subst) should I use on their talk page? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say you've done the right thing so far. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I have requested review of my TBan

Hello @331dot, I have requested review of my TBan at WP:AN as per your direction. I am notifying you bcoz you declined one of my unblock request back then. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Bad faith article revert, "Wikipedia:Casting aspersions" and NPOV

User @~2026-25433-88: violated the principles of neutrality, accused me of being a "fed", and has cast Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. The article in question is Jewish Christianity / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Christianity&diff=1351326007&oldid=1351247942

My factual contribution was:

"Jewish Christians were the followers of a heretical Jewish religious sect"

And @~2026-25433-88 revert made it to:

"Jewish Christians were the followers of a Jewish religious sect"

Contextually these were not simple "followers", they were criminals who violated the Torah [the law governing Jewish community at that time] (by worshiping a man), and therefore are heretics. This revert paints a very disturbing picture, of personal bias over objective facts. I, therefore ask you as you are an administrator to warn this individual by using "Introduction to contentious topics". Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

An administrator doesn't have to be the one to issue such a notice. You are absolutely free to. Only an admin can block a user so notified, but anyone can issue the notification. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Understood @331dot: however, a notice coming from an individual who has the authority [i.e., capability to initiate a block] would have more weight than me [a simple contributor], and thus would be taken more seriously, also necessarily, this individual and topic require a more authoritative attention, hopefully you understand the intention of following the principals of objective neutrality. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait, I've looked at this closer, which contentious topic applies to this? 331dot (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: As I'm not an authority figure, my knowledge of particular descriptions is less so than an administrator, however, I think it would apply to these two specifically (although I'm open to correction)

These are Historicity of Jesus and Politics and Religion.

Historically, Jesus was not seen as the legal "Messiah", for he and his adherent violated the laws that governed the community at that particular time. By reverting my contribution @~2026-25433-88 effectively says, that that sociopolitical transgressive action was in fact legal and recognized by the Jewish community, which it was not. Perhaps I was mistaken, in outright labeling these "Jewish Christians" as being heretical, I think it would be more appropriate to change the phrasing to "Jewish authorities viewed them as heretics", again, I'm open to feedback, in creating the most [possible] accurate article. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that you might be misunderstanding what a "contentious topic" is, in Wikipedia parlance. Please see WP:CTOP, but in short, "contentious topic" is a formal designation for a topic, applied by the Arbitration Committee on topics that tend to attract disruption and intractable disagreement. Topics so designated are the subject of closer monitoring and specific rules. For example, "post-1992 United States politics" and the "Arab-Israeli conflict" are so designated. The latter has a special rule that editing is limited to those with extended-confirmed status(account that is 30 days old with 500 edits).

Please see List of contentious topics, but I don't see where this issue falls within one. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

My mistake @331dot: I referenced Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, which I thought would apply as a contentious topic, looking further on List of contentious topics, I do not see an effective method (which is relevant) to pursue in warning @~2026-25433-88, thus instead of pursuing outright litigation via Arbitration Committee a simple warning from an authority such as yourself would suffice. Thank you for making the distinction between Contentious topics and controversial issues [for I was not aware of this]. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I've warned the user against personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much @331dot: for enforcing the principles of neutrality, now if I may, I purpose a solution that would preemptively stop disruptive editors like @~2026-25433-88 from sabotaging articles further, by placing WP:AUTOC or something to that extent in Jewish Christianity, this would effectively mitigate those who seek to sabotage articles and further incentivize those who act in good faith and are impartial. But alas, this is simply recommendation for further improving Wikipedia. Lastly, am I permitted to change the framing of that particular section I've discussed above or should I leave it up to you? as you are the administrator [I think] this would provide more weight to the contribution. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

If you're asking for page protection, that is requested at WP:RFPP. It probably won't be accepted unless you can show persistent disruption to that article, that can't be stopped by blocking the users. Articles are not protected preemptively.

