Hi, welcome to the 24th volume of my talk page.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Sorry to mess up your neat archiving by resurrecting a thread that you had got rid of, but your archiving edit-conflicted me, and now I've written it, I'm damned well going to post it.

Interestingly, that account frequently edited AfDs up to February 2021, and then suddenly stopped, whereas the other account involved frequently edited AfDs up to February 2021, and then suddenly stopped, apart form a single edit in March 2023. Just one out of I don't know how many coincidences, one after another after another... And the poor innocent editors both got blocked because of those coincidences. How unjust. JBW (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I just looked at it and noticed my talk page was then at 400K+! No more putting it off. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, because of the ping, I noticed you logged my block of the above user at AP2. I did not block Matthew for violating AP2 - and IIRC, there is a special block notice you're supposed to use for that, not to mention special rules for administrators unblocking the user. I don't believe the block should be logged. Would you mind undoing your edit, or explaining why you think I'm mistaken? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, since it wasn't logged under AE, I will, but I really think that when someone gets blocked for the fourth time in two years in the same area long identified as a contentious topic, after he's been advised of same, it ought to be seen as something more serious. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, and perhaps it was remiss of me not to make it an AE block, but I figured making it a month - and in my view the last before indefinite - was sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK ... we'll see how it works out. Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Exorcist you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Exorcist for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to bother, but this user has made a wide range of disruptive edits on road articles, but has made such an insane number of edits that it is impossible to determine what each of them do without hours and hours of combing through. This user has been reverted and partially blocked to no avail. Please block them. Stormy160 (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure a lot of other editors in the roads project would like to see this editor stop ... they have not responded to any requests to explain themselves. Unfortunately since not all of them (in my experience) have been unhelpful, I don't see justification for a block yet.

However ... since for the last two weeks they and another IP have been edit warring over rather minor things on a couple of articles, I think protection would work better. To that end I have just put Taconic State Parkway under semi-protection for three months. Maybe that would work on other articles where this edit warring is happening. Daniel Case (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Stormy160 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Exorcist you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently EW blocked Erenyeager008 for 24 hrs. It appears the pattern of behavior is continuing, only this time with more defiance on their talk page. Thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you feel further action is needed. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you protected Economy of Vietnam with the reverted version active. I was looking at this edit war earlier. No disagreement about protecting it, of course. While the situation was not helped by a lot of IP usage from both camps (revert vs. restore) and the lack of edit summaries by the IP editor trying to make changes and improvements, I was troubled by the wholesale reversion of seemingly good faith edits from get get-go and (from a separate user) the rather severe vandalism warning for what appear to be good faith edits even if they are edit warring. I'd appreciate your take. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I realized that the irony of protecting it was that the IP that requested it will not be able to edit for the duration. Maybe they should have asked for full protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm disappointed that your response didn't address my concerns. I'll proceed on my own. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By all means do ... you've been able to put more thought into it, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	A Helping Hand
	I just got a notification that my DYK was approved. Thank you both for proposing a better hook and for continuing to assist with getting it through. I really appreciate the helping hand. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Daniel. I've issued a final warning to 172.13.193.84 for his constant violation of sourcing policies, after a series of more polite admonitions. If you could monitor the article in question, to ensure that he does not violate them again, (or simply place an extended page protection on it) I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that in his last edit, he told you he'd stop and hasn't edited since ... of course, it's only been a couple of hours. So, I am keeping the page on a tab so I can "shadow-watch" it.

I have no problem semi-protecting it, or partial-blocking them, if necessary, given that you've had the requisite warnings and discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have put the article on my watchlist for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Daniel -- I was GA-reviewing Jon Brower Minnoch, and I noticed that while the article was indefinitely semi-protected by you in March, it still has its pending changes settings turned on from the previous protection. Is there a reason these were left on? I haven't seen this previously on articles that went from PC to semi, so I'm wondering if there was a change in practice recently or if it was just overlooked. Thanks for protecting that article, by the way -- it's really cut down on the issues :) Vaticidalprophet 04:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that it's acceptable to have both PC and semi on if the editors working on the page want it; when you have PC on without the semi it's possible for disruptive editors to weaponize it by creating needless extra work reviewing revisions. ... there are other pages we've done this to. Daniel Case (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addedndum: Here's the request ... the editor does not seem to have realized that PC and semi can run side by side. Daniel Case (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i just saw you have added an IP to my account, I would know if have you test before? What is reason? PL0TWiSTER (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not required to run checkuser to state our belief that an IP and a registered account are being operated by the same person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the additional block on 199.254.238.56. The 12 hours was to halt the immediate AIV disruption while I looked through their history. You beat me to it with a longer one. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had been tangling with them since I went to AIV and saw that they had reported Isabelle Belato, who had in turn blocked them for six months from the page they had been vandalizing. I added AIV to it.

One of the problems with the current blocking system is that once you impose a new sitewide block, it wipes out any partial blocks that were otherwise ongoing. I put in a request at the last Community Wishlist for layered blocks and protections; it was popular but whether that actually makes it to fruition has little to do with how many people like it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it'd be great if there was a simple option for maintaining underlying blocks (and page protections) when a superimposed action expires. Ah well, it is what it is. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's still some IP-hopping / sockpuppetry going on after those two /64 rangeblocks were placed, but I have tracked the 2607:fb91:12* IP range down to a /40 : 2607:FB91:1200:0:0:0:0:0/40. The other (2603:8081:A200:1D94*) range is definitely a /64, no more edits from it. Could you have a look at this? — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Between Phil and I they are now both blocked for a couple of days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel. I happen to notice you've added a number of page protections to the CT log performed by other administrators. From a glance it appears that most (all?) of these aren't actually protections which follow the contentious topic procedures. They are, instead, normal protections. Protections under CT require additional steps, including the sanctioning administrator making note of it in their protection log. In other words, just being in a contentious topic area does not mean a protection is part of the CT process. Using regular rather than CT procedures is actually encouraged under the contentious topics procedures (something new from DS) which notes as an admin expectation Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project. Let me know if you have any questions about this, as it certainly can be confusing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Every time I have made a block or protection as a CTOPS action, I have tried to log it as such, both at AELOG and in the protection or block log. Also see note e over WP:CTOPS:"Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the 'enforcing administrator'".

If a page in a contentious topic is getting the kind of editing that makes it contentious, but either the user hasn't been blocked before and is not a sock, or the page hasn't been protected before (in most cases), I do consider shorter-term actions to be routine administrative actions that, well, we'll see how they work, and don't log them as CTOPS action. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you describe as your practice in the second paragraph is reasonable and if officially asked I would support what you described as good practice. The problem is that you can't impose this practice on other admins. Other admins get to decide, in their discretion, if something should be a regular or CT restriction and that too needs to be respected. As you note if you do a protection using the contentious topic procedures there are steps to follow. The procedure only allows for another admin to put something in the log; so if someone did not create an edit notice and clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions it's not a contentious topic restriction. And so when you add it to the log you are not logging the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. because it's not one and it isn't made one just by you adding it to the log. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My understanding is that edit notices are only required when a page is under 1RR or enforced BRD (and in my opinion that should be done only with some consensus, not unilaterally). The CTOPS page mentions nothing about edit notices being required. In fact, it doesn't mention edit notices at all.

Note f on that page also says: "If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a dummy edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator." Granted, it's probably a good idea to consult with the admin first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What gives you the idea that any of the admin had intended to make it a contentious topic restriction and just forgot? We know in one case Bbb23 didn't want it labeled as such and I'm just wondering if there are different circumstances that lead you to believe the 3 protections you've logged for others in the last couple of days all qualify? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm here because I was pinged. I'm not an expert on CT or CT logging, so I haven't read everything you folk are quoting (and don't feel like it either), but it seems to me the solution is an easy one, which is what Daniel suggests above. If you think an admin intended their sanction to be subject to CT but just forgot to log it, ask the sanctioning admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, last year you assisted me with blocked a revolving IP range who was vandalizing various articles, particularly fire, police, and military pages. The vandal is back and under a new IP range. Here are a few of them: Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C92:57DA:7037:30F0:F1A5:D8D4, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C05:5DEE:559F:368E:C666:273, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C1F:1A41:B0DF:466E:A5B:5B68, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C11:9D25:C9DA:9CF1:91B7:3C1D.

Any assistance in blocking this range would be greatly appreciated! HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2607:FB91:8C00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back again with disruptive editing following the block. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked two weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back with a vengeance after the latest ban. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for three months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to have be evading that range block with a different one:

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1872:C664:F163:6DE9:76D2:8AE

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:9D:5538:3518:8010:2C8:D9D5

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1879:847A:C953:33F9:3184:F8F1

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:189D:D028:7D18:7018:82BC:AB67 HankScorpio1519 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I found that a /35 range block would take care of all four of those T-Mobile ranges, there would be too much collateral damage, so I just blocked the /64s associated with each of them instead for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is Block of 2600:1017:B400:0:0:0:0:0/40. Thank you. (adding this as a courtesy; I'm not the one who started the discussion) Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been moved to WP:Administrator's noticeboard for further community input. Shim119 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you've been indefinitely blocked, so that takes care of that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I wanted to seek your assistance on a 3RR Noticeboard discussion. I was recently reported to the 3RR Noticeboard by another user. The discussion has gotten quite long and complex, with much of the discussion referring to multiple 3RR discussions you have previously closed (on users IJball & Alsorianio97).

Given your understanding of the underlying facts, I was wondering if you could take a look at the discussion. Most of the other discussions above and below have already been reviewed and closed by administrators. Carter00000 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience reports with the long discussion that, had it taken place on the talk page before anyone reported would likely have eliminated the need to report, usually get passed over in favor of those that can be more quickly evaluated.

The underlying issues here are really not going to be resolved by an ANEW action. If it were just the July 5 page, I'd be inclined to mark it as no violation. But you admitted to violating 3RR on the June 26 page, which the history corroborates, and ... well, I don't think we can just let that one go.

