I think there's a chance (maybe not a very big one) that this guy is playing us. After your last comment at the HD I started a response asking him to clarify his 'obsession' with the page and pointing him to WP:COI. He's used 8 or so IP addresses so far (over a 2 week or more, period) and every one of his edits have been to do with Vayalil's page. Unfortunately, I got an EC with him replying to you... in the wrong place and unsigned. I'm not sure how we handle a WP:SPA, particularly when spread over multiple IPs but it looks as thought here's some connection or 'agenda' here? As advised previously by an Admin. in respect of a disruptive editor of F1 articles I have a note of IP addresses used and talk pages where advice has been left. Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment; I must leave my computer shortly and won't have time to look into this further for a bit. Feel free to bring this up with another administrator or at WP:AN. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I will practice with small edits,( which I have been doing since before I signed in), until I get more comfortable with how Wikipedia editing works. Thanks again for responding so quickly. GrandmasterCheckmate (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your comment in the block log. just for info - OZ is a short/nickname for Australia and the website he linked to beared the same name with an australian adress. Thank you for taking care of this spammer. --Denniss (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denniss Thanks for the information, glad to learn something. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.

As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have simply used the default image of a cup or green tea. It would be great if you would now consider doing two things:

1. Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/4
2. Create a host profile for yourself, and choose a relevant 'profile picture' - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a host entry which new editors may read.

Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I`am waiting for a review on my article for more than 2 months now. Will my article be reviewed any time soon? I am asking because the person who reviewed before declined it and told me that he will leave the article for someone else to review it later on. It`s been 2 months and still nothing. Just wondering. Any info on this would be appreciated. Kristijanwh (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kristijanwh: Reviews are done by volunteers(who do what they can when they can) in no particular order, as all drafts appear in a category that reviewers pick out of based on their own reasons; it could be reviewed in 10 minutes, or two months from now. You will need to be patient. You had initially posted this to my talk page archive; I moved it to my actual talk page(here). 331dot (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in case you are interested, the recently blocked Auxallryduck seems to be abusing the ability to edit User talk:Auxallryduck (see here). Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & nice to meet you, I just wanted somebody to check the spelling I added to current events of the current day, before being told off for insulting the English language lol. Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I had no idea how to respond after seeing the editor's contributions, but you came up with this: It is not enough to merely be correct, information must be sourced to an independent reliable source, which is unlikely for the subjective statements you were attempting to add. I am humbled by your eloquence. Orville1974 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...at least until he accepts that he is bound by it, rather than socking to continue his long-term edit warring and POV-pushing at 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and his editing of articles related to U.S. participation in World War II (specifically the Pacific Theater).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don’t like talk to other users like this but after what I ended up seeing. I practically wish I never signed up here sometimes. That Al-Quaeda thing just scares me. The sniper scares me. I know he might’ve said it as a threat. But it just scares on how evil some Wikipedians can be. I never thought I would ever see something like that in my entire existence. I really am glad that you took care of the problem because he could’ve said something worse. I’ll be scared for a couple of days because of that writing. A.R.M. 03:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARMcgrath I don't blame you for feeling that way. I can say that I've seen that exact message before and not just here, it could be a message that has been copied and reposted around the internet. All such messages should not be easily dismissed, but in this case, the first clue that they don't mean it is that the message referred to "gorilla warfare" and not "guerilla warfare". 331dot (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to step on your toes a bit there, but the user is a  Confirmed sockpuppet and blatantly trolling. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to unblock based on the most recent unblock request. I was wondering if you had any lingering concerns. Sasquatch t|c 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasquatch: I would prefer if the user would agree to not edit about their clients at all for a period of time(at least 6 months) given that they are in marketing and SEO, so they can develop an edit history that shows they can make proper edits. Given their statement "I was unfamiliar with the topic that I was given to update" I'm not sure I believe her statement that "I'm not specifically paid to update their Wikipedia entries." I would like to, but I can't support an unblock at this time given what I know now. However, since they state they will use edit requests, I'm willing to not oppose an unblock if you are satisfied. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the user if they would voluntarily accede to such terms. If they do, I will unblock and see where it goes from there. Sasquatch t|c 10:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to discuss the issue here. Leave the edit alone till we hash it out. I believe you will be persuaded by the points I will make. First, Wikipedia is based on good faith editing. The people who I said are notable are in fact notable and it would be a disgrace on their memory and everything they did in their lifework to dismiss their contributions just because there is not a page yet devoted to them. I can edit in citations later after we agree on how to proceed. Next, the citation you mentioned for Yanceyville being on some list of poor places is under dispute. I feel it is unfair to say ok, let's smear the town based on a disputed citation. Once that dispute is settled and it's settled fact or not then we can safely base what is said about the town on the page devoted to it. I hope this makes sense. Otherwise, anyone can cite anything, and it can be disputed - but the smear still stands as truth indefinitely, in some cases, for many months if not years. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 02:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peabodyb I meant the article talk page, but this is ok too.(this is a user talk page) No one is smearing any town or disrespecting any person. Wikipedia goes where the sources go. The source was accurate at the time it was added, and it should not just be removed. It may need to be put in context or rephrased to reflect the age of the statistic. We don't delete Abraham Lincoln because Donald Trump is currently president.