Admins do not intervene in content disputes, which I would be doing if I made your desired edit. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Understandable @331dot: this was simply a suggestion, do I, then have permission to re-frame that particular passage in Jewish Christianity?, anyhow, I appreciate your dutiful assistance in clearing up this misunderstanding, and I do appreciate you assisting me in learning more of Wikipedia's procedures. Now I must bid you vale, for I have taken plenty of your time, till we meet again @331dot. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

User discloses COI but username is too corporate

Scooterworksusa (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

Is this eligible to report for WP:UAA? I'm trying to report the account but their only edit was a userpage edit disclosing COI. But the username is otherwise too corporate and violates username policy --みんな空の下 (トーク) 14:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

That counts as an edit, so yes. I'll take care of it in this case. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you :) --みんな空の下 (トーク) 14:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Potentially a tendency resembling a edit war

User @Durziil89:, for some reason reverted a cited contribution I made [in Jewish Christianity / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Christianity&diff=1351838657&oldid=1351837519 *earliest edit I could find that reverted my contribution*], I explicitly tried to make the statement in said citation as un-biased and factual as possible, but again, for whatever reason @Durziil89 reverted within an amalgamation of other edits, thus, hiding it from a potential revert, here is the aforementioned contribution I made:

From:

"Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of Jesus as the result of his earthly ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers,[1] whereas a polemical account relating specifically to Jesus within the Babylonian Talmud (compiled centuries later), claims that Jesus was stoned and then was hung, for he [Jesus] practiced sorcery [Kishuf], incited people to idol worship Maisit, and led the Jewish people astray [Maddia].[5]"

To:

"Christianity started with Jewish eschatological expectations, and it developed into the worship of Jesus as the result of his earthly ministry in Galilee and Jerusalem, his crucifixion, and the post-crucifixion experiences of his followers."

