User talk:Daniel Case

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

Into the Pandemonium
Greetings! I used to go by the name of Musicaindustrial. You awarded me the The Working Man's Barnstar for my editing on the grindcore and industrial metal articles. I'm currently working on the Into the Pandemonium article. I'll need some help in the near future, I'm planning to turn it into a Good article. Thanks! CalmonTellechea (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Still upset
That you rejected my IP block exemption.. harumph. Anyways Jtchen26 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have rejected it; it's up to the Checkusers. And anyway I don't see it in your user talk page history. Did you request it from an IP? Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I didn't because it got sent to my email, but maybe? That's alright anyway because it's nothing serious, I was cleaning out my inbox and saw it. Jtchen26 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, maybe it was at UTRS ... I don't keep track of those. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS
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)


 * 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)

Matthew McMullin
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)


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

Your GA nomination of The Exorcist
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)

User 69.118.22.124
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)


 * 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)
 * Thank you! Stormy160 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Exorcist
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)

Block may need restored
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)


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

Economy of Vietnam
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Skaar (character) and 172.13.193.84 need monitoring
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)


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

Query about an article's protection
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

IP linked
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)


 * 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)

Explication
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)


 * I had been tangling with them since I went to AIV and saw that they had reported, 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)
 * 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)

Un Verano Sin Ti
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)


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

CT Logging
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 Let me know if you have any questions about this, as it certainly can be confusing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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  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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)

Disruptive Editing
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)


 * blocked for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Back again with disruptive editing following the block. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked two weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Back with a vengeance after the latest ban. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Blocked for three months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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)
 * It has been moved to WP:Administrator's noticeboard for further community input. Shim119 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And you've been indefinitely blocked, so that takes care of that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for 3RR Noticeboard Review
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)


 * 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)
 * 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, upon the provision of a reasonable rationale 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)
 * Well, I see 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)
 * 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)

DYK for Killing of Jerry Waller
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Page protection
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)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Diauehi logging
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)


 * 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)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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)

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)
(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)

Sequel to Ruby Gillman
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)


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

Dan Ariely protection
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)


 * 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)

DYK nomination of American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Secaucus Transfer Concourse sculpture.jpg
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)

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

Request rev/del Talk:Gareth Phillips
Could you take a look at. I've reverted it. Knitsey (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've also warned the user. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Marriage or not
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Which article? Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The List of same-sex married couples. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * 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)
 * 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)

DYK for October 1 (film)
—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Erenyeager008
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)


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

Discussion moved
I recently pinged you at Village pump (technical). The discussion has now been moved to Administrators' noticeboard. JBW (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK for American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

AN thread
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)

Regarding an indefinite ban from editing on Oppenheimer film page
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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks! Sort of felt it would end this way ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

100.16.203.133 again
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)


 * 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)
 * Same person, new IP: - maybe semi the article? Cheers -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have protected that article for three months and blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fragment sentence or complete one?
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)


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

Follow-up on User Block
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

That movie credit vandal using Moroccan IPs
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)


 * Good. I would have blocked the range 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)

Follow-up on RFPP Request
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)


 * 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)
 * 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
 * 2. 80.234.72.92
 * 3. 80.234.76.240 Carter00000 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked from the page for a month. Hope that helps. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


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

User:Theadeoyetunji
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ภץאคгöร 09:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I wasn't quite sure about it either, just looked suspicious. Thanks. ภץאคгöร 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly formatted unblock request
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)


 * 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)

Special:Contributions/205.134.214.227
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</b>) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about contentious topics
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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 's record) is really the best option. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Kulfi
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)


 * I have warned them. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Band edit warrior is back again
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. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  10:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the 2603 range for a week this time
 * 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)

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


 * Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

24 hour Block over
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)


 * 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)
 * Danke schon. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Bitte Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerning behaviour by editor at Millenials page
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 ) but unfortunately for me you sided with Betty Logan who reported me.

Since then, I have in good faith read the 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 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 Verifiability and 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

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 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)


 * This has just come to my attention; : 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: . 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)
 * @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 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)
 * @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 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 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 -
 * 
 * 
 * Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 (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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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 - 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I will wait for the advice from the administrators. Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @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:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 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)
 * 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?

 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))
 * 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. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b> <i style="color: Blue;">talk</i> 17:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 '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)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)
 * Hahaha, nice saying. I will wait for the riots to become a little old. Thanks. Imaginie (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * or climb to extended-confirmed level lol. Imaginie (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well there goes the plan of fiddling with the user page, hahaha. Imaginie (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Protection of Fush Yu Mang
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)


 * 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 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)

WikiWednesday (Aug 23) and Governors Island Wiki-Picnic (Sun Aug 27)
(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)

What can you tell me about this
- 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)


 * 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.
 * seems to have a history of tangling with this sock/LTA; he may know more. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed he does; see the “Disruptive Editing” section higher up the page. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Regarding that IP range
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

100.16.203.133
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)


 * TPS - Let’s try a month, then. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Protection of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article.
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)


 * Now semi-protected for six months Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Three user names will be blocked on History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article.
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)

Disruptive editing on Neocatechumenal Way page
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)


 * Semi-protected for six months Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sunday: NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Gov Island
(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)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
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)

About that hopper using Moroccan IPs you blocked on 15 July
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)


 * I blocked the latter range for a month. The other three are accounted for in a range block to by  and a direct block by . (Actually, it seems, a block of  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)

Thanks one last time
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)


 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding "True" edit
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)


 * Yeah, I think so. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll do that. Danaphile (talk) 10:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Vandal sock again
It's the "we are not animals" dude again (sorry, now being firmly treated as Yours To Block :) -. Now on IPv6, worse luck... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * blocked for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Good Time Park photo opportunity
Good Time Park, ex horse an automobile racing track on 17M in Goshen. We have the old overhead. Remnants are still there for photograph. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 00:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * I feel like you could stand on the shoulder of 17M and get the shots from there. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 02:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. Mitch 32 (won't you be my neighbor?) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Oppenheimer (film)
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. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 15:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for 6 months. Seems they may also have been an  sock. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Company LTA
Hi there, the which you recently blocked is now to no one's surprise continuing their shenanigans on. John Yunshire (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * blocked for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey there, here's another active one of the same LTA. . Thanks. John Yunshire (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have joined all these into and extended the block to a year. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Protection vs. Blocks
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)


 * 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)

Declined report
Hi. You declined 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I would say AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers! --Mann Mann (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

66.84.173.102 needs a block
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)


 * ✅ 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)

Blocked IP
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)


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

CfD nomination at
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  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. + Qwerfjkl  talk  21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sep 20: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting
(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)

Chinese home run

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

The Center Line: Fall 2023
<div style="margin-left: 10%; width: 80%; text-align: center; border-radius:2em; box-shadow:0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"> <div style="background-color: #006A4D; color: white; border-right: 0.3em solid #fff; border-top: 0.3em solid #fff; border-left: 0.3em solid #fff; padding: 1em 2em; border-radius:2em 2em 0 0;"> Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter • A New Future for Road Articles Online <div style="background-color: #FCD116; font-weight: bold; border-right: 0.3em solid #000; border-top: 1px solid #000; border-bottom: 0.3em solid #000; border-left: 0.3em solid #000; border-radius:0 0 2em 2em;"> Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
 * Features
 * —delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of  Imzadi 1979  →  on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"Permaban" situation allegedly discussed on arbitration
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. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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  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. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร  08:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

User:162.218.161.5 needs to be blocked again
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)


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

Mav214
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

If you could look in on this talk page...
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... 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)


 * I added my thoughts ... MOS:LABEL is most on point here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Disappearance of Tiffany Daniels
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: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Daniel_Case&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1176053253 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disappearance_of_Tiffany_Daniels&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1176053253%7CDisappearance%20of%20Tiffany%20Daniels%5D%5D Ask for help])

Oppenheimer (film) (again)
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. <small style="font color:purple">ภץאคгöร 19:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Kulfi
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)


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

Sun Oct 1: NYC Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023
(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)

Request for unprotection
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)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar
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)


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

I have sent you a note about a page you started
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:

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

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;   (contact)   04:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Problematic user
is editing warring the article for Luis Miguel right after their block ended. Erick (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them indefinitely as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just in case you're not aware, the user has a previous account,, 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)
 * ✅ as well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

luis miguel sold 100 million copies
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)


 * See above. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines fleet
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)


 * 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)
 * WikiPate, Minorax, and Ckfasdf SurferSquall (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Though these three users are all extended confirmed as well. So no point then i guess SurferSquall (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Protection
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)


 * ✅ for three weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York (Oct 21–22) and Wikidata Day (Oct 29)
(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)

Disruption on Portal: Current Events
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * To provide an update, an IP from the same IP Range has made similar disruptive edits, 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)

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)


 * 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)

Addition of unsourced content on List of dishes from the Caucasus
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:... 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)


 * 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)
 * Thanks, will do that. Aintabli (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

24-hour block on 201.188.129.45
Hi, you blocked 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.



Also see: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1131.

Other recent IPs:

Would you consider a longer range ban, please?

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


 * The proxy bot just blocked this IP for 3 days, so they've now switched to .  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   18:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ blocked for two weeks. Although we may discover they're on a range. Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked that /19 for six months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks indeed, Daniel. Much appreciated.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   06:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, that Chile-based dynamic IP is back yet again, with disruptive edits and reverting editors who have reverted them. See. 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:. Last time you blocked the use for 6 months after repeated advice, warnings, and blocks.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   10:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

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


 * has made the requisite six-month block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks a lot.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, they're back as. Every edit reverted by other editors. Previous 6-month IP block on 9 February 2024:.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

They've now switched to.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   09:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks again.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   16:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Herbalife article protection
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)

Potential CTOPS violation
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)


 * 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)

Hawiye
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)


 * Two reasons:
 * Are you talking about ? 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)

Protection log action references a nonexistent AN3 report
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 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? –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 15:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Your GA nomination of The Exorcist
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)

1975
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)


 * 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)

DYK for Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFPP
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)


 * ✅ I raised it to full move protection Daniel Case (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"newly-created"
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 Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 02:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 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 Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 02:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 04:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User NdegwaNguru97
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

DYK for The Exorcist
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive
<div style="border: 2px solid #484898; background: #FFF; background-color:#98FB98; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 99%"> 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 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Unprotection for Ottoman invasion of Eastern Armenia
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)


 * 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)
 * Alright, thanks! Industrial Insect (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Stuborn retard keeps vandalising pages
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)
 * I've blocked the range for 6 months. Do not call other editors retards.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Daniel. The same vandal came back with new IPs, please block him for another 6 months.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:1388:152:BA09:0:0:1202:5F73
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:A73:FA00:94BE:3F5:4E94:379C
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.217.165.104
 * Panosgatto (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All blocked for a year. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Legend. Panosgatto (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The guy's a cancer, there's another vandalising IP he uses:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.217.165.56
 * Panosgatto (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!
—asparagusus  (interaction)  <sup style="color:#050">sprouts!  03:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Akhshartag
You briefly blocked for edit warring in September, extending that block in October following their use of an IP to evade. During that second block, from the same German IP range but I opted to not notify you on my own discretion. After the block ended, Akhshartag left 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 and. 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)


 * I blocked them indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed protected pages needing prior PC settings reset
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
 * Pending changes/Testing/2
 * Pending changes/Testing/5
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Understood, are you able to take care of these issues this week? Gunnarball (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OP blocked as a sock of User:CalebHughes. Favonian (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Exorcist
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)


 * Sorry I have taken so long to respond to your message.
 * I had a conversation about this with 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)
 * 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 &#183; c)  buidhe  03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Fair enough, and it was definitely great to meet you in person! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Shogi
Hi Daniel Case. I saw you protected Shogi for ten days based upon WP:AN3; 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 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)
 * 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)

Factually incorrect statements made against Wukuendo
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)

Nov 15: WikiWednesday Salon + Wikimedia NYC Executive Director job
(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)

User block instead of page protect
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)


 * I didn’t block the user, did. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

SSSniperWolf
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)


 * No, yours seem OK. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So what was the disruption? Trade (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

Afro Tech semiprotection
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. <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 21:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @City of Silver I have not once mentioned @Solidest today ,and the ongoing discussion taking place @ please see ; @Daniel Case, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents today, I was solely referring to someone else see ; Talk:Afro Tech , you @City of Silver decided to bring up @Solidest again out of your own , instead of referring to the issue (today's issue) I was referring to. I requested the semiprotection because of an edit done by an unregistered user/IP address which you can check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afro_Tech&action=history  , like @Schazjmd mentioned , it was the first article I created and of course as the author, I would be "watching" or more interested in the article than others. Yourself ( @City of Silver) & @HandThatFeeds have been going at me nonestop, further perpetuating the behaviour Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents I have been complaining about as a newcomer , instead of
 * WP:ETN
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @City of Silver & @Daniel Case ,the only reason why I didn't entirely revert because as per
 * WP:DOREVERT I kept some of the edits, as into not seem bias or entirely WP:BITE the IP address' edit, ( the comments and tags for the edits were also obviously sarcastic referring to specifially my and no one else's edits as "fluff" etc.
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I second City of Silver's concerns. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I was editing from my IPad on the train back from Toronto, and that was the last RFPP I had to do before eating, so I may not have taken the best look at it. Let me do that again. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I took another look. While I do find Toosie's behavior at AN/I concerning, that was not the basis for the protection—I was responding to this edit from an IP, the edit Toosie is alluding to above. The whole discussion above is, moot since both Toosie and Solidest can, as autoconfirmed users, still edit the article. Which I would prefer you do rather than fight on my talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case exactly. I sincerely apologize for the extra text, I was trying to explain/ defend  myself &  the action too, currently as I am and "my edits" ( even on other articles and as per suggested, allocated specific, "newcomer tasks")  are now being appeared to be
 * WP:HOUND
 * WP:HOUNDING, I request for the specific page's semi-protection to be please be potentially extended if you see fit or even
 * WP:PC to be taken for your consideration.
 * ToosieJoosie (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case, City of Silver literally "pleading" for unprotecting all while claiming an IP address/ unregistered users' "blatant removal/ blank" edit of sentence(s) and sources "in camoflouge"  of other 'minor improvements'  and describing the edit "as clearing prose fluff:" only on specifically my edits on the page is ,unworldy.
 * Especially ,directly after another incident also, today Talk:Afro Tech whereas another experienced and longstanding editor also couldn't / didn't back his claims for disruptive edits ( describing as irrelevant), again without also initiating a talk on the article's talk page , first.
 * Furthermore, Solidest has been silent ever since yesterday so why this is even continuning and escalating to this point of WP:HOUNDING, I have no idea and I am highly, confused. I really sincerely apologize for this. ToosieJoosie (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Themes in The Exorcist


Hello, Daniel Case. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Themes in The Exorcist".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  04:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, as an admin, I can and will just undelete it myself when it's time. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Cahalane citation in Risch article
Hi, I'm trying to locate the source attributed to John A. Cahalane in Disappearance of Joan Risch. It looks like it's been in the article since shortly after creation in October 2016. I gather that Cahalane was a detective on the case, but I can't find content attributed to Cahalane related to Robert Foster of East Walpole (which what the citation appears with). Any recollection or insight of what the source was? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * OK ... the way I cited it when I wrote the article, it's on page 29 of the PDF cited in note 1. I was going to check this, but now the PDF tries to make you download a Firefox plug-in that it admits will change your search engine in order to let you through, and I don't want to do that. Maybe another browser will make a difference? Or we can find an archived version? Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that definitely helps. I was able to view an archived copy of the PDF at archive.org, which I've added to the citation in the article -- the direct URL is here. I will take a look at the Cahalane content later today or tomorrow, and will try to link it in some manner in the citation. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Unprotection request for my User page
Thanks for protecting my User page a few months back. However, since that protection, I haven't seen any new attempts at vandalizing my User page and I don't see a point in semi-protection if new users are already locked out by an edit filter anyway. Is there any way it can be unprotected? Thanks! Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Just lifted it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Wed Dec 6: Hacking Night + job listing
(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) 19:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 in Philippine Television article
We have to renew the 2023 in Philippine Television article to protect against vandalism again.

Hope you to continue the article protection again. Jon2guevarra (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ It's semi'ed for a year now. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Cignal TV Channels on my user account.
In addition of my user account, the sub-article link of Cignal TV channels will be a long-term protection article against IP address and vandalism.

Link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AJon2guevarra%2FCignal_TV_channels?wprov=sfla1 Jon2guevarra (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ I'm going to decline that one ... the threshold for protecting a draft page in userspace is higher, and even if it weren't there's really not that much disruption to it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Quick question about block logs
Hey Daniel Case! So a little of 24 hours, you blocked me for 72 hours. I recently appealed that and my appeal was accepted. I have a general question related with a comment you made in the original blocking. On the blocking message at AN3, you commented about my block log being shorter than the other user. If I may ask, did blocks from over 2 years ago play a role in the duration of the edit warring block? I'm asking because back in 2021, during the time of those blocks, I was followed for several months by a WP:TPS/borderline hound and they always brought up my past edits, sometimes from months earlier. None of my previous blocks related with edit-warring, so my overall question(s) is do administrators take into account all previous blocks when deciding a punishment and is there some certain timeframe where a block from X years ago doesn't get considered when issuing a new block? This question isn't against you at all, but I was honestly surprised that my block-log, which had no blocks for over 2 years was mentioned in the reply/formalized block mention on AN3. Maybe you could shed some light on how that process works. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * In this case, since both you and the other editor have previous block histories, my point was to acknowledge that I was aware of yours in case it was brought up by the other editor in appealing their block (since I did consider it more relevant as it was more recent). It really wasn't relevant to your block ... I made it 72 hours since you went a little beyond 3RR as you admitted. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Problem with page editing or removing of non existing players
Hello Daniel Case, hope you are well, I am writing on your page because I know that you are familiar with disruptive ip addresses which came from same geolocation and at one point made serious number of edits adding non existing players or names on different teams i.e. [], [], [] etc. What I noticed today is that there were also previously some names added on Serbia men's national basketball team, namely on Team section, 2023 roster [], Predrag Jovicic and Zarko Koturovic. As far as I know those are not even basketball players and what is most certain they were definitely not part of the WC 2023 team [] here are 12 players roster. The problem is that I can′t remove those names. And I don′t know why. Could you be able to help ? Thank you for you answer. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... I don't see why you shouldn't be able to edit that article. There's no protections on it, and you're extended confirmed. What message are you seeing when you try to remove or revert? Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could try it, for me it does not show the list of players so I am unable to remove this 2. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry ... I had to revert your last two edits because the WML you pasted in on the last two edits really screwed up this page for some reason, wiping out a couple of months worth of discussions.
 * But from what I could see, the names are in a template separate from the page. Let me take a look at that.
 * (In the future if you have to do that, it's a good idea to put the "nowiki" HTML tags before and after the WML). Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah Okay thank you for the information. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. What's going on is that the section's transcluded. It's editable here. I have taken the liberty of both rolling the edits back and warning the IP. Let me know how this works out (and don't hesitate to further warn the IP yourself using escalating versions of uw-error (i.e. 2, 3, and 4 and reporting them to AIV if they keep going). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will do that. It also solved the problem on Serbia men′s basketball team. It worked. Thank you again. Have a nice day. Theonewithreason (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Accidental wheel war
Hi, Daniel. It looks like, at almost the exact same moment, Izno full-move-protected Henry Kissinger, you brought it back down to semi-, and I brought it back to full-. That all happened fast enough that I didn't see either previous protection in the logs when I acted, but it does mean that I've technically wheel-warred here.... Not a good verb to be putting "technically" in front of. So, is the full protection satisfactory to you? If not, I'll self-revert stat. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 03:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The log records Izno making our moves at the exact time, and unfortunately there seems to be no way, unlike editing, that admins can learn of that before completing the action. Another item for the next Community Wishlist, I imagine ...
 * I have no problem going to full even though semi was all that was necessary at the time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-autoconfirmed users can't move pages, so I'm not sure why we even have the option to semi-move-protect. The dialog should just show "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access" from the start. There's probably a Phab task about that somewhere, and probably also a Phab task about avoiding race conditions like this. 🤷 -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 03:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone else brought that up at RFPP.
 * I likewise wonder why the protection page doesn't point out that enabling semi-protection while PCP is also enabled basically negates the PCP, since our current option only allows for it to apply to the non-autoconfirmed. It took me some time to realize that and disable PCP if I wanted to go to semi.
 * It only makes sense if the ultimate goal was/is to have some sort of PC2 that applies to non-ECP users. Which I do think would be a good idea, and I do intend to suggest that at the next CWS. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sometimes temp semi + indef/longer-temp PCP can make sense, but yeah, usually shouldn't have both for the same length of time. As to an ECP-PCP option, I think that FlaggedRevs could be configured to do that as-is (which is good, because the WMF refuses to work on FlaggedRevs last I heard). So if you wanted to propose that I think it would just be a matter of community consensus. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 03:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Last year I suggested allowing the layering of blocks and protections (i.e., User X is blocked sitewide for 24 hours and from the article they edit-warred on for a week, or a page's protection will drop down to semi after a month or so of ECP). It was a very popular idea, and I've gotten some hints there might be some movement on it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Multi-blocks is very close to done based on my watching Phabricator. Wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a beta sometime early next year. Izno (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking for it ...
 * My next fave would be allowing inverse blocks (i.e., allowing people to edit only a small group of pages). Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd love to see that one too. I had a user who I tempblocked for 3RR while they were at AN/I, but I felt guilty about it so I made the block be just from mainspace and talkspace but told them, if you touch any page other than your usertalk and AN/I, I'm making this a siteblock. After a few hours, temptation got the better of them, and they edited some other page, so I siteblocked them, and that directly precipitated a siteban. I don't know if it would have gone any differently if I'd been able to do "Blocked from everywhere but AN/I and your talk" from the get-go, but it would have been nice to have the option. -- Tamzin  &#91;<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 04:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocking a user I had warned
Hi, Daniel. I was surprised to see you block User:RuleBritannia1879, who had not edited since I gave them a personalised, explanatory warning where I said I would block if they edited the article in the same way again. Was there any special reason you didn't want to wait to see what effect the warning would have? Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC).


