User talk:Daniel Case/Archive 24 12/14/2021-6/18/2023

More socks
Hi Daniel Case. I saw this and believe that this is part of the same pattern: 1; 2. Possibly linked to this user. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a long and complicated discussion about this block that I was recently pinged about. Basically, I don't feel comfortable extending the block to the whole site due to a note saying, basically, don't change this block without consulting a checkuser. Adding more pages to the partial block was as far as I felt I could go. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District
The article Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Center Square/Hudson–Park Historic District for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Fuchs -- David Fuchs (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Bunk'd Cast Table
Hey there!

So recently, I had my edit reverted by a user who constantly reverts my edits and is quite rude about it. I forgot about the rule of waiting until a season premieres to make cast updates but I also added a table because there are so many cast changes on Bunk'd that I believed it would be beneficial. There are many Wikipedia pages that utilize this setup and I was only trying to do what I thought may be right. Reverting my edit and putting "No" as the reason is quite rude and I do not appreciate that user constantly doing that to me. I get it about the cast changes and not adding the new cast, but a table that is used for shows with such large cast turnovers? Plus, that took me a while to create and I just wanted to contribute. The user is Amaury. We are all editors on here and I know there are certain protocols that I may have forgotten but being civil and nice about things goes a long way.

Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 01:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Museum of Contemporary Art Australia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Randwick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked on Dutch Wiki.
Hello Daniel, My Dutch account [Gebruiker:Peter Horn] is blocked and I can not reach an administrator. I have tried EVERYTHING. My IP address is 70.24.224.136, not the one that they blocked Peter Horn User talk 05:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even my talk page is blocked. Peter Horn User talk 05:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am a) only an administrator here at enwiki and b) not very good at speaking Dutch. I can't do anything to help you there. Perhaps you might see if there's a Dutch-native speaker here on enwiki (there are many others, as perhaps you know) and see if they might be able to get through to an admin there. To be fair, this does seem rather extreme. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, courtesy Google translate

You have no editing rights. The reason given for your block is: Open proxy - More information. If you only want to read Wikipedia, this is of no importance. You have access to all available information.

You clicked on a link to edit a page on Wikipedia, either to edit its text or to create a new article. You cannot (currently) do this because you are blocked. If you only want to read Wikipedia you are not missing anything.

User not logged in: if you are not using a user account and you receive this message, your external IP address has been blocked. An IP address is a number that identifies your computer on the Internet. Yours is 158.69.234.201. If there are problems with anonymous users, such as in the case of vandalism, their IP address is sometimes blocked. This is not necessarily meant personally. Many people share their IP address with other users. This is almost certainly the case if you are connected to the Internet through a school or company. Unwanted edits by someone else can unfortunately be the reason that you don't have editing rights now. It is also possible that your IP address has been blocked because you want to perform edits in Wikipedia via a mobile internet connection. Mobile networks assign dynamic IP addresses that are blocked from anonymous operations by default for security reasons. Solution: Some blocks are imposed for a short period of time. Look in the log until when the block is running. There you can also see which type of blocking has been imposed. If you see the entry only anonymous, then you will have editing rights if you log in as a registered user. If you also see the entry Create account blocked, then you cannot create an account via your current internet connection. However, if this last entry is not there, you can simply create a user account. Information about other solutions can be found on the Solutions for blocked users page. Registered user: Your user account may be blocked. If you don't know why you have been blocked, please check your talk page. You may find an explanation there. You can also continue to edit your talk page during a block and you can ask questions about the reason for the block; unless you have been explicitly denied this opportunity. For further questions, please contact the e-mail team of the Dutch Wikipedia. If you are a registered user, please also include a link to your user page. Peter Horn User talk 06:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All Dutch Wikipedians speak English as a second language. English is compulsory in secondary schools. Peter Horn User talk 06:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it does seem like your IP range is blocked there as well, and unlike us they allow IPs to be blocked indefinitely. I'm also surprised they blocked talk page access as well ... something we rarely do on a full range. I'm going to try to post a request here and see if I can get someone's attention on your behalf. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million. I have full editing rights on the English, German, French and Spanish Wikipediae. It is only the Dutch Wikipedia that is causing me a headache. Peter Horn User talk 15:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it seems like someone deleted the request an hour and a half after I posted it. Was it handled? Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was unblocked and enabled to edit. Thanks for following up. Peter Horn User talk 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked on Spanish Wikipedia
I just found out that I'm blocked on the Spanish Wiki as well. More later. Peter Horn User talk 18:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
--Станислав Савченко (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked!
I just wanted to say thanks man for getting me unblocked! I really appreciate it and have a Happy New Year! Ahunter02 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midnight Sun Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Framing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Midnight Sun Mosque
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Midnight Sun Mosque 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 Legobot, on behalf of AleatoryPonderings -- AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

recurring vandal at 2022 Winter Olympics
You have blocked this individual a few times, they are back at it at this IP address most recently.18abruce (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Death of Timothy Wiltsey
 * added a link pointing to Burden of proof
 * Midnight Sun Mosque
 * added a link pointing to Fenestration

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Museum of Contemporary Art Australia
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Museum of Contemporary Art Australia 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 Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Midnight Sun Mosque
The article Midnight Sun Mosque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Midnight Sun Mosque for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AleatoryPonderings -- AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Museum of Contemporary Art Australia
The article Museum of Contemporary Art Australia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Museum of Contemporary Art Australia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, 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 in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HenryCrun15 -- HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sculptor Capital edit request
Hi Daniel. Nice to meet you. I noticed you are an active editor and a member of WP:NYC, and I was hoping you would be able to help me. I posted an edit request at Talk:Sculptor Capital Management to update the details of the article. I am grateful for your consideration and look forward to your assistance. Michael at Sculptor Capital (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

New message from JalenFolf
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FrancoHarrisJr.. &#x0020;User RobGronkowskiTheGOAT, which you just blocked, appears to be related to this investigation. Jalen Folf  (talk)  19:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:1015:b009:cd52::/64
Thanks for those blocks, but block this range (it probably only corresponds to one person) or the vandal will come back with a new IP address. — Coolperson177 (t&#124;c) 03:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Interlingue/GA2
Daniel Case, I noticed that you weren't pinged last week when the nominator made a new post and asked for a response. Please return to the review when you get a chance and take a look. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did thank him; I will take a look at what he told me to look at soon. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any post to the review page after 23 January; if you thanked the nominator elsewhere, I'm sorry for missing it. Glad to know that you'll be looking at it soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I thanked him with the thanks tool. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Saturday Feb 5: ONLINE Met Afrofuturist edit-a-thon (and monthlong campaign)
(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 05:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Midnight Sun Mosque
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:NY Route 416 shield.svg


The file File:NY Route 416 shield.svg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused. Superseded by c:File:NY-416.svg"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 05:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Museum of Contemporary Art Australia
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia NYC: Strategic Planning Survey for our community
(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 18:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comment
If you really want to do something to "make up" for it, you can always look through Task Center and Backlog. Dege31 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Feb 23: 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 19:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!
- hako9 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Adirondack Life cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Adirondack Life cover.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) 03:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft article
Hello, good day. The PJ and Thomas article has been on draft and now that the corrections, additional edits, and citations have been made, I wanted to ask you if you could please review and move the article into mainspace. Sincerely, Bionic (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I know you have a busy schedule and a great deal to do on Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate it if you could take some time to review and restore the article. Thank you. Bionic (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

IP block length
Hello, I noticed that you blocked this IP here for 24 hours.

However, I would suggest that you elevate that to 31 hours to dissuade further vandalism.

(Take it this way: A 24 hour block would allow them to come back at the very next day, at the exact same time. A 31 hour block would disrupt that cycle, dissuading further vandalism.)

Let me know if you disagree. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 02:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 24 hours is the standard first-time block for a vandal, absent any (for me) aggravating factors like edit warring to restore it or violating BLP (things that are blockable by themselves). I reserve the 31-hour block for vandals known to have come from schools, if blocked near the beginning of their school day, to deter them from getting right back at it the next morning. We seem to have less vandalism clearly attributable to schools than we did 15 years ago—I suspect that's because most of the egregious repeat offender districts can be, and are now, blocked for more than a year at a time (I've put some away for five years). Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case — I see now. Thanks for letting me know. — 3PPYB6 — T ALK — C ONTRIBS  — 02:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with an article
I noticed you on the DYK helpers and was wondering if you could give me some advice for improving Watertown, New York Lallint  ⟫⟫⟫  Talk  21:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you have in mind as the goal of the improvement? Getting it to GA so it can then be nominated for DYK? It's not eligible for DYK currently. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've improved it I'd say one-and-three-quarters fold, but it's still B, so I think it would be great to get my hometown on the front page, could you do a review to see what stuff I should do? Lallint  ⟫⟫⟫  Talk  23:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I just finished up something I'd been working on all last month, so while I have other pots boiling on the stove I can take a look soon. Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, Lallink Lallint  ⟫⟫⟫  Talk  13:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK ... what I will do soon is print the article out, go over it with a red pen, and do some copy editing. Then I'll write something up on the talk page about any other issues there are. This should take a few days to a week, maybe more (How's that for vagueness)? Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific Air Lines Flight 402
You were involved in the metric units of the above article. You might want to take a look at the talk page in case you have any suggestions. Avi8tor (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

AIV report
FYI on the report to AIV. This jumping between IPs and named accounts to abuse Wikipedia processes and have others blocked is not a new technique here. Best, CMD (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * {replyto|Chipmunkdavis}} Well, in that case he picked a good target, one who had gotten blocked for that sort of thing before. And of course dedicated sockmasters know to use a mix of IPs and registered accounts. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good target in that respect because their first block was caused through exactly the same method by another sock. Speaking of this master, could you semi everything here asap please? Thanks, CMD (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's days like these I get a big edit count. CMD (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're lucky you caught me when I did ... I really need to call it a night. Daniel Case (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was unusually fortuitous compared to previous sprees. However, letting a vandal keep you up seems the opposite of RBI. In an unusually bold move it's on AN/I now, so hopefully it'll get dealt with. Have a good night, CMD (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

My account problem
Hello, Daniel Case! Can you see my problem? I'm facing some difficulties while editing. I don't know reason. Is there any problem in my account or my account got hijacked? Thanks. AwfulReader (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your account does not appear to be blocked or anything as far as I can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's because of my wifi speed or something. Thanks for clarifying.AwfulReader (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Follow up
Hello, you restricted this user for disruptions in past years, and I'm seeing that the pattern has continued. The vandalized past four official warnings on Daydream World Tour and Butterfly World Tour pages. They continue to remove sourced material - an accepted biography source across Carey pages that meets source criteria. Could an editing ban from these pages or across Wiki be imposed on this user again to prevent further disruptions? Ilovetati91 (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I blocked them once, like, 7$1/2$ years ago. And looking at the page it seems really like this is not clear-cut vandalism, since of course they're responding. But it is getting disruptive. Had this been reported at AIV, I'd suggest taking it to AN/I at least and seeing what other people there might think. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nicktasmo
Please see my report at AIV... this is the first account of an IP-hopping LTA. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The LTA is User:EvergreenFir/socks. wizzito  &#124;  say hello!  19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot reports at ANI
We often cross paths reviewing bot reports at ANI. I notice that you often decline reports noting that you've warned the editor, but it's often the case the editor has already received many warnings prior to yours. With the case of User:104.13.12.53, for example, they received this warning 5 times and this warning specifically noting a possible block about 14 times, but still proceeded with attempting to vandalize. Are you assuming that if their talk pages are red they they haven't been warned? Some admins won't block if the talk page is red, which I get, but I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the warning process that's built into the abuse filter. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I was not, since of course I've never gotten blocked by the filter myself. I will take that into consideration in the future. (It would be nice if other admins knew that, too ... maybe it's time to make a guide to admins for reviewing those reports. A lot has changed since I first started doing AIV 15 years ago). Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I only know because someone pointed it out to me, now I'm paying it forward (ha!). It's just another bit of data that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the bot reports.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, how do we know which of those warnings the user has received from the software? The reports of filter activity include a lot of technical information that isn't really necessary to determine what, if any, action to take, and actually gets in the way of doing so. Maybe they could create a more admin-friendly version. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * When you view the filter log linked in the AIV report, each trigger of the filter will include "action taken" followed by either "log", "tag", "warn", or "disallow", the outcome of each of the four actions are described at WP:EFBASICS.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK ... thanks! I actually took a look again and saw that. I think blocks purely for triggering the edit filter are a good argument for something we haven't done in routinely in a while: blocks shorter than 24 hours.
 * It might also be a good idea to put this info in the edit notice for the bot reports page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Every admin has their own threshold for a block. I still give a level 3 or 4 warn if the edits aren't overtly malicious, or if they only tripped the filter a few times. There aren't as many admins acting on the bot reports as the regular ones, perhaps due to their unfamiliarity with the filters. A bit of extra documentation couldn't hurt.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I started reviewing those reports back in 2007 or so, before there were filters. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're the AIV G.O.A.T.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:LTA/TFD
Just wanted to say thanks for handling a lot of my reports about WP:LTA/TFD lately. It's decently frustrating to deal with a vandal who operates on large ranges, but at least two of the ranges they've used in the last month don't seem to have much collateral than their other ones, so perhaps another rangeblock is in order again? I did try and discuss this some months ago with some people but got no response.

These 2 recent ones in particular are used by the vandal quite a bit and don't have too much collateral:

wizzito &#124;  say hello!  10:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Told bot to take report to ANEW
Hey! I noticed that you responded to a bot report at WP:AIV telling the bot to take the report to ANEW. May I ask why you used that template instead of just saying it was a false positive or something else? I'm only asking because, well, it's a bot. It can't take the report to ANEW unless the bot operator temporarily uses the account to do so. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, some human might see it and do that ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My talk page
Hey, thanks for protecting my user talk earlier. I'd prefer any protections be temporary, though, and I figure it's been long enough. Can you unprotect? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

162.82.155.128/26
is back again w/ same block evasion. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

76.89.219.234
After you blocked, Special:Contributions/Baller918_C8 is restoring many of the anon's edits. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI, I opened Sockpuppet investigations/Ninenine99 in relation to this. --Sable232 (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Mar 27: Wiki-Tent Brunch in Brooklyn
(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 04:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiWednesday tonight + Sunday Wiki-Tent Brunch
(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 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Indef'd IP
Hey Daniel, I was scrolling through the block list, and I noticed Special:Contributions/47.187.214.158 was indefinitely blocked. Does the IP need that? It appears to only have 2 edits. ThatIPEditor Talk · Contribs 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. I shouldn't have blocked it indefinitely; I probably meant to give it only 24 hours. Will unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what had happened was that the IP was reported as a NOTHERE ... Huggle lets users do that, and sometimes when there are a lot of reports at AIV to clear you don't always check to make sure they're not reporting an IP that way. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I need your help in a urgent matter.
Agof K.P.2 has been making False Reports at WP:AIV, and even makes false reports at WP:AN3. Chip3004 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Two articles about creeks
There's an ongoing project known as WP:URFA/2020 that is looking to re-review all older featured articles (those promoted or last reviewed at WP:FAR from 2015 or before). The oldest block of the list is the 2004-2006 section at WP:URFA/2020A. We're hoping to get all of these reviewed by the end of the year, but there's a couple articles about creeks (Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek) that we're having a bit of trouble getting sorted. I remember your work on Esopus Creek, and was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at those two. I know there's a bit of stuff in each that need updating, but I'm not entirely sure what the comprehensiveness status would be for either. is the original FA nominator but is less active these days. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

AIV
AIV backlog; including a vandal and his IP, and two new impersonation LTAs of me. Great. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  05:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm about to call it a night; I have done what I could. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Five per Cent for Nothing
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Flynn
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST
-- Environment of New York City Task Force

Apr 24: Wiki-Picnic and WikiSeder in Brooklyn
(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 MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

2001:8003:2438:a600:986c:c6a3:2785:182e
Hey, thanks very much for the block there, but for IPV6 addresses like that, please remember to block the /64. I've undone your block of that single IP ... and, well, this block log speaks for itself. Graham 87 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * It was reported as a single IP. I do block the range when it is suggested, but I do not think we should routinely swing the /64 hammer due to the collateral damage possibility ... I review unblock requests too, and that's where you sometimes see that show up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of a valid unblock request where blocking the /64 vs a single IP would have made a difference? I'm curious; I thought that was really really rare (mostly AT&T Mobility addresses which are easy to recognize). FWIW the vast majority of AIV regulars do block the /64 preemptively; modern operating systems change the user's IP frequently, to protect their privacy, so blocking a single IP is pointless. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think many (most?) admins will block the /64 as it's nearly always a single allocation and the same as blocking a single IPv4 IP. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why don't we just block all IPv6 addresses pre-emptively then? Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Because that would be no different than blocking all IPv4 addresses preemptively. The block is for the individual who is disrupting, and a block of a single IPv6 address is rarely effective, which is why many admins block the /64 which, in the majority of cases, is allocated to that single individual. As with all admin actions, you can choose how you want to use the buttons, but blocking a single IPv6 outside of the instances noted at User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64 is rarely effective at curbing the disruptive behaviour you're trying to prevent. It's like partial-blocking a vandal one article at a time instead of site wide.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK ... why don't we put that, or a link to it, at the top of AIV? I solemnly swear that I will swing that hammer hard in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all just advice. It's not so much swinging hard, it's avoiding swinging in vain. Gotta keep that arm in proper mop-wielding form!-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We are supposed to decide before even reviewing unblock requests whether they are "valid" or not? Hell of a way to assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that wasn't the best word. I mean, can you give an example of an unblock request, that you accepted? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, and while we're on the subject, you realize you blocked a /32 not a /64 after this decline? Five years seems excessive, and given how huge a /32 range can be, the user might well have been telling the truth. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I knocked it down to a year. I couldn't figure out how to block the /64 on that one. And based on the contribs, if that user wants to edit they can create an account. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's better, but why did you escalate the block at all? That range covers a large geographical area of Ohio and Kentucky. It might be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Charter customers. It's perfectly plausible that that was someone unrelated to the other disruption. Indeed the other two edits from look like good-faith edits (though one is unsourced, but at least plausible based on a quick Google search). How did you conclude that Yes you did without CU-glasses? And why did you remove TPA? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Block decline undo
Just as an FYI in case you're not aware, User:TheEncyclopediaReader just undid your unblock review decline and re-opened it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Arlington County Board v. Richards
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