I will it up to your discretion on how to proceed, as you an administrator, however, I question the intentions of @Durziil89, for painting an overly Christian aligned view, by stealthily reverting my contribution @Durziil89 has reduced neutrality and therefore has breached . Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If there is a behavioral issue here, please go to WP:ANI, but it seems like a content dispute. Admins do not settle content disputes; you need to attempt to work this out with them. Dispute resolution processes exist if normal discussion fails. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: I respectfully contend that, you being the administrator should enforce the principles of neutrality, assigning the responsibility of said enforcement to others is unbecoming of your position. For @Durziil89's resulting stealth revert of my factual contribution reduced the neutrality of the article, and thus the understanding of Wikipedia's readers. We have to judge an action from their intent to their resulting effect, don't you think? The breach of neutrality is clear, the breach of confidence amongst contributors is clear, why do I need to be redirected to another authority if you, as the administrator have the capability of enforcing neutrality? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins have no authority whatsoever to settle content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I, as part of the extended users group [with relatively limited amount of contributions], have no merit to question the authority of an individual who occupies the position of administrator, however, what kind of an example would the admin be giving to contributors with this kind of logic? If I'm not mistaken administrators has the capability of warning [at least] individuals when they have clearly breached neutrality, this not a mere "content dispute" for the pretext of said "dispute" is breach of neutrality which is prohibited [as I understand]. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lothengrun de Spigel, you are mistaken if you think administrators have any authority as far as content disputes, which is what you're describing. 331dot was clear about your next steps: go to WP:DR if normal discussion fails, or WP:ANI if it's a behavioral issue. Badgering an administrator is not going to help you. tony 15:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@TonySt: Again, the resulting effect of this "content dispute" is breach of neutrality [which is prohibited and the admin has the capability of at least warning @Durziil89], I question your intentions in obscuring fact from effect, I'm not "Badgering" the position of administrator which @331dot occupies, I'm asking for the principles of neutrality to be enforced, I am not asking for personal favours, what I am asking is impartial enforcement, the contribution I made in the article had merit for it was a neutral and had a citation from a legal text [Sanhedrin taf 43a], I do not understand why did you misconstrued my point, is providing balance in article that are controversial a bad thing? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I did not intend to hide or remove any information. I relocated the sentence () and expanded other sections that lacked sources, adding academic references to improve the article overall. That said, I have some concerns about how certain edits were handled (), and it seems other editors have noticed similar issues (). But I’m happy to discuss and reach consensus. Durziil89 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Durziil89: In relation to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Christianity&diff=1351738503&oldid=1351326007 I have already addressed this point with @331dot User talk:331dot#Bad faith article revert, "Wikipedia:Casting aspersions" and NPOV, therefore the issue [for it was, like your edit a breach of neutrality] has been resolved, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Christianity&diff=1351849184&oldid=1351840624 the "" is not an issue, but a request for clarification, which I would happily provide if need be, but inherently is obvious that we are speaking of the legal authority that governed the Jewish community at that time [Sanhedrin], framing this as "an issue" is a false pretext of a dishonest rhetorical play, I do not appreciate falsehood painted as a productive discussion, for your intention [i.e., the logical process to think my contribution did no align with your worldview] and resulting act [i.e., the revert of my factual contribution], is inherently, again, biased and thus not neutral. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The Babylonian Talmud was written several centuries after the emergence of Jewish Christians, so references to Jesus there are much later and more polemical in nature. Because of that, they’re not really relevant to the section discussing the origins of Christianity as a Second Temple Jewish movement. So I moved the material to a section where it fits better contextually. Durziil89 (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Clearly @331dot:, as you see, has no intention of providing neutrality, they are now self-arbiter of "truth", they judge a recognized legal text as not being "relevant" to history, is this not a violation of neutrality and of reliance to credible sources? Or is @Durziil89 saying that the Torah and in particular Sanhedrin taf 43a. is not a credible source? if so, then surely this individual has an axe to grind with the Jewish community, aren't personal feuds prohibited in Wikipedia? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer we avoid attributing intentions or bias to one another and instead focus on the content itself. I did not dispute the reliability of the Talmud or the Sanhedrin. My edit was about relocating the sentence to a more relevant section. I’d appreciate keeping the discussion constructive and assuming good faith rather than attributing positions to me. I’m happy to discuss placement further. Durziil89 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump:, @TonySt:, @331dot:. As you can see, again @Durziil89 seeks not only to breach neutrality, not only to state that they are the self-arbiter of truth but to self-contradict themselves in the process, I agree that we have to assume good faith as a governing principle of Wikipedia, however, @Durziil89 has shown time after time, they are not a credible contributor, for the "good faith" revert resulted in breach of neutrality and perpetuation of political and/or theological bias, again two principles that if breach are punishable, however, as I understand this is a first time offense for @Durziil89 I am content with a simple warning and if possible a re-implementation of my contribution back to the original article. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The statement that I “have an axe to grind with the Jewish community” is a personal assumption and not appropriate for a content discussion. I ask that it be removed. Let’s keep the discussion focused on content and policy. Durziil89 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure that we users and the credible authority in @331dot: would consider "good faith", however, as you, yourself stated that the Torah [Sanhedrin taf 43a.] is not a relevant source in relation to Jewish Christianity [a personal assessment which is prohibited in Wikipedia], results in "eliminating" differing perspective to your own, I'm not assuming anything, I analyze the intent and the actions that result from said intent, you @Durziil89 by reverting my contribution are effectively distorting history, which if I'm not mistaken is even a larger offense than a mere "content dispute" or breach of neutrality. I ask you to reassess yourself, and think thoroughly on why you made this debacle in the first place. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is no longer constructive, with personal remarks and a lack of good faith. I suggest we refocus on content and policy, or seek wider input. Have a good day. Durziil89 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

So there goes neutrality right? Wouldn't an honest Wikipedian see through the discussion to maximize neutrality, objectivity and historical reality irrespective of their own feelings, @331dot: again as you can see, @Durziil89 displays dishonesty when thing don't go their way, how can we assume that further edits coming from them would be credible and impartial? Alas, as it seems @Durziil89 is too good for this discussion, I leave it up to the ruling authority in @331dot on how the article has to proceed, I remind the administrator, that the whole debacle begun because of breach neutrality, then breach of impartiality and then it escalated to denial of historical facts. I think it is wise to place a warning [at least] on @Durziil89 as an effective way to encourage constructive edits. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