 * They had already edited past their earlier final warning, as noted at AIV. And their edit history doesn't show much of a lasting impact. Their username suggests an SPA. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That /64 you blocked for spamming online IQ tests
...is back at it. Most recently trying to stealth edit with misleading summary "typo fix". Generalrelative (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked for two weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Daniel :) I'm looking to interview people here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Tarja Turunen discography
Hi, thank you for protecting the Tarja Turunen discography. Unfortunately, the vandals simply resorted to creating an account and they continue reverting my removal of the bootleg album. I'm not sure why so many Vietnamese people (according to the IPs) are hellbent on keeping the bootleg as part of her official discography, but I don't want to spam the edit history with my reverts any longer. Can you please protect the page for good? Cheers! Seelentau (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them indefinitely ... the protection is still up and will be for the next month.
 * It's apparent that, as you noted, they are determined. The account history shows that they created it over a month ago, probably with this use in mind, and once I protected the article they began, I would guess, hitting "random page" and making small edits in rapid succession to get the account to autoconfirmed status and thus exempt from protection. I've heard of this happening, but this is the first time I've seen it being done "in the wild".
 * This is, admittedly, pretty crafty on their part. There is an edit filter that looks out for this, but ... obviously, it's not perfect (As in this case where less than 25 edits were needed).
 * I have for now blocked that account indefinitely. We will need to, unfortunately, wait for them to make the next move. There are a number of things I could do, but maybe the best option is to contact a checkuser to see if there are other socks in the farm out that way, and strike pre-emptively, so to speak. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

ES revdel request
On Nang Lang Kham, this edit summary should probably be blanked:. Is there a template along the line of Copyvio-revdel for requesting an ES revdel? Thanks! Adakiko (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ There isn't such a template yet, AFAIK. Perhaps one should be created.
 * In the future, you can use uw-bes1 and the more serious templates for edit-summary mischief. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited We Work the Black Seam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Steel.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about comment at RFPP
I have a question about your comment here, I'm assuming you mistook them for another editor but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something. Is there a reason why User:Zero0000 wouldn't be able to edit the page if ECP was applied that I'm perhaps not aware of? - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I cleared that up ... see the update. Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something I wasn't aware of that I should have known about, thanks. - Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit embarrassing, especially since someone looking at my own user rights as cursorily would come to the same incorrect conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your attention on this. Zerotalk 03:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Wow, I just sent you one of these a few days ago and here's another one! Hope all is well

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie". Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

-- EpicTiger87 (talk) copied at the request of User:EpicTiger87 (formerly user:67.60.186.104) who could not post here. Meters (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Could be a Four
Your new project, "We Work the Black Seam", looks like it could easily become GA, and possibly FA. Lots of good material there. If it reaches FA, you might qualify for a WP:Four Award. You would have to get a fact into DYK first. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I honestly didn't expect to unearth so much ... it only occurred to me that it might be a good (ahem) article to write a couple of weeks ago when my wife and I had our Apple Music playing through the TV one afternoon and the song came on. It had occurred to me a couple of years ago how awkward it is now for the song to be glorifying coal mining (especially given that there is so little of it in the UK anymore), given that it's the number one climate change villain, and I wondered if anyone had ever asked Sting about that recently. After voicing that sentiment aloud to my wife, I thought, go Google it ... whereupon I immediately found that Rolling Stone article from 2016. Immediately I realized I'd have to write the article when I got the opening.
 * I thought I could get a short article out of it, largely focusing on that bit, and giving some background about the British coal strike and the subtext (which only that song focuses on) of Thatcher wanting to move Britain to using as much nuclear power as France was. I've already done a lot of expansion on Winter of Discontent, so I'm familiar with British political history of that period, which helped, but all the same ... I didn't expect to write about seven paragraphs about it! (I do think it's necessary; most people outside the UK (like most of us Americans) or too young need that explained because Sting, in his usual way, doesn't spell things out in his lyrics; he assumes you know what he's alluding to with "the poisoned streams in Cumberland", as indeed most of his original British audience did).
 * Yes, I am working towards DYK. I have till late tomorrow; hopefully I will reach the point later tonight where I'm comfortable enough with it to formally nominate. (It wouldn't be the only article I've worked on extensively somewhere on the FOUR pipeline).
 * I have a couple of other song articles that could also be on that pipeline: "FM (No Static At All)" is a GA, and "Aja" really should be ... sometime in the future I'll get down to finishing the issues from the last GA review that I didn't have time to address and nominate it again. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Botón Me gusta.svg I will be following your progress in all of those. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You and will probably be pleased that I have decided to add myself as a participant in WP:SONGS now. I haven't edited too many song articles over the years (in addition to what I've mentioned above and WWtBS, I have "Five Per Cent for Nothing" (a 35-second diss track instrumental!) and "True" (passed it for GA) on my watchlist. I probably also should add "Ashes to Ashes" (approved it for DYK) to it.
 * Years ago I also started "Dedicated Follower of Fashion" and got it to DYK, although it's not been on my watchlist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is terrific news. Your unearthing of Sting related references, particularly The Music of Sting dissertation, will prove useful for some of Sting's other songs (I have already used it for Sting's "Seven Days" article, which is still a work in progress.) You took a relatively obscure Sting song that I expected to remain a stub and instead turned it into a fully fleshed out article that is both well written and comprehensive.
 * Also, I believe that I was the one who performed the GA review for "FM (No Static At All)". It was my very first time completing an assessment like this, and I'm still not completely sure if I conducted it properly given my involvement with the article. Regardless, I look forward to further collaborations with you.


 * P.S. I also approve of your work on the Five Per Cent for Nothing article. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Completely escaped my mind ... that's how long ago it was that I had nominated "FM". I had to go back and check.
 * Yeah, from the Rait dissertation I am also thinking, in the future, about doing "Consider Me Gone", which also got some notice in reviews of the album, even if it was never released as a single (Arguably, you might be able to justify an article about every song on that album, even the title track ... after all, there were six singles (and "Shadows in the Rain" also has its very different Police version (which frankly I like more).
 * I also think in the future, too, I could put together an article on "Mood For a Day" ... a song that dominated my early teens; I am still proud that I learned how to play the whole thing on my guitar! Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm currently eying "Love is Stronger Than Justice" and "Nothing 'Bout Me" from Ten Summoner's Tales, both of which charted in various countries. Based on the references I've encountered, I could probably create a decent article for "Saint Augustine in Hell", which is also from the same album.
 * I don't have many sources readily available for Yes material, although I would be willing to lend a hand with "Mood For a Day". Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was inspired to write "Five Percent For Nothing" after reading Steve Howe's memoirs(my wife got them for me as a Christmas gift in 2020; I have added as much from it as I could to articles, especially his; I have it on my watchlist and have the idea of taking it to GA one day sometime ) and then Googling for whatever I could find ... which was quite a bit, actually! Chris Welch (I think) also wrote a whole book about Yes, Bill Bruford talks about that song (because he wrote it, after all). There was enough there to make it a DYK twofer with Roy Flynn (the dissed manager).
 * Real-world books are usually behind my contributions to song articles ... I've been reading Bono's memoirs since I got them last Christmas. There's so much in it that I've highlighted to add to articles and Wikiquote that we don't have (right now the only place I've actually done this is here). And I'm barely halfway done with it.
 * My wife also has tons of books about British early '80s music ... that's why I chose to review "True" and "Ashes to Ashes". She has more than one book related to both of those artists (and Spandau Ballet was once one of her favorite bands; although if she were to pick a band whose Wikipedia articles she were to improve if she edited Wikipedia it would be Ultravox, I bet). My real project with her library would be to someday improve Ian Curtis to FA so we could run it on the Main Page on May 17, 2030 (50th anniversary of his death) ... hey, I took the picture of his grave that's in the article (I hope)! Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Promoting propoganda on al maqdisi article
I'm reaching here after being blocked from editing the article of the geographer al Maqdisi by you.

1.After proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that al maqdisi couldn't "self identify as a palestinian during his travels" since palestine never exited until the British mandate named this region from 1920-1948, it is displaying ignorance on this wonderful platform and damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. This would be like saying that Brahmagupta identified himself as British Raj.

2.the exact quote of Miquel.A is "Very much attached to the Palestine of his birth" which isn't very grammatically correct and is taken from the Encyclopedia of Islam. Please explain why this source is valid while its not supported by anyone except this author. It is a Lie, unsupported and biased. Maybe it was an edit not by the author but by the Encyclopedia owners.

3.it is written in the article that al muqdisi birthplace was Jerusalem, Fatimi Caliphate (which is the actual name of the place that he was born). Why wont you change it to palestine? It literally Looks unreliable to any reader.

4.i saw that you deleted my entire talk on that subject. Why? I need it for my lawyer which I intent to reach since I want this issue on propoganda promotion on Wikipedia to go public. I'll appreciate you to restore it. Roneln (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * First, I deleted nothing from your talk page. In fact, no one has deleted anything from it. So you must be confusing me with someone else.
 * Second, my block was in response to your ongoing disruption of the page, not any judgement as to the quality of your source. Admins reviewing ANEW reports consider primarily (and often exclusively) the behavior of the editor(s) at issue, not the content, outside of 3RRNO situations (of which, as you can see, there are very, very few. There were two editors on the talk page saying that you were misrepresenting your cited source. Yet you kept adding it... that's a conduct issue, not content. You are free to edit the talk page and convince—or attempt to convince, as it may well be—other editors that you are not, in fact, misrepresenting your cited source.
 * Third, I can see from your imperfect English that was absolutely right when they reminded you that competence is required. I'll appreciate—oops, I'd like—to think that some of your present difficulties are the result of being in a little over your head. I think maybe you should think about that, too.
 * Fourth, your above post also supplies further evidence that you are a tendentious editor with a battleground mentality. That's not helping me believe that it's a good idea for you to be unblocked from editing the page.
 * And fifth and last, the worst thing for you about this is that you repeat the legal threat I had overlooked when reviewing the article talk page. So for that reason, once I'm done here I will be extending your block to the entire site per policy as long as the legal threat stands (Of course, it may not for very long ... if your interactions here are any indication, you would be such a terrible client to have—the misrepresentation of your source being but the tip of the iceberg—that no lawyer worth their license would even let you stay in their office after you barged in (which is, from your edits, how I fully expect you would initiate such a relationship), much less let you retain them. But all the same, we must be cautious.
 * So, as the currently popular expression has it, you have "found out". Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Page protections, range blocks, and bears—oh my!
Hi! You recently placed a one-week page block from George Alencherry on an Indian IP range being used by the sockpuppeteer most recently named. Unfortunately, they jumped to a v4 range (see 117.204.159.56 for the most recent round) and have reuploaded copyvio images to the Commons to resume their disruption. I'm asking for permanent semi-protection of all pages the IP has edited as their disruption has persisted for over a year now. I'm ask asking for a mandatory extended vacation to be imposed on the IP ranges (with the minimal collateral), as getting barred from some pages just shifts the abuse elsewhere. Any TPSers are asked to also consider taking up the burden. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * OK. I have blocked sitewide for three months. I can't do anything about Commons; you'd have to ask an admin there. I'm not yet sure we need to protect the pages themselves ... we want to let other unregistered editors have the chance to contribute productively, and the Alencherry page hasn't been protected in over a year. We'll see what effect this has. Daniel Case (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've taken things up at AN/U on the Commons (there may be a 24-hour latency in their response time, given their relatively small admin pool). In the meantime, IP 2409:40F3:1E:37D3:8000:0:0:0 within the original v6 block range has taken up the mantel. I understand wanting to let Commons make the move as to avoid collateral against IP editors interested in the same subject, but these articles are really havens of persistent abuse. Thank you for looking into this like you have. It means a lot to have an admin intervening so quickly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added all the other articles to the /35's partial block (although we're nearly at the limit for that) and extended it for another week Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And Commons just acted. Thank you very much. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Noktundo
Well, that dispute over at the Talk:Noktundo page turned a bit wild, didn't it? I wasn't really expecting that when I woke up from sleep.

Since the user probably doesn't know about the civility or no personal attacks policy, I dropped a warning on the latest involved IP's talk page to inform the person about them.

I am not sure if the person behind that IP is actually the same as the person behind this old blocked user account, who was also involved in uncivil disruptive editing on the Noktundo page: ПаравозЛазо. Sunnyediting99 also strongly suspects so. I may file an SPI one day to confirm...

Anyways, for now I have requested for discussion from more editors over at the WikiProject talk:Korea page, to try and gather a firmer consensus about whether Noktundo really should be considered an ongoing disputed land or not.

If that doesn't succeed in bringing in more editors to establish a consensus, then I'm thinking of starting a DR/N thread, maybe they'll help out by giving advice or getting an RfC started.

I just wanna get the content side of the dispute resolved first before I proceed to requesting administrative action (maybe a topic ban from Noktundo?) on the IP editor. Any better ideas for dispute resolution here?

Thanks! — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  03:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No, beyond what you propose. Pretty thorough. Daniel Case (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Protection from cut-paste move
Hi, this user tried to cut-paste move Bengaluru Urban district article also. Could you kindly protect it like you did for this one. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Mak geekey with a new sockpuppet
Less than a day after you indefinitely blocked User:Mak geekey, they have a new sockpuppet, User:Editorgeek9, who also removed the file from Kingswood College (South Africa),, with a similar edit summary of "Decluttered page. Removed image." Also User:Mak geekey removed all warnings and replaced it with a new section of you being block and reblocked on their user talk page,. Aspects (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * And again with User:EditorGeeky and now the file is a "devil image." Aspects (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC question
In continuation to the motion at Requests for page protection/Increase, To stop the edit war in Hamas (with reverts that are still ongoing), I opened an RFC in Talk:Hamas, but I'm getting some technical objections. Can you help check it was done correctly? As this is the first time I'm trying this process. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I wish this were something I was familiar with and could better be of help to you .. Daniel Case (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks ! Marokwitz (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

KurdianA
An editor you blocked,, has continued to add misinformation to Kurdish-related topics after the block expired. I warned them about an edit to Mil Mi-17, but I see that they've made similar changes to several other articles as well. - ZLEA  T \ C 15:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Seeing as they're relatively new and do seem to want to contribute productively, I wrote them a long reply to their question about what wouldn't be contentious and steering them to WikiProject Kurdistan for better guidance than I can provide.
 * Let's see how that works out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. - ZLEA  T \ C 21:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thu Jan 4: Hacking Night + Wikipedia Day soon
(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) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Khichdi (dish)
Requesting CTOPS protection for this page due to recent India/Pakistan-related vandalism. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khichdi_(dish)&diff=prev&oldid=1190674438

Thank you! - Ram1751 (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It's again me
In the last weeks, having your protection expired, the Trajan page has again been edited various times by obvious IPs of the permanently blocked user:Venezia Friulano (continuing to make the same OR edits over and over, despite being blocked, despite the sources and despite what was agreed in the talk page). He has also again (third time) written to my talk page to insult me and to say that he is continuing to edit dozens of articles despite the block (I have deleted these messages but you can see them in my talk history). It's always that xenophobic user, apparently a Spanish suprematist obsessed with genetics; he has issues with Muslims and with Italians, Portuguese and British (this is reflected in his editing history and in his attacks at users who he believes to be of these ethnicities). My talk page was also protected by administrators but such protection also expired. Could you protect again the Trajan page and again my talk page? Thank you, I'm sorry to ask you again but it's exhausting for me, this well-known vandal is persecuting me because I have had dozens of his sock-puppets blocked in the past.Barjimoa (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Both ✅ ... one month on the article and three on your user talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think it's obvious enough, have a look at 80.102.210.145 and consider blocking them as well. It's the last WP:DUCK at Trajan (see ) and the POV of their other subsequent edits fits the blocked user too. R Prazeres (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And the IP is also Orange in southern Spain. Got them too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case, and I have found out that the following IPs are evidently him as well: special:Contributions/37.29.246.234 (this did the same edits of VeneziaFriulano/JamesOredan on Trajan article shortly after a previous block expired); special:Contributions/31.221.253.141 (just intervened after the latest block of AlburoBizet to do his same edits, again with the practice of randomly removing the word "Italian" from articles) and special:Contributions/31.221.234.233 (this removed English victories against the Spanish in the same pages where AlburoBizet was later doing the same thing); the latter two are in the same range. Also in the past I forgot to report to you special:Contributions/46.222.104.6 and special:Contributions/46.6.151.222, who are among the accounts who went to insult me on my talk page and did the similar the same type of edits Venezia did (and they are also in the same range). Barjimoa (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I've blocked them all for two weeks (I opted to block the individual 31.221 IPs instead of a range; it would take a /19 to get both of them and that seems like it would cause a lot of collateral damage), even where they hadn't edited in a couple of months, for no other reason than to get it in the record that they've been used by Oredan. I suspect that he takes advantage of traveling around the Valencia/Andalusia regions of Spain to try to log in from any available point he can.
 * I would recommend that you don't engage him ... you're just giving him what he wants and it won't accomplish anything. The adage about wrestling with a pig comes to mind. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks you very much, and you are right, I shouldn't have answered him. Barjimoa (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

State Intelligence Agency (Indonesia)
Hi... I put request for page protection for State Intelligence Agency (Indonesia) yesterday, the main issue is persistent addition of WP:OR and WP:COPYVIO. And you respond my request by putting IP ban on the disruptive IP editor. However, it seem the same editor but using different IP number returned and keep making the edit. i am sorry to ask, could protect that page, since it was IP ban then that editor just simply change the IP number and evade the block. thank you. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ The page is semi-protected for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you... sorry to ask you again, the same editor is also causing the same problem on Indonesian Strategic Intelligence Agency. that page is currently on pending changes, is it possible to also protect that page. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ That page is now semi-protected for two weeks (meaning you won't have a problem with PC for that time as it only applies to the editors who cannot edit under that regime). Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting
<div style="border:2px solid gold; box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.35); background: linear-gradient(to bottom, #FCFCFC 0%,#F5F5F5 100%); text-align:center; padding:24px; border-radius:7px; width:75%; line-height:2em;"> ❄️Happy holidays!❄️

Hi Daniel! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. It was great to meet you in Toronto! Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk

&#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Little India
Requesting India/Pakistan-related CTOPS protection for this page due to persistent disruptive editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_India&action=history

Thank you! - Ram1751 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have granted it indefinite semi-protection, logged that at CTOPS under ARBIPA and added it to WP:USPL as well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"rm per partial block"
Re this How does a block from Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk prevent block evasion on mainspace? DuncanHill (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarification
Hey, you put “no violation” to this report with no feedback or explanation and I’m failing to see how its not considered edit warring, just need some clarification, thank you! <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 20:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The "noex" argument in the template usually explains, when properly inputted (as I had apparently failed to do at that time), that there weren't the requisite four reverts within a 24-hour span. While, yes, people have been blocked for edit warring while nevertheless apparently complying with that rule, I didn't see that having gotten to that point yet (If they keep doing this, though, it's different).
 * The substance of the edit doesn't, in this context, matter. As right as you may have been, mere policy correctness does not justify edit warring. WP:3RRNO lists the very narrow exceptions to the three-revert rule (or edit warring generally), and except for the narrow BLP-related one none of them are really policy-releated.
 * I would also note that it appears neither of you ventured over to the talk page to open a discussion. I can only speak for myself, but it does seem to me that admins reviewing reports to ANEW are more comfortable blocking in borderline situations where some discussion on either an article or user talk page was attempted prior to making the report. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s fair lol And I usually try to initiate talk page convos if theres some back and forth reverts, their edit summaries just seemed a bit aggressive though, I didn’t see a talk page convo going any better but I should always try. Thanks DC <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #007,-4px -4px 15px #59F;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">TALK 01:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Reason for block
Hey, just wanted to ask why 79.35.154.48 was blocked (longs say "Long term abuse" but I'd like to know more). They've ignored my suggesting they make an account and, after enabling appearance preference for striking out blocked users, I realized account creation was blocked for them. Their IP changes frequently so there's some block evasion going on (for example, my talk page, User talk:Immanuelle/Proposed article translations) I didn't know where I should report this, so I decided to post on your talk page because you blocked the original account. Sorry if this is the wrong place (please direct me to the correct one). ayakanaa ( t · c ) 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There's been an LTA that does exactly what they did from various IPs: spam users requesting help in translating from (mostly) Japanese or (sometimes) Chinese, regardless of whether the users have any skill in those languages or not. Maybe it's a genuine request, but they've ignored any attempts to communicate with them about how they might go about this the right way, so they're considered disruptive. Unfortunately so far as I know no one's put together an LTA page for them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. How do you suggest I deal with them in the future? ayakanaa  ( t · c ) 20:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Report them to AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Happy New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 protection
Hi, why did you indefinitely ECP Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - i see there's a little bit of content about the war in the article, but per WP:ARBECR - "If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." - I don't think a page that is almost entirely not related to the war qualifies. I think a short ECP if there is disruption related to the topic would be justified but not indefinite. Galobtter (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If you want to reduce it to short term semi, go ahead. It had been reported to RFPP as that, but then I saw someone had added the PIA notices to the edit page and talk page, and I thought that maybe there was something I didn't know (that takes a lot of work; I don't see anyone doing it lightly). Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. Yeah, the PIA notice makes sense since a part of the article does related to the conflict, but I don't think protection is necessary. Galobtter (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Apparently that was, a few days back ... maybe she'd like to weigh in? Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fix ping (editing a comment without resigning doesn't cause another ping), but I assume that's why she didn't protect. I've reduced the protection. Galobtter (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I hadn't seen the protection request, just the political foruming in the discussion, and didn't even look into the protection level. Certainly no objection to lowering it, it can always be upped again if it turns out it's needed. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Return of a banned Koli caste pov-pushing editor
Prem Mahaur, the previously banned Koli chauvinist pov pusher (previous banned accounts User:Premachandaji and User:Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala has returned with another profile User:Welcometo2024. Bringing it to your attention as you recently blocked this same vandal's IP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dan_Leonard#c-Welcometo2024-20240104065900-Request DeccanFlood (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I blocked that account indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, please note the same Koli profile has returned here again. User:Imran_of_Pakistan
 * The new Pakistani identity is just an attempt at deflection and false neutrality. It is tracking Rajput and Maratha topic pages and the old editors for reverting them with loose waivers. All the pages are forcibly linked to Kolis with a few reversions peppered in which consciously avoid giving away the agenda of the vandal. Requesting long-term protection for those pages along with a block on the Koli vandal. DeccanFlood (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are deviating from the issue, you have removed facts related to history without any reason and modified the article as per your wish. Imran of Pakistan (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Koli editor returned with a sockpuppet again for vandalising the page here -.