In order to include someone in a list of notable people, there must be an article about them. This is longstanding Wikipedia practice. (see WP:SOURCELIST, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well") Otherwise, there is no way to know if the person is actually notable for verification. I would suggest that if you believe these persons meet the notability criteria for people, that you create the articles for them. Wikipedia is not a memorial to any and all people regardless of any good work they have done. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to further discuss this on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, but you are allowing,in putting it back, a reference to nothing that is supposedly providing evidence of fact. Have you clicked the citation in question? There's nothing there that supports the claim. You basically just did a disservice to Wikipedia and I wonder how many other articles you mess around with without bothering to see if the citation is at all relevant. Are you a high school student, or have you ever had to write a research paper of substance - because you can't just put citations to things that bear no relevance to the point you're making. It's no wonder at the grad school level it's looked down upon to reference Wikipedia. I can see why now. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peabodyb (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained how you can proceed. Grad schools are quite correct in not using Wikipedia as references as Wikipedia is not a reliable source and does not claim to be. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean I have to give my IP or his IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmvarco (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Hii, This user is hard blocked by ArbCom 2 months ago, Can you remove their special user rights? Are these rights permanent? Thanks! -- CptViraj (📧) 13:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't ArbCom have removed them? I would suggest asking the blocking admin. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Okay Regards! -- CptViraj (📧) 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dilemma lies in that I think it is compromised and under control of a vandal and I do not want to aid in block evasion.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We might be at the point where there is nothing to be done about it. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not say it's a CU block, but can he not appeal to arbcom? Little hazy on that. That's all he's got left if so.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I hadn't considered that; I don't see why they couldn't try. You can propose that, unless you'd like me to. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the worst that could happen is they decline to answer and someone reads me the riot act for suggesting it. What about asking the blocking admin first? Oh, I already e-mailed DoRD. Trouble is, on reading the SPI and my brief discussion with DoRD, I believe this is TIAYN. (sigh)   Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I need to not duck the hard parts.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is TIAYN as well. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that 119.224.3.221 does have an account based on recent edits on his talk page.[1][2][3] He's obviously accidentally posted using his account and then tried to cover it up. Isn't this block evasion? --AussieLegend (✉) 02:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Newslinger. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, CCN Markets, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Newslinger talk 01:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hi. I wasn't really sure who to notify, but as you were the admin who blocked BoogieFreeman I thought it best if I informed you. I've been made aware of this user and their edits, primarily those concerning the articles for the main installments, and article on the franchise itself, of the Uncharted video game series, which I have an interest in and made a number of changes to in the past. What I had noticed from BoogieFreeman is that most of their Uncharted-related edits involved (usually unnecessarily) extending or re-wording large swathes of prose for various sub-sections, or using questionable terminology e.g. a game receiving "wholesale critical acclaim" or otherwise including something in the lede that conflicts with what's in the article.

My reason to bringing this user up is that I have strong suspicions that, since being blocked on 30th May 2019, they have created a new account called TinTinHunter, whose first edit was on 12th June 2019. Aside from editing some articles on pop culture, they have also edited those on sporting personalities and football (soccer) seasons, similar to what BoogieFreeman had also done. The grammar and length of their edit summaries are also very similar. What really stood out to me, however, is that I have noticed in the past week TinTinHunter reverting large section(s) of the prose in the articles for Uncharted and Uncharted 4: A Thief's End to the previous edits that I know BoogieFreeman carried out (see my prior paragraph on editing examples). I just thought it very unlikely that an entirely different user would revert back to how certain paragraphs were written, weeks after they were changed by another person.