331dot isn't a 'ruling authority' on issues of neutrality. The only 'authority' is the editing community as a whole - or at least, those contributors who wish to involve themselves in this particular matter. Involvement that starts with discussion, and is based around arriving at sourced content. I'd strongly advise you to take that approach, rather than attempting to impose your preferred version through inappropriate appeals to an admin. You don't get to decide what is 'neutral'. Neither does 331dot. Nor does Durziil89. Or me. Find sources. Discuss. That is how we settle content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Not only you are denying historical facts, but present once as well! Very rich, let me ask you @AndyTheGrump is this discussion being held on @331dot page? Yes, is @331dot an administrator? Yes, then why do you say they have "no authority", they very well do have authority to warn individuals when they violate neutrality, impartiality and historical denialism. And the entire pretext of this passage is palpable, "You don't get to decide what is 'neutral'. Neither does 331dot. Nor does Durziil89. Or me. Find sources. Discuss. That is how we settle content disputes.", are you trolling here or what? I provided a reputable, legal and recognized text as a source [Sanhedrin taf 43a.], and I directed users to see Heresy in Judaism as that article explain to them in greater detail what constitutes a biblical and legal offense, you like your buddy @Durziil89 are being dishonest in perpetuating your own biases at the expense of historical facts. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I've said how you should proceed. You either will, or not. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