His new sockpuppet:.

Edits were made in 2 series, adding Koli to his (Kanhoji Angre's) name without any source or basis whatsoever: First,, and Second,. Requesting protection for the page and also a reversal if possible. The entire page is vandalised with obscure sources to fudge the identity of a prominent Maratha family. DeccanFlood (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, that was almost three weeks ago, since when it has not recurred. If they come back again with that or another IP in the same range, I would be amenable to a rangeblock and/or pending changes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I able to remove the userbox on my user page
I have no idea if it will make you mad, but does it have to stay there or can it go away? Sadbunny3 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, actually. AFAIC it can stay ... I think it sends the right message, in conjunction with your other one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:YEARS
I saw you previously protected the page 2023 for the past year. I request your assistance in addressing disruptive edits made by a suspected sockpuppet on the pages 2023 and 2024.

Background X2023X
 * I recently started editing on pages related to the WP:YEARS wikiproject. While reviewing the talk page archives of 2023 for concrete and established criteria regarding the inclusion of content, I came across three discussions/pages relating to the criteria |1, 2, 3.
 * X2023X started editing on the page around a month ago. Looking at the writing style and the type of edits made, it is immediately evident that the account is being operated by the same person as Jim Michael 2, who was topic banned from WP:YEARS pages as a result of the above discussions.


 * This person has three different accounts, Jim Michael, Jim Michael 2 & Jim 2 Michael, with the stated reason being loss of login details. Jim 2 Michael stopped editing recently, with the last edit made on 13 Nov 2023. X2023X's first edit was 18 Nov 2023, five days later. None of the accounts mentioned edited any page related to WP:YEARS after the topic ban.


 * Compared to Jim Michael 2, both accounts have similar edit summaries, frequently making claims of prior consensus using similar wording. In the samples, the events covered are similar, with very similar edit summaries (X23: 1, 2, 3, JM: 1, 2, 3).


 * Edits on linking and formatting are also frequently made to the page Portal: Current Events in bulk. (X23: 1, 2, 3, JM: 1, 2, 3).


 * Moves of pages are also frequently made, with similar edit summaries. One of the first edits made by X2023X was to make a series of moves (X23: 1, J2M: 1, JM2 1, something a brand new user is unlikely to know about.

Could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think this would be better handled at WP:AN/I or WP:SPI. Especially the latter as you're alleging sockpuppetry and there's enough of a window for Checkuser to be in play.
 * If you want help putting a report together, let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have submitted a case at WP:SPI following your guidance. Please review the filing and provide any suggestions or additional information that you believe should be included. Since this is my first time, I would be grateful for any advice you may have. 33ABGirl (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good so far. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you are familiar with the background on how Jim Michael 2 got blocked? I read an essay on inclusion criteria for WP:YEARS when reviewing the same on the 2023 & 2024. I noticed there were some links to a few community discussions relating to ownership of the page by a few users, one of which where Jim Michael 2 was blocked.
 * I am concerned that the same issue has arisen again on 2024, in part against the sudden influx of non-regular editors around the new year. I have tried to push-back against this, but have had limited success. I would be grateful if you could take a look at the situation. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with him (assuming they're a him) specifically. I do recall having had to block someone from the portal namespace over similar tendentiousness on the current events portals, and apparently this goes back to an older issue with the years pages where some people were asserting this vaguely defined "international notability" standard for exclusion of events that were US/UK-centric based on discussions years ago that they couldn't recall too well and couldn't find diffs for. Long story. There are traces of this in one of my recent archive pages. Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A WP:AN/I discussion has been initiated by an editor regarding this issue. I kindly request that you take a moment to review the discussion and contribute any comments or insights you may have. 33ABGirl (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just chanced to see it and I'm thinking about whether to add anything. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about editor
Hello. I had a concern about User:Yolandasantiagoo. Last week I reported the user for content blanking on The Apprentice (American season 14) but it was declined. The user has also been doing disruptive editing on Hotel VIP and other television series pages by removing spaces from parameters on the infobox. I believe the spaces are necessary based on the fact that they are included in the template's documentation but the other user disagrees and has been persistently removing them from Hotel VIP and other television series. I have explained my edits in my edit summaries and have tried to communicate with the user on their talk page and have not received a reply from them. Their reasons for content removal also don't seem to explain much of their edit. Their reasons include: "Content fixed", "better" and "No need of that". The user has a history of disruptive editing that began in the Spanish Wikipedia, from which they have been blocked indefinitely. For now I have reported them again at WP:AIV but I'm not sure if this will help seeing that they don't want to communicate and discuss their edits and will probably continue their disruptive editing. Thank you. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Some people are picky about this (I guess because it makes the template easier to read in source), but IMO it makes no difference as long as it doesn't screw up the output. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nonô (musician)
I answered your query, the soccer source does mention the song, and so do both the following sources. Could you reply please?-- <u style="color:#00F">Laun <u style="color:#00F">chba <u style="color:#00F">ller 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: Peter Schiff
Thank you for protecting Peter Schiff three days ago. Unfortunately, the warring parties have not used their time wisely on talk and are still arguing. I can tell that the edit warring is about to begin again. Would you be able to keep an eye on this page? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's time that all involved take this to WP:DR/N for the most formalized process we can offer. I'll keep an eye on how things are going when the protection expires. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you had participated in the diversity initiates on wiki. I would appreciate if you checked out the happenings Articles for deletion/Indie soul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmospherpolyphonic (talk • contribs) 03:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Latest socks of James/Venezia
The latest socks of permanent blocked user Venezia Friulano/JamesOredan are User:Proetar (created yesterday to evade the blok) and 31.221.255.243 (one of the IP ranges of Venezia). He is doing some of the latest edits of the previous socks; see the articles Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604) (deleting the usual English victories against the Spanish) and Romance languages (deleting some of the usual stuff, arguing with his type of "irony" on the Italians and victimism on the "Italian propaganda" etc). The random Japanese edits are probably an attempt to throw us off and make people believe it's not him, altough he may have some agenda in that as well, i don't know.Barjimoa (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * He is insisting with 80.102.210.145, 31.221.255.13 and 46.222.179.25; the IP range is obvious, all the interested articles and the edits correspond (african admixture into Spain, italian language stuff, genetic history etc etc). I have noticed he has really ruined the tone of the Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula article with his racial agenda, he deleted a lot of stuff and now the article is proposing some sort of Spanish racial purity as opposed to the Italians and Greeks being mixed with Middle Easteners (apparently for him that's an insult). The intro now says "Iberia was shielded from settlement due to its geographic location...and thus has lower levels of Western Asian and Middle Eastern admixture than Italians and Greeks". He does not use sources, he just makes stuff up as always. User:Daniel Case, given the use of so many socks (even without counting the IPs he has had at least like 30) and his persistent vandalism and agenda over the years, i feel it would be better for you to actually go for a permanent block of these IPs and of the ones I gave you above to make sure the permanent blocks are effective. I know it's extreme but he is even more extreme in his persistent vandalism and use of socks (he started vandalising and pushing his non-sense agenda like five years ago and never stopped a moment with his vast network of sock accounts and IPs, gaslighting and personally attacking so many users in the process, I bet he broke like every sintgle rule of wikipedia if I check one by one). Barjimoa (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We cannot permanently block IPs except when ArbCom says so. But otherwise I'll take what measures I can. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I have blocked all three IPs for three months. Just the IPs ... rangeblock finder shows two ranges that included them were blocked a few years back for suspected sockpuppet use, but I decided not to go that route now because there'd be too much collateral damage. I have also restored the article to what it was before the IPs got to it. In the future, if he comes back with other IPs, we can semi- or PC-protect the article, depending on how valuable the other IPs' contributions are seen as being. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case, unfortunately he keeps coming back (or, rather, he never stopped). Among the latest IPs and socks are 31.221.135.34, 31.221.240.38 and 5.14.184.203 (usual agenda on the pages Romance languages and Italian language) and User:Illolenia. The latter is also evident because his first eduts are a direct continuation of the removals in the Italophilia page started by 80.102.210.145 (already blocked) + changing Spanish defeats into Spanish victories (various examples of it) + it has its usual interest in stuff related to Spain and Islam (also the Alhambra article, which was a "favorite" of Venezia/James). Barjimoa (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Because the range has too many other people making constructive edits on it to justify a sitewide block, I decided instead to go with a six-month partial block from Italian language, Romance languages, Italophilia, Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula and African admixture in Europe. I will do the same with the 5.14 IP if there are other people on it, otherwise it will be a full block. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Michele Evans AfD saga
Hi Daniel - I wanted to get your opinion on this edit as your blocked the IP in question for their Michele Evans-related disruption previously. It's not a legal threat, and it's somewhat oblique, but it seems to me in the same vein of threatening off-wiki action in order to chill on-wiki activity. As I'm completely involved in the content dispute I wanted to get some neutral eyes on whether it should be removed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know I saw this … I’m at Wikipedia Day in New York right now and I can’t really take a good look until I’m back home tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem – is on the case.  Hope your day is going well Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice double-use of 'case' :) DMacks (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Protection
Can you semi-protect Waluigi article indefinitely. The vandalism on tgat article has been consistent and was protected several times. Thank you. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you also do Trevor Philips article. Thanks again.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 19:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's on indef semi now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 Ermac  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 15:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Protected for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Princess Daisy have been protected several times and most of non confirmed or ip edits were vandalism.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 13:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Protected for a year this time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you can look at Steve (Minecraft) article history, nearly every IPs edit are vandalism because of it being a meme. Needs probably indef semi protection.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ash.david block
You imposed a 1-week block on User:Ash.david some 6.5 days ago. Said user is already arguing with other editors on his talk page that they were right after all (you may have to look at the user's talk page history as the page gets wiped every now and then). This does not bode well and I predict more disruptive editing once the block expires.  Schwede 66  07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was having a discussion with him in email that I will have to see how he has responded to in which I suggested some solutions to his sourcing issues. I will see how things go once the block expires later today; you are right that he doesn't seem to be quite getting it. For now I must call it a night. Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The block has expired, and recent edits by Ash.david and an IP that appears to be Ash.david logged-out have somewhat pointedly added Template:Missing to the same section. I'm still trying to explain on his talk, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Tol  (talk &#124; contribs) @ 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see he's been blocked for longer this time. Based on where that IP resolves to, I'd bet it was him.
 * I haven't had the chance to look at what I think is his response to my email. Yet. If he has been reacting like this publicly, it doesn't seem likely that he took a point I was gently trying to make to him. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the edit dispute on the John de Lancie article. Since you may be busy and this minor editing dispute may not be a priority for you, I fully understand if you do not participate in this. The thread is "John de Lancie". Please join us to help form a consensus if you are interested. Thank you!

EpicTiger87 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFPPI
Hi Daniel. Could you please hit reload on the page a bit more often when working through requests to avoid duplicated effort? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought I would hear from you about that. I do think they should work that out better with the reply feature, though. But I'll do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I try to use if it looks like I might need more time to review a request. That one looked a bit like a content dispute with one editor trying to game things by requesting protection (and close to a fourth revert) so I was on the fence and reading a lot of diffs. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My take was that the IP was just banging on with their preferred edits without really letting the talk page discussion play out. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That too. I'm fine with protecting it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1
RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Chole bhature
Requesting India/Pakistan-related CTOPS protection for chole bhature due to frequent vandalism/disruptive editing. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chole_bhature&action=history

Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 1882 Spuyten Duyvil train wreck
—Kusma (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Dan, A nice piece of Bronx history. Thanks for writing this! RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It came about when I was looking to see if there had been any notice in the local news of the tenth anniversary of the December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment. Sadly, there wasn't, possibly because that day was the day George Santos was expelled from Congress, so there was a lot to cover there (but still ...). However, I stumbled across some articles about the 1882 accident, and found we didn't have an article about it at all. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the best DYK images I've seen. Nice! Srnec (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Blanch v. Koons
 Schwede 66  01:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Protection for Ram Mandir
Ram Mandir was fully protected for a while, which has now expired, which has caused the article to default back to no protection. I assume that indef semi or EC protection should now be restored? Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had it set to a watchlist ping but your message got to me before I checked my watchlist for the day. put it on semi; I have put it back to ECP as no one has formally requested that it be restored to semi.
 * This is why we really need to be able to layer blocks and protections. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mixup. Agree on the need for layers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes; I'm going to suggest this at the next Community Wishlist, seeing as how well things are going with my similar proposal last year for allowing layering of blocks. Keep an eye out for when it opens up and feel free to add your support (or, better yet, as a very active new admin, any ideas you have if other people don't suggest them first). Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do, but I don't have much optimism about the wishlist system. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm actually pleasantly surprised that that proposal got that much traction (Of course I got the feeling some of the tech people were sort of getting going on it anyway, and the enthusiastic response it got was the wind they wanted/needed in their sails. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Cerulean sweater speech from The Devil Wears Prada.webm listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cerulean sweater speech from The Devil Wears Prada.webm, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
 * begocc questions? 14:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Interested in your opinion
Hi, as we both participated in other discussions in the past I'd like to know what your opinion is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Referencing_in_filmographies_%E2%80%93_one_reference_for_each_single_entry_or_one_reference_for_all? here] – in case you find the time. Best, Robert Kerber (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Missing people found deceased and Category:Formerly missing people
After I created a CFD since there was a unanimous decision to merge Category:Missing people found deceased into Category:Formerly missing people, so I think that we should leave it the way it is and as I stated being a formerly missing person can apply to someone being found either alive or dead and being found dead in NOT defining. Yet there is still talk about starting another CFD. Perhaps you could let the people here who are discussing this that there is absolutely no need to. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Lassi CTOPS violations
Please see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lassi&curid=306536&action=history

Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. Since they're EC, raising the protection level won't be possible. Since they had made just this one edit and it seems they had not, in roughly over a year of editing, been advised of CTOPS, I put that first notice on their talk page. Let's see what happens (or doesn't). You might also want to leave a polite note about specifically how, in that article and topic area, they might want to discuss such changes on the talk page before making them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear sir
You are currently unable to edit Wikidata.

You are still able to view pages and data entries, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from Tanzir Islam Britto has been blocked (disabled) by  for the following reason(s):

Abusing multiple accounts: Wikidata:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tanzir Islam Britto

This block (ID #50896) has been set to expire infinite.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors. To discuss the block, you may contact ‪Yahya‬ or another administrator. For more information, including how to request an unblock, please read the guide to appealing blocks.

It says in wikidata.

Why did you just completely remove my 3RR report?
Here. I know the pages have been protected, but isn't it unusual just to remove the report rather than notate it and allow it to be archived? Skyerise (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It was a duplicate report ... right after it was one that basically had the same info but mentioned two pages. That one is still there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * So you ignored mine and kept his? Whatever. Skyerise (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for EC-protecting Palestine Children's Relief Fund; would you mind politely reminding a few past editors about the rules regarding ARBPIA ?
Dear @Daniel Case,

Thanks you in advance for taking the time. Would it be possible for you to politely remind the following editors about the rules and taking measures where appropriate? All of them edited before the protection, and I believe that they have violated the relevant policies, could you check that out?

1. Special:Diff/1182549168

2. Special:Diff/1181858746

3. Special:Diff/1023939747 (user is now ec)

4. Special:Diff/1023888268

5. Special:Diff/1023882742

6. Special:Diff/1023636332

(I have only listed edits since 2020, as everything else felt excessive) FortunateSons (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There's no need for reminders about edits that occurred months or years ago, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for taking the time FortunateSons (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday
(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) 14:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR report from yesterday
Hello Daniel. I noticed that you found no violation in a recent report where User:Nysreti1 was reported by User:StephenMacky1. Admittedly, the report was incomplete, and not that clear; however, there was a clear violation of WP:3RR by User:Nysreti1, and they were warned prior of that. Even the self-reverts you mentioned, were not ultimately self-reverts; thus, WP:NOT3RR doesn't really apply here. Specifically: All this in the span of about 7 hours. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1st revert at 14:23
 * 2nd revert at 14:32, self-revert at 14:32, self-revert at 14:35, self-revert at 14:35, self-revert at 14:38; thus, this 2nd revert stands as a proper revert
 * 3RR warning at 14:51
 * 3rd revert at 20:41, with literally the only edit summary they ever wrote being "It's in everybody wiki so I'm gonna put it back"; this is essentially a violation of WP:CIRCULAR
 * 4th revert at 21:07


 * Alright, I wish you'd posted this with the report for the reasons you gave. Unfortunately, per WP:BLOCKP it's really too late to go block retroactively (of course, if he does it again he has no excuse). I have thought for a long time that some sort of guide to ANEW (like the one we have for AIV that not enough editors read, and really we should have one for RFPP as well) is necessary as too often we reviewing admins have to basically guess what was bothering the reported user so much (I've seen reports where basically the reported user was rude and insulting in their edit summaries but did not come anywhere near close to actionable edit warring, leading the reporter to go all holy hell on me or another admin when we decline it).
 * I think for the time being the CTOPS notice I gave Nysreti is enough (He doesn't seem satisfied with the resolution of this, either). Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt response, and your time in general. To be clear, I posted the above details for future reference; I wasn't really asking for a post factum block of the reported user. Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Joyce (2000)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Hurricane Joyce (2000)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. &#39;&#39;Flux55&#39;&#39; (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

3RR breach
Hey, sorry for bringing this here instead of the 3RR noticeboard but I am having issues using that page (maybe due to being on the phone, idk). has made 5 reverts within 24 hours on Armatoles, thus breaching the 3RR. The dispute started when they added a source deemed of low quality by other editors, but they are insisting on their own. They received a 3RR warning earlier today but kept reverting. This is part of a wider issue with Unkownsolidier who has recently made problematic reverts on other articles as well, as reflected by multiple 3RR warnings they have received since early January. Can you take a look at their edits on Armatoles? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As a side note, they wrote that message to the editor who warned them of the 3RR (diff above). That reaction does not look good tbh. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them for 72 hours and, if I find no one else has done it yet, I will give them a CTOPS alert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have given them the alert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope they will reflect on their issues and improve their editing where needed. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * They are now using an IP to evade their block . That IP is editing articles edited by US immediately before the block: Odysseas Androutsos, Sirras, Laskarina Bouboulina. The pattern of editing is the same, mostly minor copyediting or focus on origin. Both have their edits tagged as "Mobile edits". The IP says they are doing "minor typo corrections" . So does US . Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked that IP for two weeks and similar extended US's block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Another IP which also has their edits tagged as "Mobile edit" is editing articles that were edited by US just before the block, including Sirras and Amyntas III of Macedon. On Soutzos family US added "additional sourced information about the family's origin" and then the IP added "additional sources for verification". On List of kings of Macedonia US tried to defend the Greek Temenid origin claim  and so did the IP . It seems that US is using proxy IPs. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is becoming time consuming. Another IP, in the same IP range as the one you blocked, is editing in the same pattern as US. Their edits are also tagged as "Mobile edit". On Mimar Sinan they added "alternatively" to the theory they do no like . It is a habit of US to do so (e.g. ). On Georgios Karaiskakis the IP reverted to the version of US vs , thus they continue to evade the block and edit freely. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked for a full month and will likewise extend US's block. I see an LTA page coming out of this if he keeps going. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A few hours after you blocked the previous IP range, he used another one to continue. Besides range blocking, semi-protection of articles he has targeted might be necessary.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One more: --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK ... sorry this took so long to get around to, but a football game got in the way.
 * I have now indeffed US under CTOPS, logging the block and making it ArbCom-only appealable. I have blocked the IPs for six months, and will extend the blocks on the other IPs similarly.
 * As for protecting the articles, let's get a list together. If there are articles in those lists that other IPs edit productively, we should use PC first. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's ok, we're all volunteers with limited time schedules. You've already handled this in a very timely manner. I think that it might actually be better if they're left unprotected in order to find out new IP ranges which will be used for block evasion. Such activity is very easy to spot and deal with. Side coment: Canvassing .--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I am a bit surprised how openly they chose to sock. Hope you enjoyed the Super Bowl LVIII, btw. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, hope you're well. Block evasion again: (note editing continuity with  at Mimar Sinan and with other IPs elsewhere)--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Mad Pooper.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:The Mad Pooper.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. Johnj1995 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Page Lock for BAPS Hindu Mandir, Abu Dhabi
Hello Daniel,

