User talk:Daniel Case

Hi, welcome to the 25th volume of my talk page.

Archives

Time to drop the protection of Sweden?

It's been a year since Sweden was EC protected. The UK has experienced the same thing which has since dropped to autoconfirmed protection. Since Sweden has less 1/6th of the population than the UK, is it time to drop the protection to semi? WP:TRYUNPROT JuniperChill (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's EC, I think you should make this a formal request at WP:RPPD and see if there's a consensus of admins. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Anwar Ali page needs much longer protection/ip bans, mbsg page needs vandalism bans... Cenderabird (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

I am seeking to nominate File:Neal Gladstone Radio Show 02.mp3 and others at FFD, and have created a nomination just now at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 24#File:Neal Gladstone Radio Show 02.mp3.

I am perplexed to find on the file page for the initial show on the nomination a large and highly relevant notice signed by you instead of the nomination I expected. I have no idea how to proceed to place the notice on all the other files as I assume I must do, and woudl appreciate your help. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edited that file page. Sure you're messaging the right person? Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of sure. Would you mind having a look at "my" file page and see if I am going nuts? I may have done something wrong! I don't usually hang out at FFD 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not worry. I will try the HelpDesk 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the nomination I made at the top of the FfD page? Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Iranian American Council

Do you mind upping your protection to EC? One editor is already over AC and the other is only a couple edits away. S0091 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done When I looked at the recent disruption none of the non-blocked editors were at AC. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hopefully that will force discussion or dispute resolution, if needed. S0091 (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short article GA

Hey, since you have worked with GAs, I would like to make a question. I recently recreated Hasan Zyko Kamberi after its deletion for copyright issues. There isn't much info available on the subject, as he is merely known as the author of a few short poems. After a few small content additions and copyediting, the length of the article will be around 5k-6k bytes. Can such an article become a GA, or is the very short length an issue in such cases? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really all we can say about him, maybe it can be. (Consider that New York State Route 311 is an FA despite being only 18K). Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will also add a small background for his literary genre and a few verses from his poems (though most of them remain unpublished in the archives), so maybe it somehow reaches 8k. haha Thank you for your response. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sini Shetty

Thank you for your article protection. The rambling is continuing over at Talk:Sini Shetty. I have asked the IP user to follow the appeal process as stated at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, and not on the talk page, but this hasn't worked. Sciencefish (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have basically asked them for the receipts. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hey, this user has not made any constructive changes despite warnings. Their work is all but edit warring and additions that violate MOS:FILMAUDIENCE and/or WP:V. ภץאคгöร 16:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in more detail on the article talk page (They may not be aware of what you wrote in your edit summaries). Let's see what happens. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but they are still not aware, or at least they act like they are not aware. ภץאคгöร 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted again to answer their question about why their edit was removed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, [1] and [2] articles are being repeatedly altered by anonymous user. Can you please protect these pages against vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fab Feb (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 2406:B400:B5:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from those two articles for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skibidi Toilet ECProtection

Hi, I think it's time to try lowering protection. Vandalism/unhelpful edit was at a maintainable degree, and the plot and episode count needs frequent updates from editors who watched the series. I suggest reducing down to pending changes or semi-protection. The hype has largely died down so I expect less disruption. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced it to semi. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasada

Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) protection for Prasada, which has experienced frequent WP:OR-based disruptive editing. Also user Muddragon has started engaging in an edit war over their WP:OR edits. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

red accounts/IPs

Hi Daniel. I've read the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations brief. I'm not sure if that is even the right page for my suspicion. All I have a is a mild suspicion. Three users all agreement on a subject within a few days; one an IP, one a brand new redlink. Do IPs get checked/scanned regularly for multiple users sort of thing? I'm not even too sure how to phrase it.Halbared (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What page are you referring to? Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Reform_UK#Political_position_of_Reform_UK.Halbared (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. One of them does look sort of interesting given that it made two edits to that page on the day it was created, and only there ... not something most new users do. The other redlink has less than a hundred edits but it's been around for four years.

No, IPs are not checkusered routinely like that (blocking them as open proxies is a different matter, though) ... we have to have some suspicion of misuse. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with LGBT characters

Appreciate you locking the page yet again, but I do wonder if the duration can't be extended this time? Like, this has been going on for a solid year now, so I'm not convinced it's going to stop any time soon (if ever), and I hate having to keep bothering you to do it again every time. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I'll be going longer ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like clockwork. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Three months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Hopefully I won't have to reach out again when that time rolls around. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, we've got a sock. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Autopatrolled right

Hello Daniel,

I humbly request the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled right to be able to reduce the workload of other editors as I have created numerous articles which you can comfirm independently aside from the list on my User page. Most of my articles are based on current events and always needed urgent patrol to be indexed and be public to readers. I will create new articles in the future which makes having this right paramount. My latest article created is End Bad Governance protests.

I am optimistic and look forward to your favorable reply. Thanks. Wår (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's supposed to be handled at WP:PERM. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

revdel help

Hi, could you please take a look at this, I believe runs afoul of RD4? Raladic (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it; you should probably ask for oversight as well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. Raladic (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note sent to oversight. Raladic (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Can this user get warning please

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ashik_Ser&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for a month. 20:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_Ali_(footballer,_born_2000)#

Also this needs longer protection, tnx in advance. Cenderabird (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the page for three weeks this time, and left a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Bengal_FC

please same protection here Cenderabird (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Bengal_FC_Reserves_and_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1236763128

(you had experience with this user, seems to do some more unsourced reverts) Cenderabird (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not edited in over two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHaseebchonari&redlink=1

(Latest vandalising user)

Blocked indef and Ashik’s block extended to six months. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SAFF_Club_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1237954490

latest likely indian sock/vandal Cenderabird (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calicut_FC&action=history

(209/2409 ip, take a look) many thanks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbiul_Bucure%C8%99tiului#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_derby_(Romania)#

(2 sub articles of long time club disputes, possibly protection welcome)

Saks Fifth Avenue

Hi Daniel, Thanks again for your edit to the SFA introduction. I posted a thanks and a clarification of my original edit request here:Talk:Saks_Fifth_Avenue#Introduction_section. I would really appreciate it if you could jump over there and implement the second part of the request. Again, thank you. Maddie for Saks (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will deal with this when I get back home Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel. This is a gentle reminder to please take a look at the clarification of the ER about the SFA Introduction found here: Talk:Saks_Fifth_Avenue#Introduction_section. Thanks again. Maddie for Saks (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done [3]. Sorry I forgot about it when I got back ... so many things to attend to!

. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to make those edits. Your efforts are appreciated. All the best, Maddie for Saks (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anon is back

Hello Daniel Case, The anon you warned earlier has returned with the same disruptive behaviour. I’ve issued another warning, but would you prefer to handle this directly, or should I report them again? Since their IP keeps changing, would it be possible to consider semi-protecting the Sant Singh Maskeen page to prevent further issues? Thank you, GSS ^💬 13:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't stopped even after issuing another warning, so I've formally submitted a page protection request which seems to be the best option. GSS ^💬 13:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the /64 from the article for a week Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

help with a NPA

Hey there, another user alerted me to this on my talk page - [4], could you please help RD and sending that offensive user on their way? Thanks. Raladic (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another admin took care of the RevDel. I blocked the account indef (interesting that it was created three years ago but only yesterday does it make its first edit … I smell a sock here, but as it’s been indeffed there’s no need to go further for now). Daniel Case (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_League_Kerala

Under teams, 5 articles probably need protection, month enough as full squads will come. Cenderabird (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll get to it … I’m on my way back from Poland; it may także a while. Daniel Case (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calicut_FC#

Especially this, tnx! Cenderabird (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just protected it for a month in response to a request at RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrissur_Magic_FC#

One more protection please Cenderabird (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Power Broker book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Power Broker book 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) 18:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP disruption at Knafeh

Hey, you previously protected Knafeh so that only autoconfirmed can edit it, then another admin changed it to extended confirmed access, but I think he did something wrong, because the protection ended a day after.

An IP is now disruting the article again. im contacting you because the other admin hasnt edited for a month. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what happened is that Amortias probably wasn't aware that when you upgrade an existing semi-protection to EC, it doesn't layer ... it won't go back to semi after the ECP expires. A lot of admins who work on this would like the developers to change that so the protections layer, like they do with pending changes.