Obviously as BoogieFreeman has been blocked, if they have created a new account then their problematic behaviour and editing may still continue. What is Wikipedia's policy on creating a new account? Is this sock puppetry, or does this only apply to two accounts being used concurrently? On the other hand, perhaps this matter is of little importance and anyone is allowed to make a new account and edit as they see fit, being blocked only if they disobey the rules of Wikipedia? Please can you kindly advise. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: If a user is blocked, it is sock puppetry and block evasion for them to create a new account; they must be unblocked first. Otherwise, blocks would be ineffective as any blocked user could just create a new account. I would suggest that you start a sock puppet investigation so that additional eyes can look at it besides me. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Just curious, but how long roughly does it take for investigations to clear and the use of sockpuppetry confirmed by a clerk, or does this vary due to the circumstances? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Our UTRS troll is back. :-( If you review an UTRS appeal that contains a threat to sue or other legal threat it is likely to be them. Please refer such appeals to Tool Admin for email/IP ban without replying. Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Chilling I was wondering what to do in that circumstance. Thank you very much for the information. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot

Back on 1 May you blocked EWBCORP (talk · contribs) for "advertising or promotion" and non-compliance with the username policy. I suspect that the same set of users are back under the name NewEWB001 (talk · contribs). The account has been used three times, in each case to update the East West Bank earnings report.

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help. They were actually reached out to by a company to create a Biography, and I was asked to gather info from family and friends and coworkers. Of course I'm in my beginning stages, so ALL info is helpful. Thanks again! Tia Tropicana (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tia Tropicana: Note that info from family, friends, and co-workers is not acceptable; information must be in published independent reliable sources(for verification purposes) that shows how you meet the notability criteria for people. If you are saying that you were approached by a company offering to write you a Wikipedia article, I would strongly advise you against doing so- and most importantly do not hand over any money up front. A company cannot make any guarantees to you about any article they will write or promise you a certain result(such as guaranteeing that it will not be deleted) despite what they might say. You may want to read Your First Article to learn what goes in to writing an article. It is not as easy as many people think it is- and it is harder when one has a conflict of interest, is a paid editor, or is attempting to write about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources state about you. While technically possible, most people cannot do this; I've been here many years and yet to see it happen. Anyone you hire must also declare that they hired you and will be blocked if they do not do this. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please explain the difference between the placement of endorsements. You are inflating the value of one candidates endorsements over another. This not only provides a continuity issue but also misleads readers toward believing that only the incumbent has been endorsed which is not the case. If you are making the argument that only candidates that are party nominated can have their endorsements placed there then you are also providing misleading information as Susan Collins has not declared she is running and there are multiple Republicans in the Republican primary for Maine's senate seat. Doc2830 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an endorsement for the general election and an endorsement for the primary election. Sen. Manchin, for example, endorsed for the general election as he wants her back. It is true that Sen. Collins has not expressly stated that she is running again(though she is raising money), but the endorsements for her are general election endorsements, not primary election endorsements(as she does not yet have a credible primary challenger). As the Democrats do not have a nominee yet, no one has endorsed the Democratic candidate because there is not one. There have been endorsements for the Democratic primary, which are listed there. We cannot control who endorses which candidate at which time, but it is up to us to place them so they are associated with the correct election. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The KKKMMM1488 account was a candidate for a hard username block regardless of the socking. Not sure what region of the world you are from, but KKK equals Ku Klux Klan, and 1488 is Fourteen words. All white nationalist stuff. Not sure what MMM is, but I'm assuming @Jorm and Beyond My Ken: would know if it was some racist nonsense. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely a neo-Nazi username, no fucking question.--Jorm (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I figured something was up due to the evasiveness. 331dot (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"MMM" might have something to do with this. If the account was from Australia, that would make the connection more plausible. In any case, it's not something I've seen before - but the "KKK" and the "1488" are enough to indef it, IMO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see now that it is a sock of MMMcMaster, so that explains that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]