And I responded appropriately, by your inaction, the credibility of Wikipedia as whole comes under question, you as the representative of Wikipedia are responsible for enforcing penalties upon individuals who violated the principles of neutrality, your inaction [and thus redirection to another authority] as with @AndyTheGrump contributes to [effectively as I've stated many times already] to historical denialism, which like I said is a much more serious offense, which again you as the administrator [for some reason] don't want to enforce a penalty. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have denied no historical facts. I haven't offered any opinion whatsoever on whether Jewish Christians were considered heretics, or on anything related. Instead, I have informed you of how Wikipedia works. Which involves finding appropriate sources, and discussion. If you don't like the way it works, that's your problem, not ours. And I suggest you from the personal attacks, before you find yourself sanctioned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Sophistry at its finest! You have in fact denied a historical fact by inaction, you have denied a historical fact for running defense [for some odd reason] to @Durziil89 which breach neutrality by their unproductive "good faith" edit, and lastly and most urgently you have denying [by effectively agreeing that Torah, Halakha, Talmud and in particular Sanhedrin taf 43 is not a credible source], alas like your friend @Durziil89 I urge too, to rethink on why you came here in an attempt to rebuke a new contributor, when clearly you and your buddy @Durziil89 are factually incorrect. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's enough. There's no more to be done here. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If the violation of neutrality goes unpunished then what other Wikipedia contributor will think about you as an administrator, and especially fellow administrators who value the principles of neutrality and would dutifully implement punishment onto those who violate them? I urge you to reconsider your position, and place a warning to @Durziil89, and revert or allow me to implement the passage that was removed in stealth. But alas, I think that I have made my point very clear, I have provided a credible citation, I respectfully addressed you [the administrator in this particular discussion], now it's up to you to decide what warrants to be noted in Wikipedia and what does not, what is permissible and what is not permissible. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You have several grave misunderstandings about the role of administrators and how Wikipedia operates. I don't decide what is permissible or not permissible. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The material was relocated, not removed. It seems your concern reflects a particular interpretation of how this group should be characterized (e.g., as heretical () or criminals in violation of Jewish law ()). However, such views need to be properly attributed rather than stated as fact. My edit was about placement and context, not disputing the source. Durziil89 (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The legal authority ruling at that particular time [Sanhedrin], ruled that Jesus and his followers were violating the Torah, hence they were [from the Jewish perspective] seen as heretical, if we want an impartial Wikipedia, we have to consider what both sides of the coin have to say, this does not fall under common sense, since it is a historical fact that Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin and found guilty, I merely stated a fact of history, it has nothing to do or should do with what I think or what with all due respect @331dot thinks, it is a fact and I tried to point it out, though if my rhetoric was misconstrued as being of a polemical fashion I apologize for the misunderstanding, however, this does not discredit the intent [i.e., the good faith you @Durziil89 so often mention] and the resulting act, which is the historical improvement of the article via implementing Sanhedrin taf 43a., in relation to context, I have provided said context via source, which you @Durziil89 in a stealthily executed fashion effectively eliminated from the second paragraph of the article, thus resulting in undermining what the ruling authority at that time had to say about the event. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't hold a position of authority, I have a toolset. You absolutely can question me as an EC user or any other user. I have no more authority than you to settle a content dispute. Everyone has a different definition of neutral, this is why you have to work this out. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I urge you @331dot: reassess that statement you made, you do in fact the power [capability] of issuing a penalty or warning upon users who want to distort history, gratify themselves with bias and breach neutrality. I am asking you as you are the administrator that have the power to enforce it upon @Durziil89 who breached neutrality, impartiality and our collective confidence in them. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You are closer to being sanctioned yourself than in getting me to settle your dispute. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you asking for Wikipedians and it's administrative brass to launch WP:DESYSOP against you? You are clearly now violating WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINEXPECT, blind threats in the overwhelming face of evidence against @Durziil89 and @AndyTheGrump is palpable, your inaction is unbecoming of an administrator and you have to be ashamed of yourself if you have at least a bit sense of decency. I followed Wikipedia's own procedure by notifying you as the administrator over a breach of neutrality which does not require a court to solve, you had the capacity to rule that @Durziil89 was the guilty party but you did not. Threatening me just because I followed Wikipedia's own rules is an insult to your position. You have been warned @331dot, and let this serve as an example of institutional incompetence at the face of substantial breach of neutrality, impartiality, historical denialism and now most astonishing! actual threats to my ability to contribute credible and factual sources to improve Wikipedia for it's readers. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no intention of involving myself in any depth in this content dispute. I commented here regarding Lothengrun de Spigel's request that 331dot intervene, and, after looking at the article, added a 'who' template, since the statement in the lede that Jewish authorities considered Jewish Christians as heretical seemed vague, and not directly supported by anything currently in the article. If this is correct, it needs further explanation in the article body, together with the necessary citations. Beyond that, any disputes over content need to be dealt with through normal Wikipedia processes - initially, discussion on the article talk page, where hopefully other contributors can chip in, and if that gets nowhere, through dispute resolution processes. None of that will be assisted by allegations of 'bias' or non-neutrality. Clearly this is a tricky topic, with some deep divisions even within scholarship, and it's more or less inevitable that we can't come up with an article that satisfies everyone. We can at least try though. Find sources, then discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully @AndyTheGrump: as you yourself decided to join this discussion, something must have irked you into motion, you are not administrator , so how can you tell @331dot of what their capabilities are and are not? If it the word heretical is too confusing, or users are simply incapable of further examination, then I would provide a source that details that idolatry is a crime [which that specific passage pertains to], however, what incentive do I have if my credible sourced contributions are reverted as being "not relevant", heretical explicitly directs [links, i.e., to another article with sources that explain in greater detail what idolatry is] Wikipedia readers and Wikipedia contributors to. I do not understand both your @AndyTheGrump and @Durziil89 intentions in perpetuating a narrative of historical denialism, which effectively [i.e., resulting to] it is. Would you not say, that now, you yourself @AndyTheGrump are breaching neutrality by inaction? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2010, and accordingly am well aware of what admins can and cannot do. And 331dot has told you the same thing - that admins have no power to settle content disputes. Beyond that, this discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. I'd advise you first to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research first, since we don't want your personal interpretation of a primary source regarding what is or isn't heresy. What is needed is proper support from secondary scholarship for any statements regarding 'heresy' and the Jewish Christians. Scholarship which directly addresses the specifics. Find it, then take it to the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You have no power, as part of the extended users group, although Wikipedia was generous enough to provide you with "Pending changes reviewers", however, I think you are confusing personal timeframe of your own contributions (which are appreciate of course when correct and factual) with @331dot responsibilities as an actual administrator. I have again provided a credible source in Sanhedrin taf 43a. and have linked to a credible article detailing Heresy in Judaism, or are you in your infinite bias think that the Torah and in particular the Babylonian Talmud [which the Sanhedrin text come from] as not being credible? Are you in fact denying history like your friend @Durziil89? I mean @331dot, let's be consistent here, these two individuals have clearly personal biases, which is deeply concerning especially when it comes to @AndyTheGrump which flaunts their long standing contributions as a form of rebuke against me, who just recently joined Wikipedia, what kind of an example this elitism is to Wikipedia readers? Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note: I've placed a serious warning on Lothengrun de Spigel's talkpage, and fully intend to block them if they attack anybody again. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC).