Anyway, do you want me to restore just the semi for now since it was the IP that was being disruptive? Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECP would be better, but if you only want SP it would be better than nothing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored indef ECP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monumentum Adulitanum

Hey immediately after you blocked and reverted the edits of @Samirlalas their sovkpuppet IP @148.252.145.93 restored the edits an 1 later I have reverted the edits but I suggest you block their IP address as well and add an indefinite protection for that article so only registered users with a username can edit that article. Thank You. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked that IP for two weeks. As for protection, I don't see enough disruption in the history to justify an indefinite semi, or at least one longer than that as the recent activity is only a few days old. Of course if they continue to sock, I can reconsider. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@95.145.186.54 is another account that evaded the block of the last two accounts you blocked and has restored their version of edits again at Monumentum Adulitanum and Rauso. Evident block evasion. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another sockpuppet evasion account @148.252.146.158 has restored their version again at Somalis in Ethiopia. I request protection for that page due to IP evasion blocks and vandalism going on. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have:

protected that page for six months and logged it as a CTOPS protection under WP:CT/HORN, and
blocked 148.252.144.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from editing that article as well as Somali clans, Cushitic languages and of course Monumentum Adulitanum (there are people on that range editing other articles constructively). Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cringe behaviour has returned as a sock and has sent a message at my talk page attacking me. Please block them immediately. [5] Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP evaded their block and restored edits at Ancient Somali city-states @148.252.147.61 please block them indefinitely or for a month or from that article. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sat August 24: Roosevelt Island Wiknic

August 24: Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island

You are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Roosevelt Island, at Southpoint Park.

Following up on this month's Wikimania in Poland, this Wiknic will have as guest of honor User:DerHexer, the 2024 Wikimedia Laureate of the Year, marking his triumphant North American tour!

Bring a picnic blanket and some potluck, as well as some sunscreen! We'll also provide a little something for everyone, but we encourage you to bring your own favorite dishes to share, especially for those food cultural topics you would like to improve on Wikipedia.

We'll also do a portal thing for a bit with West Coast friends at the WikiLA ocean life edit-a-thon.

All are welcome, new and experienced!

Saturday, August 24, 2024 NYC Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island (RSVP on-wiki)

Time: 2:00 - 7:00 pm (come by any time!)
Salon-style Discussions: 3:00 pm - 3:30 pm (session A) 5:00 pm - 5:30 pm (session B)
Location: Roosevelt Island (Southpoint Park, look for our Wikipedia/Wikimedia NYC banner).

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

See also upcoming events in September and October at Wikipedia:Meetup/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) 23:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could I borrow your eyes again for a moment?

I believe [6] this amounts to a BLP vio on defamation of a respected scientist, so might need RD? Raladic (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm ... it's disparaging, yes, and properly deleted, but are those claims generally accepted as true? Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wanted your eyes to know if it needs RD or if deletion is enough.

The claims the user made are entirely wrong, as can be seen by the sourcing of the article itself, the BLP in question is an expert in the field, not just a parent of a transgender child, who has authored numerous peer reviewed journal articles in the field and is employed as a scientist by a University in the field. Raladic (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, we'll do it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same user just repeated the same claim again on the BLP talk page... - [7].

There is an active AE thread (which I started) on the user - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Peckedagain, but no admin action has been taken yet and the user continues to disrupt the content talk space arguing with just about every user they are interacting with, at this point I'm losing confidence whether a topic ban is enough or whether they need a timeout. Raladic (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have again RevDel'ed the edit. I see you've given them the last warning. If they do it again I will block them from that talk page for some length of time. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest socks of User:JamesOredan/User:Venezia Friulano

The last you blocked was DrakeXper. Most recently, the following socks have been blocked by other admins at my request or independently: Claudio di Roma, Dreom, Ocean Stones, Combrils and Fauvertt. Can these newborns be checked by you: Ananscumber, Manfil and Pikeras? There are others but these to me are the most obvious. I have also opened a case at the incidents noticeboard cause I think Manfil and maybe the other one are literally inventing sources to push the usual agenda. Barjimoa (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and based on an edit war in the French wiki it's obvious 85.235.68.81 and 46.222.166.38 are other IPs of James/Venezia, if that can be of any help. Barjimoa (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to this a little later. Daniel Case (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the registered accounts indef and 85.235 for two weeks. Since he has not used 46.222 on enwiki yet, there is no reason to block it locally. Yet. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 46.222 has made an edit (as 46.222.200.247) and the tourism in Italy page (targeted by 82.325 and Pikeras) is being targeted by another suspicious account (pointed out by this other user: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Barjimoa&diff=prev&oldid=1241500066). Both are removing content in Italy-related pages, which is a thing he does often.Barjimoa (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Dromble indef and that 46.222 for two weeks, along with 90.166.192.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had been making similar edits to Tourism in Italy and also resolves to Spain. I looked at the range 46.222.128.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which would take in both mentioned IPs, but as it is very wide it has a lot of legitimate use and so there would be too much collateral damage from a sitewide block. Of course, if you look through the contribs and find any other edits that appear to be him, let me know ... it might be possible that a narrower rangeblock could be done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

thanks mate, i'd keep on leaving these messages as they mean a lot to people, happy editing, Tom B (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been described as "generous with the thanks". We all should be. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add a big +1 to that as a big thank you to you @Daniel Case for your continued help with my various RD requests you've helped me with in the fight against vandalism :) Raladic (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some user talk one for a change

Hey, could you please RD2 this (and maybe on the other user that was also targeted by this vandal). Thank you :) Raladic (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal_A.P.F._Club#

It might need separation or partial removal, football as main article is usual example. Lack of local interest made me ask here to be sure about technical details. Cenderabird (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What, exactly, are you talking about? Could you be more specific? Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal APF FC (soccer) article should be created or above article modified, but i need help of experienced editors. Whatever you suggest after taking a look. Cenderabird (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking it over, I suppose you could. Are you planning to expand it? You should also start a discussion on the talk page and see what other editors working on the subject think. Daniel Case (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spinin

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Cricket_League#

(he should be checked for lack of language skills, and article i tried to fix maybe protected) Cenderabird (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiruvananthapuram_Kombans_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1241826836

(same example, other user) Cenderabird (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Cricket_Association#

(urgent protection, found a sock who did mess and possibly kept from ip). hopefully last of such examples.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala_Cricket_Association&diff=prev&oldid=561634156

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kerala_Cricket_Association&diff=prev&oldid=622183717 Cenderabird (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.onmanorama.com/sports/cricket/2022/08/22/keralite-rejith-rajendran-named-team-india-manager-for-asia-cup.html

(cherry on the cake) Cenderabird (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thrissur_Magic_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1242610752

Keeps vandalising, ban seems really needed Cenderabird (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Johnchristo42? You should really warn him first ... they haven't gotten any for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your denial of my page protection increase requests

I requested page protection increases for Perikatan Nasional and Malaysian United Indigenous Party due to disruptive editing and you denied them with the justification that there hasn't been enough of said activity. So exactly how many times does this anonymous user have to keep adding deleted content for it to be "enough"? Since your refusal they've done it a third time; so I need to wait for the fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Genuinely sorry if this comes off as a bit blunt, but I hope you can understand that I'm feeling quite frustrated. Their most recent edit on the MUIP page had an edit summary of "THAT'S ENOUGH STOP THAT NOW !!!" - directed at me, obviously. No rebuttal of my reasoning - just a demand for me to stop.

Thanks, Sisuvia (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we grant protection if the page is being overwhelmed at the time of the request. This editor seems to be spacing things out. Also, other IPs seem to be making constructive contributions; it would not be fair to them.

So what might work? A rangeblock, perhaps just limited to those two articles. If you can take the trouble to list all the IPs they've been using, I'll see what I can do. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[8][9][10][11][12][13] Sisuvia (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would love an update whenever you're free. Sisuvia (talk) 05:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RevDel request

Hello. I am requesting hiding the edit summary of the this revision under the RD2 criterion (Grossly insulting). Thanks. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I also warned them. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar bait

Hi @Daniel Case. I wanted to reach out and ask something about a page you were the main contributor on, Oscar bait. I brought up a year ago about whether the Oscar bait#List of films considered "Oscar bait" that failed to earn any Oscar nominations section was necessary, because I think it represents undue weight and also reads as trivia without being informative of what is considered "Oscar bait". For instance, there are films considered "Oscar bait" that did manage to get Oscar nominations/wins, i.e. Shakespeare in Love, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but the list only focuses on shutouts. Furthermore, any film that had a degree of Oscar buzz but got shutout will be referred to as "Oscar bait" by entertainment websites, listicles, or content mills; does that justify their inclusion in the article? I should also note that the editor who contributed that list has a history of synthesis, original research, and making lists for the sake of lists. The other contributor has a similar history of original research.