I might prefer something less than 24 hours sitewide, given that this was two weeks ago and you have admitted it and never been blocked before. Maybe a really short block (like 3 hours?) Or the 24 hours but only from portal namespace? Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response.

I agree with you when you say that had conversation taken place on the talk page before anyone reported, it would have been better for all parties involved. This is a key point of the dispute and something that I have repeatedly tried to encourage and make clear to the reporter .

I further agree with you that there are underlying issues. I believe that these issues exist as both personal issues with my reporter and those that are related to the general editing system of the portal . While those general issues may take time to resolve, I fee that the issues with my reporter can be addressed with more immediacy.

As I have asserted (and in my view substantiated) in my replies on the AN3 discussion, I feel that there are a number of WP:CIR issues with my reporter, who has very limited understanding of key WP policies needed for productive and non-disruptive editing. More seriously, the editor has misleadingly presented a previous conflict as evidence against me, knowing that the accusation was untrue, and actually benefiting from my efforts to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, the user has continued to edit war and refused to follow WP:ONUS, even during the AN3 discussion. I think a block at this point to "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" would be warranted, given the attitude of the user and continued disruption and refusal to follow WP:DR as mandated by WP:ONUS, and would fall under all three criteria per WP:BLOCKP.

However, while I admit to edit warring and breaking 3RR previously, I do not agree with your proposed course of action to block me. As per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". The policy further states that "once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate".

I believe that a block on me at this time would fall under WP:NOPUNISH. As you noted, the breaking of 3RR was two weeks ago. I ceased reverting the entry and apologized for my actions. As a sign of good faith, I added a section to the material to increase its notability, resolving my initial concerns on whether the entry met the notability standard for inclusion. I made this compromise, despite the fact the my attempts to follow policy and start a discussion was stonewalled. All of this was done two week ago at the time of the dispute.

I feel that taking into account the time which has passed and my good faith actions to compromise, it is clear that "the risk of present disruption" from me "has clearly ended" , and a block on me at this point would be "blocking retrospectively" which would "usually not appropriate".

My subsequent actions in the portal has been to encourage compliance with policy and have not broken 3RR. In the dispute I was reported for relating to July 5, I have already self-reverted [1], upon the provision of a reasonable rationale [2] for the inclusion of the material by a third user.

Please let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I see ToBeFree has mooted this discussion with a two-week block for both of you from Portal namespace. But I agree with your reasoning re not blocking you over that older 3RR (I would just ask that you understand that there's a sort of Murphy's Law to this: the block of the only bright-line rule we have that you pass up on out of the hundred blocks you make is the one someone else comes back and throws in your face two months later when you least need it). Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply and acceptance of my rationale for not blocking me. I also acknowledge your point that 3RR is a bright line rule, and not acting upon it can have issues further down the line.

I have filed an unblock request to contest the block. I have mentioned you in the request, as you were involved in both the AN3 filing and prior cases mentioned.

Please take a look and see if there is anything you would like to add. As per WP:GAB, I understand that unblock requests can take some time to review. I would appreciate any assistance from you to expedite the handling of the request, if you feel it is appropriate.    Carter00000 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 10 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Jerry Waller, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Fort Worth police officer who shot and killed a 72-year-old man on his own property in 2013 did not face any charges? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Jerry Waller. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Killing of Jerry Waller), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,762 views (698.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for protecting XHAS-TDT. Now can you protect KJLA, KXLA and KVMD? These articles have had disruptive edits for so long. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just note I did that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FArmenia_and_Azerbaijan&diff=1164911650&oldid=1164299306 over on the GS log, though I acknowledge the overlap of the sanctions make it questionable where to log such actions, the community GS explicitly calls for ECP, hence logging it there. Maybe double logging is ideal? Honestly don’t know… I think this is the on,y one where ArbCom and community sanctions have so much overlap… Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do all the logging at the AE page where subsections exist because I think it's a good idea that we have one place where all the active sanctions can be seen at once. It's helping us see trends (i.e., all the GENSEX entries that have to do with repeated deadnaming/misgendering). Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, the GENSEX misgendering is really apparent on the AElog. I guess if I ever have to enforce those AA general sanctions again, I’ll dual log, though given how sparse usage is, they appear to have been enacted and then forgotten about. (Actually, the other case I can remember community and Arbitration sanctions overlap, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, the protections almost invariably get logged there and not as ARBEE, even though most could be done under that authority. I’m not sure I have a point here, just observations) Courcelles (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RUSUKR sanctions reflect an intense and ongoing armed conflict where ECP is required of new articles, so I log them on that page (It would overwhelm the AELOG page otherwise, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 19: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly free food has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Prime Produce encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday July 19 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (RSVP on-wiki). 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom
July 29: NYBG Environment of the Bronx Edit-a-thon!
You are also invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our 9th Editathon with the New York Botanical Gardens! Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. Additionally, LuEsther T. Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing. You can also learn more and RSVP on the NYBG website here. Bring your own laptop if you can, the Library can only provide laptops on a first-come, first-served basis. Entrance to the Library is free; when you arrive, alert Security that you are here for the event. Please enter through the Mosholu Entrance at 2950 Southern Boulevard. Saturday July 29 NYBG Environment of the Bronx Edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki) 12:00pm - 3:00pm (Mertz Library at the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd found this link a while ago and I'm not sure if you believe it, but they might do a sequel to the newly released film.

https://www.cinemablend.com/interviews/teenage-kraken-director-honest-more-mermaids-movie-one-thread-explore-sequel

Kevbo128 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So do you think we should add that into the page or no? Kevbo128 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure why you're asking me this? What past edits is it in relation to? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The director of the Ruby Gillman says that he likes to explore the sequel in the link I’d sent you. So it means there might be a sequel to it. Kevbo128 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for protecting the article (again), but you logged it as one month while the protection is in fact indefinite. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed Of course I see it eventually reaching that point anyway ... this controversy is not going away anytime soon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pbritti (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Off topic, but I noticed you worked heavily on Independence Pass (Colorado) and Independence, Colorado. I wanted to mention that I briefly lived in the latter as part of an educational program hosted by a local history org. Small world! If you've ever visited, I'd love to exchange notes on our experiences and see if I can color anything in those articles with images I took (once we're good on the current matter at hand, of course). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I greatly expanded that article after passing through it in August 2010 with my father on the way to my stepbrother's destination wedding in Aspen. When we got up to the pass, it was snowing slightly so we got out and took pictures of ourselves standing in front of the sign, wearing short-sleeved shirts, in which the falling snow is faintly visible. I took a lot of other pictures of the pass generally ... it was pretty cool to just get right out of the car and be in that kind of above-treeline alpine tundra environment (in the Northeast, outside of Mount Washington, getting to that kind of environment requires a substantial hike.

Originally a lot of those pictures were in the article; between other people's uploads and what I've subsequently found on Flickr, it's down to one (so what, though? They're better than mine were). I had a ball working on that article, and I had the idea at some point in the past that if I could get both it and Colorado State Highway 82 to FA it would make a cool Main Page double bill on July 4 some year.

I was sort of waiting for some guy who'd written an environmental guide to the Pass to issue an updated version of his book (he told me he was planning one in an email). Yes, anything you have would be interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Secaucus Transfer Concourse sculpture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take a look at [3]. I've reverted it. Knitsey (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I've also warned the user. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would this Sergius and Bacchus count as a same-sex marriage? According to this here: Sergius and Bacchus: The Gay Soldiers Who Were Made Saints By The Church and Adelphopoiesis, it seems to be yes, but I need to know for sure if I am to add it to the List of same-sex married couples. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to see if Cultura Colectiva is something we can consider a reliable source, but I can't find any sort of "about" page which would say whether their writers submit to editorial oversight or not. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should I add it to the List of same-sex married couples or not. An adminstrator's decision is a one that I will surely stick with. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I found nothing on RS/N about it. But we have an article on it, and it seems some other articles have cited it. So go ahead for now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been adding their years of births to the article. Should they be added or should I remove them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Which article? Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The List of same-sex married couples. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

Iron Gwazi passed its FAC! Although I am a primary contributor to the article, your involvement was just as significant. The road to FA relies on community consensus and voluntary commentary. You dedicated your time and skills to help improve the article to its current condition. Without your input, the article would not have reached its status quo. You are a significant contributor! Whether you are a one-time commenter or contribute to other GA, PR, or FA candidates, I hereby award Daniel Case with the Teamwork Barnstar! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Iron Gwazi article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The peer review process was of importance in shaping the article to FA status. You stepped up to the challenge, printed it out (which I took as a compliment), and gave one of the most comprehensive reviews. Your time and paper are greatly appreciated. Hopefully, I can get a passing grade on that. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Sorry it took a while to acknowledge this. I'm delighted it made FA! Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 20 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article October 1 (film), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Nigerian film October 1 could not be released on October 1, the country's Independence Day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/October 1 (film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, October 1 (film)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I wanted to inform you that, even though they were blocked by you 25 days ago, User:Erenyeager008 continues their edit warring. They are ignoring the warnings, removing reliable sources and adding unsourced information on pages including Oppenheimer (film). I believe that taking prompt action is necessary to address this matter. Thank you for your attention. ภץאคгöร 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for a week this time due to having reverted your edit above in addition to the edit warring, showing clear awareness that it was edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for reaching out again for the same issue, but this user continues to make the same edits, removing reliable sources and trying to own the article while providing invalid reasons to justify their edits, and does not exactly pursue dispute resolution. ภץאคгöร 16:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have now blocked them from editing that page indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently pinged you at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The discussion has now been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users. JBW (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 27 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Texaco accused the academic publishers suing it for copyright infringement of profiteering, the judge called it "an odd argument ... to be made by an oil company"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the off chance you don't regularly follow AN drama, there is a discussion at AN that involves a mutual acquaintance of ours, and as the blocking admin I figured you might want to know. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want you to know that I appreciate your effort to manage and resolve issues regarding editing on Wikipedia. However,I was just trying to do the right thing. It might help if you review my editing history on the Oppenheimer page. It was never my intention to be disruptive, but I understand why it may have come across as such. I would be thankful if you re-consider the ban. Thank you.Erenyeager008 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've indeffed the user. They apparently went on a vindictive vandalism spree and explicitly invited an indefinite block. I obliged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Sort of felt it would end this way ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there - this didn't stick; they went right back to the same behavior. Could I ask you to do something more lasting? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've blocked for 72 hours this time (Keep in mind that "permanently" is not possible, as they're an IP address). Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same person, new IP: [4] - maybe semi the article? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have protected that article for three months and blocked 2600:4040:BFEF:9F00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You reverted this edit. I think that the caption ("Most recorded grain entrapments have occurred in corn"), itself, is a complete sentence; because of using the verb have occurred. I just read your edit summary indeed; but, as a non-native-speaker of English, if I'm still wrong, I will be thankful if you guide me more. Best, Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're correct now that I think of it. Revert. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks. In fact, in the file details, the "caption" and "alt" were displaced. I just fixed them. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, I wanted to follow-up on a recent block you made on a user. You blocked IJBall for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. Upon the IJBall's request, the block was extended to indefinite.