I am following the rules and regulations of Wikipedia own principles, I did not attack anyone, why am I being persecuted for rebuking sophistry and falsehood that was disguised as "good faith", why are you @Bishonen framing this as an attack when I'm trying to pursue credible and factual truth. Why is the majority of people here so adamant that the Sanhedrin taf 43a. and Heresy in Judaism be not included in Jewish Christianity in its original form? I'm shocked by how corrupt this conversation has become, truly unprecedented. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Template?

Hi, @331dot. Do you have template for the "Please see other stuff exists..." paragraph you used in WP:AFCHD#18:53, 28 April 2026 review of submission by InfoLover14? I feel I've seen exactly the same text before. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I typed it out. Didn't use a template. I may tell the same thing to different people, so it might seem to be a template. 331dot (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Important discovery

I just found an inactive page that lists all of the cleanup templates. Almost all of the cleanup templates have categories, and some categories have backlogs of 200+ not previously reported. I made to some of the backlogs, but the majority have not been searched. Please tell people about this and happy editing. The goat with a horn on his head (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Aetherialopulentus

Aetherialopulentus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggest revoking TPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

About blocked user Feather&Martin (talk · contribs)

Hi, I see you declined an unblock request. I'm wondering if that's BMX playing innocent, given these recent edits to some of the same articles.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe? I'm not sure. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft Article

Help me improve this Draft:Adv Owais Pechkar if not well written or not in proper way please check this out Mustanglover654 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The subject is not a subject I am interested in editing, and I don't review drafts outside of the process(otherwise everyone would come here and flood my page with requests for review). Please allow the review process to proceed. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

You replied on Tea House Page that text if you want Co-editor so I did, and yes I allow you Mustanglover654 (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I said that you should seek out co-editors at the India WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Followup COVIRT block and SPI

Hi @331dot, this may be of interest to you: the situation seems to have continued, and I have now been added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigation. It seems like you may have something useful to say there. If any clarification from me would help, I’d be glad to provide it. Thank you again! Kqol • talk 21:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Graham Platner edit reverted

Why did you revert my Graham Platner edit? Is it not correct to call it an "alleged" genocide when this is disputed? Ploppsy123 (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see your user talk page; the merits of your edit are not the issue. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Lean Back article rejection

So is my "evidence" sufficient to you to bring the article back and approve it's notability or do I need to provide other additional sources? I have been waiting nearly a month now for any answer about this topic on "Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 April 9" and still nothing has changed.