My suggestion is that the list be removed. The films listed are obviously similar to the films covered on the podcast This Had Oscar Buzz (link to episode list). Heck, 14 of the films listed under the 2000s are early THOB episodes. I think including a citation for the THOB podcast in the article would suffice and would also give credit to the podcast for identifying the type of films discussed in the article. Thanks. Spectrallights (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take a while getting back to you on this. I generally agree.

I didn't start the article but I added enough to it to get it to DYK ... to me, it's complementary to dump months; you'll see the links from that article. That list, however, I didn't add, as you note, and frankly I've sort of tolerated it being there only because no one has ever raised this objection. And if it had been totally up to me (which, of course, it should not) I wouldn't have added it.

Your point is, well, on point. As noted in the article's criticism section, "Oscar bait" is too loosely thrown around to really be a defining characteristic of a film, other than it being released in the last couple of months of the year with name actors, a big budget and some sort of "Important" subject or theme. I mean, do we call low-budget edgy indie films with unknowns "Sundance bait"? (of course not, since most of us outside of Park City only see them after the bait, so to speak, has been taken). It is often just a way to disparage a film with those characteristics someone doesn't like for whatever reason.

And, as noted, the amount of Oscar nominations given out is limited, even now, so it's inevitable that a lot more films that might be seen as Oscar-worthy in some way will not get any notice. You probably have a better chance at getting a major party's presidential nomination.

Now, that might make a better stand-alone list, as might a lot of the sort of stand-alone film-related listicles floating around the Internet that could be Wikipedia lists as the sourcing for many entries is good enough. But I agree that in the article it's cruft. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonprotection of LoliRock

I noticed a content dispute on LoliRock and was considering protection, but then noticed a strange protection history from you that resulted in the article being completely unprotected. Not wanting to step on your toes, I'd like to understand what happened. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the users involved requested protection be dropped to PC, even though that applies to them, since the talk page discussion I urged on them in granting EC had already occurred and was fruitless. I thought that was a better solution, and granted it for two weeks. It's by no means "completely unprotected". Daniel Case (talk) Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I hadn't noticed the PC protection. I typically ignore it or disable it because I've found it does nothing but create more work for the community in most cases.

The difficulty now is that there's a content dispute, and only one side's edits are being flagged as pending. Approving or rejecting the pending change puts an editor into the position of taking one side in the dispute. ECP would have been better, forcing both parties to the talk page without putting anyone else in a position to be dragged into a dispute. A pending change now appears in my watch list, but I'm not going to touch it.

Just one more thing wrong with PCP. It isn't the right tool to use for a content dispute. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case since a) the editor requesting it would have had their edits subject to it and b) the talk page discussion wasn't getting anywhere, I felt it better than EC since it will allow other non-AC editors to contribute productively. And if nothing's changed by the time it expires, I have no problem going back to ECP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of {your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Hey man im josh submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Daniel Case to be Editor of the Week for their tireless efforts to protect Wikipedia. According to Xtools, they've protected almost 2,500 pages over the past year, which is nearly 50% more than the person with the second most (not counting JPxG who added protection to thousands of old signpost pages)! In addition to being the most active participant by far at requests for page protection, they've also handed out over 21.5 THOUSAND blocks. They've been an admin for over 17 years now and haven't gone a single month without editing, something very few others have been able to do. Their contributions to the site and their passion for protecting it should not go unrecognized, because they are very much appreciated and make the site a better place. Seconded by User:Queen of Hearts and by User:Sohom Datta

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Daniel Case

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning September 1, 2024

A protector of Wikipedia. They have protected almost 2,500 pages over the past year, which is nearly 50% more than the person with the second most. In addition to being the most active participant by far at requests for page protection, they have also handed out over 21.5 THOUSAND blocks. An admin for over 17 years and have not gone a single month without editing, Amazing! Their contributions and passion for protection should not go unrecognized, because they are very much appreciated and make the site a better place.

Recognized for

protecting the encyclopedia

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for protecting Pepe Julian Onziema. Much appreciated. Lkb335 (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest indian sock

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sharafueatha&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:1008:D171:F062:9573:CCD4:D8E8

Please this was his ip used at same time, likely on multiple devices. Kind of wider ban can help. Appreciate a lot!!!!!! Cenderabird (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sevens Football Association to the blocked articles ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article needs full/long protection, 2 additional pages i merged could be deleted as vandal who wrote them refuses clearings. he is back:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Townpadne&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FCSB&diff=prev&oldid=1242518277

(unrelated user with blocking history, not understanding formats or even proper english) Cenderabird (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshadev

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Correctinformer007&redlink=1

(another sock pattern) Cenderabird (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Devil007priyanshu&redlink=1

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobanfasil

I'm not an admin on Commons and thus you will have to ask someone who is to take care of it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:40F3:101C:763:BDEE:934:EB62:96CD

(al madeena needs block from his ip too)

Do you mean this article? Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Madeena_Cherpulassery

could it be finally deleted please... large sock scheme around this!

Looks like it was. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hi! Any chance of a hand here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhawkes (talk • contribs)

Blocked for 72 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Small request

Hello Mr Case, can you kindly delete the second revision of my own user revision history page? I'm asking for this, since it shows my previous username which was my real name. I wish to have this revision deleted, so I can rest easy to remain anonymous. Thank you in advance for your help! Benzekre (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done I should note, though, that the redirect from your old username brings you to your new page. I am not sure what the process would be to delete that, or find some other process, in order to maintain privacy although I think we should be able to accommodate you somehow. I suppose I will have to ask. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I have now noticed that my user talk history page also has the same revision which I wish to have deleted. Can you also kindly delete this? Thanks in advance and i'm sorry for the bother. Benzekre (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.

On 3 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Catch of the Day (photograph)

On 3 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Catch of the Day (photograph), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Catch of the Day (photograph)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ARoshanyadav7&redlink=1

Done Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imsamrat392

blocked by someone else. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exact same pattern of bad grammar across similar sports venue articles, highly possible another sock

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sevens_Football&action=history

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bobanfasil

And deletion/permanent redirect of copypasted sock filled article. Cenderabird (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(boban... vandalised that last 7s page, and imsam... = roshan...) 👌👌👌

Vandal

Some one put this comment from this IP address https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/126.5.23.35 in my sandbox, which I find derogatory. Perhaps you may want to block it. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I warned them; it was only a single edit. Daniel Case (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hello. Please upgrade this page to extended confirmed protection. The IP is active with another account.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked TherealBengal indef as NOTHERE. That's all that's necessary at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious block evasion

Hi, you recently blocked Ghaij625 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 2 weeks for their edit warring. It seems they've now resumed edit warring while logged out.[14] — Czello ^(music) 15:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked the /64 (Ghaij's protestations on their talk page notwithstanding) for a month and similarly extended their block. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eagle_Site

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:United_Blasters&redlink=1

pattern showing high similarities to "bobanfasil" (and related socks). behind some good, few bad edits reveal pattern. Cenderabird (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the last one but not the first ... as it's been editing for two years without problems, can you share some of the bad edits that would link the accounts? Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KARIKKOTTAKARI

One more possibly Cenderabird (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is not always completely sure so good edits can stay, "eagle" had few warnings and closer attention is needed. Cenderabird (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADemon707&redlink=1

(next sock) Cenderabird (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Malabar_F.C

(this should be renamed as ..."FC"...)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forca_Kochi_FC&diff=prev&oldid=1244512344

(deserved a warning if not sock)

At what point do I owe you a box of cookies for your continued RD help?