How is this possible?
Hi Daniel. I wonder could you take a look at, who you blocked for 1 year on 29 August 2021? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the IP's block log, shortened the block to six months abaout a month after I made the block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for emplaining. May have been a rash move. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't remember that specific instance, but it was not my intention to shorten the block. To be honest, I'm not sure what happened there. I speculate I was trying to match it up with the block on and stop further logged-in editing, and just didn't notice the existing block. Had I been deliberately trying to shorten the block, I'd have checked in with Daniel Case. You are most certainly welcome to reintroduce the block and just frown in my general direction. --Yamla (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Apr 27: 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 02:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

IPs editing animation-related articles, again
Hey there. I saw that you have blocked Special:Contributions/68.131.33.163 and at least one other IP who have been making disruptive edits on various animation-related articles - looks like they're back, this time at Special:Contributions/71.120.206.83. Same edits as the previous ones. Is there an SPI case or something targeting these, or is this just a whack-a-mole situation with these IPs? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Short-term, the problem is solved: I blocked them for six months as well. And I may extend the block on the other IP for this.
 * Long-term, this is not so much SPI material as ... well, long-term abuse. We should see how persistent he tries to be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I know with IPs it's not so easy to manage, yeah. This has definitely been happening off and on for a while now. I'll watchlist a few of these and see what happens. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftspace
Good day! Sorry to bother you, but I'd really appreciate it if you could take time out of your busy schedule to review and move the article to mainspace. Bionic (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My thanks and appreciation. Bionic (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your work on updating the Killing of Brittanee Drexel page! --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

May 22: Wiki-Picnic and Hackathon in Brooklyn
(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 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Range block or PP?
You blocked User:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:A0AA:931A:F8C7:F77A for 3rr, they're now on User:2600:8802:E01:3AA0:98DE:394C:8171:4C85. Is there any point in a range block? If not, has there been enough disruption to justify PP? – 2 . O . Boxing  09:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have extended it to the /64 for a week Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for article Fantasy Cartography
Hi Daniel Case, I have a DYK nomination for the article fantasy cartography and I don't know where it is or what I must do to find it. I've tried to do another one for the same article but it denies me because the first one is floating somewhere. Would you be able to point me in the right direction?

Kind regards, --Twomatters (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case, Schwede66 has already handled this.   M ANdARAX       XAЯAbИA M    19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New map
Hi Daniel, I wanted to let u know we are a few weeks away from a new map for new york rivers and lake articles. The new map includes shading for the catskills and also includes the Schoarie Creek and Esopus Creek compared to the current Adirondack locator map. Just wanted to let u know. Hope all else is well. -420Traveler (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

May 25: 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 00:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

OJ trial
Hi, I was wondering if you’ve considered editing the OJ trial Wikipedia page so it can be less slanted towards the prosecution? I’ve tried to in the past but my edits always ended up getting reverted. Kayjewel (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would very much like to but that would require making it my number one thing for a period of weeks, and that spot is, at the moment, taken by several other things.
 * Someday ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Hopefully you aren’t met with resistance whenever you embark on that journey. Kayjewel (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I probably will be, but I've sailed into stiff headwinds before. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s frustrating. Have you read the late F. Lee Bailey’s book about the trial? That would be a good source to update the page. Kayjewel (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My favorite book on the trial (I cited it in the Brett Cantor and Killing of Michael Nigg articles) is A Problem of Evidence by the late Joe Bosco, one of the four writers who had a permanent seat at the trial (and really the only real book to come out of those prime seats, as the late Dominick Dunne only wrote a thinly-veiled novel about the case, Joe McGinniss was so disgusted by the whole thing he returned his advance and didn't write anything about it, and despite all the praise heaped on Jeffrey Toobin's book Bosco notes in passing that he was absent from the trial for long stretches of time because his wife back in Brooklyn had just given birth to their first child. There are a lot of really interesting tidbits in Bosco's book that suggest there were a lot of deeper things going on that (sometimes) both sides and the media worked very hard to keep out of the courtroom. Unfortunately I don't know where my copy is—my MIL borrowed it some time ago and she says she returned it but I have not found it in years of searching, and unfortunately it seems to be out of print. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve read Bosco’s A Problem of Evidence, I agree with you it’s a great book. It’s actually available for free on the website below, you just have to create an account: https://archive.org/details/problemofevidenc00bosc

I also recommend reading Stephen Singular’s book Legacy of Deception: An Investigation of Mark Fuhrman and Racism in the LAPD if you haven’t already. Kayjewel (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's referenced in Briggs and Freed's Killing Time, another book I've used as a source and highly recommend, although it's better on the timeline issues than other aspects of the case. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I became obsessed with the OJ case years ago so I read a bunch of books about it including Killing Time too, which I thought was well done and fascinating. Legacy of Deception explains how and why Simpson was framed. Court TV’s OJ25 is the most objective and truthful docuseries about the trial, but it’s only available to watch on YouTube. If you’re looking to rewatch the trial I would recommend it as well. Kayjewel (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What is etymology?
Hello. I am contacting you because of a discussion about etymology on another website, Final Fantasy Fandom. That wiki gives a definition of etymology, followed by a link to Wikipedia etymology page (their page here), and then features 2700 etymologies (list here), almost all of them being similar to these three:
 * Etymology of absolute zero: Absolute zero is the coldest possible temperature. More formally, it is the temperature at which entropy reaches its minimum value.
 * Etymology of fire: Fire is the rapid oxidation of a material in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products.
 * Etymology of Shiva: Shiva (also spelled Śiva) is a Hindu god. The Hindu Shiva once saved the world by consuming poison, giving him blue skin around the area of the neck and throat. [etc. etc.]

Are these three examples etymologies, or not? Since you are an active member of Wikipedia Linguistics Project and Wikipedia Etymology Task Force, your opinion could solve the discussion (if you prefer to avoid any involvement, just write it, I will understand). Thank you in advance for your time and attention. --Abacos (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All three of these are definitions, not etymologies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind answer. For your information, I agree with you, while the Final Fantasy Fandom states that etymology means "detailing the origins of terminology used in the series in regards to real world culture and history". --Abacos (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: PJ and Thomas has been accepted
 PJ and Thomas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=PJ_and_Thomas help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Range block
Sorry to pester you, but the IP range you blocked last week is back at it. – 2 . O . Boxing  09:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

NYC Wiknic, June 26
Hold the date. Meetup/NYC Wiknic in Crotona Park, Sunday June 26.

Watch Meetup/NYC/Wiknic June 2022 for further details as they become available.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Do not edit the GAN page
Legobot overwrites all changes. To stick you must make the change in the talk page template—as the editnotice says. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. About your judgment on Peter Obi
Hello and I hope this message meets you well. I saw your judgement on the edit warring complaint on the article Peter Obi. And although I thank you for your effort, I am displeased with the outcome. So just take this as an appeal and here is why

This here is the link to the Wikipedia article about achieving concensus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

The last paragraph under the subtopic Through Editing says: "Be bold, but not rash. Whether changes come through editing or through discussion, the encyclopedia is best improved through collaboration and consensus, not through combat and capitulation. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, except for specific policy-based material [such as BLP exceptions] and for reversions of vandalism. This is true even if editors are using edit summaries to "discuss" the dispute every time they revert."
 * The exceptions here for BLP are in cases of vandalism or added content without citations, none of which I'm culpable for. Clearly the user violated the 3R rule. You said in your judgement that the edit warring stopped two days ago and that's true. But it only stopped because I, the complainant, chose not to tow the path of edit warring and 3R violation, following Wikipedia rules. The other editor clearly violated that rule

Again in the same concensus article, under the subtopic Through Discussion whic says: "....Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such as edit-warring, abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack of civility)."
 * He keeps talking about the content of the article, which though important, isn't the primary basis on which Wikipedia administrators make judgement for conflicts. Rather judgement is drawn from violating Wikipedia policy which he did by violating the 3R rule and removing cited content as regards BPL violations.

Please do the needful. It's a bad precedence for a person to get away with a clear violation because me, I intentionally chose to do things the right way and the other person who did things the wrong way is the one getting rewarded. He/She has to face the music for violating the 3R rule before we talk about consensus, that's justice.

Amaekuma (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

June 22: 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 14:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Dortana
Can you please take a look at the editor 's latest edits? Their behavior is simply disruptive and has been so for a very long time now. At the moment they keep removing well-sourced information and then complaints about edit warring. Semsûrî (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor has also received a total of six warnings on the talkpage in less than one month by me. Semsûrî (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Request
Hello Daniel Case. I found your name on the edit-warring noticeboard as some who is both and admin, and and currently active, and most importantly not involved with me previously. Can I simply ask that you "revsion-delete" the comment I made here which violated CIVIL policies. Apart from it being somewhat "on the spur of the heated moment", what I said no longer applies anyhow since the user with whom I had the dispute and I have both retracted previous actions toward one another and are now moving on without mutual hostility. Thanks. --Sportspop (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt you do not want to hear from me, but that edit is not rev-deletable.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Sun June 26: Bronx Wiki-Picnic
(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) 19:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dentren @ WP:AN3
Hi there Daniel. Thanks for taking action. Just wanted to ask you to restore the previous versions of Gabriel Boric and El Líbero before Dentren's intervention. Please also note that Dentren has reiterated, now that they've been blocked, his false claim that I am the "sockpuppet of a banned user" Thanks in advance! --Bedivere (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Bedivere (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalizing flag of Saudi Arabia.svg
Hi, User:Xpërt3 is vandalizing File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg since the file I uploaded is matched to Royal Decree 1973 page 10 and it’s shown on the source. That user is constantly reverting my changes for his speculation and interpretation. I reported him and you replied to me that he didn’t made any edits from 5 days. Aziz bm (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. AIV is for vandalism or disruption that is recent and ongoing. And frankly this sounds like a problem better handled at WP:AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

PJ and Thomas
Sorry to bother you but since the DYK nomination there are two editors continuously doing mass removal of sourced content without any explanation or rationale rather than following WP:BRD. Their edit summary reads 'rem bs'! And then referring to WP:PUFF as the alleged reason behind their content removal which is not the case at all. Bionic (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see that, per their exhortation, you have been discussing this at the talk page. Let's see how that plays out. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thus far, it's been nothing but a gang-up. Personal attacks, prejudging, and bad faith accusations right off the bat and then resorting to all sorts of fallacies to take advantage of the rules & guidelines by cherry-picking certain statements to prevent an editor from improving the article and adding sourced content.
 * 50% of the article was removed with a total disregard for WP:BRD and they cited WP:PUFF as the reason! It has nothing to do with puffery. Their argument is flawed. A bunch of quotes from some interviews explaining the process of their projects or adoption is not lauding praise on them.
 * It's apparent by their approach that they have a sense of ownership here just because they're more experienced Wikipedians. I mean they said in their own words that I should just go away, let them handle everything and I have no say in the matter.
 * Besides the mass removal, the other edits, including changing "PJ & Thomas" to "the McKays" which is against WP:UCRN, and refusing to put the full birth date parameter although the exact date is already widely published, all speak to the fact that they just want to say the last word, they're basing their arguments on personal feelings rather than on the actual policies and they simply want to call the shots because they can! I'm no administrator or bureaucrat, I don't have as much experience, and haven't created as many articles so I should just shut it down & go play in traffic. Bionic (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)



Bruxton has given you transistors! Transistors promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the food best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else transistors, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.

Thanks for doing what you do! Bruxton (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of transistors by adding {{subst:Transistors for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thank you p
For unblocking me. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive edits by User:MiyuruR
Dear Daniel could you please look into the recent disruptive edits of User:MiyuruR, you placed a temporary block on him, which has expired, but he continues to vandalise Sri Lanka Civil war related pages, removing reliably sourced content that he does not like, particularly war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan armed forces. Thank you.Oz346 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thu July 14: Astoria Beer Garden Wiki-Picnic
(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) 14:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Dcodersgroup
Wanted to let you know that the speedy deleted Draft:Learnbay which was created by a user (Dcodersgroup) whose unblock you had declined, has been re-created (with different content) today by a newly registered user. Jay (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And it's already been deleted again ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

DYKN for Mackenzie Fierceton
Hello! Your submission of Mackenzie Fierceton 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! GRuban (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal follow-up
Hello, just letting you know that the IP you blocked for 24 hours on July 13 is back at it. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for House Bill 5414
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Need an objective viewpoint
Hi, Daniel. Listen, I need your help with something. I'd like to pose to you a hypothetical scenario, one arising from a current conflict I'm embroiled in, and ask you three questions about it, as a thought experiment. I wanted to ask you because you and I have both agreed and disagreed on different issues in the past, and I figured I'd get a fairly objective answer. Are you available? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure ... anytime. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The user RedBull1984 continues to multiple remove latin tatar transcriptions from articles
Hi! Recently you have blocked me, and  for edit warring. But is still doing it. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No one has reverted him yet, though, so he's not edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If I will revert, you will block me. --Bolgarhistory (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * True; I would block both you and him. I can ask him to stop as this is not productive, and suggest you all find some sort of dispute resolution method which will bring in other, more disinterested voices to reach a consensus solution. I think I will, in fact. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daniel Case, And can you undo all his edits yourself, which he made without discussion and consensus? I think it will be right. Ilnur efende (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it can already be blocked, because after the end of the blocking period, he started canceling my edits again . He refers to certain standards in Wikipedia, but refuses to provide them, although I have asked him more than once. And even after warnings and blocking, it continues to wage a war of edits, as can be seen from the link above. Ilnur efende (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's very late for me; I will worry about this tomorrow. He left a long response in Russian, and I'm not up to reading it and translating right now. He also hasn't been making any more of these edits. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you stop the user already, and undo his edits? He does not compromise on anything, even discussing something, he makes his edits, breaking the rules. he did not answer any questions or requests. And he did not even provide links to what he relies on, but only walks in a circle, with vague answers Ilnur efende (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The rules of Latin transliteration, books, and authoritative sources on the Tatar orthogra are given on this page. Ilnur efende (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

So far he has not, except for one edit, returned to articles he has previously edited, and that was to add a fact tag, which is probably a better way to voice his concerns than a revert. That page on transliteration is in the Tatar Wikipedia; I cannot tell because I don't speak or read that language how "official" it is, and in any event it wouldn't by itself be a rule here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case. I am no longer going to negotiate with the Ilnurefende member. The participant had previously lied that I insulted him as a “blind nationalist”. The participant does not want to provide authoritative sources of information. Raise the issue of the "Tatar Latin alphabet" at the level of the administration of the English Wikipedia. I don't want to waste any more time, since the Ilnurefende member is not ready for dialogue, I suggested a compromise, give an authoritative source of information and add the Latin alphabet.

But it did not help.

If the group of administrators of the English Wikipedia decides that the Tatar Latin alphabet is needed, let them add it. If they decide that it is not necessary, they will remove it. RedBull1984 (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Per below, administrators are not the group that decides this ... it's a community issue, in which of course admins can participate. I have looked at our official pages on romanization and transliteration, and none of them speak explicitly of Tatar (although it seems we might find some guidance at WP:CYR from other languages that use that alphabet) or of whether to use Latin or Cyrillic in the article lede to show how it would be rendered in Tatar. From here, I gather that the issue is complex locally and we cannot draw any guidance from Tatar law or common practice. What this really needs is an RfC or some sort of more formal discussion to lay down a policy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:FORLANG might also help. Basically, we include a single foreign language equivalent name (the one that the article is closely associated, according to RS) and add the other names to a footnote. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not in dispute here. There is no doubt that these names are Tatar. The question is whether to render the Tatar names in the Cyrillic or Latin alphabets, and apparently that's been a subject of some dispute among Tatar speakers for most of this century. And our policies do not reach issues like this at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

When the Ilnurefende member was blocked, M.Bitton requested authoritative sources of information about the Tatar Latin alphabet. The Ymblanter administrator canceled edits about the Tatar Latin alphabet. Let the administrators decide whether the Latin alphabet is needed or not. RedBull1984 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Replying to the ping. I'm not an admin and in any case, admins don't get involved in content disputes. Yes, I did mention the need to find reliable sources, but that was done to prevent the edit war (which sadly and despite the previous blocks, is still ongoing). M.Bitton (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * the user does not answer questions on his page. I couldn't answer what he relies on when waging edit wars. and he did not give a single reference to his words, although I asked him several times. Ilnur efende (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Tatar is my native language, and I studied transliteration at the institute, but the user deletes the information without any knowledge, even though I gave him a page with the rules Ilnur efende (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Page protection needed
Hello! Could you please semi-protect Loneliness and Social isolation? They are being repeatedly vandalized by a really annoying IP vandal (you've already blocked a couple of their socks). Thanks! PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ But you knew that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited James Anthony Galdieri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Sheridan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Help needed with a vandal
Hello Daniel, I really need your help with with a vandal that you blocked before (User talk:85.74.236.227), due to his vandalism on the page of Howard Sant-Roos. The vandal uses multiple IP adresses (User contributions for 85.75.35.89, Special:Contributions/2.86.220.16), but it's pretty clear that we are talking about the same person, because he uses the same pattern in his reverts. When I reported him a week ago on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, I stated that a few hours block wouldn't do any good, because he would propably come back and do the same all over again. Indeed, when his 72-hour block ended, he came back vandalising the same page, reverting our edits again, only with different IP adresses this time. I really hope that you can do something about that. Panosgatto (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ I will also reblock the original IP Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, man! Panosgatto (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again, Daniel. The vandal returned with a different IP address this time (Special:Contributions/94.66.223.96) reverting the same edits. I think we're talking about a psycho here. Panosgatto (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Maybe we should start an LTA page on him. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would need some assistance with LTA though, because I haven't done it before. Panosgatto (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither have I . What you should do first is compile a list of all the known IPs/ranges/accounts this user has used. And write a description. Look at other LTA pages for examples; we can keep this in draftspace or userspace until we're ready.
 * And maybe we should ask some of the other users who've put these LTA pages together whether one for this vandal would be a good idea ... I mean, all of these LTA pages are IMO technically at odds with WP:DENY. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK then. I think the next time he hits, we'll be ready to do this. Panosgatto (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to proceed with an LTA page. New IP addresses from the moron (Special:Contributions/2.87.219.91, Special:Contributions/79.130.19.196) who attacks again the same page (Howard Sant-Roos). Panosgatto (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of PJ and Thomas
Hello! Your submission of PJ and Thomas 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over verifikado.com
Hi Daniel Case. Thanks for closing 's 3RN request. Sorry to involve you with it further, but could you suggest how I address NoonIcarus continuation of the edit-warring after you closed it? .