There have been recent events of Vandalism on this page. I would like to request a semi-protection lock on the page. (Permanently or at least a month)
 * Right now I felt a week would be justified, so I have done that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Would also request to block this user as he has vandalized many other pages too.
 * He's only made three edits (which is true for the /64 as well) and hasn't even been warned. We like to make sure we've done that most of the time before we go blocking people. Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! SpunkyGeek (talk)  20:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Your block of Icykenny36
... seems inappropriate. They had stopped hours earlier and were seeking help. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This was based on them having been warned by the filter twice and yet continuing to attempt the edits. The filter warning does not allow the kind of gradation visible warnings do—it basically says, stop now or get blocked (I do wish it allowed for escalating levels, I admit). When someone ignores it twice, we need to back that warning up.
 * I do admit that their mainspace edits did show good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems they thought they were fighting a computer that had misidentified their purpose. I do not really know how clear edit filter warnings are, and whether they can be misread by new editors. I am mainly coming from my knowledge of the blocking policy: we don't block people for matters that are long past. It is clear they first realised the edit filter warnings had a human element when they got their first human warning. Starting then, they tried to get answers from the person that warned them on their talk page, they made a post on reddit asking what was happening, then they posted to Teahouse, presumably based on reddit advice. And they had stopped doing what they were trying to do by that point, and have not picked up since. It seems to me that if we need to back up the 2X warning by the edit filter, there should be a window for it which had clearly passed in this case. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Some admins would block for a single edit filter warning that appeared to have been ignored. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which may be fine too, if that is the procedure in that area, except if the editor had already in the interim been told not do it, had taken that advice, and were seeking answers as to what they should be doing instead. It's fine if you had missed that those things had happened in this case between the triggers and the block, but if you had not, I think we have a disagreement that needs resolving. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, at the moment there is no way to view a single listing of the contribs and the filter entries ... they're on separate pages.
 * You know, as a result of this conversation I think I will unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Daniel. It was only 24 hours so perhaps would not have been a problem anyway but I did not want them to come back, see they were blocked, then come up with some other bad idea, like quitting or socking. It appears they have already taken their work to roWP, as advised. Thanks again! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Im not very upset, i understand what i did now.
 * I try my best to make a good impact on the pages i edit, mostly translating wikis for my favorite artists so they can reach more people, and adding more info where i can.
 * I originally began because of a lack of info about subjects in romanian, but also a lack of info about romanian stuff in english.
 * I can admit i am very inexperienced and i get the block, and im sorry if i was rude over some of the things brought up.
 * Whatever happens, i just want to make a real impact on rowiki for the most part.
 * love and understanding, Icykenny36 (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'm glad this seems to be working out so far. Yes, I would suggest you focus your efforts on rowiki for now, and as your wiki skills improve you can work with other Romania-focused editors on the English versions of the Romanian articles. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous IP block
Dear User:Daniel Case, I hope this message finds you doing well. I have the article about the Kalasha Valleys on my watchlist, having edited it before. I recently saw that an anonymous IP user corrected a quote parameter that was altered/fabricated a while back. When I clicked on the IP address, I saw that he/she was blocked. After looking further (as I also have partition of India and Mazhar Ali Khan on my watchlist), it appears that he/she was adding existing content to Mazhar Ali Khan that was already found at the article about the partition of India (assuming that he/she is editing from the same IP range given that the IPs geolocate to the same location). The reporting user removed that information at both articles, as noted here and here. To me, this appears like a content dispute between the anonymous IP and User:Codenamewolf; as such, it appears that the anonymous IP may have been blocked in error (unless there is additional information of which I am unaware). I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in, I had watchlisted this talk page yesterday as I was thinking of posting here after an AIV report response (although I didn't). I am the user who has reported this IP yesterday. I have now unarchived my ANI thread where details about block evasion and suspicious editing by this IP can be found and referred to again. Codenamewolf (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears that others have sufficiently addressed these claims made at ANI. As such, I will respectfully bow out. Thanks, AnupamTalk 19:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

IP range violating WP:ECR
This IP range seems to be habitually violating WP:ECR and edit-warring in the Israel & Palestine topic. Could you please look into this and take appropriate measures? 33ABGirl (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Range blocked for a week. We'll see how they respond to that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the measure to block the IP. I hope this action will effectively minimize the disruptions caused by the IP. 33ABGirl (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Abusive editor
Hello @Daniel Case, thank you for intervening to change the protection status on Kosovo and Demographic history of Kosovo. A request for ANI intervention was made against the user who created a mess on both of those pages. I am sorry to bother you, however I was hoping you could assist in intervening as ANI have not responded to the request yet. The users behavior has unfortunately gotten more out of control and they have now resorted to personal attacks, violating WP:PA. On my talk page, the user took the liberty to tell me how can I live with myself...you are pathetic...you should be banned from here you nut job...you low life pathetic losers. Your assistance would be appreciated in curtailing this individual until ANI can step in. ElderZamzam (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It appears that the redoubtable has blocked them for 72 hours for making personal attacks. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Duck?
Approximately 24 hours after you changed the block settings for Matan ibn Uthman, Xiinfaniini showed up at List of wars involving Somalia, removing the same content. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Now blocked indef; I have also added a CTOPS notice to that article's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 174.69.5.198
Hi. Per the protection of The Angry Birds Movie 2, the same IP is adding similar unsourced content to other animated films (and per their talk page, they have been disruptive for a while). See Special:Contributions/174.69.5.198.  Mike  Allen   22:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them for two years as they just came off a year-long block a couple of months ago, in which case the staleness of the warnings on their talk page is irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Mike  Allen   22:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Super Singer 10 ‎ disruptive editor
On the Super Singer 10 article you blocked for disruptive editing and Special:Contributions/161.74.220.0/23 from the article for the same reason. They've returned as, with similar edit summaries and same formatting issues. Would you mind taking a look to see what you think?  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I slapped a semi on that because this is an ongoing problem with Indian reality TV. Courcelles (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should have separate community sanctions for all Indian movies and TV. They usually don't trip the same issues as IPA (i.e., the usual disagreements are over scheduling and box office, same as movies and TV everywhere else), but my God they do get intense. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I log them right there in India/Pakistan/Afghanistan. The scope of that CT is clearly wide enough to include this, and I've seen the same garbage for enough years to know that it just never stops until you bring out the protect button and make it stop. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've done the same, but I don't log movies or TV shows under IPA because I see that one as primarily aimed at all the nationalistic/political editing that topic attracts. I mean, if a movie or TV show did touch on those issues, and the edit warring reflected it, I would log it under IPA. But we see the same issues on Indian cinema/TV editing that we see in equivalent articles on Western cinema/TV (albeit more passionate), so to consider only that CTOPS material, just for geographic reasons is, to me, systemic bias. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Meh, I see you point about bias, but TV is culture, and cultural issues are clearly enough inside "All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed" that it fits, I think.  If someone was topic banned under that case and edited the Super Singer 10 article, I'd block them without hesitation. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * And I see your point, too, but I'd feel comfortable putting those under IPA only if ArbCom specifically said they counted. I've seen very few, if any, of those articles about films and TV shows logged.
 * In case of a TBANNed editor, though, you're right and I'd do the same. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a note to thank you both for stepping into this madness and helping, it's appreciated. Sadly, I think this editor is the really dedicated fan that could be a net positive but it's their way, only their way and no chance they'll do it any other way.  I wish those editors could shift their view just a bit, work with the community and go from there.  The UPE farms, socks and trolls - bah.  All of them can just go bother Fandom for a while.  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Question
You granted me IPBE in November '23, which expires in about 4 days' time. My school IP is still blocked, and I am unsure what to do. Thoughts? Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I have renewed it for six months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it very much, we'll see if the school IP is STILL blocked after that. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Anthony W. Case
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Olympic Games ceremony
Olympic Games ceremony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Fani Willis
Hi Daniel, I noticed you protected the Fani Willis to require extended confirmed access, expiring 15:46, 26 August 2024. The article has active arbitration remedies, part of which includes that editors be "logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days". Do articles in that circumstance usually get extended confirmed protection indefinitely? Or is there some other criteria? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the protection log, it was first semi-protected for a month last year following a request, then in January, as the allegations started coming out that she had made decisions based on a personal relationship with the special prosecutor put a longer term protection on it. About 10 days later  (you have to scroll down because at present there's no way to distinguish between two archived RFPPs with the same article name) requested that protection be raised to ECP as arbitration enforcement since it comes under two contentious topic areas, a request I fulfilled.
 * Four days later (scroll down again), the same editor requested full protection as the editors with ECP were unable to refrain from edit warring. I declined because the problem presently is that, apart from pending changes, we cannot layer protections ... so, if we raised the article to full protection (which we only do for short periods of time), once it expired we would have to reprotect the article, and while I recently set up W-Ping so I have reminders to do this, it's still dependent on humans when ideally it should be an automatic process. I proposed 1RR as an alternative solution.
 * About 11 days ago, independently of RFPP it seems, decided to grant the full protection for three days, and then renewing it when that expired. When that second protection expired, the article went back to being completely unprotected, with predictable results that led to another protection request that I granted, restoring the ECP that had been in place since January (and, by setting the same duration, actually made it last longer than it would have originally).
 * So, to give the TL;DR answer to your questions: Yes, there is a process for this. Second, no, articles in contentious topics are not routinely put on indefinite ECP and/or 1RR when this sort of thing happens. Administrative discretion can, of course, come into play. Some admins are more willing to do it than I am on the belief that the sources of the contention are not going to be any less contentious in the near future. For my part, I prefer slowly escalating the level of protection, because AGF means giving the community a chance to show it can edit according to the standards expected of it, and I would only go to indef and/or ECP if less stringent protections had demonstrably failed to stem disruptive editing.
 * However, there are four areas where going to indef ECP/1RR at the first whiff of trouble is permitted and even strongly encouraged: the Arab-Israeli conflict (which, as you might expect, has been keeping us very busy at the moment), the Russo-Ukrainian War, articles directly related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, and South Asian social groups (castes and tribes, basically), a contentious area within the already-contentious enough India-Pakistan-Afghanistan topic (and even going outside that geographic limitation as it can include articles focused on Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal. In articles about the former two ArbCom has been very specific that new users not be allowed to edit those articles at all (due, in part I think, to the likelihood of paid state actors trying to influence them).
 * Some of us patrolling admins at RFPP have also considered, recently, asking ArbCom to add articles about transgender or non-binary individuals, covered as a contentious topic already under GENSEX to that list, since inevitably we have had to at least semi-protect them for long or indefinite terms over vandals misgendering them.
 * So ... I hope that longer-than-I-expected-to-write answer was enough. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the in-depth response. I've only had the article on my watch list since I participated in the current RfC and so I was unawares of how contentious it is. As an Australian it often amazes me that American politics can be so contentious. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I tell other people up here based on this experience, though, if you think Americans are politically contentious you have never met South Asians (Go to the current CTOPS log and you'll see that the combined IPA sanctions already well outstrip the AP ones). Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the protections
I only became aware of this LTA IP about a year ago, compared to the other users who were or have been dealing with it, but they normally only make a bunch of edits under one IP before being blocked and then don't appear again for a while. Within the last week, they've changed tactics, that after one IP is blocked, they just use another similar IP, sometimes only within a few hours or even a few minutes, making one or two edits per different IP, sometimes regardless of whether or not the previous IP was blocked. Amaury • 08:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the protection was warranted, then. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely appreciated. :) Amaury • 20:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Latest of James/Venezia
-Three IPs of his (46.222.234.189, 31.221.148.250, 37.29.222.46) have been causing trouble at the Ulpia gens page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulpia_gens&diff=prev&oldid=1206959816&title=Ulpia_gens&diffonly=1) and personally attacked User:P Aculeius with usual talking points (some here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:P_Aculeius&diff=prev&oldid=1207069365&title=User_talk%3AP_Aculeius&diffonly=1). This article is connected to the Trajan article, where he has also been active again with his IPs.

-User:Draslerr is a sock he activated after the latest blocks. The agenda and interests are very clear in his edits. Barjimoa (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 46.222 hasn't edited since their original block by . I have added the page to the rangeblock on 31.221 and blocked 37.29 for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you a lot. Could you also add the Trajan and genetic history of Italy pages? There are several others in which he is messing around but these are some of the most attacked that are missing from the rangeblock (the first more so than the second).Barjimoa (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also indeffed Draslerr Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case, there is also User:DrakeXper. The most obvious proof is that, ten hours after the block of Draslerr, he was back at introducing the usual material in the Genetic history of Italy and before he has been editing the rangeblocked African admixture in Europe (the basic jist of his edits being that Spain is especially "shielded" from African admixture, in constrats to other countries like Italy or Greece). But there is more: while he clashed in a talk page with some other user regarding the supposed Spanish-ness of some figure (antother typical battle of his) he claimed "I am not even Spanish"(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilia_Topuria&diff=prev&oldid=1209138089&title=Talk%3AIlia_Topuria&diffonly=1). Nothing new, we have seen him claiming to be Italian, Portuguese, British etc. His identity is also betrayed by his usual aggressive language and ability to create quarrels; in that talk page above he went on to delete the comment by the user who realized something weird was going on (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ilia_Topuria&diff=prev&oldid=1209100450&title=Talk%3AIlia_Topuria&diffonly=1), accusing him of being xenophobic: this is his typical accusation in a mirror.

P.S. Also, could you extend the selected rangeblock to some of his other IPs and with the addition of the Trajan page? (maybe, as a preventing measure, also with the addition of my talk page, i don't know if that is technically possible)? Yesterday he used the Trajan page to edit it with some of his IPs for pointless yet problematic edits that he said I knew I had to remove, just to personally attack me with insults, mockery and his usual accusation in a mirror. I am sorry for the continous requests.Barjimoa (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have indeffed DrakeXper, added Trajan to the rangeblock on 31.221.128.0/17 and blocked for two weeks. I am looking into  due to this edit. Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC
(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) 06:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #69975
Would you like to action this one? I've done two already. Thanks. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thou art kind. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hi Daniel! I just stumbled across this editor named User: Pink Friday 2.0 Roman Reloaded that you previously blocked with an expiration time of 1 month for edit warring. He's severely continuing that behavior with several editors (me, User: Dxneo, User: Begocc etc.). What should we do to solve this situation? DollysOnMyMind (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (User in question is already blocked for edit warring :D) begocc questions? 14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

AIV
Hi Daniel, the user I reported is an Australia-based block evader, identifiable by their edit warring on aircraft articles, and their use of personal attacks against Americans (someone should tell them people of other nationalities can make grammatical mistakes too) used in their edit summaries. Probably not worth blocking at this point unless they edit under this IP again, but might be helpful for future reference:

Loafiewa (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User Wywuwuwu
Hi, you banned, for 24 hours for edit waring. Since the ban expired, they have immediately started rolling back the changes that go against the manual of style, continuing the edit war:

Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 

Sciencefish (talk) Sciencefish (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Accidental revert
I accidentally rv your edit on List of wars involving Albania. Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Natalie. I'm not here to edit the Danger Force page, but I just want to ask a question because I noticed that there's been an editing war on that page. Now, if hypothetically speaking, if a cast and/or crew member with a verified social media account says that the show is over, would that be considered a reliable source and should I add that in? Just asking because I saw in the Central Park, one of the creators said through their verified accounts their show is cancelled. Ramireznatalie (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my delay in responding—I had a long weekend and was more tired than I expected last night.
 * Good question. Something like that would be considered a self-published source talking about themselves, so it wouldn't be unacceptable per se. But, based on past discussions I remember, a cast or crewmember's statements about the show's future or lack thereof are not authoritative, really, while the production company or network/channel's would be.
 * I think the former would have to be qualified by attribution, i.e., "X says he/she/they believe the show has been cancelled". The latter, yes, that can be "SHOW has been renewed for a fourth season". Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Need your attention over intractable behavior of a user
I reported the disruptive behavior of user UtoD to the AN/I a week ago which has since been archived with no administrator response. The user also refused to once again engage my request for explanation there. Since then the user has been emboldened enough to continue their disruptive behavior by edit warring with first an evasive explanation and later an explanation that covers only one part of the revert but not all. In the talk discussion of the article, they once again gave an evasive reply "Not my fault if you can't read" to a request asking them to explain the Wiki policies they kept citing for their reverts.

This looks like a classic case of WP:STONEWALL: "An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines....Editors reach a consensus, except one (or a tag team) insisting that the change sought violates some policy or other principle, in a way they cannot clearly demonstrate."

I would appreciate your intervention to this intractable behavior that has gone on for a week and will continue to do so indefinitely. --- Petextrodon (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So my issue now is "evasiveness" and calling out you on your refusal to read the WP:BURDEN page specially the part that explicitly states NOT to brute force changes that have been challenged and that content should only be added after the changes have been agreed upon. Besides, calling for fixing a part of an edit which you did not fix is not WP:STONEWALLING especially as you basically jumped to WP:ANI accusing me of "disruptive editing" after I made merely two posts in the Talk page. Basically, I couldn't have stonewalled even if I wanted to. Only if you put the same level of effort on fixing content disputes instead of jumping to Admin noticeboards and Admin talkpages. Not only you continue reverting and brute forcing content but doesn't allow discussions on the content before going admin shopping essentially diverting the dispute away from the content. The continuous accusation of "disruptive editing" at other editors from the start in a content dispute is simply casting of aspersions and should immediately stop. - UtoD 15:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is the right place to carry on the discussion from elsewhere that you refused to participate in. I will leave it up to the admin to come to their own conclusions. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still trying to work this out. Best thing I can say so far is that ideally you should get more people involved in the discussion—perhaps through the relevant projects' talk pages before you open an RfC—to generate a consensus on what seems to be the underlying issue as to whether this particular content can be in both the main article and the fork. Or go to 3O if you both can live with a quick judgement by one person. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My complaint here is specifically about the intractable disruptive behavior of this user and not about what content to add. I would have taken it to the dispute resolution if the issue were only about that. --- Petextrodon (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes resolving the underlying issue can alleviate the behavior. I have still not read through enough of the history here to say who might be in the right (although I agree that is not exactly coming across as a model of collegiality here or elsewhere). Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also kindly look at the WP:ANI page where personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppeting were made at me and . The idea that I refused to take part in the talk page also makes no sense as both and me and noted the reasons for removing the addition to the talk page before users Petextrodon and Oz had even elaborated their positions in the talk page, despite them being the editors that are trying to include the new changes. For context my first comment in the article's talk page was on Feb 26 where I respectfully explained the reasons for revertion, then also on Feb 26 I advised them to stop the attempts of brute forcing changes and thus the same day they opened a WP:ANI against me claiming I am "disruptive" for not "refusing to address their complaints" all in the span of a...single day. And that forced me to concentrate on answering those allegations over participating in the talk page. So basically after mere two posts by me WP:ASPERSIONS are being cast against me claiming that I am evading the talk page and therefore disruptive, all within the span of a single day. And then on WP:ANI I am being called a WP:LIAR and a sock. I am maintaining civility under a barrage of accusations that have nothing to do with the content dispute and I am not even given time to reply before being accused of not participating in the discussions. Thank you.- UtoD  01:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtoD No personal attack intended. It was a question based on the fact the other user replied on your behalf while you did not. And you still have not explained why after all this time you still refuse to give explanation for reverting the part on UN war crimes report but went right back to edit warring.--- Petextrodon (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oz346's revert explanation here explicitly deals with the UN war crimes report yet your revert explanation completely ignores it and deals with another issue instead. You have been given ample time to explain yourself but have not. You should follow your own advice:
 * "The Burden falls on the user adding the content...WP:BURDEN explicitly states not to re-add challenged edits before reaching consensus."
 * That contested part was recently added by the user Cossde and you re-added it hence the burden now falls on you.
 * --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It is what it is, a personal attack is the same as calling me a liar that made up the guideline of WP:BURDEN when I only copied it from the WP:BURDEN page. You didn't exactly give me "ample time" as you straight up went to WP:ANI claiming I am not replying to you less than 24 hours after I had entered the dispute in the talk page and I had to use my limited time answering the accusations and straight up personal attacks there. While I would have allowed the UN report part to be added, you didn't give me time to look at anything, and user Cossde has disputed that part of your change so you take that part up with them. You are the Editors who wants to add/change content not me and Note C of WP:BURDEN clearly states that if a new addition is contested for whatever reason it should only be re-added after fixing the issues with the consensus of editors which was also noted by admin Johnuniq. - UtoD  14:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtoD I didn't call you a liar. Let's stay on topic please.
 * You did reply but just kept throwing Wiki rules at me without explaining. The "ample time" as I had indicated above refers to the time between my opening the ANI on 26 February 2024 and your revert on 4 March 2024 which is a whole week. You still have not explained why you once again refused to explain your re-adding of a disputed content although the revert that you were reverting specifically and explicitly dealt with it. As for WP:BURDEN, you missed the "restores" part of it: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." Since you did restore a recently added content, you have also taken on the burden. --- Petextrodon (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the time where I had to answer the WP:ANI which limits my time and makes it inappropriate to continue the talk page as the WP:ANI is about it in the first place so I continued it there. You threw accusation of me being a sock while Oz346 called me a WP:LIAR. Those are personal attacks. Also, WP:BURDEN says restore the disputed additions, which neither me or Cossde did. You made the changes on Feb 23 The changes were protested and removed first by Cossde on Feb 25 then Oz346 joined restored the content. WP:BURDEN says " If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." which was also pointed out by admin Johnuniq in the talk page. You can't just rewrite the timeline to claim me or Cossde were editors that were trying to make the changes and restoring them. You wanted to introduce changes not us. You can keep making changes and then deny that you are the one doing it but its on you. - UtoD 00:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtoD You STILL have not explained why when you re-added the following line multiple times you never gave an explanation:
 * "with the LTTE preventing the civilian from leaving as they used them as human shields and attempted to create an humanitarian crises."
 * Do you not have the burden of verification when you add or re-add a contested content, that too contradicted by the cited UN report as the user you reverted explained to you?
 * Did you even bother to read the source before you engaged in edit war in favour of re-adding that line? --- Petextrodon (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Cossde (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's time for everyone involved to take this to DRN. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That I will do, but the issue is with the misbehavior (repeated refusal to explain all reverts and rejecting burden despite re-adding content) which will continue into the future without some admin sanction or reprimand; and It's exhausting to keep having to file complaints that go nowhere which only emboldens the user each time. --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, resolving that might eliminate that problem. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just left my statement there and hopefully it does. But to prevent similar disputes elsewhere in the future wouldn't your kind advice on proper course of behavior when reverting or re-adding content benefit us all and help avoid more time being needlessly wasted? I do apologize if I'm overstepping my boundaries. Thanks. --- Petextrodon (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case there was a lot to look through, in different places, some of which weren't always linked, and it would have taken more time than I have had at one stretch to look through it all. And before you could digest anything, the other party responded and things started to fly, making keeping up even harder. I did plan to do that, but then the DRN thread was opened up. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears DRN alone isn't enough for user UtoD since they are repeating the same accusations from here on another complaint that doesn't even involve them:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cossde_flouting_Wikipedia_policies
 * Petextrodon (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for We Work the Black Seam
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on this! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! It turns out it was worth the wait ... I'm looking forward to a high hit count. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

IP edit warring
Hi. The IP that I reported here: continues edit warring on other pages,. It is most probably a banned user, and he is not supposed to edit Armenia-Azerbaijan related pages anyway per WP:GS/AA. I think blocking the IP range from 1 page is not sufficient, because he continues disruption on other pages. Grand master  09:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also filed an SPI request here: Sockpuppet investigations/Əzərbəyəniləri Grand  master  15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I am cautious about extending partial rangeblocks on IPs on just the basis of a single edit, since there's a limit of 10 articles we can block them from. If we respond by extending the block that way, they might just try to force that limit.
 * Per the SPI, perhaps indef semi (or PC, if there are other IPs who edit productively that we don't want to exclude) might work on some of the other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have, based on the SPI, blocked for three months, concurrent with Courcelles's block of a nearby range. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Addendum 2: I see at the AE log that Courcelles has extended-confirmed protected some of those pages as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Grand  master  08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Bumblebee (film)
Hey, it looks like my request at RPP got caught up in the bot clerking. Can you implement pending changes protection due to the long-term disruption as you suggested? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer
(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) 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

AIV
The user you warned, User:178.113.110.56, has continued to make edits so a block would likely be in order. It was only 2 days ago that they were editing under the IP User:178.112.142.12 (and many others before that), so I would generally recommend blocking immediately, since this is a case of persistent and deliberate disruption. Thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. I only saw after warning them that you'd indicated they were an LTA, so I wanted to know more. I will take action Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The original block had run out. They are now both blocked for 72 hours (The range was too wide for a block that would pull in both of them). Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Project Chainsaw
Hello Daniel, I was just looking at your edits on The Exorcist and am impressed how thorough it is. Anyways, I don't know your current article plans but if you were thinking about expanding other articles pertaining to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, I have already been working away on expanding the article on the original film and if you were wanting to expand it feel free to let me know. If not, happy editing. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * By working away, I mean I have been using a userspace to expand it without interference. The original article has an outdated citation style, and some information is threadbare. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What to do while waiting for SPI
Hey Daniel, I'm curious on what to do about edits from sockpuppets while waiting for an SPI closure. I see that a CU has confirmed named sockes at Sockpuppet investigations/NetruVarai that I've been keeping an eye on, but they've continued to edit away. I was under the impression that proper procedure was to wait for a block and then revert but it feels like its been a while. Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, I'm not very familiar with SPI. Thanks, microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * One option? Attract the attention of a TPS checkuser and he will go press some block buttons.  Oh, wait, it's the CU who originally ran the check... ;) Courcelles (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, when there's IP's involved I usually send it through workflow rather than blocking myself, but in this case it just sat in the queue. Since they were still disrupting, blocks ensued.  @MicrobiologyMarcus, I closed the SPI as everyone is now blocked. Courcelles (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Courcelles – Ah, of course. Sorry, I figured there was a reason for a procedure so I didn't want to pester the page. Not sure why I didn't think to ask the clerk of the SPI. Regardless, appreciate the response. Cheers, microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ARCA Notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Just FYI, because of the events on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. over the last few hours, I've launched the ARCA. Sorry if your own statement isn't ready yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Usedtobecool. Thank you. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't need to and I shouldn't have but I commented on your actions, so I am letting you know. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request
Hi, it looks like you've been active recently. Mind taking out some trash?  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:AN3
Hi Daniel. Consider adding your signature to a report at the noticeboard. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Calendargate
Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

IP editing A-I conflict
Hello, an IP is editing Arab-Israeli conflict content, please lock this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamat_Gader&diff=1214107752&oldid=1213972268 Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Indef ECP, editnotice and logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Higher Protection Request
Hello Daniel Case.