Hey, if you could please RD this and this repeat attempt (I've also already emailed OS for it) and looks like this user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute meaningfully based on their other editing, so maybe time to show them the door? Raladic (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been done, and their talk page access revoked, though I found it necessary to do some post-block RevDel'ing as well of some more related edits. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As I promised (or asked about) a cookie for your continued help. I hope it tastes as delicious virtually as it does in real life :) Raladic (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Raladic (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPA for IP

Hi Daniel. I know it's uncommon, but could you revoke talk page access for the IP account 139.228.93.203. You already blocked them for LTA/"Megafauna Man" sock... all they've done since then is paste megafauna-related content on their talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Somehow they did it again after you left them the TPA-revoked message... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I had forgotten to click the box (There should really be some popup if you choose "revoking talk page access" or whatever the language is from the drop-down menu on the "block user" page but haven't clicked the box).

I have now clicked the box. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken identity

i was wrongly reported for using an IP to edit a page. First of all, I didn't do it. I came across an edit war between the IP and another user. When I sided with the IP that user accused me of being a sock. I am not a sock. Why would I use an IP when I have an account? I wasn't banned or restricted from the article and besides, that ip had edited that article a month before I saw it. You took that users word without any evidence and protected that page. I am not that IP. Donteatgarlic (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the checkuser result reported by Yamla at your talk page, I don't believe you. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you're blocked indefinitely anyway because of that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Duplantis

Hello. Is user Globallycz the same person who was/is at IP 115.66.64.127 and has registered to keep on editing and reverting this above page without discussion? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Armand_Duplantis If you recall, you inserted a temporary PP tag on it? Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems possible. They have enough edits with the account, however, that it would take ECP to keep them off the page now, and maybe we should let the AN/I thread you started play out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sep 25: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting (plus Latin music event on Sep 21!)

September 25: Annual Election & Members Meeting

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Annual Election & Members Meeting, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option.

The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect a new Board of Directors. We will elect three board seats, half of the elected seats on the board. After being elected, those elected can potentially appoint more seats.

We will also focus on the Wikimedia NYC Strategic Plan, our Financial Report, and Annual and Monthly event teams for the coming year.

Election info:

To run for election or to vote, you must be a dues-paying member of Wikimedia New York City, having renewed in the past 12 months.
Voting will be both online, via emailed ballots from the ElectionBuddy service, and in-person.
The poll will be open for the 48 hours between 8pm EDT on September 23 and 8pm EDT on September 25.
For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ.

Meeting info:

Wednesday, September 25 Annual Election & Members Meeting (optional RSVP on-wiki).
6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour)

7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon)

(Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan)

Also online via Zoom

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

P.S. Also upcoming just before our annual meeting is the Latin music edit-a-thon, Wikicurious: Editing to the Beat (RSVP at Eventbrite), on Saturday September 21!

(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) 18:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1700::/30

Hi Daniel Case! I'm messaging you to let you know that I just strengthened this range's block to a site-wide block and set it to expire one month for now due to this edit that I just caught. I'm letting you know about this because you had modified the block for this range that has still been ongoing. I'm not sure as to how extensive, related, or how frequent the past vandalism from this range has been, but the previous block logs made it clear that stronger blocks would be imposed if shenanigans continue. Please know that you're welcome to modify, reduce, remove, strengthen, turn upside-down, - whatever you want to the block modification that I imposed. Just let me know and why; It would be good information in case this range pops up on my radar again. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый вечер

Уважаемый Daniel Case, подскажите, пожалуйста, приходит ли какое-то уведомление о статусе Расширенные подтвержденные пользователи? (Просто мне делали замечание, что я не имею права писать даже косвенно об этом) --Alex091981 (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex091981: По вашу җурналу правы участника, ваш ECP (РПП, по русский) право отменил администратором ToBeFree потому что, он верит, вы играли системы статүсы (см. также эту русскую страницу) Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case Thank you, I understood everything. --Alex091981 (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KARIKKOTTAKARI

(probable "boban" sock) Cenderabird (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that with some of these socks you've identified more recently we'd be better off taking them to SPI, since they've been editing for longer periods of time with less incident. I might feel more comfortable with Checkuser as a possibility. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD

Hey, could you please help with this and possibly also raise the protection level of the article to ECP per GENSEX CTOP? This is the second time in a few days, so clearly the current protection isn’t enough. Raladic (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done As you noticed Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sep 21: Wikicurious for Latin Music: Editing to the Beat ♫

Sat Sep 21: Wikicurious - Editing to the Beat ♫ @ Lehman College

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for the "Editing to the Beat" event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series at Lehman College. This is the second event of the series, following the inaugural event at Civic Hall in July. Led by a 9-person live band demonstrating Caribbean and Latin musical genres, we'll engage with efforts such as WikiProject Latin Music, and will encourage editing on both English and Spanish Wikipedia. All are welcome, and newcomers and aspiring editors are especially encouraged to attend. Registration via Eventbrite is required for building entry, and is also encouraged on the event page on Meta.

The Wikicurious series is supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies. Wikimedia NYC is an official affiliate and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also supporting this event are Equis, The Celia Cruz Foundation, and the International Museum of Salsa. In association with WikiCari and AfroCrowd.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

Meeting info:

Date: Saturday, September 21, 2024
Time: 1:00–7:00 p.m.
Location: Lehman College (CUNY) 250 Bedford Park Blvd W, Bronx, NY
Equipment: Please bring your own computer. We are not yet able to provide loaner laptops.
Eventbrite RSVP: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/wikicurious-editing-to-the-beat-tickets-1009115641047

RSVP is necessary for building entry.

P.S. Upcoming WikiNYC meetups:

Wed Sep 25: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election/Members Meeting 2024!
Sat Oct 26: Wikidata Day 2024!

(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) 19:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Scripting on Chinese Railways

Hi there, noticed that you blocked Special:Contributions/37.109.164.18

I had reported this user under a different IP to ANI, and people didn't believe me and told me to basically pound sand. That person has at least one other IP, which is here Special:Contributions/78.30.82.169

The discussion on ANI was here: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1244218151#Question_regarding_potential_automation

CC: @1AmNobody24 @Doug Weller @David Eppstein Top5a (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but the unblocked IP hasn't edited since the 4th, so not appropriate to block. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquawoman

Hello. Not really sure about what to do with this:[15][16]. Semi-protection seems impractical since I'm a mentor. Any wisdom? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 2A01:599:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from editing your talk page for a year.

(I like your name for her ...) Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We'll see what happens. Am I supposed to mention these new IP:s at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moreamomoa, I'm not that familiar with SPI? Or is it not worth the bother? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted there, the account ranges are too wide (/32 is the biggest CIDR we're allowed to use on IPv6es) to block sitewide so they have closed the SPI (Of course, blocking those /32s from the relevant articles might be worth considering). Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panchal

Hi, can you please protect this page? Ratnahastin (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Indef ECP and logged at WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Thala7&redlink=1

(boban sock clearly) Cenderabird (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request(s)

Hi, you recently declined my requests to increase the protection (because of recent persistent vandalism) of the following pages. Would you please reconsider protecting them, now that two more rounds of IP hopping have occurred?

Workers' Party of Korea
Leninist Komsomol of the Russian Federation
Alliance 90/The Greens
Sahra Wagenknecht
Market socialism
Lao People's Revolutionary Party
Đổi Mới, Pierre Woodman and Socialist-oriented market economy (these three were protected by someone else after my requests but only for 3 or 1 days, so there were also affected again after their protection had expired, so I thought I include them here as well)

I hope I haven't misjugded the situation again (sorry if I have) and that it's alright that I request the protection here. Thanks! Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I have already protected Market socialism for a week. I'll take another look at the others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

I have no idea what "CTOPS" stands for, if it is an acronym of some sort. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's OK Iggy, I have trouble remembering that one too. I keep thinking the C is for critical or controversial. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could almost mean the same thing ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Hey Buddy How are you! Enjoy your Boba Malincharanan (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection: Evanescence

I recently requested page protection for Evanescence at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. First off, thank you for taking the time to review my request. However, I am confused by your response. I requested this page to be protected because this seems to be a case of sock puppetry. There is in fact more than one IP user involved. But you responded, saying, "User(s) blocked: 88.97.197.0/24 blocked by Ponyo." But there is another IP user that started performing the same disruptive edit after the first IP user was blocked. That IP user is 88.97.194.94, and they haven't been blocked yet, despite this being a clear case of a sock evading a block. That's why I requested page protection; just blocking them isn't going to stop this. Temporary page protection would stop this. Just looking at the article's edit history shows that they may continue to do this if the page doesn't get protected. I would appreciate your thoughts and possible solutions so I and other editors don't have to go back and forth with this potential sock puppet. Thank you. Bowling is life (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could see about expanding the range to take in that one ... If it's wider than /16, then protection would definitely be a stronger option.