I've gone ahead actually started article talk page discussions for each, tagged the reference, and treated it and another reference by the same author as an opinion piece that's undue in the one article that uses it directly. I've also left NoonIcarus a formal edit-warring notice. Hipal (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Best regards. If I might comment on this, after Hipal has self reverted and instead opted for inline tagging to reflect their concerns (, my request to restore the stable version has been satisfied (which means I wouldn't have any edits to revert to start with). However, I have also left an edit-warring notice on Hipal's talk page because of their continued reverts from the stable version.

While we're at it, would you be willing to serve as an intermediary for the dispute? I believe I have explained my points thoroughly and that the inline tags should be removed, but I'd be glad to continue discussing the issue as long as it is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I have additionally centralized a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela/Reliable and unreliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

July 27: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Aug in-person for Wikimania)
(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) 21:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

JellyJammest
Hello, please could you remove the entire content of User:JellyJammest's user page too and revoke access to that as well since it violates WP:NONAZIS? Also they mention something called the Numbrstationinquestion on that page which is Nazi-related - although I don't know how exactly - and their edit history and the link from that page shows their interactions with accounts that also have that on their pages. They've been interacting with each other. One of them has a userpage saying they're a fan of the numbrstationinquestion, with a picture of Hitler next to that. These might be further sockpuppets, and even if they aren't they're still Nazi accounts.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie921 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Here's one of the users: User:MrPaperSonic
 * And on: User talk:NUMBRstation Papersonic has left an anti-vandalism barnstar with a picture of Hitler on it and a mention of the numbrstationinquestion again Stephanie921 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw these things. I think it would be best to open an SPI. Do you want to do it or should I? Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate if u did it cos my battery's on 2% and it's 05:19 in England so I need to have a kip. Thanks for asking though! Stephanie921 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah ... OK. It's 12:30 a.m. here on North American EDT and I'm on a desktop as I usually am, so no battery issues. Will get around to doing. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * awesome, tyvm!
 * I'll reply to your other msg tomorrow- but just quickly to clear up possible confusion and alert u to a problem - whenever I go on ur user talk page on mobile it instantly directs me to a section saying "Bruxton has given you transistors". Going back leads me to the last page I was on, not the talk page. The only way I can circumvent this is by consciously hitting the new topic button faster than usual when I go on your talk page - or clicking 'desktop site' at the bottom before I go on your talk. Just wanted to explain why some of my edits have not got a mobile edit tag Stephanie921 (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing
I noticed you'd reviewed my user page :) What does that mean? Stephanie921 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It basically is a little line of text that appears at the bottom of newly created pages (go look at Special:NewPages) indicating that someone with the patrol user right has looked at it and finds it OK. Some user talk pages go forever without anyone clicking on it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Devanga
Hello, you recently protected Devanga. As you can see from the history, the IP address (106.*.*.*) which previously used and dozen of different IP address and has resumed with  after making 10 edit today to get to auto confirmed status. Could you ECP the article per WP:GS/CASTE for socking. Thanks - SUN EYE 1  05:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - SUN EYE 1  06:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

176.58.0.0/16
Hello, thank you for blocking this IP for one week. Just so you know, this person has been making disruptive edits a month ago (visit previous edits from here, it's *insane*). Will probably continue to vandalise once expired. gn. 7szz (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me know if it happens. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this person keeps editing being blocked. Úrsula Corberó has been protected but now they're vandalising Chino Darín. Look here. 😮‍💨. 7szz (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC) Also here. 7szz (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked for two weeks for block evasion. I guess they're resourceful in looking for proxies or such. I will also extend the original block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

And keeps evading (btw, I know it's them because they're also vandalising the Spanish-language wiki.) 7szz (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked now ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, it's happening again. 7szz (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

2409:4089::/34
Hi Daniel. I'm not sure if you noticed the detail of this block. With this block I recommend a partial hard block, or a total soft block, or even a separate soft block for user talk pages, but not a hard block for user talk pages. I'm not sure I'd recommend a talk page block at all, but I'm probably missing something. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The reporter said this is an LTA who often leaves threats to users ... figured I'd pre-empt that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, though I can't readily see anything in the contribs or history. We can't really block the whole of user talk from any account on that range. How about a normal range block in preference? -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So sorry! The threats aren't actually on user pages, I should have said that the threats were always directed towards the article's subject, as that's always been the case when I've reverted their edits. I opened up an SPI here. Blablubbs helped me to identify the sockmaster so I'll now be able to reference them in any reports I make moving forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: There's no such thing, currently, as a "separate" block. We have the option of either a total or partial block ... not both. If I changed it to a total block, it would override the partial block completely. Perhaps (no, this is not a "perhaps"—this needs to be changed), this is something we should ask for when they ask us what we want in the way of tech improvements come December. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. We can compound multiple blocks on other ranges, such as /33 or /35. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We can block a single IP within a range that's already blocked, yes. I will lift the hardblock, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The range was hardblocked by one of the previous blocking admins. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that might have been me, which is partly why I'm here. Anyway, I'm currently seeing what else is practical for this vandal. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Fri/Sat/Sun Aug 12-14 with Saturday flagship Wiki World's Fair at Queens Museum
(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) 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

3RR closure
Hello Daniel. I wrote this at the bottom of the 3RR since I noticed you putting 'Warned' in the header. Did you mean to attach a more explicit close? This was a rather confusing case. Thanks, 20:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Marek had warned him and I thought he meant that had happened recently. On a pure EW level I don't see this as actionable, but as he notes it's beyond that. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"warned hi"
Hello, I'm afraid I don't understand this post. I don't understand if it is addressed to me and the meaning of "warned hi". I ask this question on your talk page because probably it's not of general interest. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced edit
Hi! I noticed that you blocked Deedee123123a (on his talk page) for unsourced material. He made unsourced change again. I don't know waht to do in this situation. Could you help? Cofcorpse (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them again, this time for 48 hours. I also revoked talk page access due to their response to their last block. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! What is the correct procedure so that I know how to proceed in the future? Cofcorpse (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You probably could report them to AIV, although I don't mind messages here as well if you feel it's hard to explain at AIV. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this an unsolved murder or not?
Hi, please let me know if this Collet Barker is an unsolved murder or not as his killers were identified, but not charged. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could say so. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Continuous disruption
Last month you blocked that user for poorly sourced changes. They are doing the same thing on the Constantine the Great article, although their previous attempts were reverted by other editors. Frankly, the username itself suggests the editor might not be interested in neutral editing in the topic. It refers to a nationalistic discussion on the origin of the Romanians. Can you take a look? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Same there. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked them indefinitely partly on the username basis. Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response to the concerns I raised. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for PJ and Thomas
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocked user right back at it
Hi! An IP you recently blocked (187.110.136.117, 2 days ago) for "disruptive removal of material" is right back at it with the same behaviour. Since it's disruptive and not strictly vandalism, I didn't want to report them at AIV. I hope it's alright that I message you directly. Felida97 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked again for 72 hours this time. Don't feel like it has to be vandalism to report to AIV. Sufficiently disruptive editing makes no difference. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it makes no difference, I just tend to err on the side of caution with regards to AIV reports, I guess. Anyway, thanks for dealing with it so quickly! Felida<sup style="color:black">97 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Aug 24: WikiWednesday Salon NYC (+Sep annual 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) 03:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
Vanamonde 00:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Schoharie limousine crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deposition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent policy violators on Magnetic tape, radio, et al.
Hello. User:Kvng has repeatedly ignored multiple warnings on his talk page and on others to cease violating WP:V/WP:CS/WP:NOR, et al., by adding uncited material to articles, or reverting edits in which I moved uncited material to the article's talk page pending addition of proper citations (an approach that I worked out as a compromise back in a 2009 discussion with other editors on Jimbo Wales' talk page). Kvng's defense during these discussions has essentially been 1. To falsely accuse me of "bullying" for requiring citations (while declining to explain, when I politely asked how holidng other editors to that requirement falls under the definition of "bullying"), 2 to claim that "consensus is more important than policy" (a False Either/Or statement, when in fact, policy reflects consesus, as it explicitly states here, and as I pointed out to him and his allies here, to no response), and 3. to argue that there are other editors who support these policy violations with him. This is not a valid rationale for violating them, as none of those other editors have provided any responses to my debunking of their falsehoods or fallacies, repeatedly employing different evasions, and even attempting, in Kvng's case, to tell other admins to butt out, which earned him an admonition from another admin not to do this. Kvng attempted to report me at ANI, but ANI judged my talk page moves and reverts to be "no violation".

I gave Kvng a final warning here, but he again reverted the uncited material that had been moved to the talk page.

If you put a block on this, it may finally send a message to editors who think they can violate WP:NOR, et al (including User:Chetvorno, for example, who admitted that he wrote most of the Radio article without citing sources, but who refused to answer my polite question five days ago as to why he did this), even though he continued to edit subsequent to my question. Please help. If you cannot impose this block yourself, can you contact an uninvolved administrator to do so? If you do not, then entire articles filled with OR by editors like Chetvorno will continue. Let's put a stop to this. Let's encourage policy violators to add cites to uncited material by taggin the material, and then, after a reaonable length of time, moving to the talk page as a workspace, okay? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * User:Chetvorno and User: Fountains of Bryn Mawr are continuing to violate the aforementioned policies by restoring large amounts of uncited material to the Radio article. Nightscream (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Second revert by Fountains. Nightscream (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As I have tried to explain, Wikipedia relies on collaboration. Yes, the material is uncited, and yes, it should be fixed. But anyone with topic knowledge can see that the text in question is good and is obviously verifiable. Given that, it is not appropriate to use an aggressive approach because it turns what should be a collaborative effort to fix the article into a battle. Next time, please try to find a way to proceed that benefits the encyclopedia. Try cajoling the others with reminders and encouragement. I believe there are five good editors at Talk:Radio but now they are in circling-the-wagons mode because no one likes being bullied into submission. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * To reiterate what I said in previous discussions linked above, we do not know that material is "good" or "verifiable", nor do we know that the editors violating policy have "topic knowledge". We only have the say-so of Johnuniq and his allies that they do, with no way to verify this, which is why WP:NOR says that personal knowledge or experience is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no way for a reader who comes to an article to know, at a casual glance, which editor added which piece of information, much less anything about that editor, which is why Wikipedia places the point of Verifiability on the cited source, and not the editor's knowledge. I said this repeatedly to Johnuniq on multiple talk pages, and he did not respond to explain why he felt this was incorrect, or even that it was incorrect. I also asked Johnuniq and other editors who employed vague euphemisms like these by what objective criterion can the editing community determine material to be "probably good", or "potentially good" on three separate occasions (twice on my tp, and once on Jimbo Wales' tp), and they all refused to respond. Presumably this is because there is not only no way to gauge such a thing, but because they know that WP:NOR prohibits judging material by this criterion, and that if they concede that, then this entire argument falls apart. Nightscream (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, you can't hear me at the moment. You might however take a moment to examine WP:3RRNO where it explains the exemptions that permit edit warring. Note that being right and/or removing content because of what a non-BLP policy says are not allowed exemptions. An admin cannot block your opponents without blocking you. When I have some time I'll make a list of where this has been discussed and how many editors have supported your position (not many). You are being misled by the unwise report at the edit warring noticeboard where admins have to quickly assess whether anyone should be blocked. No one is going to block you for a single edit war when there are reasons to justify your position. This needs to be thrashed out but I'm not sure where (not here!). Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Blocking my access to edit Draft:List of shale oil operations in Australia. Why?
Hi Daniel Case,

My access to edit this draft, which I created has been blocked by you. The reason as quoted from the pop-up as follows: "The IP address or range 1.43.0.0/16 has been partially blocked (disabled) by ‪Daniel Case‬ for the following reason(s): Violation of the three-revert rule: Adding that article to partial block".

I doubt that I have made three reverts in the last five years, let alone in the past 24 hours on one article.

Could you please explain what is going on? I do not believe that I have violated any rule, but am pleased to hear your explanation.

I think there must be some kind of mistake. I do know that my username has on two occasions been misused, in the past by others unknown, but if you check my edits you will see that I am for real. However, I don't want to not be able to edit this draft until 23 May 2023.

Assuming that this partial block has been made erroneously, could you please arrange to remove the partial block? TrimmerinWiki (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, you're correct that you're not the target of the block. It's a rangeblock, imposed by another admin earlier this year, and I added the namespaces and a couple more articles to it after some recent vandalism to other articles.
 * I don't need to lift it ... it should be as easy as softening the block so that logged-in users on the range like you can edit it. Let me see if I can do that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK ... it was a hardblock. I have now removed that provision; you should be able to edit freely. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very much appreciated, and I do understand the need to defend Wikipedia against vandalism and appreciate the efforts by you and others to do that.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Resolutions like this make me glad we have more flexibility with blocking than we used to. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI re Special:Contributions/2402:7500:901:8CF2:1835:AC5B:CC5F:7300
You marked it as a false positive, but it is not; this LTA, who spams the same OR/cruft on various pages, is evading a block and global lock. See for example the history of Talk:Johnson solid which is filled with this LTA repeatedly reinserting the same WP:TALK violations. ev iolite  (talk)  19:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I see they have subsequently been blocked. The report was from the bot, with absolutely no context or indication of any of this. Whoever wrote the edit filter that flagged it needs to revise it so it potentially recognizes that this is an LTA. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Challenges to editing my talk page
Hi. Sorry to bother you, but Fountains of Bryn Mawr and 86.181.0.154 have taken to challenging my right to organize my user talk page by placing multiple discussions on the same recent topics as subtopics under the same single heading, incorporating to diff links to the (in most cases, now-archived) discussions and results of those discussions, and (in the case of 86.181.0.154) labeling those accusations false. I warned them that I would alert an admin if they continued this, and 86.181.0.154 responded by not only challenging me to do so, but by complaining of my "misrepresenting the issues" at the current WP:POINT discussion. This this has nothing to do with the matter of my talk page, this may suggest that these attacks may be retaliation for that discussion not going his way. Since WP:OWNTALK says users can blank comments or other content from their own tps, I don't think my choice for those headings is disallowed. Do you agree? If so, can you please admonish those editors to cease their activities? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by this message. Nightscream should definitely NOT be modifying other users talk per WP:TPO, including section headings. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The link is to him modifying his own talk page. SHOWN is a link to the general talk page guidelines. And I see what he has done as permissible refactoring, as long as he doesn't change the substance of your comments. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "general talk page guidelines" at WP:TPG (including changes to headings that are likely to be controversial) apply in all talk space. Changing headings to "False ... accusation" is changing substance of my comments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Wrong. A heading is not a comment. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Arnett v. Kennedy
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Biscutb
I noticed you left a block notice on the talk page of Biscutb but they weren't actually blocked. Also, at this point it should be an indef for a vandalism-only account. Uhai (talk &middot; contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sep 28: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election/Members Meeting (+October 2 picnic)
(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) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