JonekX (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Archived discussions should not be modified. It is difficult for us to give you an answer because we cannot examine the book and other article(and please do not post pictures of pages, that's a copyright violation); I will say, though, that you should provide any and all appropriate sources that you have. I suggest that you start a new AFC Help Desk discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Help

I'm not a very experienced editor and I have problems fixing the reflist on Azetidinone. If the page has been reverted, then I don't think you should help me fix. Inyamad (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Please ask at the Teahouse for assistance. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I need help re: protecting a page that I nominated for deletion

i suspect the creator may attempt to delete my edit. could you approve. please see creator pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelstein%E2%80%93Lew_controversy Banalnasal (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• If someone removes the AfD template from the article inappropriately, it will be dealt with. I'm more curious as to the source of your advanced knowledge of Wikipedia for such a new user, only eight minutes after creating your account you proposed an article for deletion. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cVss0xsjm7sJllD-Rwr2Sz2q3t5DKC2Fepc3fwF2f7c/edit?usp=drivesdk

i emailed the address on personal things. you have a good wiestion nd since ur used to communicating here ill just feel free to let yuu know. and waste my time. i knew this page doesnt belong. i researched removing it. i did it. and how i found specifically you (when im not minding jy own business but draggnng backup into it unsolicited is re: the page that looks lkke plain html and has little bubble for oeople who are in. i got there to see admin list from a page showing to talk to admins... like i can contact one. you are just the one i messaged amd recklessly at that not knowing if ur needed.

thx

ai. Banalnasal (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

and im 40 years old so your not getting me to be nicer than that when your cynical off the bat. ive got no time for trolls, esp when they ty to screw up the world. look for yourself ifni feel obligated and let me know if i have missed anything please. that might help. Banalnasal (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

i dont mean to be rude i wuulda just pasted tbis if i had it when i was readkng your reply

fyi i picked you out if nowhere maybe shouldnt have so sorry about rhat

https://g.co/gemini/share/222f86ae5786 Banalnasal (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My intention was not to be cynical, I just said I simply found it curious. It's unusual for the first thing a brand new user to do to be proposing an article for deletion. That's all.

I wouldn't rely on AI for your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures; AI has a poor understanding of them. It can regurgitate what appears on a policy page, but it doesn't always get it right. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

yes its a pain doing one thing and using an online engine for information and the same engine for when to pit things together or how. i really dont know if its correct. i mean i gathered the concept and i did an initial edit woth the code. did i make mistakes? pleas tell me. Banalnasal (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

You completed the process correctly. I'm just saying that AI doesn't always get it right. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Good Banalnasal (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

know what? I had a nice long paragraph typed out for you. I deleted it all. it doesn't belong on wikipedia. please don't bring up AI if you think the information you interpreted makes sense. its an obvious no relavent wikipedia page and shouldn't have been created. you shouldn't have asked about my account, exercising your Admin show of strength and acting cool 'im more interested in you'. that's immature and what you said about AI as if your some sort of gen Y genius is also unfounded. completely. please don't drag me into your opinionated commentaries on ai. the use of its technology served the purposes. you want me to delete the AI true human-interpretable information? the article should not be kept. I did it right. it doesn't make sense. there is no such thing as controversy over it I and its been at most a title for bloggers, poker. org, bloggers and such to gather peer subscriptions & attention. this is not an event worth noting and it's as titled 'controversy' not fact based whatsoever. that names there that didn't ask to be there doesn't mean someone shouldn't get them removed for them.