A group of editors has started a discussion, making numerous unfounded allegations and personal attacks on both myself and yourself relating to the block. Of especial concern are the comments by User Amaury, who seems to be conflating the circumstances of the block with separate unrelated incidents, and misinterpreting the reasons behind the block.

Amaury has previously acted disruptively in relation to this block. When I posted the initial edit warring warning on IJBall's talk page, Amaury reverted the message twice [31], [32], claiming the message was illegitimate, and minimizing the IJball's actions, while quoting WP:DTTR, which was stated to be baseless by a admin. I had to revert Amaury twice [1], [2] and warn Amaury against disruptions of WP:DR, before Amaury stopped reverting my warning. Amaury was warned by a admin that his subsequent actions relating to the block were unacceptable.

While I understand that some venting may be acceptable, I feel that taking into account Amaury's past conduct, and the warning from an admin, I find the current actions to be of concern. I would appreciate it if you could take a closer look at this. Carter00000 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, since most of that happened over a month ago, nothing would be accomplished by blocking Amaury now, although I might have felt differently at the time.

I am amused that someone is "stumped" that I granted a user's request to be indefinitely blocked, something that was well within my power and authority to do and not without precedent. Are we supposed to assume that no one could ever actually mean that? If they feel they're too compulsive to restrain themselves from editing and getting into trouble again, far be it for me to try to convince them otherwise.

They all need to recognize, as others have failed to do so, that there is nothing that says action on an ANEW complaint must await the complained-about user's response. If a reviewing admin sees that edit warring has occurred, even if it's not a clear 3RR violation, they have the go-ahead for a block. It's not AN/I (and frankly if most admins, myself included, see clear block-on-sight conduct reported there, we don't wait for a response either). Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response and clarifications.

I agree with your assesment that further action may not be needed at this point. I will let you know if there is any further escalation relating to the issue. Carter00000 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know that they found more IPs to hop to yesterday. Ingenuity has already blocked the 105s, though.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good. I would have blocked the range 105.74.14.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) but it seems that they only used those two IPs. Keep that in mind if they find other IPs to use, though. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel,

Following up on this RFPP request, the IP/s have continued to make the same edits after your response. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whose edits adding the quotes do you keep reversing? It seems some IPs are making constructive edits to the page; if we could just block the ones that are making the disruptive ones that might work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the previous edits, the edits seem to be made by a person with a dynamic IP originating from Russia.

1. 80.234.76.147 [5]

2. 80.234.72.92 [6]

3. 80.234.76.240 [7] Carter00000 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked 80.234.72.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from the page for a month. Hope that helps. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. I will let you know if there are any further related issues. Carter00000 (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another IP (88.200.230.960) from Russia has shown up at the page, making the same edit as the previous IP's. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Courcelles has protected the page. Thank you Courcelles for helping to protect the page. Carter00000 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I would like to inform you that User:Theadeoyetunji has been editing Oppenheimer (film) page similar to the blocked User:Erenyeager008. Their edits on multiple pages are reverted by me and other editors and they ignore the edit summaries and warnings. I think it is necessary to take action to solve this issue. Thanks for your attention. ภץאคгöร 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you be more specific on where/how these two accounts are editing similarly? Looking at Thea's contribs I don't see as many reverts, some helpful edits, and the edits to Oppenheimer don't seem to show the same fixation on the "Barbenheimer" thing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsourced synthesis, a similar addition to the aforementioned user. Another one. I'm not saying they could be the same person, but rather their edits involve adding unsourced and/or incorrect information, as well as ignoring other editors' comments and warnings. They've also added some questionable writing and I think all of their edits have been reverted, so I wouldn't consider any of them "helpful". ภץאคгöร 19:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have some diffs from Eren that show the pattern? I'd like to see a bit more. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ภץאคгöร 09:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was what I needed. Indeffed. (Sorry if it seemed like I didn't quite believe you, but it didn't fit the "obvious" sock pattern ... it wasn't created right after getting blocked (rather a couple of weeks ago) and didn't make the edits that stuck out on the original account).

The fact that this account was created a couple of weeks ago suggests to me (as, well, my regularly escalating blocks should have told them) that Eren expected this. There may be other sleeper accounts; if another one turns up an SPI might be a good idea because that would be the only way to find them before they're used). Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wasn't quite sure about it either, just looked suspicious. Thanks. ภץאคгöร 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just fyi in case you didn't notice: an IP address that you've blocked three days ago has made a mis-formatted unblock request. However, since then the same person has managed to evade your block here but has not edited since then. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the formatting for them ... as for the other edits, for now let's let them go. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at their contributions and those of the blocked NapoleonX (which strike me as quite similar with the insistence on removing "Sr." suffixes), I suspect sock puppetry. Since you were an admin who has conversed with this user, perhaps you could block the evading IP address? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that you had EC protected 2023 Haryana riots as a CTOPS action and judging by the enforcement log have experience with WP:ARBIPA. The reason that article needed EC was in part because of the editor Plumeater2, who I twice blocked for edit warring on that article and who has been enforcing their POV on the article since its creation. At the time EC was implemented the editor had around 422 edits across 11 months, but after EC was implemented their contributions quickly filled up with multiple pointless edits per minute until they reached 500 edits in order to continue editing the article, which seems like WP:GAMING. Given their edit warring, POV pushing, and combative attitude towards editors that disagree with them I think it would be best to use CTOPS to WP:ABAN them from the article, but as I've never done anything with CTOPS I wanted to ask someone with more knowledge if that would be the best course of action? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked in on 2023 Haryana riots to see whether it might have improved enough for me to change my "Oppose" vote on including it in WP:ITN and I came to the same conclusion: User:Plumeater2 seems to have gone on an editing spree to hit 500 edits so they could continue edit warring on 2023 Haryana riots, immediately made a significant edit to the article, and then the rapidly editing immediately stopped. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of my possible agenda items for next year's Community Wishlist Survey would be perhaps the ability to revoke or suspend a user's EC or autoconfirmed status for a particular page (the idea of making rangeblocks more of a spectrum, so they wouldn't apply to users who had been autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed, depending on the admin's taste.

However, for now it looks like for now blocking Plumeater from the page indefinitely (something I have done within the scope of IPA enforcement; see Minaro123's record) is really the best option. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you could unilaterally impose that; page bans are part of the standard set of CTOPS restrictions that an uninvolved admin may decide to impose. And I think the editors here form some sort of consensus for that action (not that it's absolutely necessary IMO, at least not for a page ban, if it were we wouldn't have partial-block capability). Make sure you log it; that way it's clear that for the first year any appeal has to go directly to ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I have notified them and logged it (I also added the WP:GAMING context to the talk page message and the log). I'm assuming there's no reason to p-block them from the article unless they violate the restriction? - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I guess so ... if they manage to act honorably, no need to use the stick. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to bring to your attention a CTOPS violation on this page. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kulfi&action=history Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have warned them. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reference to my previous thread Un Verano Sin Ti above, 2603:8081:A200:1D94:0:0:0:0/64 is back at it again, edit warring against MOS:THEBAND on Data (album). Worth noting that not long after the previous 2-3 days blocks placed on those IP ranges, they continued the edit war on the articles Un Verano Sin Ti and The Marías, which have since been semi-protected for a year. Unfortunately, their disruptive editing continues, spread over to the Data (album) article.

Along with that, a few new IP addresses and ranges have spawned in this as well, 2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 and 192.136.229.34. Quite a number of other edits from the /32 range surrounding 2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 also look quite unconstructive, with some uncivil edit summaries as well, and it has a history of prior blocks too. Just noting it down for the record. Anyways, my focus here is on 2603:8081:A200:1D94:0:0:0:0/64 and 192.136.229.34, since those were the most recent IPs involved in the disruption. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked the 2603 range for a week this time

2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was last active three weeks ago; too much time for a block to be anything but punitive. Likewise 192's been quiet for a couple of days. But of course we'll keep an eye on them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. 39.40.19.87 is an IP sock of DilophosauruZ (and PaleoPlayer43) as per this edit. Could I ask you to block? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The block is over now boss. Can I or you remove this label from my Talk page? I understand that blocks are not considered to be punitive and once served are considered to be the past. I don't want this stain on my profile forever. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can do it yourself once it's expired ... there's no requirement you keep it there. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke schon. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bitte Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel! I am sorry to trouble you again but I think this needs attention. As you know, I was the subject of a recent ANI Edit warring case (see [8]) but unfortunately for me you sided with Betty Logan who reported me.

Since then, I have in good faith read the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing article that you signposted me to as well as a few other advice articles about consensus building etc... I have learned that following any block, editors should take note of 'Repeating the same argument without convincing people'. I have in very good faith took this on board and returned to Talk:Millennials#Date and age range definitions with modified arguments which take on board all the comments on that page. Betty Logan who reported me to ANI is now asking above and beyond what any editor should be expected to tolerate by:

• Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources
• Expecting others to find sources for your own statements
• Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others

Without boring you with too much detail on the case I am trying to make on there, I have in good faith supplied sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, yet the user in question is engaging in this behaviour. Therefore, making it extremely difficult to make constructive contributions and improvements to the encyclopedia. Also, as you know this user herself engaged in the same edit war and also has a long history of reverting editor comments and undoing other people's work on the page. See [9]

On 04 March 2020 - she even compelled another editor to seek permission to add their sources. This is surely not acceptable behaviour and she has obviously had a very good run on this page since.