User talk:86.181.0.154
Hi, you have posted to User talk:86.181.0.154 - are you still watching it? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No, I never was, actually. But I looked, and I can see there's been some activity there, around a warning you left. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have three main concerns: (i) the editor's refusal to understand NOR; (ii) their posts on the talk page (not just to me); (iii) their attitude in edit summaries. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This may be something you want to take to AN/I at this point (Don't use the uw-nor templates, BTW, except if/when they actually make such an edit. Per WP:NOTOR, I don't consider map reading per se to constitute OR ... although their interpretation of what's on the map may be incorrect. The bigger issue is their general incivility, both in that edit summary and their most recent response to you. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Continuing edit warring from 66.60.170.151
You recently marked the edit warring, which yes was objectively a WP:3RR violation (four reverts in 24 hours) by 66.60.170.151 as “no violation” since “it also does not seem to have continued since it was reported”. Since then, even though I got a third party involved and built consensus with him to get an accurate wording suitable for the Wikipedia, the IP editor restored their preferred wording without consensus. Since the rationale behind the “no action” judgment was that the editor stopped reverting, and since the editor has subsequently reverted again, how should we proceed if they continue to revert? I have given them yet another warning on their talk page, but they have a history of blanking other warnings. SkylabField (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the earlier 3RR report. I'd like to note that I don't have a horse in this race and have not expressed an opinion about the content dispute. My concern is about the IPs combative and ownership approach to editing. IP has now started making uncivil comments; in my opinion they are personal attacks. Pinging . Sundayclose (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I second that the IP’s comments, including a claim I am making a falsehood, violate WP:CIVIL Again, when we mark clearly uncivil behavior as being “no violation”, we can enable that behavior. Regarding the content, I have already gotten a third party involved and the three of us hammered out consensus.  SkylabField (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I should point out that the “no violation” judgment you made is being used by the IP editor to justify their continued edit warring, since, as they see it “the last charge was closed as unfounded”, where a plain reading shows that no action was taken only because they stopped reverting. Clarification on your part is needed.  SkylabField (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the IP is flaunting the dismissal of the 3RR report, such as in this edit summary. I don't mean this as a criticism of you, Daniel, just an update on the IP's flippant attitude toward edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the IP 24 hours after originally just blocking them from the AA article for a week ... I was particularly disturbed that they went and edited the archived ANEW report; you're not supposed to do that. I also agree with Skylab that this really needs to go to AN/I as it's beyond the scope of what ANEW deals with. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention in this matter. Should the editor not reform -- and I do understand WP:AGF and understand why you tried to make a good faith interpretation of their edits -- I will escalate it to WP:AN/I SkylabField (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz
I can count 8! separate reverts (partial or full) from this user on the Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics page. Can you please explain to me how this doesn't violate 3RR? Thank you in advance. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In the last 24 hours (after the page had not been edited in over a month, and minimally since March), I counted these large removals of content:
 * original removal of content that wasn't a revert of anyone
 * this definitely
 * this
 * and this
 * Now perhaps buried in this sequence are some reverts (none of the edits are marked as such in the history). If I had gone through the intervening edits piecemeal, I might still be doing it. I usually take it on good faith that someone editing that way after being reverted in toto is trying to amend their edits and make them acceptable to those who did the reverting. It seems you and other editors still did not agree and asked him to take it to talk.
 * Which he did ... and neither you nor any of the other editors reverting him have yet to respond there (probably because of the ANEW discussion, which was a less productive place to work it out, and then the socking came up).
 * After that the blocked sock accounts come in. Who the master was, I don't know. But IMO it's outside the scope of ANEW to make that call, unless the reviewing admin has checkuser rights. The CU who blocked RRB did not block any other account afterwards, which leads me to believe that either a) Ray isn't the sockmaster, or b) for some reason believed it was not in the best interests of the project to block him.
 * That said, if he returns to the article and does this again he has less leeway from me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any relationship between Raymarcbadz and RRB. The latter was, practically speaking, blocked on grounds of "pretty obviously a returning troublemaker, it's not worth the time to track down exactly who it is" GeneralNotability (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible to perform a CU on RBB? Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 21:56, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Sun Oct 2: WikiNYC Post-Election Wiki-Picnic
(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) 17:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor continues edir warring
After you blocked RussGreekMexican for edit warring on International recognition of Kosovo, they reverted again after the block expired. Idk if this is counted as further edit warring, and if admin attention is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Blocked again. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and attention. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

About Reverts
You are wrong here that the 4th revert was a self-revert. The AN3 report is absolutely clear that all 4 reverts were made for restoring/removing the same content. Kindly correct it. Thanks.--<i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"> ❯❯❯ Pra vega g=9.8</i> 06:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

New show nearby articles feature on Kartographer maps
Hello! You receive this message because you have voted for show nearby or related articles in maps in this year’s Community Wishlist Survey.

I am happy to let you know that soon it will be possible to automatically display nearby articles in a map on Commons and other Wikimedia projects using Kartographer. This feature is one of the improvements to Kartographer the Technical Wishes Team from Wikimedia Germany has been working on. Each Kartographer generated map in full-screen mode is now given a new “Show nearby articles” button at the bottom. It can be used to show and hide up to 50 geographically close articles.

The deployment of this feature is planned for 12 October on a first group of wikis. After the first feedback phase, more wikis will follow. Read more on our project page. Your feedback and comments to our open questions on this feature are very much appreciated on this discussion page. Thank you! -- Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 15:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hello, I see that you have a range block on Special:Contributions/2603:9000:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 for disruptive editing on 2 pages. We're seeing a resurgence of disruptive editing on fire department and military related pages. This seems to be the result of a previous block expiring. Is it possible to put a complete block on this range: Special:Contributions/2603:9000:9900:0:0:0:0:0/40? That seems to be where the bulk of the edits are coming from. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ (That range block was partial, anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This vandal is back after the 2 week block you put on. 50+ edits. Could you extend another range block? HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ This one's for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Likely sock
Just an FYI that, for whom you previously declined an unblock request, appears to now be editing as. I've opened an SPI. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sat Oct 29: Wikidata Day in 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) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Exorcist angiogram scene.webm listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Exorcist angiogram scene.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. -- Atom <font color="#4D4730">Crusher  21:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Simon Property Group List
I am a new Wikipedian and I noticed that you "blocked" a user deleting text on the Simon Property Group property list. List_of_Simon_Property_Group_properties. I noticed that the list was taken from the Simon Property Website (source 1 and 10). The list itself seems superfluous given that there is a well sourced entry for Simon_Property_Group. Anyway, I marked the list as advertising. Was this correct? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Articles needing subsections


A tag has been placed on Category:Articles needing subsections indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evader
Hello, looking at these two edits, I can only assume that the IP you blocked yesterday is back. Note that this new IP has no prior edits, and the edit summary style seems to match (capitalization and periods). Page protection might be another solution considering the persistence of this user. Throast <sup style="font-size:.7em; line-height:1.5em;"> { { ping }} me! (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the /64 for a year as well. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

120.155.0.0/17
Can be reblocked? The vandal is still using the range after the block. wizzito &#124;  say hello!  19:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism at Panathinaikos B.C.
Hello Daniel. We have a stubborn vandal at Panathinaikos B.C. who has been reverting multiple times an old edit, that has been resolved years ago throughout very thorough detection from Wikipedia administrators. This exact matter was the reason that the page became semi-protected. The vandal,, has been warned many times on the article's history page as well as in his talk page , but he chose to completely ignore all the logical explanations and warnings, violating the three-revert-rule in full awareness. If he doesn't get blocked immediately, he will continue his disruptive editing and vandalism in a daily basis, on a matter that has already been resolved. Panosgatto (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * After his block expired, the vandal returned and reverted the edits a few times again. He was warned again, but he is pretty stubborn. Maybe a block for a longer period would be more effective. --Panosgatto (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you post a link to the discussion or whatever that shows that this was resolved and thus he is editing against consensus? Because his edits simply consist of adding a fact tag to that statement in the intro. WP:LEADCITE notwithstanding, maybe it would be better to support this with a citation in the intro, as it's an extraordinary claim. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a link, although it was years ago. It was the reason that the page became semi-protected though, after long discussions with the administrators and the matter closed there with the situation explained in the first paragraphs of the article. Now this guys's edits are not in good faith, he follows a very specific propaganda. And that's absolutely obvious, because after the first matter he was reported, he now chose another pretty clear matter to vandalize, just for hooliganism purposes. I don't know why we have to explain to someone that the titles won by a team in a season belong to that exact season. Panosgatto (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in 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) 16:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Block log dummy edit please
Can you please make a dummy edit to the block log, to correct the summary in this EW block? The article in question is spelled "Camila Vallejo", but appears red in the log. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Took a couple of tries. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

The filing is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

Carter00000 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of AN/I noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

The filing is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Carter00000 (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Tim Roth/Rinkymink
Hiya Daniel. have you seen the suspicious edit on Tim Roth by user 'Rinkymink', it's the only edit this account had made, and is globally blocked according to the contribs page. The edit summary seems like familiar syntax.Halbared (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, and since it's globally locked now there's nothing we need to do. But it is interesting ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

regarding date formats
Hi Daniel Case, I noticed your revert here... would you be willing to undo your revert, since the change I made doesn't conflict with the MOS link you included, and avoids the Category:CS1 errors: dates errors that are currently appearing for the impacted references.

I've been working to get the huge backlog in that category down (it's down to 300-something from about 10,000 a year ago). = paul2520 💬 16:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Well, I wish you'd explained that it was a technical issue in the template. And it really strikes me that the long-term solution is to fix whatever causes the error rather than make the text comply. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Fashion
Hi Daniel. I looked on the list of participants for WikiProject Fashion, and saw your name and recognized it. Are you still involved? I've got a pet article that desperately needs attention, and it's in really poor shape, given that it's a major topic. And in doing so I'm seeing how a lot of tangential topics need love and care as well. Bastique ☎ call me! 04:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am still involved. What's the article? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Fashion photography. I've been searching for some good primary sources. --Bastique ☎ call me! 19:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you, but...
I'd suggest that this talk about a user's "daddy" is over the top. Honestly, everything after the facepalm emoji could have been done without. Ordinary users are not permitted to speak to one another in this way, and neither should those who have long "been an administrator and, for almost a decade, a functionary as well." For those who may be stumbling upon this comment, please note that I am here coming to the defense of a clearly disruptive user whom I brought to 3RRN. They should certainly have been sanctioned, just not spoken to like this. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I got here from the DeSantis mention on the fringe noticeboard and was really shocked to see this from an administrator. It's also worth mentioning that a block based on something technical like numbers in the name should not be conflated in application with a block for misbehaviour.  I would kindly--and in good faith--recommend a review of what happened here. SmolBrane (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've noted more than once, username blocks are always indefinite as the username violation is continuing. They can be lifted, as I would recommend this one should be, when the user proposes an acceptable new username and a bureaucrat makes the change.
 * I would note further that on the user's page he has, indeed, taken the step of proposing a new username for himself, which I have indicated there is perfectly acceptable and should be granted. In fact, I have suggested he go further and put in a usurpation request for the name that I think he really wants, as while there is an account with that name it hasn't been used in 12 years. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I would add that WP:DISRUPTNAME says, in boldface, that "These accounts, upon their discovery, should be immediately blocked by administrators". That allows for no exception, certainly not when an account with such a name is reported to a noticeboard other than UAA. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave aside the fact that you've ignored my comment above. If you do unblock Godofwarfan69420 after a name change, I ask you to likewise reverse your closure of the 3RRN report which started this. The flagrant breach of 3RR detailed in that report (6 reverts in 24 hours, whether you count forwards or backwards) still needs to be addressed. Generalrelative (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually after name changes, the bureaucrat who makes the name change takes care of the unblock. I'll revert the closure and, since I think you would agree that I am now too involved to be seen as an impartial reviewer of your report, leave it for another admin to review. I shall also recuse myself from reviewing any ANEW or AIV report you make in the future.
 * And I will, once he is unblocked, strike my commentary as you suggested. I look forward to seeing how your efforts to teach him to assume good faith work out. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. On both counts. Generalrelative (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

420 + 69 in usernames
If there is consensus that usernames cannot contain 420 or 69, why do we not have a filter to block account creation yet? I'm not sure there is consensus here. Do you have a discussion you can point me towards?--v/r - TP 03:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a bot that looks for these and reports them to WP:UAA. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be ; the BRFA is Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 5, The detection criteria are not public, I imagine so that people can't create problematic user names that wilfully circumvent the criteria. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys for the info. It's not quite a discussion - but I supposed there is strong implied consensus since the bot has been operating for quite awhile.--v/r - TP 03:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

possible impersonation
Hey, is it possible that this user is impersonating you? If so, could you deal with them? Sheep (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He claimed in an unblock request to be my son . So he wasn't (emphasis wasn't). Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

post-3rr block
Hello, can you take a look at ? The 24-hour block did nothing as they've returned to disrupting. Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Daniel CasePlease this time take a look at his reasons for disrupting carefully. It seems @Semsûrî is removing most of the content that is related to Iran and is preventing everyone else to add content that is not-Kurdish. I don't see any problem from the photo I added or the Persian translation and other infos. By the way needs to clarify it shows clearly his intention to not show the connection of this message with Iran and Iranian Kurdishs. Davoodianiman (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I once again urge you to read ASPERSIONS and also NPOV. You won't get far on Wikipedia with attacks and unconstructive edits. Semsûrî (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now blocked him indefinitely, as the recent edits and his response above deepen the suspicions I expressed earlier. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Future Block Requests
Just so I don't waste time in the future, I'm a little confused on this one since the IP user has so many final warnings. Should I just ignore those going forward? That's why I went through with the block request. Seems like we're wasting editor's time with those warnings if they're basically just ignored. Thanks for your hard work! Nemov (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Had all the edits since the last warning been reverted, I would have blocked. But maybe the IP finally got themselves a clue ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online
(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) 21:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination "Improved to Good Article status by"
Not a big deal, but I don't understand why DPUH is listed here instead of me. Danaphile (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oops, my mistake. Will correct. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I think the D, P, and H got mixed up in my mind. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

November thanks
Thank you for trying DYK for the shot woman, and sorry we couldn't make it in good time! Opera and Advent choral music on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 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 2022 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 2022 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Kudos

 * You're welcome! I have nominated it for DYK if you're interested in reviewing it ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Constructive Comments
You left a message on my talk page on how I was attempting to leave edits that were getting flagged for not appearing constructive. While I did believe that the edits WERE constructive, I'm new here, so I attempted to experiment around to see what was causing the flag. When I changed my source citation, I found that my edit was accepted immediately, so I drew the conclusion that it was the title of the article I was trying to cite that was causing the flag, and if so, I can see why it tripped something automatic like that. Do you know if this is correct? It's not a big deal, since I was eventually able to make my update using a different source, but since you left a message on my talk page, I figured I'd ask - thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on Adakiko's ban
Hey there, I noticed that @Adakiko was banned after reporting a 3RR vio on someone. The outcome of that report was both parties getting banned, Adakiko's being 24 hours. I believe his ban is not constituted for the following reason. Based on this diff:, At this point, Adakiko has asked the user to talk on the talk page of the article, and then the user reverts his edit without providing any comment. I believe this edit falls under section 4 of WP:SANCTIONGAMING, and in turn, falls under a violation of vandalism and counts as an exception in WP:3RR. I believe because of this, Adakiko's ban can be proved invalid. Even though this ban has expired at this point, I wanted to dispute it and have a talk about it. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best, Zeke (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * noted immediately after Adakiko filed his report that both users violated 3RR. He does a lot of patrolling and reviewing on the various noticeboards, so I respect his opinions. My own review of the edits found that, yes, both of them had reverted four times, and the material reverted does not come under the exceptions at WP:3RRNO. I don't find what you offered to cover the revert ... it specifically relates to "Deliberately reverting an editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute in another." (emphasis mine) That doesn't seem to have happened here. Daniel Case (talk) 08:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It was a good block and a nice example of boomerang. I should have stopped two reverts earlier and either moved on to something that was more productive or requested a more eyes. Filing a EWN is such a pain. wp:EUI: thanks for the block, I needed the break! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adakiko Gotcha, I was just trying to understand the rules here better in this scenario. Best, Zeke (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I also (in)conveniently forgot, wp:BRB, especially WP:LETITGO Adakiko (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Buckle Up
Buckle up with the new influx of people due to some more pointless media attention. This one might be a doozy Best, Zeke (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates
Hey, thanks for cleaning up those dates on the Moore County substation attack page. I wrote them fully spelled out originally not because I think our users are stupid, but because A. I wasn't sure if there was a general wikipedia policy on that or not, and B. doing it that way is exactly the kind of pedantic nonsense I would expect from most Wikipedians. Happy to be wrong in this case. Sprhodes (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it isn't a requirement, but it's not prohibited, either. There was a discussion once at the MOS talk page about DotW, and it came to no consensus, or more of a consensus in favor of not saying anything and leaving it to the editors on the individual article.
 * There are some times I can see including it, when it's some major flashbulb memory event like 9/11 (everyone who remembers that—i.e., most people presently over college age—was a Tuesday), Pearl Harbor (remembered because it was an otherwise peaceful Sunday), Princess Diana's death (early Saturday morning, a holiday weekend in the U.S. to boot and a lot of people woke up to it) and maybe the Kennedy assassination (though the fact that it was a Thursday might be important to how that event was remembered, since Thanksgiving was a week away and that apparently cast quite a pall over the table)
 * To me, about 98 percent of the time that information (not just the DotW, but the restated year and even the dates themselves when things happened a considerable amount of time in the past, is cruft, usually included by newer editors who are understandably nervous that their work will be deleted as being unsourced or insufficiently sourced (unfortunately, the kind of editor who will do that also exists) and so put everything from a source in the article, no matter how redundant it gets, just to be on the safe side. And sometimes I blame these people's past teachers, as well.
 * I've been thinking for a while of writing an essay about this ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

2A02:C7C:947E:2700:0:0:0:0/64
Thanks for the vandalism block, though the only article that they really tried to vandalize was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II (2022 video game). Maybe you should change it to a block that only prevents them from editing that page, to reduce collateral damage? Among Us for POTUS (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My block is based on the filter log, which IMO shows attempted vandalism egregious enough to merit a sitewide block.
 * They really dislike that game. But Wikipedia's not the place to proclaim that to the world ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut
Hey there. I had lodged a complaint about edit-warring on the page by repeatedly violating WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, here. It hasn't stopped, with the IP resorting to daily reversions. Can we please do something about this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now blocked the /25 range for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it didn't help. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was their last edit before I blocked the range ... My apologies. I had misread the IPs by one digit and thus miscalculated the range. I have now corrected the error so the block applies to 198.30.180.0/23, which takes in that latter IP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK for True (Spandau Ballet song)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Recent page block
I saw that you imposed a 72 hr edit block on me for Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. I have not been to ANI in I believe ~2 yrs. As a new editor I was there 2-3X but never subject to any sanctions. What both confuses and disturbs me here is that I was never afforded an opportunity to defend or answer for myself. This contrasts with my understanding and past experiences that before sanctions are imposed an editor is either warned directly by an admin or if at ANI given a reasonable opportunity to answer-here in less than 3 hrs I was sanctioned and the thread already gone. I am not trying to abuse the system by coming straight to your talk page, I read the appeal process/req that I post on my talk but I am lost as to how to ground an appeal seeing as I was never given any chance to respond to the accusations made in the first place, no discussion ever took place, leaving me having to essentially disprove a negative. I once again do not want to breach procedure by attempting to end run the system bringing my case to your talk page but I also don't know what else to do given the summary decision made.