Kindly note that Copts was already semi-protected, and the request was to extend it to Extended confirmed protection, since new auto-confirmed users keep deleting entire sections and misusing academic quotes. Thank you. Fragrant Peony (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * According to the log, that semi-protection expired on February 29. But I will raise it to ECP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Assistance or Advice
Hello, my friend, as you know I have been working on expanding and updating the article on the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre through a userspace that can be found on my user page. I have been trying to figure out how to work on both the audience reactions to the film as well as the box office sub-sections and have been struggling to do so as Box office mojo is incomplete and inaccurate with its gradual and total box office gross of both its theatrical, re-releases, and home media rentals. I was just wondering if you would be interested in helping me to expand those sections and, if not, what I could do to get them up to a more complete quality. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at The Numbers? I agree that BOM, since it got revamped under new ownership a while back, is less complete than it used to be and in fact we're not the only ones who think that. So people have given TN some attention and we do cite it in quite a few film articles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at The Numbers, they are also incomplete and really don't go into any sort of depth on its gross over the years and its original release. Most the info I have in my userspace at the moment I had to get from actual newspaper articles, and even those do not give a complete picture which is odd considering it was the highest grassing low budget/independent film until Halloween. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that might be because really, all we, BOM or The Numbers know is what the studio or distributor has put out (although I think with some more recent films the latter is relying in part on some inside info from the studio/distributor). They're not under any legal obligation to release numbers for specific movies (and given the games that sometimes get played with those numbers, they'd certainly fight that tooth and nail), after all.
 * You might want to try making a pass through any annual reports/10-K's if a company involved has to issue them ... they might brag about receipts there (it would be self-serving, yes, but as long as clearly cited to that kind of SPS it would be acceptable, I think. Also, it's almost a law of Hollywood that at some point someone somehow involved with a successful movie will sue the studio/distributor alleging they've been screwed out of some of the money they should have gotten. Most of the time these suits get settled before trial so nothing nobody wants the public to see goes in the record, but sometimes they make it as far as appellate court and there would be a published decision online which might mention some numbers. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the film's distributer had ties to organized crime and they did have a lawsuit, i might look into that. Will take a lot of time to get all that together. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems in some of my research there has always been a hint at the visceral and psychological reaction from the audience in terms of the film's implied violence. I see how you cover the audience's reaction to The Exorcist and I have searched around to find similar sources to no avail. Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was lucky that it was covered widely at the time of the film's release so a lot of major news outlets had stories which are archived online. Perhaps there are some histories of '70s horror that might mention this? Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Potential edit war
Hi Daniel Case. Just wanted to ask a question regarding this semi-protected page Al-Bu_Badri. My name was brought up in an edit war situation earlier, I never wanted the page protected. I just wanted, along with other editors, to clean the names off the page that were added recently. A not so easy to read (tribe) list was added to the lead and also typed in under the references, I honestly don't believe they should be there. That was my whole point. Now if I remove them again, the user will revert ... and so on, the protection doesn't mean much. What do you suggest? All we were asking him was to source the tribe and not throw names all over the place and I end up getting called a troll and a clown. lol. Thanks in advance. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you're worried about, he's not even autoconfirmed and can't edit the page while it's protected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Latest socks of James Oredan/Venezia Friulano
Tyrefr, Flutoumb, Auxeron, FriedrichC82, Fleanot, Lucenselugo, and Unidosporasensio. Usual stuff, usual agenda. This time, among the pages that should be restored the way they were before these socks changed them, are Gladius, Rapier and Battle of Lepanto.

I have informed of the same also the admin Drmies, who has just blocked many of the new socks of James Oredan/Venezia Friulano the other day. But I think next time i will report some socks to Drmies and some other socks to you, so that it's less heavy. Barjimoa (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked and  indef. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case Let me report also, just created to continue removing the same stuff was removing, so pretty obvious. Barjimoa (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * already took care of that one, so I just added a sock tag to the user page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

LTA with wide page-target set
They vary the edit-summary every few weeks and have hit about 30 articles so far in various batches. I keep a few unprotected on watchlist as a honeypot. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * So did you want me to leave that page unprotected? Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. There are still a dozen unprotected I'm watching. If protecting some keeps them partially-frustrated or reduces impact on the readers, I'm fine. DMacks (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

2a02:c7c::/32's block at AN
Hi, I found 2a02:c7c::/32's block settings interesting enough to start a discussion about it; it's at and your input would be welcome. I'm notifying everyone whose name appears in the block log as this is practically a review of a series of admin actions yours was a part of. I hope that, due to the amount of administrators who built the block to the current state, discussing this in a central location directly rather than asking everyone for input on their own talk page is okay. And perhaps there was a past discussion and this is completely unnecessary silliness of me; I apologize in advance if that's the case. Best regards, &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings!— enlighten me 𝑠'𝑖𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑡.
In the "Disappearance of Rebecca Coriam" article, you reverted me and said:

" rv to this version per other issues with    this editor's edits on other pages "

I assure you that at no time has anyone (including yourself) said anything whatsoever to me about this, so I read your comment with a fair amount of consternation. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me when you get a chance?

Looking forward to hearing from you. GuccizBud (talk) 07:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Omid Scobie
Thank you for semi-protecting Omid Scobie. Unfortunately I did not realise that the IP addresses that were causing the problems belonged to  who is now adding the same tabloid material, with an edit summary saying "this page should be vandalised". Would a page block be possible? Southdevonian (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. there may be more here than meets the eye. First, they're at the 3RR limit, which I think they're aware of, but warning them about it would be fine (maybe I'll do that). Second, These two edits look strikingly similar. I think the best thing to do would be to privately ask a checkuser to see if there's a match (or, I could compare their histories to build a stronger case first).
 * I think I will also intervene and point out that there is some doubt as to the reliability of The Daily Beast for material on living persons. A long time ago we decided not to use any material from that publication in the George Santos article for exactly that reason. I don't see any difference here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am pretty sure that and the IP addresses are all the same, given their history of editing the same articles and using the same edit summaries ("citation" when they insert text). Although the list of their contributions may look fairly innocuous, almost all their edits concern the Princess of Wales and her family/ancestors/distant relatives.
 * The Daily Beast is orange on the list of reliable sources. Yahoo news, which the editor has now inserted as a source, is green but with a warning about syndicated content. All these stories are I think derived from the original Daily Mail (deprecated source) story that appeared on 22 March . In any case it is not notable (Scobie posted a picture of "6 pm" to indicate that he had heard rumours of a forthcoming announcement), just intended to smear the subject of the article. The mainstream reliable media have incidentally written about social media and the Princess of Wales (for example ) and Scobie doesn't feature in any of the articles, which he would do if he had been out of order.
 * I have not read any of Scobie's books, and I have never made an edit on any Wikipedia page about the royal family. I created the Scobie article because he was in the news and didn't have an article and over the past year it has an average of 1,772 daily pageviews. I am just trying to keep the article clean. Southdevonian (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have put in a checkuser/sock puppet request Southdevonian (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And checkuser request declined as "against policy to use checkuser to connect an account to an IP address". Southdevonian (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not publicly ... you can privately request this be done ... I think? Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't know that. Southdevonian (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think not.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So what, then, is the procedure if we think (as I increasingly do) that the named user mentioned above has used the IP address named above to edit many of the same articles (Actually, I've found a range). Certainly we would not want socks and their masters to be free and clear because someone acting in good faith made the connection explicitly at SPI. Can I just go ahead and block them on behavioral grounds? (If this is something you'd rather discuss privately, feel free to drop me an email). Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You can always block an IP based on behavior. In this instance, I blocked the named account for two weeks and one of the IPs for a month (IIRC). If they continue to edit logged out, the named account's block should be increased to indefinite, and any IPs, who've edited recently at the time, can also be blocked. You don't need a CU for any of this.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine. I will extend the block to the range later. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for three months ... from the range's history it seems that Srbernadette has been using it (and not in a way that suggests they were unaware they had been logged out when they were editing) for at least that length of time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethics Workshop Participation Request
Hi! We're conducting a series of participatory workshops with Wikipedia editors, administrators, researchers, and Wikimedia employees to discuss, and hopefully improve, Wikipedia's structures for online research (see meta research page). In an effort to get the right people in the room to discuss these topics, I'm reaching out here to see if you are interested in participating as an active administrator. We'd work with you to ensure this workshop can fit into your schedule, but are targeting end of April/early May. I'm happy to discuss any of these topics further here or on our talk page. Zentavious (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

RFPP request
I just saw that you have declined this request but I think you should accept it because this subject is attracting attention since the PM of India has been caught spreading disinformation about this region for purely political gains.

No less than semi-protection should be imposed here. Thanks! Rzvas (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected it for a week (and since when does Modi spread disinformation for any other reason, really? ) Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Alija Rabić
hello, I recently made a page called Alija Rabić, I would like for you to look into it and see if it's ready to be an actual page. the link is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alija_Rabi%C4%87 Prizrenali.berisha (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines
Dear Daniel Case,

We have a suspected IP address who posted in Filipino language but here's the article that I edited a few days ago.

Here's the article: History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines

Take note that IP address will be blocked: 158.62.87.116

We need to fully protected for that article link to prevent vandalism issues.

So I hope to continue to work for the upcoming stories to follow.

Thank you.

Jon2guevarra Jon2guevarra (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That IP was on a range blocked from one article ... I added to that range block so it can no longer edit the plates article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)
(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) 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Expanding partial block
You had put a partial block on 2409:4060::/34. Would you consider expanding this to include Mili (TV series) where at least 3 IPs in this range were recently disruptively editing as well? Butler Blog  (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Liberty Christian Preparatory School
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello Daniel, I am in need of some help as I am not the most experienced when it comes to editing but I am trying my best and always want to learn. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where people from all over the world can contribute to it and within my efforts, some mistakes may have happened but I'd like to ask you if my edits on both these articles Nate Marquardt and Gasan Umalatov justifies me getting blocked. Trying my best to understand my mistakes and learn from them if I did any. Many thanks. Articlread (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You're not presently blocked; I am at the end of a very long day so I will look at them after I have had some rest. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * , Hi, Daniel Case, I am the editor involved so I state my message to Articlread here and you can knwo what had happened. Hi Articlread, I am one of the counter vandalism trainer in Wikipedia - see here 1, NPPS trainer - see her 2, one of the new editor mentors - see here 3 #29 and regular MMA content editor in Wikipedia.  Pls note that information added "stand=orthodox" was not sourced and that was the reason of unsourced warning was for on your talk page - see here-4 and here-5, you removed the source which that is the reason for vandalism warning. You do not familiar with counter vandalism and instead follow the link and guidelines, you instead place warnings on my talk page twice - see here-6 and here-7 for letting you know (warning with guidelines links) how to edit Wikipedia constructively. I am here to help every editors especially the new editors, all you have to do is to ask why or how or stating I need help  and not passive aggression stating "74 inches is 188 cm and not 190 cm. Educate yourself" see here 8 for I reverted your edit because of unsourced for the stand info and  stating "Be better and do a good job next time" see -here 9 for mistakenly adding extra "=". Wikipedia a a friendly place and we the editors communicate with each other civilly to help each other for the better of Wikipedia project. I have help you to reformat the ref you added and added reused ref since you stated "as per source reach and stand " on Nate Marquardt page  - see here 9. If you continuing adding unsourced content or remove source, you will be reported and most likely blocked. Pls adhere to Wikipedia guidlines and seek help, which all of us are happy to help you" and be civil. Stay safe and best.05:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you but the Nate Marquardt edit did not have to be sourced again as his height source - see, has already stated his reach (74 inches (188 cm)), so it did not have to be sourced for a second time. You just reverted my edits, which contained accurate information without reviewing it and I reverted your edits because they had wrong information. Hope you understand that we all have the same goal as editors and that is to get out the most accurate information we can when editing articles. Warring and getting upset serves us no purpose . Good day. Articlread (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * All info need to be sourced and in almost all cased it needs to be independent, reliable source for verification which is the core policy of Wikipedia. UFC is not a independent, reliable source. We use extremely sparingly of UFC source only on reach and stand if we can find them from Tapology. All info on the MMA fighters info box we use Sherdog (source can be found at the bottom of the infobox) and if anything info needed can not be derived from Sherdog then all info need to be sourced in the infobox. As per Nate Marquardt page, I reverted is not about the reach info but the "Stand=Orthodox" info - see here-10. We the counter vandalism editor do not war with editors but we place warning info on editor's talk page for the main purpose to "educate" the editor of the Wikipedia guidelines and to "deter" the same edits again. (You are welcome to apply for the CVUA program (counter vandalism program) if you want to learn more). If you upset with warnings, and do not adhere to guidelines and personal attack the editor, you will be warned and lead up to a block. Also to note, there are certain norm and guidelines format and editing for MMA fighters in Wikipedia MMA Project page. If you see an experienced editor (check their contribution log) who is a regular editors  (they are about 2 dozen of us), they are trying to help you when they revert your edit and if the edit summaries are not clear to you, such as they put "per norm" or "m", then pop to their talk page and ask "politely" for the reasons of the revert.  Lastly, Wikipedia is not about the true - see But it's true!, but all about  verification from source. (note: all social media, subject official website, subject affiliation site) are not independent and/or not reliable source. So in short, same as I mentioned to you, adhere to the guidelines (many many guidelines in Wikipedia and we are just talking about basic guidelines here), seek assistance when needed and be civil/polite in communication. Stay safe and best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>   talk  07:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warrior continues its crusade
Greetings Danial Case, I write to you because recently, due severe edit warring you protected the articles of Mexicans, Demographics of Mexico and White Mexicans (would have preffered the version of the edit warrior to not be the one on top on this one but oh well, 2 to 1). The current issue is that the disruptive editor in question has now moved his edit warring to the article of White Latin Americans, even though he's using another IP/account, it can be known that is the same person because of the numbers he introduces, compare this with this for example, it also happens to be an sleeper account with not even 20 edits, another example of the rampant sockpuppetry happening around these articles would be the similarities between the edits of this two accounts (it must also be noted that on this case, the later was created one week ago. As I told to another administrator that editor does not show any sign of wanting to stop and is even cynical about it. I don't know what I personally could do to stop it, as I don't want further accussations of edit warring so I guess the White Latin Americans' article may need protecting too. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have protected the article now for six months. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reply, another question though, could you undo the edit of the edit warrior in question? He was the last one to edt the article, I thought about undoing it myself before contacting you but as I said, I don't want more edit warring accusations to be laid upon me. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for you quick action, I'll keep you updated on all of this. Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding +CTOPS notice to Ed Piskor's Page
Dear Daniel, I wanted to thank you for your work here. Unfortunately, I don't think Ed will be the first nor the last creative to kill himself over online mobbing. Thank you for flagging his page to help ensure that off-wiki mobbing/harrassment doesn't creep in. Slacker13 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit Filter FP
If there's guidance on what should be RevDel'd when actioning the not-really-FPs, I can just take care of it then instead of requiring future cleanup. Q T C 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The RevDel'ing was not based on whether those were FPs. If you need me to explain, I can do it privately. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I know, feel free to shoot through e-mail user. Q  T C 19:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Problematic editor
I've come across an editor who appears to be socking and is also being disruptive/edit-warring. Myself & another editor have been reverting on this person's edits & they come back with findagrave or familysearch as sources. In direct contradiction to the cited sources. Am concerned I could run afoul of 3rr, would appreciate it if you could look in on the situation at Augustine Washington and Johann van Beethoven. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll probably have to open a Sockpuppet/puppeteer report...but can't quite figure out which account is the master lol... Shearonink (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just submitted it - maybe I'm wrong about sockpuppeteering but I am tired of reverting these edits. Shearonink (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pinging the editors (including the master & sock) who have been involved with the unsourced dating issue, see my posts at Talk:Augustine Washington. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh no.
@Daniel Case Please help me! Review changes on my talk page. I've had enough of the edits on the Murder of Linda Anderson page. The IP user added comments and I don't know what to do.

Really big thanks, <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, please review the talk page of Murder of Linda Andersen. Now, since they can't actually edit the article, they're going everywhere else to spread the information.
 * Thanks,
 * <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now that I have blocked the /64 range from editing the article for three years, let's see what happens. Or doesn't. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have also extended the block to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Please review my talk page and the sources that 2A02:A212:A583:5980:F635:52:AA7D:81A7 provided. However, I am not sure if those are reliable websites. If they are, then we could potentially unblock  2A02:A212:A583:5980:F635:52:AA7D:81A7. Thanks. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What sources? I don't see anything on your talk page right now related to that article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's just because another admin removed all the messages (in a way that you can't go to view history and see the edits). They have also banned the two IP users editing the article. Thanks, though! <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 22:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

At Junlper
There's a few more revisions to be suppressed. Sent you an email. Regards, –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I got it and I am working on it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool, just making sure. Sorry to be a bug. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 03:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those I had skipped initially because I thought they were complete rollbacks, which usually do not need to RevDel'ed (that's what it is; oversight is the double strikethrough, where only oversighters can see the redacted edit). Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:PIA questions
Hi Daniel, I think you are fairly well-versed in the above, but if you believe my questions are better addressed to another admin, let me know.

I believe that with the newish mandate by the Committee that articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict may be edited only by EC editors, that the same restriction applies to editors who create an article related to the conflict. Is that true? If so, isn't there a mechanism for deleting the article without a discussion, a form of speedy deletion?

This all relates to a specific article that may not fall within the scope of the conflict, but even if that's true, I'd like to understand how it works if it did. The article is Yossi Sariel, which was recently created by an editor with 21 edits. Note that in the article, it says "He also served in this position during the Israel–Hamas war." Also, Sariel is the "commander" of Unit 8200, which is designated as a PIA article and is EC-protected.

Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you could delete it, immediately EC create-protect it and then re-create it yourself. You wouldn't really be deleting it, I think.
 * I'm not sure about the restriction applying to article creation, although I think it does. Perhaps we should request clarification, like the way it was settled a few months back that non-EC editors cannot even participate in talk discussions about these articles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that. Where would you request clarification? Not from the Committee itself? Seems like overkill. I think we just need to find someone who knows the rule, or knows there isn't a rule. Maybe a single arbitrator? Or maybe I could ask at AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just looked, and all this is at WP:ARBECR:
 * The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:
 * Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.
 * Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required."
 * Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good find! That said, what are we supposed to make of that? How are we supposed to exercise our discretion? And if we delete the article, do we just refer to WP:ARBECR in the deletion log?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I added a subtopic to WP:AN and mentioned the fact that you have been helping me.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:47.54.146.218
You recently blocked this editor for edit warring and they've gone right back to it at 2023–24 Montreal Canadiens season. The article would also benefit from semi-protection until June when the season rolls over and the disruptions will stop. Deadman137 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72 hours. I'm pressed for time right now and I will look into protecting it later. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing what you did. They started socking with different IPs so the article is now protected. Deadman137 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Naagin (2015 TV series)
I just opened a split discussion about this article in its talk page, But, I'm unable to add the notice due to the page's Full protection. Can you please add the notice there. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 08:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Sorry this took a while ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night
(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) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Problems (again)
Hi, sorry to bother you,

There's are two users: DeIIveloper and DeIIvelloper

Copy and paste them to see the difference, the first one has the letter I, as in igloo, and the second has letter L, as in last.