I honestly do not know how to proceed. There is a genuine case to improve the article as well as a labelled request to improve it at the top of its page yet her behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful.

I also fear that she is using Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling - with the threat of her using it again - to maintain a version of the article that supports her opinion. Are you able to offer any advice? I will not tolerate bullying of any kind and will simply not be dissuaded by bad faith behaviour like this. After 15 years on Wikipedia and hardly ever coming across my usual work being reverted in this manner - I think I am well aware of what constitutes acceptable content.Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has just come to my attention; Richie wright1980: if you are going to start threads about me then you have a duty to inform me. I did not "compel" another editor to seek permission to add sources. As you can clearly see from the edit, I restored sources that the other editor removed: [10]. Also, Richie, you should take a close look at that edit and note how the other editor deleted the sources for 1980, and in the interests of keeping the article balanced I restored them—given your advocacy for the 1980 date I would thought you would have approved! The person I actually reverted in that edit was this this person i.e. somebody who is now indefinitely blocked (nothing to do with me), so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume I was the "bad faith" actor in that instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Betty Logan I did not want to put you through a formal ANI report, rather I have sought the advice of an administrator. I am concerned that you have attempted too far to discredit the reliability of apparently good sources and are still in danger of deleting the pertinent cited additions of others.

However, I am willing to drop the argument of adding any subheadings for the sake of keeping the peace. In saying that, every Wikipedian is encouraged to introduce verifiable and reliable sources to portray any viewpoint. It is not the concern of editors whether a real life debate is imagined or not – that is not for us to settle but to describe. If you feel so strongly that no such debate exists then by all means introduce a reliable source that supports that viewpoint and source that suggests that 1981 is the one true, undisputed cut off point until the end of time.

As per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, it need not concern editors exactly how many sources are provided to support a viewpoint. Therefore, I would like you to refrain from engaging in the aforementioned behaviour.

If I introduce more citations to support 1980 as a starting birth year for millennials (which I intend to do), do I have your word that you will not undermine this work and not engage in an edit war? I would like an administrator to witness your answer here. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Daniel Case, In the best of faith I have been attempting to build consensus for improving the Millenials page and every step of the way have responded to the comments coming in on the Talk page in compliance with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I am afraid the above user Betty Logan is back again - this time with another threat to take me to ANI again. I am afraid there just seems to be no pleasing this particular user as she is simply unable to compromise on anything we have discussed at length. Wikpedians are encouraged to Wikipedia:Be bold, however, the atmosphere she has created on the Millenials Talk page is seriously discouraging. In the spirit of sincere collaboration I hope you can now intervene. I am afraid she is simply taking this too far. Please see her two latest comments directed to me -

[11]

[12]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I also make this clear. This is the first time in 15 years of Wikipedia that I have ever contacted an admin in this manner. Something is definitely not right.Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is a bit of gaslighting going on here. What is not right is that Richie finds it seemingly impossible to reconcile his edits with WP:NPOV: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:_Richie_wright1980. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts! That was the first time in 15 years that I had ever come across ANI. I didn't even know it existed before then. I prefer to stay well away from drama thank you. As it happens - both of us at that time left the ANI voluntarily and parted ways on very good terms. There was even a message at the end of the discussion that we should stay in touch. You should read the entire thread that you have highlighted as I made completely valid points throughout. What I do find disturbing is when people find it hard to not let things go and to modify their arguments as things progress. You should have noted by now at Millennialls that I have made substantial efforts to modify my proposals, arguments and to take on board your concerns ad nauseum. Above and beyond what should be expected. Have a great day.Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having just watched this play out over the last couple of days and hoping it will be for the best as it seems it might be: All I can find fault with in Betty (full disclosure: I am familiar with Betty's work on John Carter, which having been the one who did a lot of expansion work on that article last year in the hope of attaining future recognition for it I very much appreciate) here is just some minor misunderstandings: 1) she should have used "consensus" instead of "permission" in that March 2020 edit, and 2) while good wikietiquette is to let someone know, even with a linked mention as I did above, that you're publicly discussing them with a third party, there is no requirement to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Daniel! I do sincerely grieve for all poor horse carcasses out there but I can assure you that my stallion has plenty of life in it, it just has a few more hurdles to jump! I must be weary of those who would rather it go out to pasture and turned in to glue. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel, I am glad to inform you that the horse is very much alive and well and a new consensus has formed to support my proposed change to the Millenials page. The following users all now support my proposed changes to the 'Date and age range definitions' section of the Millennials page: The consensus is as follows:

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Betty Logan - opposes changes

Zillennial - awaiting feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

BappleBusiness - awating feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

I am afraid Betty Logan above is now further disrupting the page and preventing the natural process of consensus building to take place. I am now certain that she is engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour.

Please see the latest discussion in which a new consensus has formed to support my proposed change and the latest contribution by Betty Logan: Date and age range definitions (Amended as per Talk page consensus and feedback).

You have been witness to my extensive efforts throughout to engage in the consensus-building process and my efforts to listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article.

I am certain that Betty Logan is engaging in disruptive behaviour. I must admit I have never filed an ANI report on someone before but I need your advice on how to proceed. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just got to WP:ANI and click on "Click here to start a new discussion" button, and then just copy over all of your grievances from Daniel's page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tagging three recently active admins. I am very concerned by the editor Betty Logan's behaviour and conduct. I have made recent and extensive efforts to engage with the community to garner consensus for my proposed edit to Millennials#Date and age range definitions - Please see Talk:Millennials - The change I believe isn't particularly substantial in any case. I would like your advice on how to proceed as there is a risk of disruption to the consenus building process by the user Betty Logan. I feel that the issue needs urgent intevention. Many Thanks for your time... @User:GiantSnowman @User:Jimfbleak @User:Parsecboy Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found you all through this [link https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins] under the advice on the ANI page - Want to skip the drama? - find a recently active admin who may be able to help directly. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am perfectly happy for my conduct to be subject to review, but you must be willing for yours to be subject to review too, because there are two sides to every dispute. The appropriate place for that is the ANI board. I would be more than happy for the admins you have summoned here to review your conduct and mine, in the appropriate context. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will wait for the advice from the administrators. Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daniel Case This is now clearly the last straw. After one week of intense discussion on the Millenials page, a consensus has finally been achieved to update the Date and Age range sections with the editor @User:Some1 proposing a perfectly reasonable solution to all the concerns. Betty Logan has reappered on the talk page asking the page to take a vote on RichieWright1980's version or Some1's version thereby turning this in to a popularity contest between two editors - this is clearly against policy and is clearly about asking people to take sides. From day one Betty Logan posted on the article talk page with my username as the header asking people to form opinions from day one - she succesfully had me blocked for 24 hours by you Daniel but her conduct now has overstepped the mark. I don't come to Wikipedia to have my username placed in to a popularity contest by disruptive editors. Exactly how much leeway are you prepared to give this editor? Never in my whole time have I witnessed an editor get away with blatant disruption. See these diffs by Betty Logan making the consensus building proposal about me personally:

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

In any case - there was never such thing as Richie-wright1980's version or some1's version since both versions were arrived at by editor feedback and amended as things advanced. Please take action.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, could you please investigate a possible link between the user Wikiboo02 and Betty Logan - neither of which have user Talk pages.

See this diff where Betty Logan has edited a revision by the user Wikiboo02. The user Wikiboo02 has suddenly joined the page making underhanded sly remarks about my efforts to build consensus over the last week. See this diff where Betty Logan has made a change to Wikiboo02's revision. Now why would she do that?

[19] Richie wright1980 (talk) Pinging three active administrators to take immediate action - this is now clearly a conduct issue about the user Betty Logan. @User:Amakuru @User:Canterbury Tail @User:Valereee (Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I have nothing to do with this, please don't ping me. If you think you have a genuine case then post it to ANI, otherwise don't ping random people into a random user talk conversation. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but I don't know to use the ANI process. It is far too complicated and time consuming, I would have thought this conduct is a blatant abuse of the site as it is. Can you please help. The advice on the ANI page id to reach out to an administrstor. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have the time to read your wall of text above. Please open a thread at ANI. It's rather straightforward, just briefly state the nature of the problem and provide WP:DIFFs illustrating the problem. Admins will read it and if they think there's an issue then will deal with it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK thank you. This is a very difficult user. They will go out of their way to draw it out. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Hi Daniel, I am so sorry this has ended up on your talk page yet again. These are the edits that Richie is complaining about. There are currently three versions of the disputed text under discussion. With the three versions more or less finalised (Some1's version seems to be acceptable to both myself and Richie, but nobody else has actually commented on it so far, so I established a straw poll to ascertain opinion. Richie needs to appreciate that he alone does not get to determine the consensus, and as you will know already, this is a usual step at the end of a lengthy discussion when the various parties arrive at a tacit consensus. I names the two proposed versions after their principal authors. Rchie has changed the names to "Version A" and Version B. As you can see here I am ok with that. I 100% refute the allegation I have edited Wikiboo02's comments at the discussion. I don't think there is anything susipicous about Wikiboo's involvement in the discussion: they are an established editor and if you check their contribution history you will see that they regularly edit articles about demographic generations. Richie is just a bit miffed that they didn't take his side; I have established a straw poll partly because of Richie's tendency to dismiss dissenting opinion. I see Richie is once again attempting to summon admins to your page. If you don't mind me saying, I think you would be doing both your talk page and Richie a favor if you formally advised him to take his grievances to ANI, which is the appropriate forum to review editorial conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Which I am about to do Betty. I have absolutely no qualms about people disagreeing with me. This is exactly about how you have conducted yourself and your conduct. Daniel is an administrator familiar with both myself and yourself and has been following the developments. I pinged other administrators because Daniel has probably got other cases to deal with and the advice is to find an active administrator - please see ANI page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello my brother! Would you be able to lower the barricades on the page mentioned above? Imaginie (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest you to WP:RFPP and put in a request for a decrease in protection level. Given that it's in a contentious topic area and I only recently protected it, I doubt you'll succeed. But ... you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hahaha, nice saying. I will wait for the riots to become a little old. Thanks. Imaginie (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

or climb to extended-confirmed level lol. Imaginie (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, be mindful of WP:PGAME if you take that route. People have been blocked and have had permissions lifted for doing a whole bunch of random edits to get to autoconfirmed or EC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there goes the plan of fiddling with the user page, hahaha. Imaginie (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I’m sorry for asking you about this, but I was asking if you could put a protection back on for the article Fush Yu Mang. There has been an IP address (operating under the beginning numbers 89.205) that has been disruptively editing the track listing section on a consistent basis. I was hoping maybe putting protection on them would help stop these edits, or at the very least, block the address that’s causing them. Valddlac (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry it took some time to respond … when you posted I was en route to Singapore to attend Wikimania. Due to some technical issues, I was unable to edit until recently.