As an editor I have always considered ANI a last resort in a dispute as it can create unnecessary tension and wastes the time of editors and admins alike. However due to the dishonest and harrassing activity of the editor who reported me today I was the closest I have ever been to filing a report. I understand if you took the report against me on its face it may be understandable to conclude I engaged in sanctionable editing however their report-and I apologize for this tone but once again I was never given any chance to respond-includes a mix of misrepresentations and outright lies. I have been actively editing that page for almost 2 weeks and made ~15 edits most of which were significant. The other editor linked to only 4 and relies entirely on their own false claim as to what my edits actually contained/takes changes out of context-or were simply never made. The links went past edits but without mentioning I made immediate follow up edits, often minutes that included substantive changes-though they pretended these never occurred. My edit summaries-as they neglected to mention, noted the fact the other editor would make an edit where they deleted context from sentences as well as citations and immediately thereafter made an additional much larger edit where they deleted significant content justifying it in their edit summary based on defects they had just created. In correcting this, rather than go tediously thru multiple lines and paragraphs I reverted their prior edits in total and proceeded to make follow up edits to ensure my revert did not alter any edits that were valid.

Other specific charges they made against me were not out of context but were outright lies. I do not say this without self awareness, but I need to be straight forward as them getting away with this is an extreme abuse of the system. Their report concludes with them questioning me on cherry picked quotes/edit summaries that they claim were wrong, confusing or unclear and make a malicious mockery of the truth saying they're "not a mind reader"-what they're is a liar, even discounting follow up changes at no point ever did I delete or do anything for that matter affecting mention that Michel Aflaq is the founder of Ba'athism, that is retained in all of my edits-perhaps they're thinking of the time I put an inline citation for this fact and they deleted it. I also gave straight-forward answers to the other inquiries in my other edit summaries that they deliberately misled to believe weren't there.

I have provided only a handful of specifics examples of specific misrepresentation and outright lies levied in their report in order to show they exist, many other can be referenced. I will not consume time here going into every substantive fallacy. I do not like being in this position and understand how their version of events alone gives a certain impression, an editor must not be permitted to get away with silencing another simply by being bold enough to lie at ANI smoothly enough the other party is never afforded a chance to respond and properly correct the record. OgamD218 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * To clarify, minutes after you blocked my from editing that page they immediately reverted 2X a vast amount of content and preceded to lie in their edit summary about what was changed. Further, minutes before posting their report they reverted for the 5th time my changes on another page claiming there was consensus to keep even though the archive shows none.
 * You were reported to ANEW, the edit-warring noticeboard, not AN/I. Since that was originally set up for 3RR violations, there has never been any custom of allowing an opportunity to respond (and, really, there isn't at AN/I, either: if an admin reviewing a report sees what they believe to be a clear-cut over-the-bright-line blockable policy violation, they can and will go ahead and make the block. I know ... I have). I will give you that this was not a 3RR violation, but the scope of ANEW extends to all edit warring, and a user can get blocked for edit warring without violating 3RR, as in my opinion you did, making the same reverts over a period of a couple of days without responding to TTAAC's entreaties in his edit summaries to discuss it on the talk page. Indeed, he invited you three times to do so. Much of what you have raised above really should have been part of the talk page discussion, and can still be since I elected only to block you from editing the article. It seems you have some bad faith to overcome, but that's why we have talk pages; if it doesn't work you can always go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, post an RFC or request a third opinion. If you believe you were blocked wrongly you can always file an unblock request (although time is running out on your block anyway). Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You might want to see this
WP:AN#Musk BLP concern - seems this editor has a problem. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Daniel!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)
(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) 19:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

TPA issue
Just saw your comments following this unblock decline. Besides the range-block, this person has TPA revoked from at least three different blocked accounts; (one), (two) & (three). Not sure if they'll go the utrs route, or just keep posting these unblock requests from random ip accts, (must be close to a dozen now...). Or worse, they might just keep socking/evading/stalking/disrupting. I've never come across something like this first hand, what do you guys (the admin corps) do with cases like this? - w o lf  07:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Or they could try this... - w o lf  08:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I could have added that talk page to the list of pages in the block, but I figured, if someone's that determined, they have all the other pages on the site to do it on. We might have to consider making the block sitewide for the remainder of the time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like this one has been settled for now. I'm going to look into expanding the rangeblock sitewide and revoking TPA Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Native
Daniel, I must register my protest at your edit summary while correcting my wording, write this sentence like a native English speaker would, because I am actually a native English speaker, albeit one whose English has room for improvement.  starship .paint  (exalt) 03:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that ... and TBH that use of "being" is probably more common among native speakers. I have not had the time to focus on the article this week like I would like to since my son is at home with us and taking up either a)a lot of my time and b) the computer (we also had limits on our ability to use WiFi from Christmas till yesterday because our ISP's servers are up in Western New York) so I have been a bit cranky and impatient.
 * Frankly it's not as bad as whoever's been formatting cites in that unstructured way we deprecated a long time ago. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, Daniel. Hope that the situation improves at your home as time passes by. Hopefully it wasn't me who did the cites. I may have added some bare URLs when I was on mobile, but I think I eventually got around to fixing them when I later accessed my laptop.  starship .paint  (exalt) 05:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I actually don't mind my son being over ... I just like having more computer time, especially with an article that requires this much breaking-news editing. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There’s definitely a lot to cover. I’m going to undo your edit here . You’re referring to her second Twitter thread, I (and NYT) was referring to her first. She does play whataboutism.  starship  .paint  (exalt) 02:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Template
Hey Daniel. I think you meant to use an AN3 template and not an AIV in this closure because the other one prints 'page deleted' rather than 'declined'. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Daniel Case!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Daniel Case, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 00:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible page protection
I've got a question to ask. Is it possible to put some sort of page protection on the Sydney Entertainment Centre? I understand you might be wondering what I mean by this. There's a user, 114.198.30.253, who I'm currently in an edit war with, who seems to believe that what their adding to the page is necessary when it's actually not. Yes, this user is being quite disruptive and doesn't appear to be stopping anytime soon. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked that user for a week for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Kalki
Just in case it changes your opinion on protection, all the accounts disruptively editing Kalki and a few related articles recently have been found to be the same person, and all of their (current) accounts and the IPs they have been using have been blocked. You can see Sockpuppet investigations/Desibeats933 for more. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, we can lift it after a while. But IME sockmasters that resourceful and determined cannot be counted on to give up so easily. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Sun Jan 15: Wikipedia Day returns to 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) 18:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

protection settings for Ivan Katchanovski
Hello, with regard to this, I noticed that you protected the version of the article with the challanged content and possibile BLP violation under discussion here at BLP/N. I wonder if the reason is that you do not share my concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The statement now included in the article In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin is not supported by the quoted source, which only contains the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone, in which Stone re-tweets a 2018 tweet by Katchanovski, in which Katchanovski does not support any theory but shares an Israeli video about Georgian snipers (a video that no editor has ever watched). How is this not WP:OR and SYNTH? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Admins normally protect the article as it stands at the time that they action the prot request, even if this is the wrong version. Consider: if the admin protected an older version, that could be construed as taking sides in the dispute, or even of abusing their admin powers to force one version in favour of another. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes sense, thanks. My fault: I should have done one more revert. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ... but isn't this at odds with all the emphasis that WP:BLPRS puts on "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion"? I mean, if the poorly sourced contentious material is removed immediately and then immediately restored by other editors who think differently, shouldn't it be possible to have some kind of temporary administrative action? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it's not something I can take (and be grateful you didn't do another revert; if you had you would be in the middle of a 24-hour 3RR block as the BLP exception under 3RRNO wouldn't apply as it only covers unsourced edits). In fact, seeing how many reverts both editors were at was the deciding factor in favor of full protection ... I didn't really look at the edits in question). Basically full-protecting the "wrong" version is, here, the lesser of two evils from your perspective.
 * All the same, I think there should be some option here if the protected version clearly has BLP issues despite being putatively sourced. Maybe a post at BLPN that another admin could act on? Of course I would say that would be authorized only if the information is clearly contentious and it relies on sources that consensus has found to be deprecated or the sort of sources we would not consider reliable for anything. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the quoted source is reliable, I believe, but it doesn't support the contentious statement, as anyone could easily verify. Moreover, I've already made a post at BLPN, which didn't gain any traction among uninvolved editors - it only attracted comments from the usual EE aficionados, the same ones who had already expressed their views on the article's talk page. So at this point I think I have done enough and more than enough: I've no particular interest in Katchanovki and I'm happy to disengage. It's a pity, though, because IMHO this was a pretty blatant and straightforward case of source misrepresentation and OR. Thank you both for the answers. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Asking for advice on a futile discussion
Привет! Я увидел у вас на странице шаблон, поэтому я хотел бы спросить, могу ли я обращаться к вам по русски для упрощения диалога? You closed the edit war request because the user opened the topic in a discussion, but as far as I can see it's just useless, because the user is just flooding to waste time and completely ignores my arguments Solaire the knight (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Proxy
Hi Daniel, I noticed you blocked the IP at ANEW as an open proxy. I almost did the same thing earlier, but although I could see the previous blocks by ST47's bot, I don't have a tool to check for proxies. Do you?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I presume that if it's blocked that many times over the last year, it hasn't changed. And it has been blocked for other reasons before. Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

AE block
The appropriate template is Template:Uw-aeblock since the appeal-mechanism is quite different. Something like  will be appropriate. Thanks! TrangaBellam (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Terseness v. verbosity
I do believe that and  are essentially the same utterance. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 02:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

URGENT help
Hi sorry to bother you again but something strange is happening. Somebody created a new profile and reverted edits on Larnaca international airport. The Banner user who was blocked along with me by you on Administrator notice board straight away reported me for sock-puppetry. It is very odd that straight away as reverts occurred he reported me. Is there anyway how to find out what location was that new account under name Spanrex820, somebody is trying to pretend to be me. I didn't do a single edit since your resolution was made earlier today. Is there anyway how you can help with this or give me advice on what I should do? Thank you for your help Wappy2008 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It seems like the SPI has been resolved ... I hope has, as he said he would, talked to you about not editing while logged out (And if you are using a VPN or proxy to get around the block, cease and desist. Now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether Ping is enabled or disabled for you
With no great urgency, please will you look, again at 's talk page and behaviour. I have pinged you there. I have hopes that a piece of firm advice from you, the more so since you declined a recent unblock request there, might offer this editor the final element they need to modify their behaviour from how it appears today into useful and collegial 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have gotten it ... just wasn't literally "at my desk" for a while later than usual today. Will respond when I've had the chance to take a better look. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think one can be quite relaxed about their behaviour. Whatever the behaviour is, it is reasonably slow burn.
 * Never apologise for being offline! We are allowed lives! 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Help
Hello Sir, MrsSnoozyTurtle decided to delete the pages I created and the pages I edit on purpose. But sir pages source is reliable enough and has depth of source which WP:GNG passes.You will understand if you revise the pages sir. MrsSnoozyTurtle's decision to delete this page created by me seems to me to be hostile. I can't accept his decision to delete these repeatedly. Sir plz make an arrangement for MrsSnoozyTurtle 🙏🙏🙏. Nilpriyo (talk) 6:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , why not share your thoughts and participate the AfD for the article here instead? Tails   Wx  00:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Block
Thanks for blocking that SPA! I brought them up on the Discord server a few days ago and recall that someone said "Now who's dirty sock is this?" or something similar, and given their behavior they may be a sock of some sort so do with that what you will. Regardless, thanks again for that block, as well as the response of "He doesn't have administrative rights; I do. And with that ... blocknotice", I found that kinda funny and also oddly satisfying in a way. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm always amused by new or supposedly new editors who presume anyone reverting them is a "mod".
 * What do you want to bet he requests unblock? Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling the reasoning is because on most social media websites, only moderators and admins are able to remove content added by users.
 * Also I bet nothing since I need all the money I have and I'm not one to gamble. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah ... I wonder if that means they're not a sock, since most socks would know that right away and not call you a "mod" (You should have told him, "I'm not a mod; I'm a rocker ) But on the other hand, maybe he was doing that purposely so we wouldn't think he was a sock. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ugh
Re. I didn't even want to grant them the satisfaction of being blocked for harassment when they were being so intentionally cruel, so I kept the reason as anodyne as possible. Thanks for doing the necessary.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Death of David Glenn Lewis
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Annoying vandal revisited
Hello Daniel. The same retard that you blocked many times before through different IP addresses, returned to his vandalising habbits at Andrew Andrews this time. With new IP addresses (at least six this time), he keeps wasting our time. He has been warned in the history page and in his talk page, from both an admin and me, but as you can see we have to do with a moron. I don't see a better solution than a lifetime block from every IP he can have access to Wikipedia. I mean, man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.231 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.112 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.66.221.170 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:A79:BA00:3199:F5B8:B265:9748 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:A66:3400:5D1A:5293:D80A:DFF0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:A72:F00:A887:8400:503A:F543 Panosgatto (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * OK; just acknowledging this. I have to have dinner soon; later tonight North American EST I will sit down and calculate what ranges we can block without causing collateral damage (We may want to start an LTA page on this guy).
 * I must caution you that we cannot block IPs indefinitely, unlike registered accounts. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, I had time, and managed to take care of your current vandal, for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have now blocked for the same length of time. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time! I'm sorry we have to deal with these kind of people, it's so annoying. Panosgatto (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Protection of Armenian genocide
I noticed you protected Armenian genocide with the reason Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP. However you didn't log it in the WP:AELOG. Did you instead mean it was under General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan? If so, could you clarify the protection reason or log to WP:AELOG? Thanks, Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 01:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was under GS/AA. The request dealt with this exact issue. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

George Santos college
I will graciously accept your other reverts, but the one about his college attendance is a misunderstanding of the semantics of my phrasing. "He is not known to have attended any college" is not the same as "he is known not to have attended any college". The first means "we have no evidence that he ever attended college", whereas the second means "we do have evidence that he never attended college". It is objectively true that we have zero evidence that this man ever set foot inside a college. He has only claimed to go to two, and both claims were confirmed false by those colleges. Until he gives us a credible college he attended, we will still have zero evidence. Succubus MacAstaroth (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * If an RS has stated there is no evidence he attended any college, maybe we could put that in. I still think it's enough to just say "the colleges he says he went to have no record of him" and leave it at that for the reader to draw whatever conclusions they want, in the same way we don't say "there is no independent record of where he was born" but just leave his birthplace unstated.
 * To be fair, I am a little surprised that the media haven't looked at other colleges in the area to see if he might have attended one for a while ... I've heard Adelphi and NCC suggested as likely places to start. I mean, the fact that he wasn't working at Citigroup in the early 2010s did not preclude him working at all; as it turned out when Newsday (was it them?) found out that he had worked at the Dish Network call center in College Point for some of that time. But, again, that was something that emerged only when a reliable source did some digging (or reported what people told it that could be verified or corroborated). Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

A question regarding IP socks
Hi Daniel Case, I've been curious about this for a while, but the situation wih Fq90's latest IP (whose 4th unblock you declined) makes it especially relevant. My understanding was that IP socks are blocked for a limited duration because of the possibility of collateral damage, rather than because indeffed sockmasters are welcome to continue using them for block evasion once the short IP blocks expire. But there does sometimes seem to be ambiguity in the way these short blocks are discussed. Can you clarify? If this IP comes back on wiki after their 1-week block has expired and continues the Fq90 pattern of fringe-pushing and concern trolling, am I justified in treating this as WP:BLOCKEVASION or will I need to wait until the situation becomes sanctionable in its own right before taking action, as if they were a new user? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I usually block an IP sock for 2 weeks on the first instance—that was pretty standard a decade ago when I was first patrolling. I usually don't have to go back and do it for longer ... the idea is that that's often long enough for a sockmaster to lose interest. But when I have to, especially right off the block, I go longer, to at least a month. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Indefinite IP block

 * Hi Daniel. Did you mean to block this IP address indefinitely? Best, --IWI (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup ... I think I had just blocked some registered accounts. I have fixed it now, and someone else already changed the talk page message. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Feb 15: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn
(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) 23:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Joey Diaz needs protection. Again.
Danile, can you please put a substantially longer protection on Joey Diaz? It continues to be the persistent target of vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You couldn't get "substantially longer" than indefinite, and that's what I've put it on based on the protection history. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Incident involving you
There is a discussion involving you here.

<b style="color:green">Dentren</b> &#124; <b style="color: Grey;">Ta</b><b style="color: Green">lk</b> 08:03, 11 February 2023 (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 Daniel Case - and his application of bans. Thank you. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please add this article for me
Hi, could you please add Cindy James to BOTH the List of solved missing person cases and List of unsolved deaths. I would do so myself, but I am swamped with editing and can only do so much at a time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Someone had already addressed the latter when I got there. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that as it make my editing much easier. Please add Christian Atsu to the List of people who disappeared. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up on User Block
Hi Daniel, I wanted to follow-up on a recent block you made on a user for edit warring.