We tend to base our protection decisions, outside of ArbCom or community-sanctions enforcement, IME, on what has happened as opposed to what might. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you clearing that up. I just don't like edit warningz even though they are block evading and being disruptive. The first user involved named, ThatCouchPotato, was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. And then the two IP users came in right after ThatCouchPotato got blocked and performed the same edits. The first IP user gets blocked and then another comes in and does the same thing. Seems suspicious. Anyways, thank you for the quick response. Bowling is life (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sniffiness?

Could you please clarify on this, which appears to be referring to me saying I personally thought the rule was too nitpicky on using 'on this day' or 'two years ago today' in hooks? Valereee (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ... you came across here as if you were suggesting that maybe we shouldn't be allowing so many anniversary-themed hooks. Since I've done a lot of them without anyone suggesting this, I was a little taken aback, much as I'm also a little surprised that people are so focused on the idea of a "quirky" yet to me unclear hook when, when I started doing DYKs years ago we generally rejected that idea outside of April 1.

I mean, I can see you as having had a point re this particular anniversary date in that not a lot of people may remember that event to begin with (but no one ever applied that criterion before, either, to any nominated hook of mine, to my recollection). Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a previous point: you'd asked "But then what's the point of running it on the anniversary?" if we aren't mentioning the anniversary. I was simply answering: we often do exactly that if it's not important to the reader understanding the hook. I don't know where you got the idea I was suggesting we shouldn't do so many. Although usually if the subject is interesting at all, there's something more interesting to say about it than that it happened exactly X years ago today.

But that wasn't what I was asking about w/re you called my "sniffiness".

I'd said about the 'fact that never changes' rule:

The rule is a bit nitpicky, IMO. It might have happened two years ago 'today' all day in the US, but much of the time it's appearing, the local date is not Sept 30. Meh. People watching the BBC in the am in the US and hearing the anchor mention an incident had happened 'early this afternoon' are able to understand. But that's been the interpretation of the rule. Valereee (talk) 9:05 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)Reply

You responded to my post later, apparently referring back to that, with:

I think if "quirky" is what we want, and based on your sniffiness about mentioning "today" in the hook at all above, let's just stick with Roy's idea of the catchphrase alone.

I wasn't applying the rule. I was explaining it and saying I thought it was nitpicky and unnecessary to interpret it that way, but that was the interpretation. And you called this my "sniffiness". Which surprised me a bit. Valereee (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. But it was meant to apply to the earlier comment that I took as implying we don't run, or shouldn't be running, so many anniversary-related hooks rather than the wording calling attention to that fact.

And I think, really, that being leery of "on this day" on the grounds that it won't be, or have been, that exact day for everyone reading is overly restrictive in a modern media environment that blurs the boundaries of a date for everyone in the world paying attention to it. Yes, there are places where the 9/11 attacks took place technically in the early hours of 9/12, but even if that had been some much less deadly, less remembered incident, I think any hook calling attention to its anniversary would have been understood by people living in those Pacific islands near the International Date Line both then and now.

I mean, right next to DYK we have a subsection of the Main Page named On This Day, after all. And just how many FAs have we run, or plan to run, on the Main Page timed to a specific anniversary?

I was also unaware there ever has been any rule that anniversary hooks automatically mention the date; I just think it's an obvious thing to do if you want to generate a little extra interest in the article, and encourages people to create those articles in due time. In the past when hooks I've nominated have not been able to run by a date I would have liked them to, I have just rewritten the dates out.

When you say "Although usually if the subject is interesting at all, there's something more interesting to say about it than that it happened exactly X years ago today", it still reads the same way to me, and as if you're trying to deflect. I don't think I've ever read, much less written, a hook that just mentioned the anniversary date ... if I saw one at T:TDYK, I'd be the first to comment that it was a dull hook since every event has anniversaries. To me that "X years ago today" is a little sauce on the dish, on your real hook, to get more people to click the link than otherwise would.

Since I do a lot of anniversary-related DYKs, please understand that although you may not have meant it that way, I do nevertheless in the absence of clearer wording feel remarks like those you have made are overly dismissive of what I have done as a longtime DYK contributor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think, really, that being leery of "on this day" on the grounds that it won't be, or have been, that exact day for everyone reading is overly restrictive in a modern media environment that blurs the boundaries of a date for everyone in the world paying attention to it. Which is exactly what I said. I said The rule is a bit nitpicky, IMO. It might have happened two years ago 'today' all day in the US, but much of the time it's appearing, the local date is not Sept 30. Meh. People watching the BBC in the am in the US and hearing the anchor mention an incident had happened 'early this afternoon' are able to understand.

I don't know where you're getting the idea I don't think we should ever call out anniversaries. I called one out for Safe House Museum. MLK holed up there two weeks before he was assassinated, I asked for the hook to run on the anniversary of the date he stayed there. Another editor objected to 'on this date in 1968' -- due to this rule -- and changed it to 'on 21 March 1968, just weeks before he was assassinated?'

May it's just a miscommunication. Apology accepted for calling it my sniffiness. Valereee (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Glad that you were clearer now ... maybe it was the "meh" in one of your remarks. I can go teach my SAT class later today in a better mood. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the 'meh' was about the rule itself. Like, "Meh, avoiding using 'on this day' because dates change during a DYK appearance seems like nitpicking to me, but whatever, it's how the community has decided to interpret that rule." Valereee (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

68.106.251.16

Thank you for that block. I was just wading through his extraordinary ~450 edits to Richard Simmons in the last 4 days. Meters (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was also a little taken aback by that comment in response to the AIV ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more than a bit difficult to sift the actually problematic edits out of the literally hundreds of pointless edits. Maybe that was the reason for them... Meters (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latest sock

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACorrectinformer007&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zim_Afro_T10#

please protection Cenderabird (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pkr206

latest example of low writing skills, "indian native of guyana" is ear splitting Cenderabird (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the first account as a sock. What do you want with the other one? Protection for the article? The user has been around for a while; if their bad English is a problem while their edits are good faith we usually just gently suggest that they work on their native-language Wikipedia while they get their English up to snuff. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Beatty, 1st Earl Beatty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Heligoland Bight.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the protection of the Harper Steele page, was really hoping to get that in before her documentary launched on Netflix and everyone came over to fuss with it. Hello, I was also at Wikimania in London and my mom is from Englewood. Cheers! Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If I don't remember you personally from London, well, it was ten years ago and there were a lot of people at that one.

But, there will be other Wikimanias, and maybe I'll see you at one of them sometime. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634)

Hello, hope you're well. You protected Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634) a few months ago in June due to people changing the results from Inconclusive to Polish victory. The same thing is occurring once more; users are engaging in edit wars over this. Is there something you could do? I would have suggested increasing the protection to extended-confirmed edits only, but User Setegh is extended-confirmed and it is not stopping them from revising the outcome of the war as well as engaging in edit wars. The article is very clear that the war ended in status quo ante bellum. Would appreciate your input. Thanks. Perast (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the protection, which continues through next June, there is only one user to deal with, and as this is not the only article where they've been causing problems I have given them a final warning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, just wanted to highlight that you warned the wrong person. They were trying to revert the article back to the stable version where the result was "Inconclusive". The user who keeps changing it to "Polish victory" (which is why you protected the article in June) is the one who edited the article most recently and reverted my attempt to return the article to the stable version. Thanks. Perast (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I reverted my warning to Historyk.ok (but reading their talk page will show they're not in the clear as a whole) and instead gave a CTOPS alert to Setergh, who has only been editing since May anyway. We'll see what effect that has. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing this issue. Are you also able to revert Polish–Ottoman War (1633–1634) to its stable version where the result was classed as Inconclusive until recently? Perast (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I understand that the 1633–1634 war is designated a contentious topic, although I don't particularly understand what I did wrong here. I changed the result and provided sources for it.

As for engaging in edit wars as the user @Perast said above, I don't know what kind of edit war I engaged in. I agree I should've instantly went to the talk page, but it's not like I just went edit after edit after edit arguing with him in it. And even then, he's the one changing the result back without using any source, unlike me.