I decided after reviewing the history to block 89.205.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from the article for three months. There are other users on the range editing productively, so it wouldn’t be fair to them to block them all sitewide.

(This was actually an interesting challenge here since I am editing on a tablet where it’s not easy to open up another tab to calculate the range. I had to write the IPs down on paper to do that! Daniel Case (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 23: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Wednesday, August 23 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom
August 27: Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island
Additionally, you are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Governors Island, at Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house, as part of the Great North American Wiknic celebrations (and Wikimania satellite events) being held across the continent. This is the first big summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused on Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia (recently of perpetual stew fame), as well as plenty more food topics drawing on the potluck ethos. All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 27, 2023 Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island (RSVP on-wiki). 2:00 pm – 7:00 pm (come by any time!) Wiknic Discussion Groups: 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm (session A); 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm (session B) Picnic site: Governors Island, 406b Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house. Reach the island by the Governors Island Ferry. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct, and don't forget your sunscreen!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[20] - found it when a pov editor complained they couldn't post to Talk:Noah's Ark because their IP is banned -it's in this range that you blocked. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm … I think this is a situation where I extended my original block on this range in response to reports of later block evasion at AIV (see the history at articles like Police ranks of the United States and Ventura County Fire Department). If I were at home right now I’d look into it more, but from Singapore there’s only so much I can do.

HankScorpio1519 seems to have a history of tangling with this sock/LTA; he may know more. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed he does; see the “Disruptive Editing” section higher up the page. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm writing because I think we've had a bit of unnecessary friction, but much more than that, there's what I believe to be an extremely serious problem regarding Post 1932 AP articles (if I have that right) regarding which I think you can be helpful. I would rather the discussion of the same be off-Wiki, but I didn't see a way to reach you by email. You can connect with me through my USER page. I know that you're probably up to your ears in Wikimania & time zone changes. I'm going to be at a convention for the next few days so there's no rush. I've posted this note here, where it's unlikely to be stumbled upon by those deeply involved in the problem. Activist (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The chronically abusive IP range 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 is lying here, here, and here about why they were blocked in the first instance (i.e. before the block evasion), and also when they claim that I said they should be unblocked. They definitely should not. See in particular this unblock decline by Tamzin and my comment below. In my opinion this user appears to be shaping up to be a real LTA in the making and should be given no further rope to disrupt the project. Thanks, and enjoy Wikimania! Generalrelative (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We might want to consider revoking TPA if this keeps up. I think they are sincere in wanting to edit and be part of the community but they have shown that for now they cannot be trusted with even the most basic tools. Daniel Case (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yup, the deception really compounds the disruption. Reasonable minds can of course disagree as to the precise definition of NOTHERE, but to my mind statements like this qualify as an almost textbook admission. As a community there are the big time sinks like this to consider, and then there's more obviously malignant stuff like this. Generalrelative (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Hi, you previously blocked this IP on 4 Aug and again on 5 Aug. I want to let you know that they have reappeared today making some of the same edits that got them blocked previously (mostly with the "we are not fish" / "we are not animals" theme). CodeTalker (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TPS - Let’s try a month, then. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the renewal of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article to continue to protect vandalism attacks. Jon2guevarra (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now semi-protected for six months Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the review of article timeline edits of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines. Here's the following usernames that using Filipino language typos on English Wikipedia under "How do you improve the article?" section:

User:Khyan_Jewel_Cacapit

User:Goodbmi7

User:Daniel_Dunga

As pending on the timeline of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article. Three users will be permanently blocked due to Filipino language typed in input on English Wikipedia article. Jon2guevarra (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following the expiration of the protections on the Neocatechumenal Way page the same vandal has returned making their disruptive edits. Can you assess the situation again? Ncwfl (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected for six months Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 27: Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island

You are invited to the Annual NYC Wiknic, "the picnic anyone can edit" on Governors Island, at Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house, as part of the Great North American Wiknic celebrations (and Wikimania satellite events) being held across the continent. This is the first summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia and perpetual stew, as well as plenty more food. All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 27, 2023 Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island (RSVP on-wiki). 2:00 pm – 7:00 pm (come by any time!) Wiknic Discussion Groups: 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm (session A); 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm (session B) Picnic site: Governors Island, 406b Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house. Reach the island by the Governors Island Ferry. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct, and don't forget your sunscreen!

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hachette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're back.

41.249.72.174 & 41.249.79.224 today, 41.249.64.42 two days ago and 105.74.15.0/24 earlier this month.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked the latter range for a month. The other three are accounted for in a range block to 41.249.64.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) by Widr and a direct block by Aoidh. (Actually, it seems, a block of 41.249.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) would have covered all three. We can consider it if there's more socking from that range in the future). Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel Case,

Some time ago you put a lot of effort into the GA nomination for Affine symmetric group. I would say you held it to a very high standard, which was perhaps stressful for me at the time, but it left the article in good shape, and I feel the recent advancement to FA status is partly due to your efforts then. So thanks very much!

Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm doing research before I rewrite the article for the Spandau Ballet song "Through the Barricades" and went to look at the "True" article since the two songs involve Gary's infatuation with Clare. My eyes fell upon a sentence that didn't seem to flow as it should. I went back to what I originally posted, where it read,

He told John Wilson in a Mastertapes interview in 2013 that, because they were unable keep the audience they initially attracted, "There was a sense of, 'We have to move on from here,'" and how their desire to expand to a broader audience inspired the "True" lyric "I bought a ticket to the world". He suddenly felt free to compose pop music without concern for its danceability, which allowed him to focus more upon the melody.

Now it reads,

He told John Wilson in a Mastertapes interview in 2013 that, because they were unable to keep the audience they initially attracted, "[t]here was a sense of, '[w]e have to move on from here,'" a desire to expand to a broader audience. This later inspired the "True" lyric "I bought a ticket to the world". allowing him to focus more on the melody.

It seems like there's a jump for the reader to make between the words world and allowing, and I'm wondering why the phrase about danceability was removed when it seems to me like it was right where it should have been. Does it make sense to you to restore it? Danaphile (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think so. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll do that. Danaphile (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's the "we are not animals" dude again (sorry, now being firmly treated as Yours To Block :) - 2600:4040:BFEF:9F00:B49A:E350:1EFC:F295. Now on IPv6, worse luck... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2600:4040:BFEF:9F00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Time Park, ex horse an automobile racing track on 17M in Goshen. We have the old overhead. Remnants are still there for photograph. Mitch32^{(won't you be my neighbor?)} 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I know that's there. Most of that area is wetlands, though ... and not really accessible. Daniel Case (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel like you could stand on the shoulder of 17M and get the shots from there. Mitch32^{(won't you be my neighbor?)} 02:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, although in my experience it's hard to see (and basically the way you'd get them means parking at Quik Chek, running across a four-lane road and standing looking out at a marsh. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GMSV shows a dirt plot on the side of 17M to park and literally behind it is the curve to the SW/NE. If I had known about this when I was there in August, I would've done it. Mitch32^{(won't you be my neighbor?)} 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I have to Goshen tomorrow for a tutoring assignment … I’ll see what I can do then. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, took a look at it yesterday, but not a photo. I have to go back down there today for poll worker training and I see how I can do this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. A while ago you and another admin blocked two accounts (and several IPs). I wanted to inform you that the person associated with these blocks is apparently back in editing on Oppenheimer (film), and possibly other articles related to it. Because this IP belongs to the same range, edits on the same subjects, and creates very similar edit summaries, I believe it is connected to User:Erenyeager008, User:Theadeoyetunji, and other IPs. Here is an example of their edits. They also want to "own" my talk page too. ภץאคгöร 15:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked 2601:282:8100:32A0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for 6 months. Seems they may also have been an Ethiopique sock. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, the 139.5.49.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which you recently blocked is now to no one's surprise continuing their shenanigans on 139.5.49.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). John Yunshire (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

139.5.49.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, here's another active one of the same LTA. 139.5.50.94/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Thanks. John Yunshire (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have joined all these into 139.5.48.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and extended the block to a year. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TL;dr: blocks (affects editor directly) are superior to protection (affects entire project), consider WP:PBLOCK if not trying to be so heavy-handed.

Generally speaking, as regards the idea of protection vs. blocks, I'd err on the side of blocks unless there is clearly widespread edit warring amongst more than a handful of editors. Blocks can obviously be lifted once a promise to not edit war further is secured (and blocks do not deprive uninvolved editors who want to contribute productively to a topic from doing so), but it also provides a history for future administrators and editors to see if a pattern of conduct is emerging. WP:PBLOCK exists as well, which removes the full protection barrier, provides the logging benefit of a full block, but also allows the targets of said blocks to contribute productively or use the article talk page to resolve their disputes. Just my 2¢ as I saw there was some disagreement at WP:AN/EW. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to get the possible outcome for the situation, assuming in what now seems like misplaced good faith that FormalDude was interested in other outcomes besides getting AgntOTrth blocked. Perhaps I should have specified that he was under no obligation to continue the talk page discussion during that time if he felt it could not be productive. Since no one but those two had edited the page, partial blocking would have accomplished the same result but I thought that given that neither of them has yet been blocked in several years it was too soon for that without a clearer reason, and that they might welcome that.