The user has now posted an entry on his talk page, making numerous unfounded allegations and personal attacks on me. The user has also attempted to involve other editors, two of which have recently been reported to ANI, for similar issues which the user has shown, and have been t-banned/admonished for these issues by the community.

While I understand that some venting is acceptable for blocked users, I feel that this users past conduct and the attempt to bring in other similarly minded users to be of concern, and would appreciate it if you could take a closer look at this

Separately, I have also filed a SPI relating to this user for evasion of the block which you placed. You may add any further information/thoughts that you have to the SPI.

Carter00000 (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, if he keeps up like this I suppose we could cut off his talk page access for the rest of the block, and maybe lengthen it. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, following up on this case, user has resumed edit warring within hours of his previous block expiring at Portal:Current events/2023 February 14 over removal of news widely reported in RS's occuring in the US. I also note the uncivil language used in the edit summaries, which is another issue previously discussed with the user. Please take a look at this and let me know what you think.

Carter00000 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This time I have blocked him just from Portal:Current events for a month. There does not seem to be any complaint with his editing anywhere else. Not that I know of, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for following up on the case and preventing further disruption to the portal. Carter00000 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, following up on this case, it seems like user has continued make edits/removals of items  at Portal:Current events, evading his block. I note that both edits were made after your notification of the block, with the first being only a few hours after. Please take a look at this and let me know what you think.

Carter00000 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright, I thought it applied to all subpages. I guess I'll have to block him from Portal namespace. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your assistance and following up on the case. Carter00000 (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I've started a discussion at User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish relating to this user and the blocks of his account. Please add any relevant information or thought which you may have.

Carter00000 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Following up on this editors block, it seems he has returned to the same entry which he was previously blocked for, to continue the edit war/removal of the entry, less then a day after his blocked expired.

I further note that he has gone back in the history of the portal, and removed multiple entries which he could not remove during his block period, based on his tendentious criteria of removing widely reported US-related news, ,.

Carter00000 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * To provide a further update, editor has removed another US-related entry today . The subject of the entry was related to a sports match, notable enough that both the tournament and the specific match had individual WP pages.


 * Carter00000 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just acknowledging that I got this ... I have been away all day, more than I expected to be, and I don't think I'm mentally up to dealing with all this right now. Not without a good night's rest. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your acknowledgement. Please take your time, and when you are able to, let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To provide a further update, editor continues to remove notable US-related entries on Portal:Current Events. The subject of the entry was widely reported in global RS's. Both the related government program and monuments,  were notable enough to have their own WP pages. Carter00000 (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the February AN/I which led to Jim Michael 2's TBAN and TheScrubby's "Screw you guys, I'm going home!". I was right to set aside time for it ... it took an hour. I'm both glad I did (intellectually, for the understanding it brought of the issue, and wish I hadn't (emotionally, the fact that Jim Michael 2 is so polite and civil the whole time makes it even more maddening to put up with his obtuseness (which cannot be excluded from the possibility of being deliberate, as more than one person noted), evasiveness, bludgeoning and goalpost-moving while refraining from going and kicking holes in the wall). I have also reviewed your conversation with SFR that linked to that. So, I have blocked Alsor from portal namespace for three months this time. But that may not be enough. If this goes on after that, it's really time to consider a topic ban at the very least. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice case of bullying and harrassment in Wikipedia. What a pity that this type of conduct, because it is done by the administrators, is immune. Especially when the administrator doesn’t make an objective and neutral evaluation. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading through that AN/I linked above there can be no argument that edits to the years pages or the current events portal pages that remove deaths or events from them on the basis of insufficient "international notability" absent a community discussion establishing a consensus, and clear definition, for that standard, are disruptive as against consensus. It simply does not suffice to cite implicit past practice of a core group of users on those pages as a basis for such a consensus, because that's a gateway to arbitrary and capricious decisions by members of the core group, as the whole Barbara Walters death decision showed.
 * Look, I'm not opposed to the idea, I can see where it's coming from. The problem is how you have chosen to do it. Perhaps your time being blocked from portal namespace might be a blessing in disguise ... if I were you, I might spend it drafting and crafting a proposal for such a standard that might have a better chance of gaining community acceptance than the 2017 proposal did. Hmm? Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Fortunately I didn't spend so much time editing that Portal, because, as you can easily see, it took only a part of my time. Time that I will not use for something that the Wikipedia community agreed on unwritten rules years ago and that now, a novice editor, ignores and with his practices wants to disobey (such as the exclusion of local elections in Current Events). The problem is compounded when an administrator willfully ignores the bullying, harassment, and malpractices of an editor who blatantly does this and has been criticized by other editors. Willfully ignoring this makes you responsible for the deterioration the reputation of Wikipedia for which, obviously, I will ask for action or, at the very least, an observation by administrators whose objectivity, neutrality, and good work have not been questioned and are not questionable. Not to mention the possibility that these actions are racially motivated and discriminatory. I would not like to think so. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We did a lot of things years ago that we no longer do now.
 * But one of those things we did then and still do now is assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly you missed, then. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, thank you very much for your follow-up and prevention of further disruption to the portal. Moreover, I want to thank you for taking the time to carefully go through a lengthy ANI discussion to understand the recent developments and underlying problems relevant to the case. Carter00000 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, following up on this case, editor has continued to edit disruptively at 2023 (part of WikiProject Years).

Editor removed two entries in a single edit, both widely reported in RS's and relating to the US. When removing the entries, editor used an edit summary which was both vague and non-explanatory. One of the editors who originally created the entries re-added an entry, citing confusion with the edit summary. I later re-added the other entry as well, stating the deficiencies of the edit summary. Similar disruptive edit summaries have previously been used, , , , and highlighted to  editor in Portal: Current Events when removing entries.

Editor responded to the re-additions with an edit summary making personal attacks and casting aspirations on the integrity of my mental health. Upon being warned on his talk page, editor doubled-down by repeating further personal attacks and aspirations made previously, ,.

Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It's an obessive attitude when you devote a large part of your edits to trying to get me blocked (something other editors have already warned you about).
 * It is an obsessive attitude when from any edit I make you take out something (usually non-existent) that can help your perverse purposes.
 * It is a persecutory attitude to monitor every single word I write, even in my Talk Page.
 * It is a bully to ignore that many times the deletion of content is allowed without further justification or the need to reach a consensus.
 * It is bullying to ignore the friendly procedures for resolving disagreements (something other editors have already warned you about).
 * It is bullying to ignore that I offered to keep a good collaboration with you basically because it satisfies your ambitions of wanting to get me cancelled rather than contributing something good to Wikipedia.
 * It is very bully, moreover, to manipulate what I say, also knowing that those who come are not going to waste time to assess whether or not you are right, nor the intentions of my writings.
 * It is bullying to lie.
 * It is simply bullying the way you manage your disagreements with me when, and you know it, there are friendly ways to do it.
 * It's bullyish to go to Daniel Case whenever you can because you know he's not going to be as neutral as he should be because at the time he proved you right and you're going to get it, again, easily.
 * It's thuggish to do that without telling the person concerned so they can justify themselves.
 * I am responsible for my actions, not yours. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If this is what you believe, then you have other fora than my talk page to argue your case. You can request unblock. You can go to AN/I. I made it a partial block because I felt that you could still contribute to the project. I'd really be impressed if you focused on something in article namespace in these three months and improved it to GA or FA, because they don't give out barnstars or recognition for self-pity. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97 I recommend that you review the pages on no personal attacks and casting aspersions. I see that after I warned you on the edit at 2023 and on your talk page, you have further doubled-down with the attacks here with your above reply. I would like to draw your attention to the below passage relating to casting aspersions:
 * An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums.
 * Please stop making personal attacks and casting aspirations without evidence, as you have now done repeatedly, across multiple pages and discussions.
 * @Daniel Case Given that you have mentioned the subject, in the interest of fairness and providing context, I note that Alsoriano97 does have a history of fairly consistent and good contributions to article namespace. Articles he has contributed to can be found on his user page, and he has recently achieved a GA (during his last block). I myself excluded his article space contributions from the scope of the previous ANI by including a disclaimer in the subsequent discussion on remedies. Carter00000 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, following up on this case, Alsoriano97 has continued to edit disruptively at 2023 (part of WikiProject Years).
 * After the removals described in my previous entry, Alsoriano97 added maintenance tags to the entries, marking their notability as contested . Another editor (GevBen), opened a talk page entry. After some discussion, GevBen tried to remove one of the tags , but was reverted by Alsoriano97 , and was directed by Alsoriano97 to return to the talk page.
 * Earlier today, Alsoriano97 removed both entries claiming that there had been sufficient discussion as 24h has passed, with more people supporting the removal then opposed. As very little time had passed since the discussion was opened, and GevBen had not had a chance to address his issues from the previous day, I reverted Alsoriano97's action  as a courtesy to GevBen, and wrote a explanation in the discussion.
 * I notified Alsoriano97 on his talk page, which he responded to with personal attacks and aspirations . I added a PA warning , which was responded to with another PA.
 * I request Alsoriano97 be sanctioned for continuing personal attacks and casting aspirations, despite being warned many time on a number of pages. Such warnings have not had any effect, with Alsoriano97 continually repeating or making up new allegations each time. I further request you assess if a sanction is required for WikiProject Years given the previous issues, and conduct demonstrated on 2023 recently.
 * Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry this took me some time ...
 * Ideally, I would block him for a couple of days sitewide, I think. But ... if I do, I'd have to reimpose the partial block after that, since we cannot layer blocks at the moment (I proposed this at the Community Wishlist Survey this year, and it seems to have been fairly popular (the 14th most popular overall, and the most popular regarding admin tools, but whether it would actually be implemented I can't say.
 * I could add 2023 to the partial block, but it does seem like you two have been effectively working together the last couple of days with some of the bigger news events. We could not add all the years pages as the partial block currently admits of only 10 entries at a time.
 * I guess the best I can do for the moment is keep an eye on things. Let me know if this recurs. Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Daniel, thank you for your reply.
 * Noted on the background information, and technical limitations of the WP blocking mechanism.
 * I agree that the situation has cooled down in the past few days. I will let you know if there are any further issues relating to this case. Carter00000 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The situation cools down if we both want it to be done (not with words, but with deeds). Tension is relieved if we both want it to be done. Some time ago I proposed you this peaceful and consensual way to solve our disagreements, but you ignored it (maybe because you didn't read the message or maybe because you don't want it and prefer a tense, unfriendly and unconstructive atmosphere -although lately you seemed to be looking more for this second option-). I still insist that this is the way. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Violet McGraw
You protected the M3gan article and you should put Violet McGraw under protection for quite a bit too. It's better we do it before her parents have to ask us to. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It's now semi-protected for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Sutyarashi edit warring again
Just because you closed the report as no action this user Sutyarashi is of the opinion that he is allowed to resume his edit war. He has no made 3 more edits over same content and is edit warring. Technically he has done 5 reverts now (over changing the same content). Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Aman.kumar.goel it's really funny to see that you called adding  and  tags as edit warring; I didn't changed any content it's per talk page. If you've any issue, ask for it on article talk page. Read WP:EDITWARRING to clear your conception about what's it really.Sutyarashi (talk)

@User:Daniel Case '''are maintenance tags considered edit warring? Kindly see Aman.kumar's links to see what he calls reverts''' Sutyarashi (talk)
 * Yes it is edit warring and also WP:GAMING of the system. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to know that maintenance tags are considered WP:GAMING. If you have any problem with it, why you don't try to add reference or use talk page?Sutyarashi (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar Infact; I didn't even revert any revision on the page today. You have refused to engage to my objections on talk page; and I hope Daniel Case goes through page's talk page and history. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look very good for either of you when you take your dispute to an admin's talk page. (And yes, I have been through the page's talk page and history, since both were mentioned in the reports). Once again I strongly advise both of you to use established procedures to bring in other voices to resolve your dispute—if, in fact, one of you is merely upholding existing consensus, the fresh eyeballs should be able to see that. Failing that, I am hereby advising both of you that, after reviewing the relevant pages, I am considering Cradle of civilization to come under WP:ARBIPA and the provisions of WP:CTOPS, since the former's scope includes "all pages related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan broadly construed" (emphasis mine), and WP:INDIA is listed on the talk page as one of the relevant projects (given that your contention is related to the Indus Valley section of the article, it should probably also be on WP:PAKISTAN's worklist, but that's not really important right now). So, should there be further unrest at that article (or the others that were setting you off, and at least one of the others that was brought up in your ANEW reports, Indo-Aryan peoples, is inarguably under the ARBIPA scope) involving the two of you, and I am the responding admin, I will impose some sanctions appropriate to the situation. This was your warning; please acknowledge it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to let you know that any content that is directly related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan falls under WP:ARBIPA. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that ... or are you trying to argue that Cradle of civilization should not come under that case? Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 in Philippine television longer protected article.
Please renew the protectef article again on 2023 in Philippine television. We will continue for more information in that article.

Thanks,

Jon2guevarra Jon2guevarra (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Please Help Me
I'm Admin of Infopedia I tag a page for Protection using Twinkle Tool section RfPP When I tagged but error showing Requesting protection of page: Could not find relevant heading on INFP:RPP. To fix this problem, please see How to fix RPP'''. How to fix this error can you help please? Thanks →<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;"> αѵίɾαʍ7  ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 07:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

User:188.39.126.2 needs a block
Hello, Daniel. since it is clear from recent edits, and a talk page full of warnings going back at least as far as back as September 2020 that User:188.39.126.2 is being abused for persistent vandalism, I think it needs a substantial block to prevent further disruptions to Wikipedia. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Wikipedia will be getting along without them for the next year. Just fine, I think, and as for how they will get along without Wikipedia that is none of my concern. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

User:66.226.46.5 needs a block
Daniel, thanks again for responding to the matter above, and so quickly. User talk:66.226.46.5 also has a page filled with warnings by myself and others regarding sourcing going back at least as far back as July 2019, and in light of his most recent violations, which includes adding uncited material on a controversial matter, and the removal of a value from the article's Infobox without a stated rationale, I think this account needs a block too. Nightscream (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Three months. Seems he was blocked as a sock at the beginning of the year, too, so I've added information about that and noted it in the block log Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Major vandalism at Panathinaikos B.C.!
Hello again, Daniel. A major vandal (and fanatic hooligan as it definitely appears from his edits) that you have blocked in the past has returned even worse. The user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%CE%9F%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%AF, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%CE%9F%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%AF) has just one goal: to vandalise. You can tell just by going through his contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/%CE%9F%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81%CE%AF), that his edits are obviously not in good faith. He has been warned many times in the past, he didn't listen and you blocked him. Now, after a period longer than two months, he has returned with much MUCH worse disruptive editing (just take a look at the article's history page). Dude needs to be stopped immediately! Thank you. Panosgatto (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have blocked him for 48 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Daniel. Panosgatto (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (Sexton Blake)  // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
Persistent edit warring at Skene's gland. Hoping you can review as you intervened recently. Editor refuses to engage in consensus. MartinezMD (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ has been blocked from the article for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Joe Quesada needs page protection
Hi, Daniel. Thanks again for that recent block you put on that IP. Can you put a page protection of significant length on Joe Quesada? It's been the persistent target of vandalism for years, including about a dozen recent examples from this month alone (Some of which are here:, , , , , ). Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Semi-protected for a year this time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

George Santos / Uadla Vieira
You're throwing around things like WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:NPF, but it amounts to WP:MISUSE. The last discussion on this issue focused on a single source (DB) and predated sources such as: Vieira's name is now properly sourced, meeting the requirement of WP:BLPNAME:
 * https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/01/george-santos-planned-an-engagement-dinner-to-a-man-while-married-to-a-woman-report
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/does-he-even-really-need-glasses-lying-george-santos-clings-on-6sx6xqgrc
 * https://abcnews.go.com/US/promised-green-cards-catfishing-threats-santos-boyfriends-left/story
 * "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

Articles for every other member of Congress list spouses and former spouses, no matter who they are, so this article should be no different.

Happy to take this to BPLN as you suggest, but let's not waste the time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central
(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) 03:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Page protection FYI
Hi. I noticed your comment on yesterday's protection of Talk:Libs of TikTok and noticed today's protection so I just wanted to make sure you knew that under the new Contentious Topics environment, individual restrictions lose their "special status" after a year though page protections can be "renewed". Obviously nothing wrong with continuing to indef pages and logging them but wanted to make sure you knew this new wrinkle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not sure everybody understands this completely yet. I have only been logging actions under CTOPS because people at ANEW and RFPP have been mentioning that it applies (and it's primarily, at the moment, ARBIPA and RUSSUKR content that's been forcing those issues) when making reports. Prior to that, I have made many administrative actions and usually they had nothing to do with any ArbCom DSes.
 * This protection lasts a year, which I felt matched the time frame that the "not far-right" drive-bys had been taking place. I think that would be the best amount of time for it to last and then be reviewed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for dealing with user:Lttjj. -- Grapefanatic (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
My concern is that BeanieFan11 continues to make partial reverts of my proposal - eight in the past 24 hours, on top of the three full reverts, including some after the report was filed - and have shown no indication that they consider such reverts to be reverts, or that they shouldn't edit other peoples comments without their permission.