The main point is they all appear to be the same person, editing pages related to Draft:The Monument Mythos, having two accounts for unknown reasons, and engaging in edit wars. Especially the last edit on that draft page, it appears to be written by someone who has a close connection to the topic and is describing that "if he/she doesn't remove the content then someone will suicide". I'm purposely not pinging those users for now.

Also, there are users with similar usernames: Dellveloper and Dellveloper1 (who is blocked). I'm wondering if these four users are related. Do you have CheckUser rights as an admin/sysop? If so, I recommend checking  these users.

Thanks,

<templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I am currently dealing with some tech issues. Please stand by. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, all except Dellveloper are now blocked. DeIIveloper and DeIIvelloper were blocked by Bbb23 and Dellveloper1 was blocked by Ad Orientem, which was a while ago. I don't think we need to worry too much now. <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> My <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> real <templatestyles src="Template:Color/styles.css" /> namm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring in Sri Lanka Armed Forces
Hi, Hope you can look into an fresh case of edit warring that is appearing to start in Sri Lanka Armed Forces following the designation of Sri Lanka as a contentious topic,. Cossde (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I came across this via 3PO. @Cossde, the other editor appears to be working in good faith. I don't really understand your objection either. Feel free to discuss via TALK, but attempting to sanction the other editor seems a little desperate. Nemov (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nemov, not at all if you were aware of the broader edit warring that have taken place around civil war topics of Sri Lanka. Cossde (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI
Regarding your block here, I also reinstated a CU block I had previously placed on the /16 range. There's a couple of sockmasters floating around there.-- Ponyo bons mots 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, fine ... without CU myself I didn't want to block such a large range if it (as it seemed to me) it would affect some legitimate editing. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Help
Hello. I noticed you put a partial block on the IP 2A02:C7C:FE83:C400:928:B17B:F34D:9846. Could you please add the page Isabella Hobson to the blocked list as the IP user vandalised this page with incorrect information earlier today. I don't know how to do this or even if I'm able to. Thanks.

Shrug02 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I blocked the user's /64 instead as the block on the /32 has reached its maximum 10 articles. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Shrug02 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Noktundo disruption part II: rangeblock request
Hi there Daniel Case,

Unfortunately after the three months of page protection you applied at Talk:List of territorial disputes (alongside, 3 months of protection on Talk:Noktundo by another admin), this disruptive IP editor is back again bludgeoning the talk pages by asking the same question every few days, maybe slightly differently worded each time.

I realise that admins are reluctant to protect talk pages for a long period of time (after all, they are the page that non-confirmed editors will go to if the article is protected)—the requests I made at RPPI did take a bit longer to be responded to than the other reports like usual. So what I have done, is went through every instance of edits by this disruptive anon editor, both on the articles and on the talk pages, and collected up all the different IP addresses used into a userspace LTA infopage: User:AP 499D25/LTA Tracking/Noktundo bludgeoner.

Doing so, I have determined that there are about 9 different distinct IP ranges used by this disruptive editor:


 * 45.58.88.0/21
 * 45.74.76.0/22
 * 66.22.160.0/20
 * 136.143.216.0/21
 * 162.221.120.0/21
 * 172.98.144.0/20
 * 204.197.176.0/22
 * 206.176.144.0/20
 * 216.165.192.0/19

As you seem to be quite familiar with the situation (we previously discussed this above in December), I am wondering if you could place a partial block on all these ranges from the 4 pages most frequently targeted by this editor (Noktundo, Talk:Noktundo, List of territorial disputes, Talk:List of territorial disputes).

It may seem like a lot of work / a lot of clicks to do, but I'm thinking surely there would be less "collateral damage" with the partial blocks, in the sense that there will be a lot less legitimate editors unable to edit those targeted pages than if we went with long-term page protections.

Let me know what's the best course of action here. And if it's a bit too much for you, then it's okay, I can copy this to ANI.

Thanks! — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  22:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have blocked all those ranges from those four pages for 2 weeks. Let's see what happens. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Flagcruft LTA
I don't know if it's necessary to make a case page, but this is a habitual and persistent LTA. All their IPs are based out of Austria, and they have been blocked plenty of times for their disruptive editing before: they edited yesterday under User:77.116.37.62, and have been blocked under User:178.113.90.82, User:178.113.189.62, User:178.113.110.56, User:178.112.142.12, User:178.113.90.82, and User:77.116.8.249 Loafiewa (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. Three of those (you listed one of them twice) are covered by, which hasn't edited in over a month, but we can keep it in mind if we see an IP on that range (and it looks like the LTA only used it for a couple of weeks).
 * looks like a little better bet, although when the LTA has used the range their IP has remained relatively static. But looking through recent edits, those that haven't been reverted show the same pattern, and the edits remain largely focused on military topics so I believe it's the same person. There doesn't look like much likelihood of collateral damage. Therefore I will block them for 2 weeks as an LTA.
 * I have also blocked 2 weeks for the same editing pattern. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Suspicious User, Likely Returning Sockpuppet
One (User:ImperialAficionado) has a suspiciously specific contribution chain. The tone of edits is quite experienced for a profile made in 2023, and the topics it covers are very specifically concerned with Indian history. The tone is professional and civil mostly, but the edits are almost always one-sided and negationist. That suggests the operator has trained himself rather than learnt organically, or is most likely a returning sockpuppet of a previous banned user. The emphasis here is specifically on strong negationist edits, including but not limited to creation of partisan pages on defeats of 'Indic' states in front of Islamic or Central Asian states. Battleground mentality is also displayed in the various committed Talk page debates ImperialAficionado is ever engaged in. I haven't engaged the user personally to avoid any escalation.

Earliest edits: , Newest edits:

This appears to be clear case of a sockpuppet engaging in | Supremacism and pushing narratives. After editing various low-traffic pages, User:ImperialAficionado has racked up contribution score for credibility. Attention was drawn to it from the most recent attempt to mislabel Maratha Empire as a non-Empire state, disregarding various sources, then immediately reverting the correction by counter-questioning for a source. That also serves as evidence for emotional involvement. Please skim through the user's contributions and suggest if there is weight in the suspicion and if it should be reported formally. DeccanFlood (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, to report someone as a sock, you need to connect them to another user. As it stands, your comments come close to a personal attack, and my guess is that you don't agree with IA's edits, which is why you're claiming they're a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The edits by User:ImperialAficionado are evidently loaded and guided by a bias. There are various tools with the experienced editors to check a profile's IP range, and see if the new profile is carrying forward any previously banned vandals' agenda. There is no personal attack but a clear commentary on the nature of their edits. It is very likely a sockpuppet, since the earliest edits are creating a page on defeat of a Hindu state at the hands of an Central Asian or Islamic State, and all edits since then are concerned with this base. Even after being here for about a year, I don't know how to create a page. DeccanFlood (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

216.186.51.109
Hi Daniel, You blocked for one week. Would you consider blocking it for a year or more per WP:SCHOOLBLOCK? The IP is owned by Washington K-20 Network. Thanks. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I generally prefer to slowly escalate the lengths of IP blocks I make, even on schools, to encourage any legitimate editing there. I have done it this way for years. There is nothing in SCHOOLBLOCK that encourages going with longer blocks from the get-go (I know some admins do it that way, and they're free to, but again we don't have to). Without being blocked for that period, that IP went two years without editing. Besides we're getting near the end of the US school year anyway, and maybe the vandals will find something more urgent to take up their time.
 * Rest assured, though, that when school IPs have resumed vandalizing after the expiration of long blocks, I have not hesitated to block them for even longer periods (There was one Australian girls' school I went to five years on, and they haven't been the only one). Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're right, SCHOOLBLOCK doesn't propose any specific block duration, and glad to hear that you don't hesitate to make long blocks (five years is something, wow!). Simply, in my (very limited) experience they are not too likely to stop. Anyway, let's see, thanks for keeping an eye on IP vandals. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  18:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It did not work. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  17:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

About rejection of protection of EURO 2024 broadcast list
You had mentioned that there no data of talking page, but i literally had linked my post on ipuser talking page, i should contact EVERY ip that shows up even if is obviously the same ip or simillar? Meganinja202 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * checking the edit list,is the basicaly variations of IP starting with 181.42
 * User seems to use dynamic IP ISP, thus making communication VERY difficult unless he makes a account Meganinja202 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the additional information. Based on that, I have blocked for six months as very likely having been used by  Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

RoundTeen back on a new account
Hi Daniel. I just had a user,, thank me for my revert of RoundTeen's vandalism of User:Kirham's talk page. They've subsequently created a user page copying hundreds of pings to both Kirham and User:DarkVador79-UA, users whom they've obviously had a disagreement with on the French Wikipedia. It's clearly RoundTeen again using the English Wiki to take out grievances with users on other language projects.  Ss  112   00:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm not sure he's up to any good Kirham (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He appears to have been blocked indef as NOTHERE (I'd also have done it on username grounds). Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(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) 04:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, need help
Thanks for semi locking the 2024 UCLA protests article. I understand why but I am a UCLA prof and old time editor and some of my students were new editors contributing to the article. They are not able to do so. Any possibility to make case by case exceptions and grant editing privileges? Noopur28 (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * While I would like it if we could whitelist some constructive editors who are not extended-confirmed when we apply that protection to a page, we can't yet. I see two solutions:
 * Asking for extended-confirmed rights to be granted earlier than they otherwise would be at WP:RFPERM. I'm not sure how this will be accepted, though, in light of the article being under a contentious topic. If they make that request they should be open about why.
 * Making edit requests on the article talk page. If they want to make extensive edits, I suppose, it might not be a bad idea to copy a section of the article into their own userspace and just link from the edit request to what they want to do rather than making piecemeal talk page requests of the "Correct spelling of ..."
 * Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

About your block of 78.190.48.0/20
Just giving you a heads-up about a self-proclaimed proxy contained therein. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if he really meant it we'd have seen more from him in the last six months ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request
Hey, mind taking out some garbage?  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Reference removal
Hi. This and this IP are the same person who keeps removing the same sourced info regarding "best of" lists. I've warned them twice already. Could you please do something about it? ภץאคгöร 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the IP and for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Shrikhand
Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) protection for Shrikhand due to ongoing IP disruptive editing. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Indefinite semi, and logged. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the blocked IP who just pinged us
The IP user perennially attempting to appeal their block e.g. here and now here is indeed the individual who is personally blocked. They are trolling. You will find relevant background here and here. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Venezia/James evading the permanent block
80.102.210.145 is obviously Venezia/James, all his edits are about pushing the usual agenda in a number of articles. Reverted by another user on Magellan expedition page, he insists. At Anglo-Spanish War (1762–1763) he has been reverted, but not yet at Voyages of Christopher Columbus and Age of Discovery (and at Magellan expedition because he re-intervened). Again: randomly deleting British victories against Spain; deleting the word "Italian" and British (at the Age of Discovery page); downplayining the importance of someone like Magellan because he is not Spanish. Usual agenda and ruining of articles.Barjimoa (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Let me also inform Drmies. Barjimoa (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Blocked again for a year. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look., please include the sockmaster's name when you ping me--it's User:JamesOredan, I see from the block log. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk), here are three other socks of Venezia/James

A) Dreom (just created after the block of the latest IP the other day). He has continued the edits of 80.102.210.145 at the Francis Xavier page (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_Xavier&action=history). The agenda of these edits seems to be anti-Basque.

B) 2603:8001:B202:3294:0:0:0:0/64 (you rangeblocked this for other trouble he caused, but it's always him). He has continued at the page climate of Spain and similar (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_of_Spain&action=history) the edits of the blocked sock User:DrakeXper and of 46.6.233.105 (who DrakeXPer admitted to be his IP here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_of_Spain&diff=prev&oldid=1204250178&title=Talk%3AClimate_of_Spain&diffonly=1). The agenda of these edits is to claim that Spain is more diverse by climate than all other European countries. These IPs also edit on languages-themed pages (like the languages of Spain, the Spanish language, the Catalan language, the Valencian language etc). The agenda in this case seems to be anti-Catalan, stuff like removing mention of the Catalan language or taking Valancian away from the Catalan language.

C) LucenseLugo (just back from a period of inactivity after the block of the latest IP the other day). This has been around for quite some time. He edits with the aforementioned agenda at the linguistic pages I said above (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_Spain&action=history&offset=&limit=500), and in other pages related to Spain/Catalonia (furthermore, in the past, at the Talk:Spanish Empire page he tried to change the map for one relentlessly pushed by Venezia/James and his socks). He also has the same recognizable aggressive language of JamesOredan and his typical accusation in a mirror.

Needless to say, all these edits create constant tensions and edit wars; several good-faith users have intervened to revert them (as you can see from the pages history i linked above), only to be reverted back again and again by these socks, who unjustly accused them of violating wiki rules. The worst I have found is was when LucenseLugo, accusing in a mirror an user who also noticed he was Venezia Friulano, threatened him with this honestly vile response (here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian_language&diff=prev&oldid=1181009849&title=Talk%3AValencian_language&diffonly=1). He only wants to prevaricate over others.Barjimoa (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm just checking in here, have to go out and do something for the rest of the day. I will attend to this later. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Revdel
Hi, would you mind helping RD2 this. Also is it maybe time to consider CTOPS protecting the talk page - looking at the last couple reverts in the edit history, all of them required revdel? Raladic (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ and ✅ With the latter (semi'ed for a year), I'm surprised it took this long to consider reprotecting the page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Requesting admin support
Hello! I found you on a list of admins who can handle certain requests that require certain permissions. Can you please take a look at this |this revision and handle it as you see fit? Thank you very much. Gottagotospace (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have RevDel'ed it and warned the IP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Gottagotospace (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Mpox Revdel
Can we get a revdel on 76.98.200.125 and 2601:40:c600:a9f0:f8f6:d1a0:512b:2ea2 racist edits please? Thanks in advance, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. The v4 was not a problem. The v6 has a lot of edits and maybe this is a group project that we should ask about at AN. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting the v4. Yeah, the v6 went on an unchecked rampage. Surprised there is not a bulk "nuke all" option. I support bringing it to AN if you think it is necessary. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that ... I'm not going to get it done tonight, nor tomorrow as I will be busy with work most of the day (and even more so Wednesday). Yeah, this made me wish for some sort of bulk RevDel function for a user as opposed to a page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Renaming advice?
Hello,

I watched your success from afar in renaming an article to the Bathtub Girls murder. I didn't know enough to weigh-in and I could see you were coming to consensus.

I have been hoping that Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow, which includes the deaths of Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell could be renamed to something more inclusive, or pull Charles and Tammy's deaths out of the article. Right now Charles and Tammy's deaths are in "Background".

Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow and let me know - or feel free to comment there - with any suggestions you may have about moving this forward, if that makes sense? It would be much appreciated. –CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyhow! The process is moving along.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Familiarise yourself with the talkpage guidelines
WP:TPG specifically WP:TALK

I expect you to amend your comment accordingly. I once again remind you, you are in the trusted position of an Administrator which carries with it certain expectations regarding your behaviour. BoldGnome (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Again, most Wikipedians would understand the difference between amending language proposed to be in Wikipedia's voice and amending commentary in their own voice. I and other editors have done this sort of thing on talk pages before. You're needlessly confusing this (I hope, although given your past editing history good faith is on the short side).
 * And will you at least acknowledge the mistake (again, I hope) that you made by deleting my comment entirely without my consent? It's right there in black and white at WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS: "The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."
 * See WP:POT. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no mistake made on my part. I restored the previous version of the Talk Page to give you the opportunity to provide your comment without amending your previous comment on the talk page. You had unhelpfully amended your comment as well as provided a response to the feedback in the same edit. Please stop referring to glib essays in response to people pointing out your violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, it only exacerbates your poor behaviours. BoldGnome (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The chief poor behavior is see is immediately above. That's a personal attack over a perfectly reasonable talkpage edit.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That "glib essay" is described at the top as "an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline". It is a norm understood by all serious Wikipedia editors for many years. If you truly wanted to provide an opportunity for me to make my comment, you would not have deleted it so I could repost it ... that needlessly puts the burden on the other editor, and (as with so many of your editing behaviors) is disingenuous. It seems more like a way you can delete a comment you take entirely too personally while pretending that's not what you're doing. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am, of course, referring to WP:POT, not WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. I had no expectation that you would not restore your own comment so the accusation that I was trying to delete it is without merit. It goes without saying that if your response and the amendments were 2 separate edits, only the amendments would have been (appropriately) reverted. The undue burden would be to expect me to restore the previous comment to how it was when BugGhost and I replied to it while retaining your comment, because it was all done in one edit by yourself. I genuinely don't think I'm asking too much here. BoldGnome (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are, because no other editors do it that way in my experience, and the fact that you have done this for literally years, knowing it upsets other editors, suggests that either you're completely unable to read people or you just don't care. Of course you expected me to restore my comment—so you could accuse me of edit-warring and admin-shame me (Yes, the more I read your attempts to explain yourself, the less good faith I have in you and the more I see how manipulative you are).
 * OK, I'll take it from your "referring to" language that you did mean POT. Never mind that your dismissive attitude toward a rather common English-language axiom regarding your own hypocrisy (which you do not deny, and frankly it's even worse when, as a respected admin noted above there is absolutely no problem with my edit while most sensible editors are going to have as much trouble as I have buying your explanations of how innocently intended your edits were, so contrary to common editing practice they are) is not doing you any favors. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I meant that I expected you to restore your comment without restoring the changes to the previous comment that BugGhost and I had responded to. It was not a ploy to trap you into edit-warring. At this point I agree that this discussion should be best placed on AN/I, particularly as I'm concerned that further engagement here will have me sanctioned for harassment. BoldGnome (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The Mad Pooper for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Mad Pooper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Mad Pooper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Zanahary (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

My eyes are toasted
Hi. I tried to restore the Brett Cantor article to your second-to-last revision and I instead restored it an earlier version by Starla Tate. I attempted to correct my mistake, but as noted above, my eyes are toasted. Can you give it a look? There are ref errors and the Dragonfly Podcast appears as an external link. Twice. Sorry about that (and thank you). JSFarman (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts. I will get back to it a little later. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We want to get it back to this revision, is that what you want? Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. That was it!  I managed the revert. (I think both my eyes and my brain were toasted this morning,) Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do! Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The information about Brett Cantor’s death is completely wrong. Now that new info, interviews, and the coroner’s report have been released, I was trying to edit it and cite references that would display the correct information. Why does this keep getting removed? Starla Tate (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have to have sources other than the Dragonfly podcast (there aren't many podcasts we have decided are reliable, I'm afraid). And do not remove any existing material that is properly sourced unless we all do come to a consensus that it was wrong or that better sources say something different.
 * Also, I would commend the NPOV page to your attention. There is most of the time with events not personally witnessed or documented no "correct" version, whatever your faith in the Dragonfly podcast's reporting. If different sources say different things, if they are both reliable, we put what both of them said in the article (cited, of course) and leave it to the reader to decide what to believe. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

False edit summaries and removal of content by 174.100.101.201
Hello! this IP was blocked by you for edit warring, and since the block elapsed, has gone back to repeatedly removing material from articles with no justification, and blatantly false edit summaries. I won't even bother linking to diffs since this constitutes almost every edit by the user. Can you indef and roll back their edits? Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Well ... it doesn't seem like any of their edits since the block expired have been reverted, and they haven't gotten any new warnings. Plus some of the edits I reviewed seemed to have been accurately summarized. If they think they're not vandals, I could hardly blame them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

RD2 help
Hi, could I ask you to help clean up this and this and maybe add some CTOPS protection to the page? It doesn’t get vandalized often, but when it does it’s pretty bad.

Thanks. Raladic (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I RevDel'ed one but that was the extent of it. I don't see the disruption to be regular enough at this point to require protection ... we can trust the community on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, thanks for your help :) Raladic (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Help required
User:PadFoot2008 is constantly undoing my edits in Maratha Confederacy Article. I did not add information as User:Timmertent] told to file WP:DRN but till then I found many sources that don't cite the information mentioned in intro paras of the article. So I just added failed verification templates. Also, added an Incomplete template till consensus is reached which ig I can. And I don't think that anyone need consensus for failed verifications that user is simply disrupting the article. He didn't provide any sources nor does he discuss what problem he has. He during the whole discussion didn't even provide one WP:RS. Plz see to it as many things here don't require consensus like the things I mentioned here. Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think, as I said at ANEW, you would be best off participating in the DRN that's been opened. That would be the best venue for these arguments you are making. Posting this on admins' talk pages starts to look like shopping very quickly. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sry for the trouble also I will not be participating in any further discussion you could close it Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/182.182.0.0/17
Hello Daniel - Looks like that IP range you and had blocked for messing around and socking is back in action. They're still adding unreliable sources to contentious topics, keeping up their usual antics.<span id="Saqib:1716839895357:User_talkFTTCLNDaniel_Case" class="FTTCmt"> — Saqib ( talk  I  contribs ) 19:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have now blocked them for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

World men's volleyball championship
Greetings Daniel. There was an error, a problem, on the page. I have posted links that support my claims about medal winners. The FIVB recognizes Russia as the successor to the medals of the Soviet Union. It is not stated anywhere in this table.

https://en.volleyballworld.com/volleyball/competitions/women-worldchampionship-2022/competition/history Also, mr Larry Carrel say the same thing to our college, Muhamed (see a talk page)

https://ibb.co/Pwdjrsv I hope that with your knowledge and your position, you will help me to keep the data correct.

Also, I put all of this on Tigerius page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98Tigerius I'm not such a "master" on wikipedia and I'm sorry if I don't link some website's in right way.