As for blocks, since AoT had never been alerted to CTOPS (unlike Dude) I could not block him under that and I felt that it would need to be a CTOPS block. I was trying to give them both the best chance to avoid that outcome. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You declined[21] my report because my last warning message was 5-week old. The reported user was not active for almost 1 month. Today, they started their problematic edits again. So how can I deal with them? I wrote this verbose message on their talk page. Is it enough? I mean if they ignore it, can I report them? Because it seems the user has serious WP:CIR issues. I think their intention is good but they are clueless about how WP works. So would you please write a message on their talk page? Maybe another editor's message would be more helpful than my messages. Or a final/serious warning by an admin. --Mann Mann (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, report them again if they ignore it and go on. Or … you could also ask if they understand how to add sources, and what sources they would use. Take them at their word that they might really want to do things the right way. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will wait for their next contribution and then I will decide about them. I think I tried my best to help them by providing links to necessary guidelines and our WikiProject. A question: If their problematic edits happen again, should I take this case to WP:AIV or WP:ANI? --Mann Mann (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FormalDude. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Daniel. I think this IP needs a block. He has a page full of warnings, and this most recent violation shows they aren't listening. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done for 2 weeks. Ordinarily I'd point to the minimal activity over the last two years as a reason not to, but this was an IP that had been warned a few times and blocked once before. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I see you blocked User:2607:FB91:9D:5538:3518:8010:2C8:D9D5. Could you please have a look at User:96.58.139.46, User:2603:9000:9900:510B:493D:765D:2C6B:CBBE, and User:2603:9000:9900:510B:D8:5FC3:F3DC:C26E. All IPs from Florida. Or just look at the mess on the edit history at Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked the IPV4 for two weeks, and DatGuy took care of the /64 for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back at it again with another range: Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:2B:46B6:BCCD:E3B9:2862:3C85 & Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1874:C533:C03A:CF61:6D02:C9D1. From the Central Florida area. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 September 9 § Building collapses on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkltalk 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 20: Annual Election & Members Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Annual Election & Members Meeting, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect a new Board of Directors. We will elect five board seats. After being elected, those elected can potentially appoint more seats. We will also have a fun WikiWednesday! Election info: To run for election or to vote, you must be a dues-paying member of Wikimedia New York City, having renewed in the past 12 months. Voting will be both online, via emailed ballots from the ElectionBuddy service, and in-person. The poll will be open for the 48 hours between 8pm EDT on September 18 and 8pm EDT on September 20. For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ. Meeting info: Wednesday, September 20 Annual Election & Members Meeting (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• search: "By Richard Maney" site:www.nytimes.com
• "OK, I finally checked the source behind the paywall, and it is him. Never mind"
• which source behind the paywall convinced you?

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cited Times article, which described him as a theatrical agent. So same guy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Again, a suspicious IP, this time they additionally put a warning template on my talk page about "A possible permaban of your account is being discussed on arbitration forums for page Ownership Issues you are having", trying to accuse me for the changes made by other IP addresses on Oppenheimer (film) and maybe its related articles. Since I couldn't find this alleged "permaban arbitration forum" situation, I opened this topic thinking you might have an idea about what to do. ภץאคгöร 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn’t pass the laugh test, I’ll say that much. Does the one other edit from it, a month ago, look like our budding LTA here to you? Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure. Their edit summary looks like this and this. Their contribution looks like this one (I noticed both added a bare url with a space between <ref> and url), and they sent the message after very similar edits: 1 and 2. They have learned to be more careful now, whoever they are. Hopefully they won't bother me again. ภץאคгöร 08:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Daniel. Thanks for intervening in the matters of 172.13.193.84 in June and 66.84.173.102 a week ago.

User:162.218.161.5, who you previously blocked in April, needs another, longer block, in light of their continued vandalism, the most recent violation being this edit to the article of 9/11 victim Jeremy Glick. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked for two weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel, when you declined the user's unblock request, you changed their signature to another user (blocked by you). It's very confusing. Can you please fix it? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally figured out what you did. Apparently, you copied a decline of the the other user. I've reverted back to the original unblock request, thereby (unfortunately) wiping out the latest unblock request, although I've added a note to the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to keep adding to this. I think the unblock request was copied from the other user but the reason you gave for declining Mav214's unblock request was what you wanted for Mav214. If I'm right, that means I could have fixed it differently, but probably best to leave it alone now. I am surprised that Mav214 didn't even notice it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah … I’ve been mostly using my iPad and another computer lately due to issues with my main one (I will be replacing it soon) So it’s quite likely that something could have been inadvertently copied. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that you protected Drew Barrymore recently. Would really appreciate it if maybe you could keep an eye on the talk page - Talk:Drew Barrymore#It needs to be added that she's a scab... various editors (including a one-post wonder) are being quite persistent about the matter. Am hopeful the tiny pile-on will cool down now that Barrymore has recanted her decision to take her talk-show back to work. I'm just swamped this coming week and won't be able to do much Wikipedia'ing. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added my thoughts ... MOS:LABEL is most on point here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Disappearance of Tiffany Daniels, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I recently wrote a final warning message to an IP editor who had their edits reverted by users on Oppenheimer (film). Their response to my message looks very similar to this one ("you're not an admin"). The edits go way back (from this to this) and I believe that urgent measures should be taken to solve this problem, such as temporarily semi-protecting the page. ภץאคгöร 19:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In July 2023 you added a CTOPS notice to this page. Since then, 82.196.42.206 and 2001:f40:962:68d3:9d3:cfc5:5949:2fa1 have violated this designation. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kulfi&action=history

Thank you. -Ram1751 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have semi-protected the article for three months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 1: Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023: Edit-a-thon!

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023: Edit-a-thon!, with in-person at Prime Produce Guild Hall in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is being held in the middle of National Hispanic Heritage Month (Sep 15–Oct 15). Some past local edit-a-thons touching on this area have included the two editions of Wikipedia:Meetup/WikiArte at MoMA in 2015-16, and the CUNY LaGuardia translat-a-thons held annually since 2018. Meeting info: Sunday, October 1 Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023: Edit-a-thon! (optional RSVP on-wiki). 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm (Prime Produce Guild Hall, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Alternatively, you can sign up for the edit-a-thon on Eventbrite. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Since you are the admin who semi-protected Mark McGowan, can you remove the protection please? The circumstances that required protection are no longer applicable. The page was protected in the first place as people were prematurely saying that he had resigned as premier. Now that Mark McGowan has actually resigned, I don't think protection is necessary anymore. Cheers, Steelkamp (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Padlock Barnstar
	For your exemplary work at page protection Joyous! Noise! 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm always impressed at the thought you put into your decisions. You have been my mentor in this area for a while now, without your even realizing it. Thanks for your clear rationales. Joyous! Noise! 18:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well ... thank you! I'm humbled to read this! Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Daniel Case. Thank you for your work on 2022 New York's 3rd congressional district election. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josemi5000 is editing warring the article for Luis Miguel right after their block ended. Erick (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked them indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just in case you're not aware, the user has a previous account, Jose miguel 5000, which was seemingly abandoned. It's not a problem unless they start using the account again, but, at the same time, it wouldn't hurt to block it prophylactically.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done as well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

https://elcomercio.pe/saltar-intro/netflix/series/luis-miguel-la-serie-cual-fue-el-disco-mas-vendido-del-cantante-el-top-9-de-su-discografia-aries-nada-es-igual-mx-noticia/

Many internet pages publish the same thing about Luis Miguel and his historical sales of 100 million copies. You don't have the absolute truth when you put 60 million, where did you get the information about Warner Music? Josemi5000 (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason I requested extended confirmed protection for this page is the significant number of disruptive edits by autoconfirmed accounts- semi-protection is helpful but not really effective in this case. Please consider changing it to extended. Thanks! SurferSquall (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you list the autoconfirmed accounts that are causing trouble here? It's considerable work to look at everyone's user rights to make this determination. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiPate, Minorax, and Ckfasdf SurferSquall (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though these three users are all extended confirmed as well. So no point then i guess SurferSquall (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's the problem ... when you request ECP, you should be able to state confidently that it will keep out the bad actors.

It is possible to revoke their ECP status, and I've seen other admins do it, but you'd have to do it in situations related to more than one article (or in those covered by PGAME). And I feel there should be some sort of community-based process for this ... autoconfirmed is one thing, but for a lot of people EC is something they earned. It shouldn't be subject to an admin's whim.

Although, what might be possible someday is to revoke it only for specific articles, and for time limits.

This does lead to the last option ... partially blocking them from the article. Although I'd want them to be formally notified that this could be considered and see how they feel. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ckfasdf is known for long winded rants to get his way on articles. I wouldn't bother unless he does it again SurferSquall (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can the Trajan article be protected again? IPs/socks of User:JamesOredan/User:Venezia Friulano are continuing to operate. You can see how many times I had to intervene in that and other articles in recent weeks, always to stop him, and for that reason he even came to my talk page to insult me and blutantly say "haha i will continue to edit anyway" (administrators deleted his comments and protected my talk page). I am reporting all the IPs and socks but meanwhile we need to restrict his ability to go past the ban. Barjimoa (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done for three weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 21–22: Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. The event will feature several interactive exhibits highlighting the "wiki way" for New York City Saturday, October 21 & Sunday, October 22 (optional RSVP on-wiki). 10:00 am – 6:30 pm (come by any time, either or both days!) Prime Produce Guild Hall, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan
October 29: Wikidata Day in New York City
Additionally, you are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Butler Library, Columbia University, in celebration of Wikidata's 11th birthday. This coincides with the online/global WikidataCon 2023 and is a sequel to Wikidata Day 2022. The event will feature a Harlem Arts & Culture edit-a-thon, spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and cake! Sunday, October 29, 2023 Wikidata Day in New York City (RSVP required on Eventbrite and optional on-wiki). 11:00 am – 5:15 pm Butler Library (Room 203), 535 West 114th Street, Morningside Heights RSVP off-wiki is required! See the event page for a tentative schedule. At both events, all attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I would like to seek your assistance relating to a series of IP's and account which have been disrupting the Portal. The IP's and account are likely to all be operated by the same person.