So, in your opinion, what should I have done instead? Unless you just want me to have instantly referred to the talk page after the revert, even though Perast could've done it instantly as well. Setergh (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the second time you reverted on this issue (first was with another user). You say you cited 2 sources but it doesn't exactly matter as the body of the article confirms that the war ended inconclusively. I can also bring double and more of the amount of sources you cited where they state that the war ended inconclusively. Should I?

As for your last comment, I went to the talk page after you reverted my edit. Perast (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as you just told me in the talk page (and I replied), go for it and give the references for Inconclusive.

The thing is, originally the result was Inconclusive but cited no sources, therefore, as I mentioned on the other page, all I saw was Ottoman defeat and therefore Polish victory, so I went with that as my result. Setergh (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make it known here that the issue is resolved. Perast (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential SPA appears to be editing multiple pages

Hope you're doing well today! Through my editing, I often explore different colleges by clicking through categories.

I stumbled upon a college article which had "notable coaches" section at a division 3 college, which is generally not known for athletics. I took a look at the corresponding articles and realized that they were either created by (with the exception of 1) and heavily edited by the same editor between 2022 and 2024. Sources are primarily from the school. From what I can tell, the editor has only edited pages regarding the school. I've enquired about COI on the user's page recently, but would this qualify as an account created for promotional purposes only? Wozal (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd challenge the editor to find additional sources that aren't self-published. They're not wrong by themselves, but when they're the only sources we've got ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll wait for their response. Some of the coaches started coaching in the past 2 years so that's why my red flag originally started. I've tried briefly searching for a few of them but found nothing but passing mentions. Wozal (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pongal

Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) protection for Pongal (dish) due to ongoing disruptive editing. Thank you! Ram1751 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Indef semi. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

latest "bobanfasil style" sock: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sportslovermax&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demon707

very likely another one Cenderabird (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sighted sub, sank same. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Bengal_FC_Reserves_and_Academy#

protection needed as full name is reverted by indian ip's Cenderabird (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Writereditor19&redlink=1

socking chek tools needed... Cenderabird (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:IDK1399&redlink=1

low profile/good edits, still worth checking Cenderabird (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

159.250.17.61

Hey, I noticed you blocked this IP for disruptive editing. They are continuing to calculate averages wrong in the state election articles. They usually edit the state election articles for Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I would like you to ban this IP from editing Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election along with the state articles I mentioned. Their snarky edit summaries in August show that they are not willing to change.

While the IP was blocked in the nationwide opinion polling article, they evaded the block by using 159.250.16.81. Both IPs geolocate to around the same area and both IPs show the exact same interests. CountyCountry (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 159.250.16.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal

On 30 September 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the director of a Lake Erie-based walleye fishing tournament defended two anglers accused of cheating until he found weights in their winning fish two years ago today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange IP User

Hi Daniel Case. I apologize if this isn't a place to make new reports. I was involved in a discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Remove RealClearPolitics from polling. An IP user admitted that they have an account that was blocked and that was why they used an IP account. It seems like block evasion. They also admitted that they used multiple IP accounts in the discussion but said they did so because they were out on holiday. I wonder what you would do in this case? Thank you. CountyCountry (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read this discussion ... God, this is why we encourage people to create accounts. While the different 120.19 IPs are plausible as not intending to sock, as they're probably dynamic IP, at the very least the user should be asked to identify their old account and their contribution to that discussion discounted. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. Do you think that the IP should be blocked? They admitted that they’re editing using their IP because their account is blocked. CountyCountry (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... I'd like to know what that old account was and how long ago it was blocked (he says banned, but a lot of less experienced users conflate that with being blocked indefinitely). Under some circumstances I might be willing to unblock the old account, as they don't seem to be trying to be disruptive. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This same IP user (27.33.134.168) is edit warring with other users to change the status quo at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election. See diffs: [17], [18], [19], and [20]. For the last two diffs, it's a different IP, but they've admitted that it's them. The other user war editing is the one that made the concerning comment. I talked about them at the bottom of this talk page. I might make an RfC on this. CountyCountry (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aniruddhchaudhuy&redlink=1

my latest edits had numerous clearing after this user, one of indian socks by all patterns Cenderabird (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%9325_Indian_Super_Cup

protection might help Cenderabird (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=East_Bengal_FC_Reserves_and_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1248606441

temporarily ban is needed Cenderabird (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we can do about this one ... he's EC so protection won't do much, and he hasn't really edited that article enough to justify blocking him from it. This would be one to open an SPI on. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if they come back after I blocked the first sock. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kiilvish

worth to check Cenderabird (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ... this is an older account, which hasn't exclusively edited Indian football articles. Can you share any editing similarities you may have found? Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Imsamrat392

reminds of this a lot Cenderabird (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Akshadev

(his sock style too)...maybe some more Cenderabird (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Santos and capitalization of titles

Thanks for the edits to the George Santos page which greatly improve the readability and flow of the page.

Maybe it's me, but do your edits of George Santos on 1 October 2024 match the MOS:JOBTITLE style?

As an example, lowercase of "attorney general" in:

New York Attorney Generalattorney general Letitia James

doesn't seem to match the MOS. I think MOS:JOBTITLE indicates that capitalization like:

Letitia James, the attorney general of New York

would be fine, whereas flipping the order should be:

New York Attorney General Letitia James

I'm not sure on this but the page on Attorney General of New York leads with:

The attorney general of New York is the chief legal officer

whereas the page on Ms. James has only one lowercase instance of Attorney General

James was sworn in as attorney general on January 1, 2019,

See: George Santos diff

Puzzled,

Lent (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really thinking of JOBTITLE when I made that revert; as my edit summary shows, it was about CONFORM. I do agree that with Ms. James's title preceding her name, it should be capitalized. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clears things up! Lent (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock

Hi! Did you mean to make this rangeblock a hard block? That's an enormous range with a ton of unrelated collateral.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me again! I've modified the block to anon only as there are hundreds of accounts on that range that are potentially affected by the block. Hope that's ok with you!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... don't know how that happened; perhaps I must have accidentally clicked it because, since IP blocks default to soft, I wouldn't have routinely chosen a hard block, certainly not for such a large range. Thanks for the fix! Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought is was odd. All good now!-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:147:C480:DA50:85FD:9371:28FF:FBE8

american ip messing with filipino club logos...any block welcome. history of blocks from similar range. Cenderabird (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave them a warning. I found that the /20 they're on was blocked years back, but otherwise no previous blocks. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A thread relevant to a recent admin action of yours

I note that you recently protected The Keys to the White House. FYI, I've been trying to remove citations to a self-published blog. With the blog's defenders on Talk:The Keys to the White House remaining adamant, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Seeking_opinions_on_thepostrider.com. I don't know to what extent your protection was related to these citations, but this is a heads-up in case you're interested. JamesMLane t c 01:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RPP outcome

I requested a page protection due to WP:LOUTSOCK and noted 119.94.160.0/19 by copying over what was in WHOIS, which got that range blocked. I just realized that affects 8,192 IPs. Perhaps narrowing it down to 119.94.170.0/24 under the same terms of block would be more reasonable Graywalls (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the range again and frankly, most of what has come from there has not been good. I'm not sure narrowing it to /24 would spare the good edits while blocking the bad ones. Daniel Case (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection "Chozhia Vellalar" article

Hello, could you please intervene on the Chozia Vellalar article, now protected, in order to restore it to the state it was in prior to its latest vandalism (oldid=1249691125; contribution by the “problematic” user Anirudhahalarama), on which I have not preferred to intervene for the umpteenth time, and which is the version still online. Unless the article is “blocked” in this state (vandalized) while awaiting the involvement of more “consensual” contributors?

Thank you

Drusekoana (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per this (humorous and sarcastic, but do see the last paragraph) administrators don't do this because we must be seen as neutral when taking these actions. You might want to request someone else who has EC rights do this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know how much time you have every day to devote to Wikipedia, but you're likely to reach ECP status yourself within a month at your current pace. Now might be a good time to step that up (but I would just work on the sort of things you've been working on to avoid accusations you're gaming the system) Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Edit-count-wise, you have farther to go than I thought. Maybe put in your request on WT:IN? Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much for your feedback. Drusekoana (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article I've been trying to create might have a create protection

I'm a new contributor and one of the articles that I have been trying to make has been deleted 3 times under my name. The explanations as to why it gets deleted are too vague and I' m not really getting any proper answers. I was hoping to get help on how it can get published like my other article/s. Your name appeared as the last person to handle the revision history so I was trying to see if I can finally get some real help.