PS - I read your biography and it's amazing! So, I hope so u can help me to make this in right way JohnWickChapter4 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Daniel Case Why I'm block? I put all information on talk page and also here? JohnWickChapter4 (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(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) 01:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Question
Thank you for responding to my unprotection request for Gallirallus. I just have a small question regarding this, the non-automated revert I mentioned. Is there anything at that diff, in the page's edit history, or anywhere else that indicates that revert was or was not done via pending changes? <b style="font-family: Segoe Script;"> City o f  Silver </b> 04:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Let me get back to you on that ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it was ... it seems like none of those edits were PC'ed. Of course, maybe when you lift PC it gets rid of the blue highlightings. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Volleyball World Championship
Mr Case, I put official infomation and you give me block? Why? Did you see source I post on talk page? Did you see that this is all original and oficial information from FIVB and Olympic? Did u see a conversation on talk page? JohnWickChapter4 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

quick request
hey I just have a quick request. I recently reverted some pretty nasty vandalism on the Leeds Beckett University page. could you hide the vandalism, thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ah I see you have done it, thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Noktundo disruption part III
Hi Daniel Case,

This message is in reference to the previous section Noktundo disruption part II: rangeblock request. Just like you, I too had hoped that the two-week partial rangeblock on those IP ranges would finally get the message across and actually discourage them from ever continuing their disruption again. But I regret to write you that sigh, it did not work. They are still at it again on Talk:List of territorial disputes shortly after the rangeblocks expired. :(

So yeah, I'll write down the nine different IP ranges they have used once again:


 * 45.58.88.0/21
 * 45.74.76.0/22
 * 66.22.160.0/20
 * 136.143.216.0/21
 * 162.221.120.0/21
 * 172.98.144.0/20
 * 204.197.176.0/22
 * 206.176.144.0/20
 * 216.165.192.0/19

And the four pages they frequently target which we included in the rangeblocks are Noktundo, Talk:Noktundo, List of territorial disputes and Talk:List of territorial disputes.

So maybe it's time for another partial rangeblock on these IP ranges, this time a much longer one?

Kind regards, — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  02:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll get to it in a bit ... one wishes we had some sort of multi-range block tool so we could do this with one click. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. I have given all the ranges that have edited those articles since the original block expired a nice summer vacation (i.e., 3 months)—well, Northern Hemisphere summer vacation—from the articles. This excludes four: 66.22.160.0/20, 136.143.216.0/21, 172.98.144.0/20 and 216.165.192.0/19. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood about the 'wish this could be easier part', thanks a lot! I know it must've been tedious. And I'm sure Sunnyediting99, the other person dealing with this, greatly appreciates it too! — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  03:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if you'd asked me I would have suggested an indefinite WP:CIR block
Just one data point of many:. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am reconsidering this, actually. It was an AIV report so I was sort of focused on the more immediate circumstances, but now that more of the history is coming to my attention ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
Hi, there is this user who has been warned for unsourced additions since May 2021, but is still doing it. I think something needs to be done as all they do is undo the warnings and keep doing the same thing, vandalizing pages and getting their edits reverted by multiple users. ภץאคгöร 13:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... their saving grace is that they don't edit much, so simply reverting them is enough to protect the encyclopedia. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned you in an AE report
The thread is '''JDiala.

Thank you. FortunateSons (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Petition to lower the protection level of the page Joseph Kallarangatt
Kindly lower the protection level of the page named Joseph Kallarangatt to continue improving the article. The current version is highly biased and is against the ground reality of this living person. User named user:Pbritti seemed to disruptively reverting any improvements done to the article that too with proper citations instead of improving the article. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Revdel request
Requesting revdel of this. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * 1995 World Figure Skating Championships
 * added a link pointing to Ranked choice
 * Figure skating at the 2002 Winter Olympics
 * added a link pointing to Ranked choice

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on grossly offensive redirect
Hi, could you please take a look at this and maybe help take out this grossly offensive redirect, which I think is far beyond “non neutral” so should have been speedy deleted per G10, but looks like the person that nominated it didn’t select the right criteria. I don’t think it needs to run through all the bureaucracy of an RfD. Thanks Raladic (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic
(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) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Bad edits
Hello. I'm just seeing this message, but could you at least give the user a warning? They've been on Wikipedia for some years, but they can't stop ranting about me, making unconstructive changes and stating their interpretations. They added a low-quality source years ago, and since nobody paid attention to it, we should supposedly use it verbatim and lengthen the text unnecessarily, because unlike the other (and better) source, this one includes another aggregator's score as a passing mention too (for some personal reason this score is relevant to the quote used in the article). In their opinion, we definitely can't paraphrase these two references and make the text shorter, because it's wrong. This type of behavior comes from the discussion where they wrote long messages that a conclusion is allegedly reached so they consider it valid in some way (even if it has little to do with future/other discussions). There have been editors I have encountered and reported in this way before, I don't want to deal with this as I have observed that what I write is seemingly difficult for them to understand. ภץאคгöร 16:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm busy right now but I'll take a look later. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well let me chime in here with a few thoughts, if that's okay? Yes, I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2009, and it looks like I'm getting pretty close to 32,000 edits. Never been blocked (or really ever reported that I recall), often take the opportunity to mentor others when time permits, have a great rapport with several admins that I interact with periodically, and I like to think I have the trust and support of editors from several WikiProjects including WP:FILM and WP:APARKS.In this particular content dispute, Nyxaros boldly created a new claim, reducing two sentences into one. However, ONE of the original citations retained no longer supported the claim. I reverted the change with an informative edit summary, that not only says why, but also mentions an earlier talk page discussion and asks to begin a new one if needed. What does Nyxaros do next? They revert again of course! Complete with a snarky edit summary comment that does nothing to explain why they are re-reverting. Nyxaros also avoids initiating a discussion on the talk page as requested, which is a common pattern I've witnessed or experienced before with this editor in other disputes. They'll use the talk page, but only when summoned.So fast forward to where we are now, a new discussion on the talk page was started – which I had to initiate. It failed to make any progress, especially after Nyxaros frequently dropped criticisms like "poor writing habits", "such a bizarre argument", and "imaginary consensus", none of which was conducive to a collaborative atmosphere. In one instance, they even attempted to tie my behavior to a wild WP:IDHT accusation. Then there's things like the title of this section, "Bad edits", and just aggressiveness toward others in their talk and editing history.Honestly not sure what to make of all this, but wanted to close with an interesting message that was left on my talk page by an IP who appears to have had a history with Nyxaros. It's what led me here. Whether or not this IP has a legit concern or not, I know my experience here as a reputable, fair-minded editor with a lot of patience is generally something that doesn't run into too many issues. Something is definitely off with the way Nyxaros interacts with others, especially during disputes, and I can't quite put my finger on what exactly. I wasn't planning to escalate, but it's beginning to seem like Nyxaros is going to make this into a bigger issue, and perhaps that's a good thing. It may be time to shine the spotlight on this account and give it the scrutiny it deserves. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, the talk page discussion mentioned above now has a third participant and additional sourcing to take into consideration. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you responded.
 * I haven't looked over all the relevant edits yet but ... this feels like it's at heart a content dispute, more than a behavioral one (There has been enough edit warring over how to characterize the general thrust of reviews of films that maybe that should be a contentious topic). If we want to settle this purely on a content basis, we should post at WT:FILM and get some other editors knowledgeable in the subject involved. If it's the behavior we're worried about, this sounds like AN/I material. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the suggestions. As for content, we have a third participant now, so Nyxaros is welcome to rejoin the conversation, civilly of course. We can also drop a discussion notice at WT:FILM if needed. Regarding behavior, points above are duly noted for future reference, but I don't plan to escalate at this time unless Nyxaros wants to make this into a bigger issue. We can definitely take that to AN/I if so. Sorry this all landed on your talk page! Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've found this. This is the user who attacked me out of the blue in 2022 by going out of the poster topic, who clearly held some sort of grudge against me even then for some reason, now taking as a base the words of the Colorado IP sock that has been blocked many times before by multiple admins, including by you Daniel if I remember correctly. It doesn't matter how many times they have contributed for how many years or what adjectives they use to describe themselves, there's clearly some playground for this person to focus more on attacking instead of discussing. And when I try to explain, there's "you are doing your old habit", "nonsensical", "that doesn't even make sense", "not buying it", "shine the spotlight on this account and give it the scrutiny it deserves" etc. like they are deciding the consensus from a discussion that barely touched the subject and had three editors years ago. A third opinion showed even more references for us to use and actually paraphrase the sentence that is obviously shoddily written, but once again like that IP that has been blocked so many times, there is a clear pattern of trying to change the subject to me. It seems that there will be more low-quality sources that will be prioritized because they include the aggregator score in their text that we already mention + sentences like "A reported 'mostly positive', while B stated 'generally positive', and C 'usually positive', as well as D 'fairly positive'." ภץאคгöร  15:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nyxaros, I don't plan to litigate this here, and I don't think Daniel wants us to either. Serious behavioral concerns that persist over a long period of time should be addressed at WP:AN/I. What you just linked to though wasn't an attack, and I'm sure it took you a while to dig something up. In that discussion, you just rudely responded to another editor with, "Nobody is obligated to search for it, so if you want to help/encourage others to join the discussion, you need to link exactly where the discussion is." I was responding in kind, sternly. That editor mentioned a talk page discussion in one of their edit summaries, and you did not join the discussion, nor did you create a new one, until you were pinged to the existing one.This goes along with what I just stated above. Instead of relying on talk pages, you seem to view them as a last resort or more of an obligation when your hand is forced. I think that is the wrong approach in most cases, and one that I tried to advise you on when I dropped this note on your talk page (in case you were not aware of WP:EPTALK). I'm willing to move on for now if you are, take some time to reflect on things, and hopefully you are too. Then see if anything changes. But if not, I'm more than ready to discuss further, but if that's the case, let's move this to an AN/I discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can believe that everything I have written is "rude" but that what you have written is not, and that you were absolutely right to go off topic and target me when no one else was bothered. Keep on doing what you are doing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyxaros (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This will be my last response to you here. I do not believe and have never said that "everything" you have written is "rude". I also never held any grudge against you, nor did I target you in any way. However, I do feel that an editor with your experience shouldn't be as overly confrontational as you seem to be, often responding to another editor's revert by undoing their revert and including an inadequate edit summary containing a rude remark (as in this instance). Regardless of how you feel about me or any interaction we've had in the past (which there have been very few occurrences), there seems to be more instances like this with other experienced editors in your editing history.I would hope that moving forward as we move past this situation, you would take into consideration the need to rely more on talk pages as soon as it becomes clear you're involved in a dispute, or at the very least, write better edit summaries. Go ahead and open an incident if you feel this needs more discussion, because this needs to end here. I am moving on for now. Should something occur in the future compelling me to do the same, I will as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Revision Deletion Request
Edits by Officialsaish https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Officialsaish&action=history

Also, if you would like, delete User:Officialsaish/sandbox My real namm  (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My real namm  (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Rangeblock vs pagelock
Hi Daniel, thanks for your targeted action at. Regarding that, given I originally requested for page protection, I was wondering if there was some guidance somewhere about how dynamic an IP should be to request a lock rather than a block, and if there is an easy way to check ranges (as a non-admin)? Assuming of course doing such work on my end would reduce work on the patrolling admin end. Best, CMD (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki (at least here) is set so that we cannot block any v4 ranges wider than /16 or v6's wider than /32.
 * I use this tool for determining ranges. It might be a good thing to use before making requests to see if they might be resolved by a block rather than protection (we do want productive IPs to continue to be able to edit articles). Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I find partial blocks a particularly great innovation for the reason you mention, especially on shared IPs. Best, CMD (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I´ve made an ANI report, but the attacks continue
Hello, hope you are doing well. Yesterday I`ve reported editor Sideshow Bob [] on WP:ANI [] regarding their involment on Constatine Bodin page, which includes edit warring and not participating on talk page, but now I wish to expand my report by including WP:aspersions and WP:personal attacks, Sideshow Bob directly accused me on ANI report that I am "guy with agenda", Serbian ultranationalist etc. [], [] and also stating false information about sources on mentioned page, which is absolutely not true. I do not wish that this report remains wp:stale especially with such behavoiur, can you please do something about it? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to go run an errand soon; I will look into this later today. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Alejandro Cruz Ruiz
Hello. I have a concert about user. Since the beginning of this year, the user has been changing the release dates on multiple TV series pages, but never adds a source to verify their edits and the sources already included on the page contradict their changes, not to mention the two times they assured on the page La historia de Juana that the lead actress had been replaced, even though this was proven incorrect. I have tried to discuss their edits with them and why sources are needed to check the information added to Wikipedia but the user will only reply with a copy and paste of their edit summaries from pages they have edited. My concern is that there may be a language barrier with the user and therefore they may not fully comprehend what I am saying, or they are simply WP:NOTHERE. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks like another admin blocked them indef. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

About Trinamool Congress Article
Thank You for implementing "Extended confirmed protection" on Trinamool Congress article. Would you please remove the "Economic liberalism" from idelogy section in infobox and also "centre-right" from the Political position. Because none of the sourcs state those things. I checked it thoroughly, you can also check yourself. User:Suklaji again reverted my earlier edit. Please check history. Tcspower (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are right, but as the protecting admin I am loathe to do this. Put in an edit request on the talk page (and eventually you yourself will reach EC so you won't have to do this). Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Didier1222
Hi, I think you should block this user indefinitely, all their edits are just spamming links to betting & gambling sites. Annh07 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have reviewed their editing history prior to February (when there's less edits shown as having been reverted) and it seems that you are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Chile-based dynamic IP (LTA) back again
Hi Daniel, could you again block the disruptive Chile-based dynamic IP? Details:

Latest incarnation:
 * range blocked for 1 year on 7 June 2024
 * range blocked (above)
 * blocked for 3 months on 26 May 2024
 * blocked for 3 months on 22 May 2024
 * range blocked for 6 months on 5 May 2024
 * blocked for 3 months on 28 April 2024, for editing while blocked
 * blocked for 3 months on 22 April 2024
 * Also see.
 * Also see detailed AN/I from June 2023. Many thanks,  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   07:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Let's keep an eye out for them maybe using other IPs on that range. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel, the user has returned at, a new range for them. Only one edit thus far, but on one of their regular list of articles. And thanks.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   19:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's see if this is all they do. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, he was edit warring, warned, and is continuing to edit war as 200.111.106.210 and once as 181.43.56.53. Another editor is exasperated.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   20:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have blocked those IPs from Snow White (2025 film) for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   06:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Request on how to address possible WP:OWN situation in a content dispute
Hello, I'm here from the recently active admins page since there's a situation I'm at a bit of a loss on. There's a user who has been adding in a politico article to an article in a way that feels both like an WP:NPOV issue and like a WP:OWN issue here, and I'm up against 3RR while trying to not edit war myself. That said, the content seems both out of place and heavily editorialized and the user's been engaging in reverts and making inappropriate edit summaries and casting aspersions on their talk page without actually engaging on the article talk page (which rules out RFC considering its recency). Without 3RR being broken by any user it's a bit tricky to do anything short of a full ANI, which feels overkill in this situation? What's the best approach here when there's an WP:OWN issue going on without just going inappropriately nuclear? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, what's the article? It would help if we could look at the edits. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I linked it in the "here" but I think that was perhaps not clear enough, sorry about that! The article is Lauren Windsor. Worth noting the edit summary and this. Also, just for some context on the phrasing changed away from "expressing frustration at" the original source said "lamenting", not discussing, since I realized my edit could look editorialized (and frankly, probably was a bit too much in my attempt not to just quote the source verbatim!) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK ... I'll get to it later; I've got some of my usual patrol work to do and then some errands to run. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! While the majority of my point stands, it's worth pointing out that I was editorializing in my quote due to a misread portion of that source, so that specific revert is pretty much 100% kosher. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Indian IPs
Hi Daniel, could you add WP:Teahouse and Talk:Persecution of Hindus to 2409:4060:0:0:0:0:0:0/34's block? See their use of racist words and their disruptive post. Thanks.   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 10:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ I hope this is it ... we are getting close to the ten-article limit on partial blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible defamation
Hey Daniel! I may have spotted something that possibly classifies as defamation over on Talk:Transportation Security Administration. See this revision. Not sure if it warrants WP:REVDEL or not, but I just thought I should alert someone about it. Thanks! ~ lovkal (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've rev/deleted it and blocked the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Re: Robert Adams (spiritual teacher)
Hi Daniel, On the Robert Adams page it has recently been discovered that his real name is Robert Spiegel. No person was born in the USA named Robert Adams on Jan.21, 1928. The Robert Adams character was made up in 1986 by Robert Spiegel. There is not one reference to him (nor could there ever be) before 1986. There is however a complete history of Robert Spiegel (of which Ai is 100% certain is the same person). His wife and the administrator of the Infinity Institute which he founded was married to Robert Spiegel. His acknowledged daughter's father was Robert Spiegel. I have newspaper articles to prove this. There are several people that would like to see the Wikipedia article changed, not just me. There are many people that do not want this information out. What would you advise? Anytime I link to newspaper articles proving he was Robert Spiegel it is immediately taken down. His picture captioned Robert Spiegel looking exactly like him, is taken down. Any suggestions? Welcome650 (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss this on the article talk page if you haven't already. Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have repeatedly put comments, sources, and considerations on the article talk page. No one ever talks back or presents an alternative viewpoint. They just remove what I put up in the article (with correct citations) and put back up uncited and incorrect material long since disproven. This includes you who has now locked the page and not answered on how I should proceed.
 * I am not trying to annoy anyone here, I just think the truth might be helpful. Just tell me what I need to do to not get banned, and not have my correctly cited input removed, if you don't mind. :)
 * Here's the situation in a nutshell. Robert Adams was a made-up identity assumed by Robert Spiegel in the last 11 years of his life. Anytime I put up a picture of him (obviously him) as Robert Spiegel it is immediately removed lest some of his worshippers (I mean that literally) see it and do a search on his birth name. Should I put it up in "Controversies"? Should I put up some of his actual history perfectly cited in "Controversies"? Where can I put it so it stays up? Any suggestions? See my talk sections on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Adams_(spiritual_teacher)
 * Welcome650 (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome650 (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

revdel request
hey a nasty edit was made on Exploit (computer security). I think it might be worthy of a revdel, not sure though so if not then my bad! Gaismagorm (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Reassessment for "FM (No Static at All)"
I just put in a request for someone to review Steely Dan's song "FM (No Static at All), which I promoted to good article status back in 2019. Given that the song was my first good article assessment, I have decided to request another set of eyes to look at the article for the purpose of ensuring that I conducted the process properly. From my analysis, the prose might be a little clunky, so I have since made a few adjustments, and I encourage you to take another look to ensure that the content included is still worthy of GA status. Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your contributions. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! No worries. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As of June 27, 2024, I have received some feedback from one reviewer. They mentioned that there might be too many audio files in the article (they comprise around 23 percent of the total song). Fortunately, this would be an easy fix, as that would only require us to remove one or two of the audio files. According to WP:SAMPLE: "There should be only one sample per song recording, even if several users produce samples.

They further mentioned that this issue alone is not enough to delist the article, but that further feedback from other knowledgable editors could provide a more informed analysis on the article. With this in mind, are you willing to consider the removal of one of the audio files? In my opinion, the "Piano Intro to FM" audio file is the most unique of the three, while the other two audio files showcase minor variations between the first pre-chorus and second pre-chorus, which is still somewhat worthwhile but not completely necessary. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Elsewhere, I would suggest moving the first paragraph from the Reception section into the Chart performance section, which I believe would be a more appropriate location for it. Furthermore, we could change Fagen's "Johnny Mandel came in and did the string chart," quote into regular prose. Hopefully this feedback helps. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, re the SAMPLE issue, you'll note that both samples are the subject of sourced commentary in the accompanying text, per fair use criterion #8. To me that really controls ... has anyone ever justified the reason SAMPLE limits it to one? I'm sure it's probably because a great many people don't know how to properly justify their fair-use clips, but as I often say abusus non tollit usum. Do we have a one-sample limit on musical works in the public domain? I don't think so, and it's not just because they're usually long symphonic works
 * In the absence of starting a discussion about this on the appropriate talk page, though, since that's probably not something you really want to get into at the moment, I would be amenable to finding somewhere external to link that from if said link is not a copyright violation (Soundcloud, maybe? That's what I did with Five Per Cent For Nothing).
 * I'll get back to you on the other things later ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would be amenable to moving the conversation over to the talk page. Personally, I believe that the audio files only enhance the musical commentary of the song by demonstrating the variations in the instrumentation, particularly between the first and second pre-chorus. I did receive another update on the matter, where the same user suggested the possibility of shortening some of the audio files so they would no longer comprise a considerable portion of the song. They believed that all of the combined audio files should comprise no more than thirty seconds, but they did provide deference to us on the matter to decide on how to navigate the issue. I would be more willing to consider the option of shortening the audio files as opposed to entirely removing them as doing the latter would unnecessarily eliminate additional context to help the reader understand the article.

Otherwise, the review process is looking relatively promising. I just asked the reviewer if anything about the actual text of the article needs to be adjusted, so I can fill you in once I get a response on that. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Case of COI
Hello @Daniel Case

How do you treat an IP editor who says they doesn't have WP:COI yet but says they will have in the future just like this case declared on my talk page? Wår (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well ... based on what I understand about conflicts of interest, if you're going to have one, you already have one. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Me? Maybe you misunderstood. Wår (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The generic "you" is what I meant there, referring to the IP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got you. Wår (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

CTOPS for Fleetwood Mac
Hello,

I noticed that you semi protected Fleetwood Mac, a request I put through.

I am wondering what CTOPS is? I've never heard of it across all the time I've been on Wikipedia.

Please "at" me when you respond.

Thanks!

Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * (although the reply feature usually does this automatically). CTOPS is contentious topics, a designation ArbCom came up with a couple of years ago so that in areas covered by its past cases, admins have more discretion to protect, block and impose rules like 1RR and 0RR in order to ensure editing within conduct boundaries (before, those requests usually had to go through the enforcement page). Fleetwood Mac, to me, qualifies under the BLP case as a group of mostly living people. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case Thank you very much for the info. Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Gareth Southgate
Thank you for protecting Gareth Southgate, we have been fighting vandals all-day! Marincyclist (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed
Please, your attention is highly needed to help in broadly notifying the Page creators of Kenya finance bill protests (Created by me), RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests and Kenya Protests (2024). All pages were created yesterday, 20 June 2024 following eruption in the ongoing protests in Kenya. We wish you to use your right as an Administrator to bring the attention of all page creators as well as all editors involved so that there would not be repetition of information all over Wikipedia. Thanks. Wår (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Ping to
 * We need also need the comment of . You notified me first. Wår (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We could merge the content if that is possible. RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests(which I authored) is the most fleshed out so we could merge it into Kenya finance bill protests and then close it. Kenya Protests (2024) can also be merged into Kenya finance bill protests. Xwaxes 01 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merging is the solution to the problem. I can suggest something. אקסינו (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case I have merged the content of RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests into Kenya finance bill protests. We can now remove RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests. Xwaxes 01 (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * wouldn't some of these work as redirects? Gaismagorm (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will create a redirect of RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests into Kenya finance bill protests right away. And, I will also do so to Kenya Protests (2024) if eventually it gets merged to "Kenya finance bill protests" article.
 * Cheers @Gaismagorm Wår (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! have a great day! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @War Term: I would prefer Kenya finance bill protests be the one to stay, as that seems like the better title. I marked it as reviewed yesterday so hopefully anyone searching for that topic will be directed to that page. Kenya Protests (2024) should be merged if there's content that hasn't been covered yet in Kenya finance bill protests. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear @ARandomName123
 * The RejectFinanceBill2024 Protests has already been merged by @Xwaxes 01
 * @אקסינו also agreed to merge their article of Kenya Protests (2024) into Kenya finance bill protests but hasn't done so. Maybe, they don't know how to do it. Help out please. Wår (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know in what way to merge them. אקסינו (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @War Term, @אקסינו: I've completed the merge. Some content was reptitive, so not all of Kenya Protests (2024) was merged. Regardless, it's now a redirect to Kenya finance bill protests. Unless I'm missing something, maybe we should take this discussion to Talk:Kenya finance bill protests? I'm not exactly sure why this is taking place on Daniel Case's talk page. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great merge. Wår (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case
 * Please, help to archive this discussion for future reference. Wår (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mention @ARandomName123
 * @Daniel Case
 * @Gaismagorm
 * @Xwaxes 01
 * @אקסינו
 * Please, we all know this discussion should not have taken place here but on Talk:Kenya finance bill protests but it's unfortunate it already went down.
 * I added a topic on the talk page of the standing article per discussion here. Kindly go and drop a comment comfirming your involvement to this resolution here. Click Talk:Kenya finance bill protests#Note on the merge of 2 related articles into the article Mainspace "Kenya finance bill protests" (June 2024)
 * Cheers Wår (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the break in link. Talk:Kenya finance bill protests#Note on the merge of 2 related articles into the article Mainspace "Kenya finance bill protests" (June 2024) Wår (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping notification
Hey @Daniel Case, I pinged you in a discussion involving you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aoidh#Edit_waring_in_Tamil_genocide I'm not sure if you received a notification so thought I'd notify you here just in case. Cheers.---Petextrodon (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Vijay actor movies box office removal by a vandalism ip
Dear Daniel thanks for protecting Vijay film articles I saw in the history a vandalism 141.. ip was removing all the box office numbers of Vijay old films seems to be affected by the box office numbers kindly continue to protect those Vijay film pages and have look at it further.Patrickleaf (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

New account disruptive edits
Hello Daniel Case hope you are well, On June 16th you protected this page because it was vandalised by ip [], but then this new account appeared [], they have been warned on their talk page by me and other editor for their disruptive edits on several pages, but they continue to repeat that behaviour, removing sourced materials, replacing them with some internet site, that includes Mila Jovovich page, Crnojevic noble family page, Petrovic Njegos dynasty page etc.[],[] [], [],[] also they continue with edit warring on Did You Know That There's a Tunnel Under Ocean Blvd page- something that obviously lasts for several months now [],[], [], [], [] etc. Can you please do something about it? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * OK. I took the good-cop route. They had posted on their talk page yesterday a question about two of the sources they found, which no one had responded to until I just did. Hopefully that guidance will steer them towards the right way.
 * They're not really a "new" account ... seems like they edit very intermittently in the two years since creation. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

IP range using talk page as a POV forum
Hi, it is regarding this article, which was protected by you because of removal of sourced content by IPs with possible POV. If you see the talk page before I installed a bot, it was full of ethnic POV against the subject subject, likely put by the same person using various proxies (similar style). They continued doing the same after the bot installation. They seem to this MO of removing auto signature, so as to make it part of another person'/bot's comment, did that twice. Can something be done about it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have blocked for two years. As their block log shows, this isn't their first trip to that particular rodeo. Daniel Case (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that there are a few other ranges (proxies). Recently this, similar edits here . Here is another IP of the same range probably . Another IP range and another, , also   . There is a lot of overlap. Also see this . This one might be the same person or the sockfarm User:Pakistani548. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, given all those IPs, I have just decided to semi-protect the talk page for three months as a regular admin action. Daniel Case (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot . If I come across similar activity, I'll report to you. Thanks again. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(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) 15:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Indef an IP?
Hello, Daniel Case, You indeffed 188.69.3.160 on a page, are you sure that you are willing to do that since IP are seldom blocked indefinitely. -Lemonaka 03:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * That was only indef from that one page (since at the time we chose to protect only with indef PC). They can still edit anything else an IP can edit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Add more articles?
Doug Weller talk 16:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don’t know that there even is a good version of Sinauki but there is obvious vandalism with editors using the same sources for both cart and chariot. Doug Weller  talk 18:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added that to the block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 07:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Rent control in the United States
Hello! You locked the Rent control in the United States because you said: "no one's been using the talk page".

Those of us who have been monitoring this article and the Rent regulation article have seen this same IP with the same argument for at least three years. The consensus on Talk was continually against them but they never seem to accept that. The history of both articles will show that. Look at the history from 2021-03-26T16:19:37‎ forward on the Rent control in the United States article. The IP is someone from Paris or Spain. That is why we keep calling it the "same recurring IP vandalism".

Can you please unlock the article for non-IP users? An indefinite IP editing block or that specific IP group would be more helpful. Thank you! --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the "consensus" the IP keeps repeating in their edit summaries is the statement in the article "there is a consensus among economists", not Wikipedia consensus.--- Avatar317 (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Amaravati
Listen disrespectful editor, I am slam dunk? you will slam and kill me in battleground? are you threatening me? what language is this slam dunk? I will report you in admin notice board for abusive language slam-dunk. Without consensus on content how other people can edit a page? I want consensus on founder of Amaravati if you are competent enough argue on that, block editors is easy but contributing is difficult. You have zero collaborative contribution on the article and you talk non sense about me? you have blocking rights doesnt make you better than me. You have battleground mentality not me. The other editors have no argument to make with me on the content, you block him Toddy Toddy of the europa. You First solve the content dispute above, it is your responsibility to resolve it, not mine then u can keep blocking people, you dont have any work other than that anyways. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There are policies & guidelines to be followed when editing Wikipedia. Any violation of that would result in a block. Admin's job is to make sure the policies are followed and take action when it isn't being followed.
 * You have been blocked for edit warring which is one of the most serious policy violations on Wikipedia.
 * If you want a consensus; discuss it in the article's talk page with relevant editors; see
 * You should also work on your behavior toward other editors as well.
 * FYI: The article Amaravati is about the Capital of AP and not the temple so, it is founded in 2014 by N. Chandrababu Naidu. Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 05:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See meaning #2, here.
 * "You have battleground mentality not me." If you feel the need to say that, you definitely have a battleground mentality and there is no way to argue otherwise.
 * " it is your responsibility to resolve it, not mine" This is the second time in three weeks I've had to explain to someone hot under the collar that it is not, and never has been, any administrator's job to resolve an editorial dispute like this where both edits are not violations of policy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ustadeditor2011 Admins are not meant to solve content disputes. They have no power over content.  Doug Weller  talk 07:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I am discussing the same my dear, but unfortunately editors like Daxserver and this Daniel Case with their clout that they are allowed to block editors out of their personal whims dont want to participate in discussion instead take pride in blocking editors without allowing them to contribute in discussions. Look at the article talk page no body responds and participate except me. I did not do any edit war, its the IP address edits doing the edit war, my block is illogical and out of daxserver's personal grudge on me.Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * " Look at the article talk page no body responds and participate except me." Because you sound like the sort of guy who could and would start a fight with an empty room. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't good. Doug Weller  talk 07:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no response yet in the talk page on the main consensus point. Except warning me and looking down at me. Yes that talkpage is indeed empty room unfortunately I am the victim. When both edits are not violation of policies, why was the block extended just because some daxserver tells u to block me. The article still presents wrong founder of the city. If misinformation and false information is okay in wiki I dont have any problem, I quit the article.Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

unblock request
Hi as I need to update references and lead section, in Amaravati article, requesting you to unblock for 24 hrs. Looking forward to unblocking so that I can contribute. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The block is contentious-topics enforcement, meaning it must be appealed to the Arbitration Committee per the instructions in the notice you deleted.
 * You could certainly put your proposed changes in an edit request on the talk page, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If i post anything in talk page i get attacked. You may send appeal template and link if any to communicate with Arbitration Committee. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it's a partial block, I would just suggest you go to the arbitration enforcement page and use this template to format your request. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hello, the user behind this range you blocked has returned to this IP address based on the page history of VVT-i. Can you please block the IP and protect the article? Thanks. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ They're also blocked for two years. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Brinks theft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armored car.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Re-creating deleted categories
What is the rule about re-creating deleted categories? I may want to re-create some just for my own use, so I am OK with them being deleted again after and won't vote to keep them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * How do you mean "just for your own use"? Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Don Bolduc
Hi, I see you protected this back in March. Protection just expired and there's already been one instance of unexplained content removal; thought I'd give you a heads-up. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Renewed for six months and logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Subject
Hello Daniel, there is a problem with this page Casablanca derby. There is an account Ou111. that deletes the table every time. Can you find a solution to block the account or lock the page permanently? Ji Soôo97 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Another admin stepped in and full-protected the page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Daniel, but can you go back and restore the table as it was? It was ruined before the page was closed Ji Soôo97 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as an FYI @Daniel Case I have declined @Ji Soôo97's request to do so as it's not blatant vandalism or otherwise problematic content. If you see it otherwise, feel free @Ji Soôo97 please discuss it on the article talk rather than asking multiple admins the same questions. Star   Mississippi  14:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

VVT-i article protection
Could you put a longer registered user only protection on this? It continues to get vandalism from a Turkish IP and a range block they got didn't help. It seems like same user keeps coming back under different IPs. I submitted it under RPP through Twinkle, but because of a recently expired temporary protection, report is automatically rejected by software. Graywalls (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have been putting the IP's ranges (and individual IPs, where they have been used) under long blocks. We'll see how resourceful they are after the last round, which took in all the ones they've been using to disrupt all those engine articles (this is apparently a known sock with an SPI). Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seal of Summit, NJ.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Seal of Summit, NJ.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) 17:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Some serious Issue with Tiyyar and similar pages.
Hi @Daniel Case, I would like to point out a serious issue related to these Pages like thiyya,thiyyas,thiyyar,tiya (Already permanently redirected to Ezhava ) and latest Tiyyar(I am not sure if it is permanently redirected) and a new  draft 'Thiyar'.

This issue is ongoing from 2010 ownwards ,

Multiple accounts in the name thiyya, thiyyas, tiyyas etc were created previously wrongly claiming that these are distinct from Ezhava, However in all cases the consensus was that all these pages in the names "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas (around 4 such pages) were permanently redirected to the page Ezhava with golden lock as these are synonoumous to Ezhava as per all consensus . Providing the links.

[] [] [] [] []

An ongoing issue of randomly lifting the redirect (only temporarily solved ) is also happening in recent Tiyyar (A recently created page ), I would like to humbly request that ,  This [Tiyyar] also need to be permanently redirected to Ezhava just like how , thiyya,thiyyar,thiyyas and tiyyas are done, as there has been a large attempts of vandalism from a deacade to these pages. (see links) - [] [] []

The irony is that these groups have again submitted another draft in the name "Thiyar" making similar claims and pointing to similar people. link - [], that means 6 th duplicate copy "Thiyar" is being created after "thiyya,tiyyas,thiyyas,thiyyar and Tiyyar My humble question is what is a permanent solution for this ?? They are simply changing the spelling and coming up with the same contents and talking about the same people. Ezhava , this is been discussed since a long time and every year this happens. Lisa121996 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * We can delete those redirects and create-protect them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

IP hopper
Hey, happy anniversary. This IP hopper is continuously reverting here. They are trying to justify their edit by misinterpreting the content of MOS:LARGENUM and changing the content directly indicated by the source. A similar situation happened in a discussion opened months ago by another IP address and was explained with a warning. I think it is the same person. Could something be done? Have a nice day. ภץאคгöร 12:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about bothering you again, but it looks like the same IP created a new account to try to accuse me of sockpuppetry. Could you please deal with this IP? Thank you. ภץאคгöร  17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked the account indef for the admitted violation of (and indifference to) WP:LOUTSOCK indef, and the IP they used for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying they created as well? This is a bit confusing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you and I think so, because they tried to report me to a non-admin user after the only edit was made from this new account. ภץאคгöร  18:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK ... I will reblock them then. Creating a sock to make it look like another user is socking ... I suppose that's happened before, but this is a first for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ again. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Unfortunately this is not a first for me and this IP does a lot of IP hopping (from what it looks like to be P2P VPN) so I'm not sure it is possible to block all of their future edits. ภץאคгöร  19:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. There are some proposed refinements to the admin tools that I'd like to see which might make it more possible to do this sort of thing without preventing constructively-minded IPs from editing. Hopefully, when the Community Wishlist at Meta gets restarted as an ongoing thing soon, we'll be able to do these things. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

2 edits at the Ezhava page
hello Daniel, there are 2 edit requests at the Ezhava page, after already discussion with other editors at the same Talk Pages. Also posted on the Talk Page. They are:

1. Adding this sentence in the lead paragraph of the Ezhava page:

Ezhavas are also known as Thiyya or Tiyyar in the Malabar region.

2. Changing the other sentence in the lead paragraph to give the better understanding according to sources in article:

From X: The Malabar Ezhava group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the others, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were treated as being of similar rank.

To Y: The Malabar Ezhava group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the other Ezhava groups, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were all treated as being of similar rank. Piyush Chekavar (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

2 edit requests at Ezhava page
hello Daniel, there are 2 edit requests at the Ezhava page, after already discussion with other editors at the same Talk Pages. Also posted on the Talk Page. They are:

1. Adding this sentence in the lead paragraph of the Ezhava page:

Ezhavas are also known as Thiyya or Tiyyar in the Malabar region.

2. Changing the other sentence in the lead paragraph to give the better understanding according to sources in article:

From X: The Malabar Ezhava group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the others, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were treated as being of similar rank.

To Y: The Malabar Ezhava group have claimed a higher ranking in the Hindu caste system than do the other Ezhava groups, although from the perspective of the colonial and subsequent administrations they were all treated as being of similar rank. Piyush Chekavar (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jacobson v. United States
Jacobson v. United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I need protection
Hi! I am going on hiatus from Wikipedia for a few months to focus on some real-life matters; It would be helpful if you could fully protect my userpage and some subpages while I'm gone. Please protect these pages till January 2025 (6 months); Thanks! Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 10:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Vestrian24Bio
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Contributions
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Contributions/Promoted content
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Contributions/Pages edited
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Contributions/Pages created
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Contributions/Files uploaded
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Awards
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Awards/Service awards
 * User:Vestrian24Bio/Templates/Userboxes


 * @Daniel Case Vestrian24Bio ( TALK  ) 06:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There really isn't any sign of recent disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Help re error in 2024 United Kingdom general election
Hi, back to Wiki after a break. Because of the auto-confirm settings I can't make this edit.

I'm trying to resolve multiple discrepancies between totals in Wiki & the press, both in terms of numbers of candidates and numbers of votes per party.

Two of the parties, English Democrats and United Kingdom Independence Party entered into an electoral pact in 2023 as the Patriots Alliance. In the 2024 general election, together they entered a total of 39 candidates, 13 under the badge of English Democrats getting 4,956 votes, 2 as "Patriots Alliance" getting 226 votes and 24 as United Kingdom Independence Party getting 6,530 votes, a grand total of 11,712 votes.

Extant 2024 United Kingdom general election shows English Democrats as 15 / 5,182 and United Kingdom Independence Party as 26 / 6,530, a total of 41 / 11,712.

So: (a) the vote total is correct and consistent with allotting (an arbitrary choice) the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to English Democrats as 13 + 2 = 15 and 4,956 + 226 = 5,182, and (b) the candidates total is wrong and has resulted in allotting the 2 "Patriots Alliance" candidates to both registered parties - 24 + 2 = 26

Please edit 2024 United Kingdom general election to reduce the number of United Kingdom Independence Party candidates from 26 to 24.

The alternative, to reduce the number of English Democrats candidates from 15 to 13, would necessitate also changing its vote count from 5,182 to 4,956 as well as increasing that of United Kingdom Independence Party from 6,530 to 6,756. Albin-Counter (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You are really supposed to make this request on the article talk page ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I had. Albin-Counter (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The page protection has expired. This request isn't necessary now. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=next&oldid=1232330259

Any clue why my RFPP got rejected only three days before you decided to protect the page? Feels weird Trade (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * --Trade (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Because things change over three days. Because different admins have different criteria and views on what is required for protection. It's one of those things. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I just remembered that I blocked the main disruptive editor from the talk and article after reviewing that and the discussion at WP:ANI. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for 2022 Brink's theft
Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Fri July 19: Wikicurious in NYC, Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
(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) 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

RfA debrief
Hi Daniel! I alluded to the question you asked at my RfA in my RfA debrief. I don't think I said anything objectionable (the thrust of what I was saying is people shouldn't ask "what is the best" but should instead ask "what is one of the best" questions), but in fairness I wanted to give you a heads-up. Comments are of course welcome at User talk:HouseBlaster/RfA debrief. Best, House Blaster  (talk · he/they) 01:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That's OK ... I actually should have mentioned in my !vote that I was impressed with your answer for the lack of recentism involved, and because you were right. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Saks Fifth Ave Intro
Hi Daniel Case. I see that you are a participant at WikiProject Fashion/Participants so thought I would ask you if you could have a look at an edit request I posted at Talk:Saks_Fifth_Avenue. The introduction of Saks Fifth Avenue as it is now is not accurate and is a bit misleading. The new version I am requesting is a correct description of the company today. I would really appreciate if you can implement the edit if you agree. Thanks so much. Maddie for Saks (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll get to it later. Thanks for asking! Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Mind taking a look at this offensive edit summary
Hey, could you take a look and probably RD2 this edit summary here. The user might not be here to build an encyclopedia if this is their conduct. Raladic (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Edit RevDel'ed. I'm still not sure about them overall. Earlier block for socking and some other warnings, but not all edits seems disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A protection request
Will you protect the page 2024 in animation for two years? Some unsigned nut keeps deleting relevant links on that page and that needs to stop. He/she keeps thinking that relevant links are not wanted. Retrosunshine2006 talk 17:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like pending changes might be better for that page, since quite a few other IPs are contributing positively and disruption doesn't seem to be overwhelming the page. Would you like that? Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That would be acceptable. I understand and respect certain standards on Wikipedia as I despised vandalism. Finding reliable sources is important for this site. Retrosunshine2006 talk 18:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ I set it up for a year ... we'll see how things look then. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Long-term, slow edit warring
For months has been reverting multiple editors, in various content disputes, on Voisava Kastrioti. A quick look at the article's history shows that AzorzaI has a large number of reverts there in "slow edit warring" fashion, mostly concerning the Origin section. In the last few hours alone they have made 3 reverts, after a change they had made was not accepted. When their preferred version is not accepted, they wait for some time and start reverting again. AzorzaI did the same thing on Battle of Kosovo, and for that they got partially-blocked for 3 months. Since the admin who is familiar with AzorzaI seems to not be active, I would like another admin take a look or give guidance on where to report this. I mean the 3RR noticeboard does not seem effective for such cases and Balkan disussions at ANI often become messy enough that no admin responds. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In a much smaller scale, the same thing happened on Rozafa Castle as well. After AzorzaI edit warred to remove the Illyrian origin of the castle from the lede in July 2023, they tried to do that again a few days ago. This is a pattern of edit warring, waiting for some time, and then reverting again, apparently either to avoid a breach of the 3RR or get the other editors tired. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which admin do you mean?, who's blocked them twice? Very active, so I pinged him. Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping :) Having a look. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1235577301 is only 15 minutes old, and I find it unlikely that (whom I am intentionally pinging, hello) would just continue reverting. At the moment, I'd prefer to wait for the next edit on that page. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey, I had the impression you were not active. Not sure how I came to that conclusion; maybe I had looked at another admin's editing history. I should probably not edit late at night. haha Ktrimi991 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's been 24 hours now and there seems to be no edit warring at the moment., please let me know if the behavior you described continues. I understand that it may take weeks or months for another revert to happen in the article about Voisava Kastrioti, for example, but I'd like to have another look then. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping, @ToBeFree. You may or may not be aware, but there is a recurring issue with certain editors systematically supporting each other. This pattern of behavior has been previously reported. In this instance, within 24 hours, my edits were reverted by four of these editors. This systematic support not only creates a "many against one" scenario but also gives the misleading impression of a larger consensus, which unfairly influence administrative decisions, as could be happening here. As long as you keep this in mind, which I am sure you will, I wouldn't be bothered by any future attention to my editing. --Azor (talk). 09:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for the clarification. I understand the tag-teaming concern, but that's just one more reason to discuss instead of reverting, as the probability of finding a proper consensus is much higher on talk pages than in revision histories. The discussion at Talk:Voisava_Kastrioti does look productive to me, not like one where a group of people is loud enough to silence good arguments. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, @ToBeFree. The quality of arguments, of course, matters, but it doesn't always determine the outcome. Those switching up on who reverts will, for the most part, succeed, more so when "1v4" arguments are presented. For instance, these editors will rarely, if ever, be seen reverting each other. This is an ongoing issue, not unique to this situation. I only wanted to make you aware of it. How you let it influence your administrative decisions on future cases is up to you, --Azor (talk). 11:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , could you quote the "1v4" argument presented in the linked discussion? &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @ToBeFree. Here: I count four editors who do not support the way it was worded, and I too endorse Bato’s neutral wording of “a number of scholars” and later: If you wish to continue edit-warring against multiple editors ..”  --Azor (talk). 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)