I'm not sure how I am supposed to respond to this; are you able to at least warn them that partial reverts are reverts, and that they shouldn't edit other editors comments without that editors permission? BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BeanieFan11 continues to make these reverts;, , , , among others. Do I need to take this AN3 again? BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The first two are not reverts. Which means I'm at two (and you at three). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Did either of the first two undo part of my comment? BilledMammal (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think its an extreme stretch to consider removing one entry from a 1,000-entry list as "undoing part of [your] comment." BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then when does it become a revert? Removing 10? Removing 100? A revert is any edit that undoes the work of another editor, regardless of how small the revert is in absolute or relative terms. You also don't have my permission to edit my comments in this way, which is required per WP:TPO. BilledMammal (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe you were mistaken
I believe you did not thoroughly look at what transpired at Muammar Gaddafi and erred in blocking me.

I began working diligently on the Gaddafi article on February 2nd and took great pains not to remove any pre-existing content out of respect (in retrospect, perhaps I should have because it would've spared me of my current predicament). Contrary to your claim that I violated WP:OWN for a month, no one took issue with my writing until Midnightblueowl on February 21st and his only issue was with the length of the article, not the quality of my writing and sources. Midnightblueowl made 19 edits that day, where he unilaterally removed a massive amount of content without discussion. He did not engage on the article talkpage until I reverted him and asked him to explain himself in the edit summary and User:Horse Eye's Back seemed to disagree with the "article is too long" assessment.

A compromise was reached after User:Horse Eye's Back created Reception and legacy of Muammar Gaddafi and Personal life of Muammar Gaddafi in order to shorten the main Gaddafi article. I had no objection to that and did not restore content back to the main Gaddafi article. During the ensuing talkpage discussion, I raised the issue that too much of the article relies on one single extremely dated source at the expense of others and proposed including a more diverse range of high-quality sources. I also pointed out that the article devoted too much space on subjective opinions, extraneous information, and attempts at psychoanalysis, which would've been perfectly fine if Midnightblueowl did not have an issue with the length of the article.

Things did not come to a head until User:Aman.kumar.goel's aggressive disruption without discussion ruined a good compromise/middle ground. He mass-removed content without discussion. And his 3rd and 4th revert (removing a paragraph I literally wrote today after his first revert) were clearly done out of spite. Immediately after joining the talkpage discussion, he made numerous false accusations against me (boomerang, whataboutery, disruption, etc), baselessly attacked the quality of my writing, misrepresented Midnightblueowl's position (who only took issue with the length of the article), and misrepresented my own point about the 1987 book. The reality is I have taken great pains not to remove any pre-existing content out of respect for other editors' work; his only interest is in mass removal of content. I have significantly contributed to many Libya-related articles through thorough painstaking research; his only interest is in destroying them (he has yet to contribute even a single sentence to any Libya-related article). Both he and Midnightblueowl initially mass-removed content without any talkpage discussion whatsoever until I asked them to explain themselves. Yet I'm the one being punished....Is this really the way Wikipedia wants to treat well-intentioned mainspace article writers who has spent hours and hours creating original content?@ IceFrappe (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your edit summaries are sometimes rather confrontational. And, really, saying things in discussions like: "You don't get to tell me what to bring up in a content dispute"?
 * From the talk page discussion, it does not seem like the editors other than AKG are as conciliatory yet as you have suggested, even before he got involved.
 * AKG may have been confrontational, too, but he has a point that rather than discuss the source you prefer you then challenge the integrity of another source the article relies on quite a bit, regardless of you probably also having a valid point that maybe the article relies on it more than it should. It doesn't look good when you keep changing the subject in response to a valid point. If both of you are at an impasse, as it does seem, then avail yourselves of other dispute resolution fora ... RS/N might be a good place in this context.
 * I note that after only a day of dealing with AKG, you went straight to ANEW in the apparent hope of getting him blocked even though it seemed that he had not yet violated 3RR (OK, that's not necessary to justify a block, but when it's just one day's worth of edits to the article it absolutely won't without something else associated with the edits). That's not really going to impress any admin reviewing that report. (Had you and he been going at it for some time, I might have considered a brief full-protect of the page instead).
 * Your characterization of AKG's edits shows a marked failure to assume good faith, making it harder to take your complaints seriously. We cannot repeat often enough how important AGF is to the project's success; as I recall one admin saying years ago, before I was even one, AGF is the grease that makes the gears of Wikipedia turn. When you abandon it, situations like what has ensued almost invariably result.
 * I see that you opened up an AN/I as well since I partial-blocked you. The administrators there, most of whom have plenty of experience getting involved in user disputes that involve sanctions, are likewise taking a dim view of your complaints and repeating the WP:BOOMERANG warning that my resolution of your ANEW report already effectively demonstrates; I particularly agree with that saying "I'm not here to forum shop" does not immunize you from the charge. In fact it rather more greatly suggests that that's what you're doing, even if you're not letting yourself realize it.
 * Last, as noted at the AN/I, you have demonstrated a sloppiness in following procedures for making these complaints. Your ANEW report did not link yours or AKG's page in the hed as they are supposed to. And as TheDragonFire300 noted, he did you the favor of providing the required notice of the AN/I discussion to AKG after you had failed to. By themselves these would merit no more than minor comment, but in context of everything else above that surrounds this, it supports the inference that these complaints were filed hastily, with the goal perhaps of somehow resolving the content dispute in your favor.
 * Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

User:23.112.129.172 needs a block
Hi, Daniel. User:23.112.129.172 needs a block put on that account. The most recent violation. I noted the most recent violation at the bottom of that IP's talk page, which is filled with warnings for violating policies on sourcing. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You got mail
1AmNobody24 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The pro-Original Research editors, again
Hi, Daniel. I'm sorry to have to bother about this, but I assume you recall that drawn-out series of discussions from last summer in which editors who insisted on ignoring WP:V, WP:NOR, et al. attempted to falsely accuse me of WP:POINTY and all other manner of things because I opposed their concerted policy violations and moved tagged uncited info to the article talk pages.

Now two of those editors who were among those in that discussion, User:Chetvorno and User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr are at it again, this time on two-way radio. Two other editors, who were not in that dispute last year, Jmccormac and Constant314, also piped in to add their own twisted logic to justify violating policy as well. Their edits include adding material not in the cited source, removing a citation from a section of material leaving it without a cite, etc. They've employed a number of fallacy-based arguments, each of which I've responded to in a way that I believe falsifies them, but they refuse to respond directly to my questions, and have now continued to edit the article, without the talk page discussion being resolved. I tried to alert admin NinjaRobotPirate, the admin who closed that discussion last year in my favor, but he refused to intervene, saying that the article topic "bores" them, and that it isn't my problem. He says I should take it to ANI, but I'd like to avoid that unless absolutely necessary.

Would you agree that if there is an unambiguous policy violation here, that you can revert and caution those editors to cease this activity? Please do not pass this off, because these guys are not going to stop. Unless you feel that these editors have a legitimate interpretation of policy, or have at least responded to my correct citation of policy in a way that represents the agree-to-disagree threshold, it should not have to be taken to ANI. Remember, they resumed editing the article during an unresolved discussion.

The talk page discussion is here, and is nowhere near as long as that discussion from last year. The messages in which I asked NinjaRobotPirate for help is here. There is also this brief discusion on my talk page in which Fountains claimed -- get this --- that identifying disruptive editing as such as itself disruptive, and falsely cited WP:DAPE for this, when DAPE says no such thing. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Daniel. I'm not sure if you missed this message (I may have left more than once message on May 6, so maybe that caused this one to go unnoticed), but if you could respond to this, it would be greatly appreciated. User:Chetvorno and User: Fountains of Bryn Mawr, two the primary violators here, are the same ones I notified you about above last August, and were among those pushing for original research at that discussion that ultimately ruled against them. They're continuing their violations again, unambiguously violating the same policies again, thinking that they're two-against-one tactic will enables them to do an end-run around policy, as I described above. When you have the time, please read the message above and let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see this, and I was going to look into it, but then I got caught up in a couple of other discussions. Both of those have been resolved (favorably IMO) now, so I can take another look. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Boykinia richardsonii
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on the wording of 3RR
Hi. Can you offer your thoughts regarding the question I asked here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Proposed decision mentioning you
Hi Daniel Case, in the open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. You are not directly affected by any proposed sanction; this is just for your information. Your name appears on the page only once, in a description of Dallavid's sanction history which includes your edit warring block. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring might need an admin take a look at
There is edit warring on the Dhërmi article between two editors. One, Alexikoua, was warned some time ago by an admin for breaching the 3RR on several articles, and the other, RoyalHeritageAlb, was blocked some time ago by another admin for edit warring. They are edit warring on other articles such as Lunxhëri too. Can you take a look to see if sanctions or page protections are needed? I was going to warn them but the recent warnings/blocks they got suggest that merely warnings might not be enough. Anyways, an admin is better to take a look and decide. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, both have breached the 3RR on Dhërmi. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have blocked them both for 2 weeks, logged the action under ARBEE and put notices that those pages are covered by it on their talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention to stop the edit warring. The two editors have had many warnings, hopefully the block will make them reflect and be more constructive in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Deaths of Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier
BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring after expiry of block
Hey Daniel Case. You recently blocked twice for edit warring. The latest block has now expired and they are back at it. Raising with you directly as you're familiar with this user, but let me know if you want me to raise on WP:AN3. Thanks. — Manti  core  09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * has blocked them indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

JMyrleFuller continues to violate sourcing policies
Daniel, thank you for agreeing to take a look at the disruptive editing at the two-way radio article.

We also have another recurring policy violator at Typecasting. You may recall User talk:JMyrleFullerJMyrleFuller, whom you cautioned last August about adding material to List of breakout characters, whose accompanying citations to do not support that material. He's at again with these edits to typecasting. Please advise. (Sorry to have to pelt you with multiple intervention requests.) Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked him for 24 hours. If you look at his talk page had given him a templated last warning about this for similarly problematic content added to List of common misconceptions a week ago. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Killing of Nathan Heidelberg
-- RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit war in Tu Jhoothi Main Makkar
Hi Daniel, User:Greatly influenced is reverting reliable budget in the article Tu Jhoothi Main Makkar. I warned him several times. Can you please block or warn him. Thanks. SuperSharanya (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: edit warring
Thanks for your comments on the edit war notice. One minor remark, when you write:

"However, it's clear from the talk page that Ffafff has long alienated just about every other editor working on it regularly. There is no good faith left, and that is very concerning. Mujinga, I salute you for bringing in 3O, but I think you need dispute resolution that will bring in more people than that process does. Maybe DRN or an appropriate noticeboard."

It was me that requested a 3O, as a way to engage more editors, too.

In any case, I will do my best to engage in a positive manner. Cheers Ffaffff (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on The Worldwide Privacy Tour
Hello, Daniel. I'm sorry to bother you, but Miesianiacal is editing against two other editors on the The Worldwide Privacy Tour article. Myself and one other editor, favor that a wikilink in the episode's plot point to British royal family, since that is the entity being parodied in the episode (even though the in-dialogue reference is "Canadian royal family", which is used as a cover for the parody, as is typical on South Park). Miesianiacal, however, prefers the that wikilink point to the "Canadian royal family" article, since that's the literal dialogue in the episode.

has claimed falsely that his preference has the "most support" on the talk page, and that "three" editors support his preference.

In fact, the other editors he cites explicitly said that they were okay with either version, or that they were not against linking to "British royal family" which they did right above his most recent tp messages, here and here.

Miesianiacal's holding up those two editors as supposedly supporting his preference, is a deliberate lie on his part, and not the first time he has employed unambiguous deception on that article's talk page (as I detailed here).

Another editor, SanAnMan, agrees with me that it should be British, as he said here.

I outlined this in my most recent message in the talk page discussion.

You intervention would be appreciated. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * They've backed away from editing that article for now. I did leave him a warning about personal attacks in edit summaries (of course, looking at some of the other sections of that talk page, I suspect this will not be the first instance of something like that). Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Daniel, this is not a solution. Just because one editor removed the wikilink entirely does not mean that the problem of an editor editing against two other editors, and falsely claiming that there are three who support his preference is resolved.


 * Wikilinking is a common, accepted practice to cross-connect related topics on Wikipedia that makes it easier for readers to access those tangentially-related topics. We should not have to refrain from this practice just because one trouble making who has a penchant for lying and manipulation forces us to walk on eggshells for them. I want the wikilink back. May I request that you read the discussion and verify that two editors (myself and SanAnMan) favor "British royal family", that one (Miesianiacal) favors "Canadian", and that the other two editors who participated in the discussion explicitly said that they were okay either way, and that Miesianiacal deliberately misrepresented this to claim that they agreed with him?


 * Also, have you had a chance to take a look at the two-way radio article matter from above? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Why am I having to do this today?
Toolforge had some scheduled downtime that seems to have stopped the helperbot. ITs back up but the bot doesn't seem to have resumed. I've made note of this at the bot noticeboard and hopefully someone can do something about it. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Alright ... it just reminds me of the old days ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see that, though I also see why we have a bot do the clerking at AIV instead of a human. ― <b style="background:#0d1125;color:#51aeff;padding:1q;border-radius:5q;">Blaze Wolf</b>Talk<sub title="Discord Username" style="margin-left:-22q;">Blaze Wolf#6545 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)
(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) 14:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Undoing an unblock request
Is it enough to revert my own edits on my talk page? SLBedit (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLANKING, you may remove almost all edits on your talk page (see that for the few exceptions). You will be presumed by virtue of doing so to have read whatever you have deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I requested an unblock and then reverted it. By the way, having read your reasoning for blocking me, and while agreeing to some of it, I must say I once implied a user was a child because he had been harassing me for years, calling me names, including "child". That's why I wrote that. That user has been permanently blocked for the harassment. SLBedit (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing your mind about requesting unblock is entirely your prerogative. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Rade Basta
Hi Daniel. I was unsure whether to file a case to COI/N or SPI, so I think that it would be better to ask you about it. added a copyrighted photo to this article, added unsourced content, wrote some-kind of an improper biography about the individual (in the lede), and removed content that they do not like (see here). They've kept edit-warring, so I've warned them and explained that they should not add the photo back as it is copyrighted (the photo was taken actually by the ministry's photographer, yet they claim on Commons that it's their own work). They seem to have ignored this, though another editor noticed this so they've restored the article to LGV.