20:43, 3 October 2024 Daniel Case talk contribs protected Bill Dawes [Create=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP) (thank)

Jtreyes85 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have taken so long to respond but ... your article has been so frequently recreated that I wouldn't feel comfortable lifting that protection on my own, without consensus.

I will take a look at whatever sources you've used, though, and see if I can give you any advice about that. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Hoping for some help regarding it. I have since contributed some other articles that didn't have issues getting approved so I really am at a loss as to how else I can get this one about this person approved. Jtreyes85 (talk) 07:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Hoping for some help regarding this case. I've since published another article for a different topic/organization and contributed to updating another article with no issues. Jtreyes85 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I understand that you could be handling loads and loads of concerns from people everyday but I was hoping to get some help regarding this situation. Jtreyes85 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took a look. I see two big issues which do not, to me seem likely to go away anytime soon:

Sources: They are either, generally, not considered reliable sources or are just passing, trivial mentions, such as a credit or one single inline use of the name. Variety is a reliable source, but I don't find any mention of Bill Dawes in it. Pop Culturalist has that nice in-depth coverage, but looking at its About page I don't find any indication that the site applies any editorial oversight to what it publishes. Without an WP:RS/N discussion on it, I don't see it as reliability—it is not something we presume. IMdB makes use of a lot of user-submitted information that isn't verified by the site, and so too with most other databases. Rotten Tomatoes isn't something we usually use to establish a person's notability.
The prose. It reads like a bio that an agent or publicist might put out, not an encyclopedia article. I concede that it avoids obvious fluff, but it still needs work—it is exactly the reason we like to have non-trivial reliably-sourced third-party coverage for, so we can avoid this.

Daniel Case (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incheon_Hyundai_Steel_Red_Angels_WFC&diff=prev&oldid=1249906492

what's done when user does not understand format edits... Cenderabird (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first I'd like to see where it says we have to format the table code that way. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 26: Wikidata Day NYC

October 26: Wikidata Day in New York City

You are invited to Wikidata Day in New York City at Pratt Institute School of Information in Manhattan, in celebration of Wikidata's 12th birthday. This event, held by our chapter in collaboration with Pratt and Girls Who Code, will be our third annual celebration of Wikidata Day. It will feature spotlight sessions, lightning talks, and the customary Wiki-cake, while those unable to attend in person will be able to watch a livestream.

All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct.

Saturday, October 26, 2024 Wikidata Day in New York City (Eventbrite RSVP is required and also optionally on-wiki).
11:00 am – 5:00 pm

Pratt Manhattan (rooms 201 and 214), 144 W 14th Street

RSVP off-wiki is required for building entry!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning comment made by user in discussion

There's a user, Burns1889, that made a racist and white supremacist comment here [21]. CountyCountry (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I RevDel'ed the edit and gave them basically an only warning on this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not sure if you have seen this, but I also posted an update on another case here User talk:Daniel Case#Strange IP User. They have since reverted again. Would an increase in article protection be needed, especially because that we are close to the election. Or would another action be needed? CountyCountry (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to do anything right now ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on IP you blocked two times before

Hi Daniel Case. The IPs that you blocked two times before are now back calculating averages incorrectly after their block expired. They are continuing to do the same thing. We talked about the case before here: User talk:Daniel Case#159.250.17.61. For example, today they calculated the averages here wrong [22]. The average for Trump should be 47.62, not 47.85 (they like rounding to hundredths place for some reason). And this throws the whole margins off in a close election. They did the same here [23] where it should be 48.08 and not 47.95 for Trump. This IP is not changing and refuses to calculate correctly. CountyCountry (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are now blocked for three months, which should eliminate any disruption they might cause before the election. Daniel Case (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortnite revision deletion

Just before the most recent page protection, there were multiple revisions that I believe should be oversighted. GilaMonster536 (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand IP block

77.77.218.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Would you look at contributions of the IP you previously blocked and consider expanding to Miss World 2025? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done We might also want to consider at some point if this continues whether to invoke WP:GS/PAGEANT. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Power Girl edit warrior

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up that this WP:SPA seems to be insisting on repeating their edit warring with their comment at my talk. I have already filed an SPI and another edit warring report, though, alas, I do not think this will be the end of their antics until they are tired out. I mean, they've repeatedly kept their edit war going on for well over a year on their original account until just recently when it was blocked. Thought keeping you in the loop/on the radar would be good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked KryptonianHero indef as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quick request

I'm not quite sure if this is enough for a revdel, but just in case I'm gonna make this request. A pretty bad edit was made on Template talk:TFA editnotice. Think you could go check it out? thanks in advance. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be on the safe side, I RevDel'ed it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Gaismagorm (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Protection Request: Dan Houston

On the 8th October you protected this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dan_Houston

The trade went through five days ago so is it possible that the protection could be removed as it should be no longer required? Flipstatic Energy (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Capital Partners

Hi Daniel Case. I work for the New Jersey-based company, Energy Capital Partners, and hope that your involvement in Project New Jersey might mean you'd be willing to help me out. I posted a request to add new material to the article and would be grateful for your review. I recognize that your time is valuable; I can implement these additions myself if you approve of them. Thanks in advance, Californiabri19 (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User temporarily blocked for edit warring on Nagasena

He's at it again. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for two weeks this time, as he's now aware of CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_in_India&oldid=1237938759

can all edits by blocked user around that time / page be reverted, after i had efforts to keep some parts... thanks! Cenderabird (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you got all of them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection levels at WP:CASTE

Hey. Do you know if there's an expectation to ECP @WP:CASTE? Because I'm looking at the log where it appears that I'm pretty much the only one semiprotecting. Any ideas? Thank you. Best, El_C 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I always got that idea, yes, although it's certainly within your discretion if you don't. Just like with ARBPIA, although I think that's backed up by ABRECR applying there. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, with ARBPIA ECR is already expressly prescribed as a remedy. But with CASTE I'm kinda wondering what everyone else knows that I don't... El_C 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that with CASTE, as well as RUSUKR and some AA articles directly relevant to military conflict between those two nations, either directly or through proxies, EC has been permitted as a remedy. The contentiousness of those topic areas has led to a lot of admins preferring it, perhaps so they don't have to see RFPPs for those articles again. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabour the point, but WP:RUSUKR and WP:GS/AA both expressly mention ECP, whereas CASTE doesn't but everyone (except for me) defaults to it. Maybe it's just one of those mysteries, where everyone's in the know but me. :( El_C 02:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been approved but not noted. WP:GENSEX does not seem to reflect the thumbs-up to the amendment request Sideswipe9th and I made earlier this year, that ECR be allowed in instances of deliberate misgendering and deadnaming. We would have liked it to be a mandatory sanction, but I'm happy right now with it being informally permissive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hanni Pham Contentious Material

Hi Daniel, I notice that you have put a contentious topics notice on Hanni (singer). The famous singer is an Australian national with Vietnamese ancestry. The article violated BLP policies from the first edit from a banned user on 14 Aug 2022, which incorrectly referred to her as a "Vietnamese rapper". Some poorly written music articles have repeated his misinformation, stating the singer was born in Vietnam. Those articles are now used as 'reliable' sources to perpetuate lies about her, that have reached Vietnamese nationalist activists. It has puts the innocent singer as a target of online harassment, as reported by the BBC https://www.bbc.com/vietnamese/articles/c97l38yr67zo (and elsewhere) which states the apolitical singer is believed to have betrayed Vietnam. Having looked carefully into the matter, can you help me understand the administrator support, including banning users, for the perpetuation of false information which began and continues on Wikipedia in violation of its BLP policies. Why is an Australian-born singer with Vietnamese ethnicity so contentious? Travelmite (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NAT. Nationality and ethnicity really seem to really bring up the hackles on some people's backs. We've had to even protect some articles about foods (like the ever-popular chicken tikka masala, which we've had to protect indefinitely over whether it's Indian or South Asian). Last year I had to indefinitely semi-protect Siobhan Fahey as a contentious BLP when I reviewed the history and saw that for years edit-warring had gone on over whether she's English (where she grew up and sounds like she came from) or Irish (where she was born, where her parents are from and what her name would lead you to believe).