In August & November, an IP (98.193.201.252) appeared on the Portal, edit-warring over the wording of certain entries. Later, the IP began making removals of entries based on the fact that the source used was in the format of a live-blog. The IP claimed that the source did not support the entries, which was untrue, given the source was preserved in its original form. The IP was blocked by Admin Ks0stm twice.

Recently, multiple IP's from the IP range 2600:1700:3AE1:50:0:0:0:0/64 have made the same types of edits, with similar edit summaries. Both the previous IP and the current IP range geolocate to the Nashville area.

Furthemore, a new user (FoodforLLMs), appeared on the portal a few days ago, also making the same type of edits, with similar edit summaries. The user is likely located in the US, given the articles edited. The user also seems to have made only a few edits, but is aware of the existence of the Portal.

Please take a look and let me know what you think Carter00000 (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright. I see that the first IP has been partial blocked from the portal for the rest of this month, so we don't need to worry about them. The other two, the range and the registered account, we should at least warn first just to be on the safe side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for my late response, I seem to have missed your reply here. As per your advice, I have warned the IP of this issue, on the talk page of the IP most recently used by the IP range.

For the user, I would like to observe a bit more, as it seems the account may not be connected to the IP's, based on the editing pattern. Carter00000 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To provide an update, an IP from the same IP Range has made similar disruptive edits [22], [23] again, despite a warning placed on the last IP's talk page. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seems to be a second series of IP's from a another IP range which have been making similar disruptive removals to the Portal. I have warned the IP on user talk. Carter00000 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on this ... I have limited time available this week due to work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, as a response to your comment that they've gotten the hint, at WP:RPPI, I would like to point out that the IP had just reverted my edit and then continued adding bunch unsourced info:[24][25]... Right after they have reverted me, an established editor removed much of the addition. So, I don't think there is any indication they have "gotten the hint". I hesitated from reverting the IP's latest edits thinking the page would be protected. Is the decision on WP:RPPI final? Aintabli (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, actually ... but since I couldn't assess whether their last four edits to the article were more genuinely useful (they seemed different from the ones you reverted before), I assumed in good faith that maybe they were trying to be helpful.

As you're EC, you would be able to edit under semi-protection. If you want, note this under the request; I don't think I'll be able to get back on for a few hours. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will do that. Aintabli (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have protected the article for a week.

That IP range also seems to be making trouble on other articles under ARBAA. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right. According to the range's edit history, they have made various unsourced additions on other articles as well. There are some hints as to which registered user it is used by, but I won't take action for now. Aintabli (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, not super important, but you might like to see this. Not surprising that such behavior often comes from sockpuppets. Aintabli (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you blocked 201.188.129.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours for disruptive editing. This is actually a Chile-based dynamic IP user who has already had 1 week, 1 month, and 3 month range blocks for persistent, disruptive editing. Among other things, they keep changing citation/reference titles/headlines, in spite of advice, warnings, and blocks. The proxy bot catches them too late, and blocks for too short a period of time. See 201.188.128.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)).

• Edit difference

Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131#Disruptive editing by Chile-based dynamic IPs .

Other recent IPs:

• 190.21.175.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 164.77.161.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.188.147.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.188.148.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 201.188.148.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would you consider a longer range ban, please?

Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proxy bot just blocked this IP for 3 days, so they've now switched to 201.188.158.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done blocked for two weeks. Although we may discover they're on a range. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked that /19 for six months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks indeed, Daniel. Much appreciated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, that Chile-based dynamic IP is back yet again, with disruptive edits and reverting editors who have reverted them. See 164.77.161.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thanks for your time and consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Hi again, sorry to bother you, but the Chile-based dynamic IP is back again and has had a final warning: 152.230.125.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Last time you blocked the use for 6 months after repeated advice, warnings, and blocks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again, sorry to bother you, but the Chile-based dynamic IP is back again and has had a final warning: 152.230.125.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Last time you blocked the use for 6 months after repeated advice, warnings, and blocks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jauerback has made the requisite six-month block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, thanks a lot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Just letting you know I am requesting unprotecting for Herbalife, as the issue has been resolved and a discussion is taking place. Thanks for the help. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bringing to your attention a potential CTOPS violation on a page you designated as a contentious topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lassi&diff=prev&oldid=1180989799 Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the talk page is not designated under CTOPS; we have protected talk pages under CTOPS in the past but it takes a much higher level of ongoing disruption than this. We like to leave the talk pages available when pages are protected so editors barred from the page can suggest edits.

I have undone the edit and warned the editor, though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel, Is there a reason why the Hawiye Page was not given better protection that i requested? Some guy came in and tried to wipe out a 1000 words here and there i had to keep undoing his work. Abshir55 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two reasons:

• Are you talking about Togawa11? Your request had been for him to be banned from the page. As I said, that's not really something we do at RFPP. Given that it's within a contentious topic area, such an action should really be backed up by some consensus at AE or something like that given that he has not been put through the usual process of being warned etc. ... I just gave him the first-time CTOPS alert yesterday.
• Now, of course, he isn't extended-confirmed, while you are. So raising the existing protection to EC would keep him off the page ... but only until February, as he's already made 55 edits and that would be when the 300 days elapse. Are there any other editors whose contributions to the page you consider valuable who aren't EC? Or disruptive editors who are? (Go into their contributions history and click on "user rights management"). I am willing to raise the protection to EC indef, but if it's about keeping Togawa off the page then as I said that only works for a few months. And you have to think about what sort of collateral damage that would do.

Also, have you tried communicating with him? It does not appear from his talk page, at least, that you have. We are more amenable to sanctions where an editor has rebuffed all attempts to discuss their problematic edits with them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A user asked a question about an EC protection you imposed at the article Sweden on August 3. It mentions a WP:AN3 report, but it is not linked and I cannot find a report about the article from the time it was protected. I know that the user Policynerd3212 (talk · contribs) was involved in a long-term content dispute shortly before the page was protected, but wouldn't that demand a WP:PBLOCK if it's just one or two users? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I may have meant an RFPP report. Let me look when I get the chance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies ... it was at ANEW, though for some reason it can't be found in the archives for that page). Here's my explanation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article The Exorcist you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Exorcist for comments about the article, and Talk:The Exorcist/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)hi, the exorcist 1973 movie is set in 1975. Check out the new book the exorcist legacy book to see this in print. Think it is by Nat sagaloff. Also watch the exorcist 3, which clearly states 1975 ( Daniel's headstone states he died in 1975 at the end of the film). Best. Abbythecat (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)abbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book is not canonical on this. Nor is the sequel, absent evidence that Blatty personally approved that choice. Neither were envisioned when the novel was written, nor when the film came out. They may have canonical value among the fans, but if so they're retcons, and we would need sources saying that the 1975 tombstone was clearly intended to indicate that that was when the events of the original film took place.

Best, really, just to leave the year out of the plot summary entirely. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 25 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in a copyright infringement case over a coffee-table history of the Grateful Dead, the Second Circuit held that a reuser can still claim fair use despite negotiating with the rights holder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From here, you stated that List of military engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war had been move protected indefinitely. It doesn't appear to have been fully move protected, the protection is still set at extended confirmed (which would work fine, but the editors in question are all extended confirmed, so it doesn't prevent the move disputes in question). Just would like for it not to come back to WP:RMTR unless someone there can agree on an actual title. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done I raised it to full move protection Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does a reference exist that shows this as a hyphenated word? I would hope we would prefer dictionaries and grammar sources over what we think a reader would expect. I see "newly-formed" in dictionaries but not "newly-created". Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, I have the ability to update what RegExTypoFix fixes and avoids fixing. But to change it for avoiding this particular fix, I need some hard sources to go on. Without that being addressed, other typo fixers will commit the same edit. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, see #3 under MOS:HYPHEN: "To link related terms in compound modifiers" That's what I was talking about. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for directing me to that, although I already knew about it. 3.4 confirms the removal of the hyphen. Further, my understanding is the hyphen is only kept when the ly- compound word is shown with a hyphen in dictionaries. Feel free to start a discussion in WP:AWB/T to further resolve this. What I have at this point doesn't convince me to change the rule. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 04:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I’m not sure what you meant when you said I have made little effort to address the misunderstandings with user User:NdegwaNguru97. I have had several discussions with them on my talk page and on their talk page as well. I directed them to the Wikipedia guidelines pages as I thought they were set up to help users with their edits. While not all of their recent edits have been reverted, there have been multiple edits with unreliable sources and I don’t think it is my responsibility to teach them proper editing or to find sources for them, even though I did attempt to do anyway, but could not find anything. I thought I was doing a good effort to answer the user's questions and concerns but I apologize if I did not try my best. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Your discussion of the article-title issue and the moves is actually pretty good.

But his response here to your final warning is an example of what I'm talking about. He needs to have WP:ONUS explained to him, that it is his responsibility to find proper sourcing if he wants the fact in the article (his idea that he can "point out facts" and you can find the sources for them has never been how we do this), and that whatever Telemundo does or doesn't do with their websites is irrelevant to this issue.

Your response to him is to reiterate links to RS and where you have explained that to him in the past. That doesn't seem to be his problem, at least not the most immediate one. As I said above, it is ONUS, which his response makes immediately clear he's unaware of. Once he gets that, then we can see about him understanding RS (I can't figure out what "exceptions" in the discussions on your talk page he's talking about, though).

Actually, also, the "official social media pages" of TV shows, WP:SOCIALMEDIA suggests he might have a point about their acceptability as sources without realizing it.