it doesn't belong on the internet like this on Wikipedia especially. that it is a title present as if the topic is valid elsewhere is also unfounded and that's a darn fact. so if you want to be so interested and figure out what's important, im just gonna propose that you suggest to wikipedia ai shouldn't be used to assist even when it comes out perfect. what topic are u on exactly apparently u could give a rats butt. chatting up a random Admin is always a bad neverending meaningless thing isn't it. isn't it. this was entirely too immature especially since there's only an invalid 'topic' floating around corrupting cyberspace and peoples reputations... please just leave me alone Banalnasal (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• Greetings, all. I'm the creator of the article proposed for deletion. I hereby challenge the suspicion that I may "may attempt to delete [the AfD nomination]." Where do you, Banalnasal, base such an extraordinary assumption? I made one simple, factual observation in my talk page (see here): "Your first and only two contributions to Wikipedia are the proposal to delete an article and this notification?" I found that "a tad strange," I wrote, yet this translates in your eyes as suspicion of me violating Wikipedia policy?! Please explain. -The Gnome (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  @The Gnome the articles you 'contributed' are a corruption to wikipedia. and peoples lives. that's not just an opinion. an article about a specific person being assaulted, another about murder. the credibility or people you may have swindled along the way all , any as well be the ones to stoke the shannanagans you've begun. I wouldn't see any of the comments in the Deletion Nomination 'section/discussion' as valid since it's come with relating to it as a topic that is relavent to another single human being and it is NOT. it's personal if anything and ultimately pointless. people just wanting to look like they did things with their time expertly and fit the bill. there is no bill to do that for. Banalnasal (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Im informally taking that back. I didn't take the time to see who wrote either of those articles. I'm probably incorrect about the 'murder'. but still, I'm a new person. be as it may, I may find I was right. not that it would matter. there was nothing that needed to be said about ... telling others I believe you would delete a page. that was your opinion and really too much for the talk feature in my humble/honest opinion. I do think though you should read my comment 'just prior to this comment... ' which clarifies that. objectively, if you'd keep this separate from the Deletion Nom... you might be somewhat agreeable. Banalnasal (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Given the above exercise in hostility and asumptions of bad faith, I have started a thread at WP:ANI regarding Banalnasal's behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump there's no hostility. this is an opinionated comment. I do want to clarify that I'm now unsure if Gnome made those wikipedia pages. ... but I want to say. you have got an inherent right to judge behavior. I contacted an admin expecting to be met with courteous professionalism. I indeed admit I was hasty, but that is a human error. I know now the pages can't get undone when we do a Nomination for Deletion. but I want to cover my bases. I'm allowed inherently to be under the impression that the user might have attempted to keep his own page by vying for it using the edit function. I was right as well and this is what I was thinking I was warning of or attempted, prong for guidance over at the time. thigs happen very quickly online and just as fast on wikipedia. probably too fast to handle adequately sometimes... I'm not quite sure what the reason for the creation of the said article was. I'm sure that it doesn't belong on wikipedia. therefore, the logic tells that the author isn't credible and would could add caustic pieces of wording thru the edit of deletion discussion. by 'caustic' I mean that its biased already and formed by the author of question. I would like to propose that a separate process [another page exist] where publicly, the author of an article up for deletion may separately comment there, where it's met by analysis and voted on by other admins during a timeframe of weeks. or perhaps done similarly. I'm sure this might be a nice thing and there could be a link on the bottom of the deletion discussion to-it. Banalnasal (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Legal threats

Am I missing something here? I do not see how this violates WP:NLT. That page specifically states legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself (added emphasis in bold). IMO this is pretty clear in referring to the organization, rather than Wikipedia or other editors. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 14:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

They refer to theoretical editors that the organization would send out to affect their edits. I didn't block them, because it's theoretical, but editors associated with this commune have the same ability to participate here that others do. It's not our concern if they are doing so in violation of the law in their jurisdiction(just as Russians could get in trouble for editing here if detected). 331dot (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

SHIFT64 is starting an edit war

First SHIFT64 has been edit warring on the sandbox, and then started gaming the system to get a higher edit count. Please block him immediately. ~2026-31248-41 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31248-41: The sandbox page is exempt from such guidelines. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 22:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. ~2026-31248-41 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

you agree that the sandbox is exempt from guidelines you just said applied to that page and attempted to report someone with that logic? | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Lifting topic ban

It was stated here that I need to have 6 months of constructive editing before my topic ban can be lifted. I have had at least 6 months of constructive editing since my topic ban was agreed on 5 November 2025. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

can you show your edit history so this can be verified? (talk page stalker) | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:39, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GoldenBootWizard276 GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

no results when selecting "Hide probably good edits" and no results when selecting "Only show page creations". yup. he's good. (talk page stalker) | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 18:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that you appeal to WP:AN. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have appealed to WP:AN. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)