Then appeared and did basically the same thing. They've removed content that they do not like, restored the copyrighted photo, and added unsourced content to the lede. What do you think about this? It's more than obvious that this is the same user editing while being logged out and that they could be well-connected to Rade Basta, the individual in question. Thanks. Vacant0 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * More unsourced content has been added now, with another photo that could confirm that they're well-connected with the individual. Vacant0 (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is now getting even more ridiculous:
 * , created today
 * , created today (only contribs on Commons, uploaded same photos as Sophisticat.femme)
 * Same contributions as accounts listed above. I think that the article will have to be semi-protected too. Additionally, responded on Sophisticat.femme's talk page though I'm unsure whether this IP is connected to any of these accounts, it could be. Vacant0 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK ... this really should go to SPI. If you want my help filing a case ... well, it's Easter weekend here and I will be mostly away from my desk (so to speak) through what is probably Tuesday later afternoon/evening your time. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I've opened the case at Sockpuppet investigations/Sophisticat.femme. Feel free to comment if you'd like to when you're free. Happy Easter! Vacant0 (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Genre warring
Hi! Not sure if you could help here: User_talk:Erikwiki2? Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Max Bielfeldt
Thanks for the cleanup. Oddly, you removed content from the main body of the article and left it in the WP:LEAD, while the LEAD is suppose to be a summary of content that can be found in greater detail in the main body. (Bielfeldt Building). I restored the content to the main body that is summarized in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Undeletion of Sargam
Hello Daniel, you had deleted Sargam in Sep 2007 under G6 for a disambiguation page move. Can you undelete the deleted (47) revisions, move them out to a title like Sargam notes or something similar, and have it redirect to Svara? Sargam before deletion was merged into Svara, and we would need it for attribution. Jay 💬 15:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * OK ... thanks for the request. This seems like it will take some time to figure out how to fulfill properly. If I undelete the revisions, they'll be added to the existing page history, and I'm not quite sure how we move those revisions to the history of the new page.
 * It might be possible to do this as a round-robin move like I did to get Disappearance of Robert Hoagland to Robert Hoagland (since his post-2014 whereabouts have been known since his death five months ago). Let me see. I have a busy week ahead, unfortunately; it may be some time before I can get to this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this will be a page swap. How about: 1. Move Sargam without redirect to Draft:Sargam. 2. Undelete Sargam. 3. Move Sargam without redirect to Sargam notes. 4. Move Draft:Sargam without redirect to Sargam. Jay  💬 07:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, that might work. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's going to take time, may I do it myself? Jay  💬 03:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you want to ... sorry for my delay; my offline life is taking up more of my time than I have expected lately. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jay ... I finally had the time free where I was mentally sharp enough to do this. It's done ... hope it's how you wanted it done. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Greetings from Calabria
Good morning from distant Calabria, to be exact from Campora San Giovanni. I am writing to say hello and know how you are, I am quite well, besides this to ask if you would have the pleasure from time to time, and I would be honored if you reviewed the articles I create and will create with my bad English. Of course, if I can do something for you in Italian and Italian dialect languages, I will be happy to do so. However, from what I could see, you love photography very much, and here with me using an Italian expression: "sfondi una porta aperta!" or whether you have found a person who also loves photos, languages and so on. Sure to hear from you, have a nice day and hope to hear from you soon. I cordially greet you. Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry if I trod on your toes at BWGroupCommunications/Ampleeter173148's unblock. I picked up the rename request on the meta queue, renamed, and since it was a soft block there was no reason to leave the block in place. Cabayi (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Case decision
Hi, I saw your decision on a case with spurious accusation against me, and am I allowed to say I'm not totally satisfied? It's obviously not my place, but even looking at the other reports from the last few days there, I feel "no violation" and, realistically, warning the other user about civility, would be a better outcome. I find ANI is generally unhelpful in editing relationships and so I'm unlikely to open a case, but do feel that "user thinks they are above discussing with me, insults my attempts, and has asked for admins to deal with me instead" is grounds for something. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There were about four of those ANEW reports that no one seemed to have touched over the weekend, it seemed, so I sort of had to catch the page up. Generally if people, or the issue, seems to work itself out somehow, even by everyone dropping it, we defer to that as long as there does not appear to have been a 3RR violation or other edit warring significantly egregious to warrant some sort of action.
 * Obviously, in this instance, the bad taste in the mouths is still there even if those mouths have been shut for a while. All I can do right at this moment is hope that people will come to their senses.
 * Yes, I have seen a fair amount of reports at ANEW that didn't come anywhere near 3RR or actionable edit warring, where the user reported was also being something of a jerk, and/or where the reporter did that "I'M TELLING!" thing in an edit summary or on the talk page first. However, we generally try to limit the report to whether edit warring happened or not (per the page title), although we certainly can block for other issues (and have), they have to be really blatant. To trigger the kind of BOOMERANG block you talked about, the behavior would probably have to be ongoing and involve more than one report (And even so, most admins don't seem to like the idea of casually blocking people for use of process, since we would not want to discourage people from filing legitimate reports). It would also be better hashed out at AN/I than ANEW, I think (and if you do get to that point and want help putting a report together, let me know). Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the timely (and detailed) reply, your explanation on the use of process and the admin decision-making makes sense. Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I think I will ask for your help on assembling an ANI case; the user first ignored (actually, actively blocked) my attempt to start discussion again, then responded (in an aloof manner of course), and when I replied, deleted it all with reason "waste of time, more blah blah blah". They have since (in a series of edits) fully reverted my attempts at compromise in article space back to their preferred version. It is clearly pointless attempting to discuss, and I believe further attempts will see this arrogant user try to go above once more. Should I present diffs of edit/reasons, attempts at discussion, and the ridiculous ANEW in chronological order (with comments on the incivility), or how to go about this? I would also like to be gentle - I think the user's problem with civility/accepting they have to listen to others may be from a learning issue or similar that is also the reason they can't see beyond hard rules to the real-world application of their edits. Or, you know, I hope so, otherwise they're at least a WP:JERK. Kingsif (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to say you aren't up to helping me gather diffs for evidence, but I have tried to warn the user to stop wikistalking me, and they said that I can't tell them what to do, and called me a troll when deleting the thread (removal they can do at their talkpage, I only mention this as it's clear they still can't find it in them to discuss without lashing out and then forcing close). Their incivility is out of hand, when I am making genuine attempts to communicate both on the editing matter (which they have bludgeoned to happen at the forum of their choice after asking for other users to gang up on me there) and on the JERK behaviour, and I feel it needs to be addressed so still feel a report may be needed; every time I log in there's notifications or their edits in my watchlist, of them stalking and force-changing my perfectly acceptable edits and whining about me at talkpages. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that ... I have had a busier week than I expected to. I'll take a look soon. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, it's a big ask. I see you've hard-locked some articles; I suppose that means you trust that discussion will happen and can be productive and I'll continue attempting that for now. Kingsif (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Longer reply/explanation below that got edit-conflicted:
 * OK: ... someone posted about this below in a way that allowed me to take a better look at the evidence and I have taken action. I have decided to full-protect the three articles—Belén Barenys, Yulimar Rojas and María León (actress)—for a week. A drastic step, yes, since that puts the articles off-limits to all but admins for that time, rather against the idea of having an open-content encyclopedia, but since only the two of you have been editing them lately, and that editing is basically edit-warring, I don't think the project will be significantly impacted. The only other option would have been partially blocking both of you, and I am not at that point. Not yet. I did this because while, yes, you have been discussing that on each other's talk pages, you have left the articles' talk pages (more neutral territory, I think) untouched. I realize that your discussions have been acrimonious. I thus implore both of you to avail yourself of tools that will bring others into the discussion—the dispute resolution noticeboard, 3O or (what I think best) other linguistically-minded editors who would be knowledgable in IPA use in Spanish and Catalan (I'm not sure where to find them, but they can be found, and you may have better ideas than I)—to establish a stronger consensus behind whatever solution is reached. Before I hit save, one last reminder to both of you: If you believe that I protected the wrong version of any of the articles (i.e., the one last edited by the other editor), please click the given link before you bring this up to me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Disruption continues with other IPs
After you blocked a new account and an IP for disruption on the Jazzar Pasha article, other IPs started to do the same disruptive edits. Although they have been reverted by several editors, they keep removing sourced content and adding instead sources that do not back their claim. They have been given links to the relevant policies but that does not make the person reflect. Can you take a look at the article as it seems to need semi-protection? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * seems to have taken care of this with a month semi. Given that I also put a CTOPS notice (it comes under Eastern Europe) on the article talk page in the wake of the block, I will log it at AE if it hasn't already been. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, thanks to both. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic
(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) 16:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Evil Dead Rise page protection
Is there any way you can strengthen the level of protection on the Evil Dead Rise page? A user is going around adding unverified information in regards to character names on the page for the film and the pages of actors involved. Something like this happened before with the Evil Dead (2013) page and I really don't want to see a repeat of that. At no point in the film itself or in the reference links provided are the full character names revealed. Minecrafttroller28.1 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Before I do anything, have you tried opening a talk page discussion, or discussing it on their talk page first? That might be the best thing you could do. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Davidian blocks
Hi, I notice you blocked this IP for evasion What is the original Davidian block and when does it expire? Should I report if I see them again on the Armenian genocide talk page? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I have not been able to find anything on this, unusually.
 * Meanwhile I have decided to actually apply some semi-protection to that page as it seems other IPs will be used. Only question is how long. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just came by to comment on this but I see I'm not the first. I saw the RFPP request today which I assumed was related to the IP 95.12.115.214, who was adding massive blocks of text to the talk page and apparently also doing the same on about a dozen other wikis. They were already blocked and globally locked before I got there, but a new IP 46.155.136.53 also restored the first IP's edit, so I also blocked them. Those two are both located in Turkey while 73.173.64.115 is in the United States; I'm fairly certain they are not the same user, and the 73.x.x.x IP has been participating halfway constructively on the talk page for some time. I thought maybe you had something else to support block evasion and I also don't know what the Davidian block refers to, but is it possible you made a mistake here? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no way these are the same editor unless there's some weird 4d chess trolling going on. Davidian identifies as Armenian while the 95.12.115.214 seems like a typical Turkish genocide denier. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFPP report seemed to suggest the two IPs were related. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I unblocked the 73.x.x.x IP ... I had gotten it confused with 46.155 when reviewing the RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 25 April 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 ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Place name changes in Turkey
Place name changes in Turkey 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. Aintabli (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

AN3
I wonder if you'd be interested in revisiting this AN3. Flame out it did not. Nardog (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed ... scroll up; I got notified about this by one of the participants. I am mulling some actions to take. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I want to be clear I'm not particularly more impressed or more appalled by one party than by the other. Neither have shown self-possession to take it out of the mainspace or to not discuss content and conduct in the same place at the same time. Nardog (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * While I would like to be gracious due to you saying you "have no dog in the fight", I would contest that I have desperately been trying to deal with content and conduct separately. And I have also tried to find a stable version of articles and started discussions, to be met with blunt refusal. So I do not like the way you have framed me here. If you have anything to say on the content, please take it to an appropriate forum. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Reassessment For FM (No Static at All)
Back in May 2019, I conducted the GA review for Steely Dan's "FM (No Static at All)". During the process, you were very receptive to my requests and responded to them in a way I was relatively satisfied with. As such, I opted to pass the article.

Upon re-reading the Good Article Nomination Instructions nearly four years later, I came across a key detail that I initially missed: The nomination may be reviewed by any registered user who has not contributed significantly to the article. Looking back at the edit history, I made several changes to the article during the nomination process. It is very possible that this may have influenced my decision to approve "FM (No Static at All) as a good article, so an impartial set of eyes might be necessary to ensure that the article actually meets the established criteria. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Radomir Lazović
-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Revdel
This. Cheers. – 2 . O . Boxing  14:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone else took care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on controversial Balkan articles
is edit warring on controversial Kosovo-Serbia articles, trying to change a years-long consensus on several articles Although they have been reverted by several editors and have been opposed by several editors on the talk page, they insist on their own. What can be done since they have made 4 reverts in sth more than 24 hours, probably to avoid breaching the WP:3RR in its stricter definition? They were warned about edit warring and notified about ARBMAC  yesterday. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them for a week, logged that and added CTOPS notices to the talk pages of all the articles involved. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . I hope they reflect on their issue and avoid edit warring in the future. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Judging from how quickly they requested unblock, and then against policy removed the declined request, don't get your hopes up. Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have already had to revoke their talk page access due to multiple edits to the declined request. Fastest I've ever had to do that, I think, when revoking talk page access wasn't an original condition of the block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I have the impression that that account is a sock of a blocked user. Some of their edits suggest they know some Wiki rules and noticeboards much better than the ususal newbie. The thing is I have seen many edit warriors in the topic area, so making a connection to a particular blocked user is hard. Maybe time will tell. Thanks again. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Immediately after the block expired, reverted again on those articles. They ignored the other editors on the talk page and just said they would revert. I do not want to be time-wasting but can you take a look again at the editor? It seems they are not taking the edit warring policy seriously. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, already blocked for 2 weeks by User:Ponyo. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Another admin reblocked them for 2 weeks with the same conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Those look like fairly well-edited page splits and updates to The Exorcist; I'll plan to check in again in week or so. Separately, I've listed James Madison for FAC which is at its advanced stages now, and if you have time for making some support/oppose comments there it would be useful to hear your thoughts. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm going to take a second pass now that I have the split articles in draft and see if, with such freshened eyes, I might be able to justify more trimming (It might be possible in the near future to put more of the religious analysis in the themes article).
 * I'll go over to FAC and take a look ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice progress on those page splits at Exorcist and I'll plan to get my assessment comments in on this coming Saturday or Sunday; if you need more time then just let me know.
 * Separately, your good pair of edits on Madison are appreciated. The FAC coordinators are asking for some extra input on the FAC page for Madison because of his prominence and possibly you could find some time to add some support/oppose comments on the FAC page for the coordinators. The article already has 3 supporters, though an extra word or two there would be appreciated by the coordinators for support/oppose of Madison. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure ... what I want to do is print out the whole article and read it, just to see if there's anything not currently being covered by the reviewers. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Anti-trespass panels
Aoidh (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

UTRS
`thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

UTRS
I hate to be the one to hafta tell you this, but you must click the "reply" button for them to see. The "comment"s are for us to talk among our selves. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia
(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) 17:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Editor is repeatedly moving a page without filing a move request
Hello, is repeatedly moving the page Ceraunian Mountains to another name, without filing any kind of move request (they don't even seem to be aware of what that is). They seem to think that we use "official sources" only. I've explained my reasoning in the talkpage, and also the process for moving a page, but can you please keep an eye on the page in the meantime? Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for protecting the page, but right before you did so, they removed a whole bunch of well-sourced material allegedly because it "does not provide any value to the article aside from pushing a greek-themed agenda". The material is very well sourced and had been in the article unchallenged since basically forever. Moreover, I find the edit summary disturbingly chauvinistic, bordering on WP:NOTHERE. Khirurg (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only move-protected the page so far (which I logged under CTOPS, and added a notice that it comes under that to the talk page). You should be able to restore it; if they want to get reported for edit-warring, that's up to them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will try to reason with them in the talkpage first and see how that goes. Khirurg (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They reverted again, with the same edit-summary . No reply in the talkpage. I don't think they intend to stop. Khirurg (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted them and warned for edit warring. Let me know how this develops as I'm getting close to the late-night hours where I live. If they go over 3RR and I'm not around to do anything about it (i.e., my contribs show that I haven't edited in a couple of hours), then take it to ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks a lot for your work. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to leave this here Let's not pollute geography related articles with trivial history of antiquity. Oh and they did rack up 3 reverts yesterday at that article. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. Khirurg (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

He seems to walk right up to the line and then stop. But keep doing that enough and it doesn't matter that you didn't cross the line. At the moment, though, I'm still not comfortable blocking on my own. But, if you want to take this to AN/I, there might be consensus for a block. Otherwise, let's just let this play out some more and see what happens. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

George Santos
I apologize in advance if I was incorrect, but is Jusbrazil a reliable source? I couldn't find it on the Reliable Sources page, and I'm not sure there's any confirmed source about anything on Santos. ParXivalRPT (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The New York Times linked to it in one of its articles about Santos. A source does not have to be listed on RS to be considered reliable (although it helps). At this point given that the court case against Santos documented in those court papers has been disposed, and the only thing we really use that source for is that it was the only independent reliable source for his birthdate (much as the EDNY indictment finally gave us certainty about his name), I'm not worrying about it too much. I suppose ptwiki or people at WP:BRAZIL might be able to say more. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

List of breakout characters
Hi, Daniel. Can we get an extended protection on List of breakout characters? It's been seeing a lot of persistent uncited info, and recently, content deletion without explanation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I gave it a year semi-protection (most of the recent edits you've reverted were by IPs, so we don't need ECP) just like you did the last time the article was protected almost a decade ago. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Your Talk:Michael Maria Penttilä edits…
Were you having fun reverting yourself? Haha, your edit summaries made me laugh… it’s something I do on a regular basis to myself and then I scramble to fix my mistakes. Keep on rocking you guys do a good job. Equine-man (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I had never previously put that MOS-TM (or TW, FTM (hah!)) template on a talk page, so that explains the bobbling. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

IPE
Thank you for restoring my IP Block Exemption. Hope you have a wonderful day. TucsonDavid U . S .<font color="Blue">A . 06:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up re User:Katrina_masbin
Hi! I saw that you blocked this user following my report at AIV. Can I ask why they have been blocked for only 24 hours? It seems to me that they were already provided a lot of leniency prior to this report. Thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That is the standard first block in most situations. Let's see how they take it now that we backed up our word and actually did it. Sometimes they don't realize we mean it.
 * It's an AGF thing. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I'm seeing a suuuper huge spectrum of harshness / leniency in admin actions against disruptive editing. I guess everyone has their own philosophy, and I've mostly dealt with more egregious vandalism so far. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are times I've seen other admins similarly hand out lenient blocks for what I would have blocked indef for. I don't question them publicly; in this I am guided by the idea that if the users don't learn from this, then we can block them again.
 * I'd also point out that not all of this user's contributions have been reverted. Maybe they should have been, but when I reviewed their edit history (and again, just when I got your first message) this was so. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through them quite quickly and reverted the bad ones. The unreverted ones as of like 20 minutes ago were either fine or ambiguous, but not disruptive. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you from User:Justie1220
Hello! I just wanted to drop by and thank you for your quick response to the issue I thought I was having. :) I was editing on mobile and having an issue getting things squared away, but upon logging into the browser-based version of Wikipedia, I was able to get things taken care of! Justie1220 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Gender-affirming surgery
Just a heads up, I protected that as a normal admin action, rather than as arbitration enforcement. Don't know if it still needs to be logged. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Based on the content of the edits, I think it should have been considered AE. I would not be surprised if it happens again (although to be fair I am surprised that nothing happened serious enough to really warrant protection until now). Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany
Thank you for your interest in today's featured article, British logistics in the Normandy campaign. I have a sequel up for review at Featured article candidates/British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany/archive1. If you could drop by with a few comments, this would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  02:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Very disruptive redirects
That editor is redirecting the Lab River article to Llapi River. They have been told several times to not do that, and to make a move request to find consensus to move Lab River to Llapi River. Can you take a look as that editor is quite determined to continue the disruption? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I blocked them for 24 hours for a clear 3RR violation on Lab River (although I would feel a little better if you had warned them about this first) and added CTOPS notices to the talk pages of both articles. You may also want move protection for the duration of the move request. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. Warning them about edit-warring did not came to mind because I considered the page moves without consensus to be even more disruptive. I have seen other editors getting blocked for that in similar cases. I do not think they will try to do the page moves again after the block, so I am not requesting a move protection. Also, I am reverting them again, since the current consensus is that the river's article should be named "Lab" and "Llapi" be a redirect to it. Thanks again, cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalized article on User:Khyan Jewel Cacapit
We have a follow up report of User:Khyan_Jewel_Cacapit who posted under History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article. Although the foreign language who posted but not in English. Please able to be warned for that Wikipedia account whoever to communicate with English language only! Please report immediately! Thank you! Jon2guevarra (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!
(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) 01:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I merely mentioned you, but I’m not 100% sure if I need to do this, but I’m just doing so to protect myself and for your information, of course. It’s in regards to an issue involving my protection requests. Fork99 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Collective responsibility in Russia and the Russian invasion of Ukraine
All subtantive content in this page is by non-EC editors, and it's an absolute mess of WP:SYNTH violations. Do you object if I just delete it, as allowed by the community ECR authorization? -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I figured it might be headed that way anyway. No problem. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Response to reversion
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_air_rage_incidents#MOS:NUMNOTES Holy (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I make it 48 edits...
Hi, Daniel. I have just read your message in this edit. On the one hand, part of what you say is true... the account in question has never edited that page. On the other hand, though, you then go on to say "nor is there any evidence you have edited any AfDs". ????. (All of that was well over two years ago, so perhaps you didn't look that far back.) JBW (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't. It was late and I wanted to call it a night. But to have something stick in your craw for that long ... it doesn't suggest you're the kind of person who can let things go easily and work with others, does it? Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)