Lastly, he took a little umbrage—justifiable IMO—in your warning accusing him of vandalism. This isn't necessarily your fault; a lot of editors incorrectly describe unwelcome edits as "vandalism" in discussions and talk pages. He's smart enough to understand that his edits, technically, aren't vandalism specifically as much as they're disruptive editing generally, and that's honestly what he should have been warned for (specifically the repeated addition of unsourced content; see the ((uw-unsourced)) family of warnings).

Vandalism, as defined at WP:VAND, is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." To me that covers things like putting ASCII dick pics in articles or, say, replacing all the content of Tom Cruise with "is gay". When I give warnings or make blocks or protections, I usually use "disruptive editing" to distinguish vandalism from repeated edits that evince an intent to improve the project but for a variety of reasons, some not perhaps understood by the editor making them, actually are to its detriment. And so it is with Ndegwa. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only want to understand when point bullet number 2 WP:Facebook is applicable because it says so there that exceptions exist, yet I always get my edits reverted. I've read it through and through and still my edits are not reliable? NdegwaNguru97 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That provision exists because we knew we couldn’t make a blanket rule against something since we couldn’t possibly anticipate all the situations that could come up. But usually, if something does that might trigger an exception, it’s better to discuss it first on the talk page and get a consensus for it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Halloween prep set award
		For your work related to the Halloween prep set at DYK. Your contributions are appreciated! Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 31 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Exorcist, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that film critics accused the MPAA ratings board of having yielded to studio pressure to rate The Exorcist R rather than X? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Exorcist. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Exorcist), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Daniel Case:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1900 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I found this article while viewing the new pages, and noticed it had several issues such as repeated sentences. I wanted to fix some of these issues (or move the article back to draft space), however the article was Extended Confirmed protected, which I am not. Could the page become unprotected? Industrial Insect (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the ArbCom case in question requires that new articles in the topic be ECP from the start.

You can post the corrections you'd like to see on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, thanks! Industrial Insect (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Daniel. I lost count of how many times you blocked this idiot from different IP addresses. He just won't stop. When his block ends, he keeps coming back to vandalize many different pages every time. His current addresses are these:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.145
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.161
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.79

I've lost my patience with that twat, just block him for life or something, there's no chance he'll ever stop. Panosgatto (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Panosgatto: I've blocked the range for 6 months. Do not call other editors retards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Daniel Case. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You briefly blocked Akhshartag for edit warring in September, extending that block in October following their use of an IP to evade. During that second block, evasion continued from the same German IP range but I opted to not notify you on my own discretion. After the block ended, Akhshartag left this edit which shows no interest in reforming their editing practices and likely broke the civility policy. They are now back on Raphael of Brooklyn, continuing their edit warring and logged-out proxying. I'm requesting an indef for NOTHERE and three month block on the IP range. I'd prefer to have taken this to ANI for community involvement reasons but I'm currently on a long-hours work schedule through the end of this week and can't respond promptly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I blocked them indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, the following indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed protected pages have not had their prior PC settings reset for whatever reason.

• Huw Jenkins
• Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
• PlayStation
• JaVale McGee
• Googol
• World's Biggest Liar
• Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories
• List of emoticons
• South Asia
• Autism Speaks
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/2
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/5
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing/6
• Terry Bean
• United States presidential eligibility legislation
• Jennifer Caron Hall
• Courtney Stodden
• Candy Crush Saga
• Knowledge Kids (redirect page)
• List of video games considered the best
• Zoe Sugg
• Young Thug
• Camille Rowe
• Amit Mehta
• Black Lives Matter
• Heartbreak on a Full Moon
• Zeeshan Khan (squash player)
• Gaza Strip
• Government
• January 1

Would you please take care of this issue for each of the above pages? Thanks. Gunnarball (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to be at WCNA later this week, so my ability to respond may well be limited. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understood, are you able to take care of these issues this week? Gunnarball (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OP blocked as a sock of User:CalebHughes. Favonian (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, do you still plan to try to get The Exorcist to FA? It would be ashamed for it to not be on the main page for its 50th anniversary, especially since the article that is currently scheduled for December 26 appears to have no connection to that date. You'd also probably have the best chance of getting it promoted quickly if you QPQ multiple other nominations. Also, I'm starting to think this article may need to be pending change protected to ensure it doesn't suffer from WP:HALFLIFE. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I have taken so long to respond to your message.

I had a conversation about this with Buidhe at WCNA in Toronto (from which I have just returned). While it is indeed theoretically possible that I could get all the things I want to get done with the article done—adding the video of Merrin's arrival and creating a separate reception article—somehow in the next couple of weeks and then get an FA through, at this point I am leaning strongly against that (she concurred). It would be a rush job, really, made worse by not having installed my new computer yet (and getting that up and running, with all the software needed, is easier than it once was but still will require a few days that that timetable can ill afford to lose).

Since this summer I have concluded that the Exorcist curse affected my FA drive on this article:

• There was that weird issue with the first review, not well handled by me.
• Then you had your connectivity issues.
• Then I had my computer aging problems.
• Then just around the time you promoted it the Hamas-Israel war began, resulting in a lot more admin work placing and enforcing CTOPS restrictions on many newly created articles (and some older ones), taking more of my limited time.
• Then not too long afterwards I began the long stretch of days just ended where I worked at the polls for early voting, regular Election Day, and then went to Toronto afterwards (compounded by staying in Buffalo with a friend and driving up the Queen E and back every day for the last four).

And now we have Thanksgiving and the holiday season coming up to boot.

So, I really think that it would be better for the article (and likely myself as well) if I postpone its FA bid until after I can attend to those remaining issues, perhaps with next Halloween in mind as a Main Page date (might have been a better idea seeing as how well received having it as a Halloween DYK was). I would also like to review a GAN to do my QPQ for yours, as well as start contributing to some FACs so people will take an interest in mine, and that's going to take time as well. Plus I have an article in draft space I'm finishing up that will go into mainspace soon, I hope, with another DYK in mind.

Thus does writing about the movies for Wikipedia take on some of the characteristics of real movies in terms of production problems affecting release schedules. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally I have tried to write FAC to deadline and I would not advise it. It is so much better for the writer and reviewers to take the time that is necessary to improve the article and not feel pressured by a specific date. I doubt that most main page viewers care too much about anniversary dates anyway, or you could push it out to the next year or 5-year anniversary. (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had put these plans in place three years ago when I started to clean up the article, thinking nothing could go wrong enough to derail them in that much time. Famous last words.

In this case I figured that the 50th anniversary of the release would drive a lot of external media coverage (and it yet may, although Friedkin's death and the release of the recent sequel may have sucked some of that air out of the bottle). I have timed a lot of DYKs to anniversaries and I think that does stimulate interest, but then again in a DYK hook you can (and I do) mention the anniversary.

I don't mind writing to a deadline—I once was a journalist—but the point is that it has to be a realistic one. At this point December 26 no longer is.

Readers may not care about anniversaries, but editors do, as the many rollovers at WP:TFARP suggest. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough, and it was definitely great to meet you in person! (t · c) buidhe 04:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel Case. I saw you protected Shogi for ten days based upon WP:AN3#User:133.106.216.64 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Page protected); however, the "preferred version" of the IP was not reverted back to the pre-disputed version and remains as is. The IP has cited WP:WL, WP:DE and WP:CIR in their user talk page posts and their comments seem to be more about commenting on those they feel are less knowledgeable about the subject matter or not as smart as themselves than showing they are willing to discuss matters in good faith. So, it seems by leaving their version as is that their behavior is being rewarded and they will have no incentive to try and resolve things via the article's talk page in the future. It should be noted that Bruce leverett has taken the exact opposite approach as shown by this edit and their attempts to at least provide links to reliable sources which might help resolve the dispute on the article's talk page, whereas the best the IP could do was add a ((cn)) template to the disputed content prior to their last revert. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm striking out the above since the page protection seems to have served its purpose and the IP is now discussing things on the article's talk page. Thank you again for your assistance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Daniel Case,

"a conflict of interest against another editor in response to merely being asked if he had a relationship with anyone involved with the development of V (a question he has never responded to)."

This is to inform you that I have publicly responded and refuted this claim. 1) Please refer to Caleb Stanford (talk). 2) V's talk and the section- "Wukuendo's view on how the escalating series of events got to this point".

It is a factually incorrect statement to say that I have "never responded to" it.

Also, I disagree with the characterization that I was making baseless allegations, though you did give context as it being an unknown. The allegation partially comes from public information at that person's talk and profile. Respectfully Wukuendo (talk) 11:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 15: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our monthly WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Meeting info: Wednesday, November 15 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom
Wikimedia New York City Executive Director job listing
Wikimedia NYC, the 501(c)(3) non-profit supporting Wikipedia and related projects in the metro area, is hiring our founding Executive Director, apply here.

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I'm curious why you chose to block a user instead of protect the Stranraer, Saskatchewan page. As far as I could tell, the vandalism was coming from multiple IP addresses as well as the blocked user. Want to know for next time so I can determine when to use RPP vs AIV. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 21:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn’t block the user, Ingenuity did. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, my mistake. I saw your reply of "User(s) blocked" on my RPP post and thought you were the same one that did the block. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, i just wanted to be sure that my edits ("disruptive editing") weren't the reason you protected the page. If so i profusely apologize Trade (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, yours seem OK. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what was the disruption? Trade (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The back-and-forth involving unregistered editors. This way they won’t be able to do it for those months. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I strongly suspect that RFPP report was a bad-faith effort to take control of a content dispute. The claim that the article is getting "high levels of disruptive edits" is clearly appears to be aimed at Solidest, who's been in a nasty dispute with the filer (and who shouldn't be locked out of the article anyways). The only anonymous edits were clear, outstanding improvements so the filer, who is on the verge of a block because of their behavior at ANI, blatantly lied when they warned of "IP vandalism/ disruptive edits". I hope you'll consider unprotecting, even if it's just for (now a bit less than) 3 days. City of Silver 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]