It sounds like the issues you raise regarding sources might be best addressed at BLPN. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not able to access the nationality of Siobhan Fahey, so any opinion on nationality violates the BLP policy. At a minimum, the administrative function is to remove information that violates the policy. Information that is contentious should be presumed to violate the policy until any uncertainty is dealt with.

There is no evidence that Wikipedia editors are aware of Vietnamese nationalism they inflamed by writing up their personal impressions or copying fan sites. Your notice appears to confirm the BLP policy is being violated, where removal becomes compulsory. Steps to tackle edit-warring must be subordinate to the BLP policy because that may endanger or defame people, which you correctly pointed out in the first line. The singer is at risk in Vietnam (as reported by the BBC) because of Wikipedia falsely implying someone is subject to Vietnamese law, including sedition.

According to the BLP policy in conjunction your contentious topic notice, the contentious biographic material must be removed, and anyone restoring that material should be restricted from doing so. With BLP satisfied, editors can then proceed to find a reliable source (perhaps via the BLPN) that is not a mere recycling of the original Wikipedia unsourced presumption from 2022. Is this understanding correct? Travelmite (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are correct that we—like most people—can't look into the data bases governments maintain of who is and isn't a citizen. We can, of course, cite a person's statements about their own citizenship or preferred nationality if they are seen as reliable enough about themselves. There are other places from which reasonable inferences can be drawn—we decided that since Anna Wintour is able to vote in U.S. elections and give money to candidates, she is a U.S. citizen.

Can you tell me which unreliable sources are being used to support the notion that she has Vietnamese citizenship? (It doesn't appear presently that the article makes that claim).

BLP mandates that negative material about a living person be removed without discussion only if it is unsourced or poorly sourced. If someone differs about the quality of the sourcing, there should usually be at least a discussion on the talk page, as there presently appears to be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, the article infobox claim is: Nationality = Vietnamese Australian[24]] < !- As per consensus at talk page, maintain Vietnamese–Australian nationality as per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES guidelines >. That would be to not implement BLP, which requires immediate removal. However in this case, the novice editor was banned for BLP, even though the reverting/complaining editor posted sources that were unreliable and inconsistent (step 6 in timeline). Add that the newsworthy aspect in the source was online harassment by political nationalists for what Wikipedia was claiming. I provide the following summary in timeline format:

1) 2022.08.14 Startpage[25] "hani, is a Vietnamese rapper" "Born ... Vietnam". There is no source. The only other link cites a unrelated group called GOT7.

2) 2022.09.29[26] "a Vietnamese-Australian rapper" "Born ... Melbourne" (no source, the dash indicates dual nationality as per MOS:DUALNATIONALITY in contrast to Vietnamese Australian)

3) 2024.06.16[27] Infobox "Citizenship: Vietnam.Australia", source is the harassment by Vietnamese nationalists in mid-2023 Dong Sun-hwa. "NewJeans member Hanni's dual nationality causes stir". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on September 7, 2023. Retrieved June 16, 2024. "some extremists even demanding she gives up her Vietnamese nationality" which was presumed.

4) 2024.07.01[28] Novice user deletes citizenship line calling it "False information", followed by 17 days of edit tussles with many users and debate on talk page.

5) 2024.07.01 You added the CTOPS notice [29]

6) 2024.07.01-17 Talk:Hanni_(singer)/Archive_1 defenders of the page prioritise 3RR rule over BLP policy (contrary to WP:3RRBLP) and claim "reliable sources"[30] that directly contradict each other as follows:

(a) 2022.07.22[31] "Hani is a Vietnamese national"

(b) 2022.07.26[32] "The 18-year-old was born in Vietnam but was raised in Australia".

(d) 2022.08.11[34] "Hani has dual citizenship in Vietnam and Australia".

(e) 2023.05.09[35] "Hanni was born and raised in Melbourne, Australia to Vietnamese parents".

(f) 2023.05.12[36] "Hanni was born in Vietnam, but raised in Australia".

Overlooked are sources elsewhere referring to Hanni as just Australian, such as 2023.01.07 Daily Mail UK "Australian member, Hanni Pham"[37]; and BBC 2023.02.01 [38] "she is an Australian citizen and of Vietnamese descent". In fact, her actual citizenship or nationality has not been specifically disclosed. It was suggested "errors regarding her birthplace" did not affect source reliably [39].

7) 2024.06.17[40] Infobox "Nationality: Vietnamese-Australian" source Quoc Tan Trung Nguyen (March 9, 2023). "Backlash against K-pop star Hanni shows Vietnam still struggles with the legacy of the war". The Conversation. Retrieved July 17, 2024. < !-- As per consensus at talk page, maintain Vietnamese–Australian nationality as per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES guidelines -- >. The PhD student's article does not state the singer's nationality or citizenship.

8) 2024.08.17[41]; 2024.08.19[42]; 2024.10.10[43] there were further edit tussles over nationality line and 'real' name.

9) 2024.09.26 Vietnamese Wiki version infobox states "Citizen: Australian" after their own debate.

10) 2024.10.25[44] removal of dash "nationality: Vietnamese Australian"

The above history shows no confirmation or disclosure of Hanni Pham's nationality - its all guesswork. Despite conflicting statements in citations, Wikipedia continue to make assertions, except Es. and Vi.wikipedia. It is self-evident that proper citation and reliable sourcing has not been applied. The harmful, unfair sedition controversy within Vietnam is likely generated from Wikipedia's citizenship assertion. What I am asking here, is that administratively it appears the priority was to stop the edit tussle, add a contentious notice, ban a user and restrict discussion, but not uphold the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy that "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", which Wikipedia argues is necessary by "applicable laws in the United States" WP:3RRBLP. Ironically, this is lot of discussion to act without discussion. Kindly help me figure out where the administrative priorities lie. Travelmite (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hello, Daniel Case, hope you are well. Few days ago I reported this editor [[45]] on wp:ani regarding edit warring on Gracanica monastery page and Visoki Decani page, [[46]], unfortunately there was no decision, today they just continued with edit warring [[47]], [[48]], [[49]] with no discussion on talk page [[50]], can something be done, it is clear that when someone makes controversial edits, especially on Balkan related pages, they should reach consensus on talk pages, this editor doesn't even bother with that even though they got reverted by several editors by now. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for a month and made it a CTOPS action. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on a few pages?

Hi, I came across a few pages that look like page protection might be warranted, based on a number of recent necessary reversions:

University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department, Oklahoma, American Idol, Alexandria City High School, and Slovenia Likeanechointheforest (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy ... I don't have the time right now to look at all these. Give me a day or so. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also looks like Gabby's Dollhouse might need protection, a lot of recent reversions from IPs. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... that one I have semi-protected indefinitely (groan ... another kids' show; these (and the channels and networks that show them really need to be considered as a contentious topic/community sanctions area) Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how they attract the attention of, ahem, kids and other folk with rather wild imaginations, I don't think that a CT/CS would hurt to curb on vandalism and hoaxing. Blake Gripling (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to put together a record of all the sanctions in this area we've made so we can make this request of ArbCom (or on ... where? ... AN? as community sanctions, I will be there in support). Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about similar sanctions with Philippine radio stations given the antics of one of them dudes I mentioned, but I'm not sure if it warrants a CS/GS unless there are more of them vandalising said articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things in Philippine media culture that could lead to a combined "Popular culture of the Philippines" CTOP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about the other pages too! Likeanechointheforest (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lassi

Requesting increased protection for Lassi due to persistent disruptive editing. I have placed warnings on a recent editor's talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:2A02:8071:67F2:A60:50ED:B811:C0F3:9B51 Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected indefinitely this time and logged at CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

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

SignedInteger (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice cream flavors

Requesting protection for List of ice cream flavors due to persistent addition of unsourced/poorly sourced material. Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 00:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done two weeks semi and a month's pending changes. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite protection of multiple pages

Hello. I wanted to ask for your help in the protection of the pages below. These pages have been the target of persistent addition of unsourced content by multiple IP users from Venezuela, which is most likely the same person. I requested temporary protection but I think it should be indefinite because as soon as a protection expires the users resume their vandalism and an indefinite protection may solve this issue. Please let me know what you think. Thank you.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... I generally don't think we should go to indef protection until it's been shown that a year will not be enough to make vandals/disruptors forget the page exists. In most circumstances. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpurohit

Dear Sir Sheer vandalism is going on, on the page for Rajpurohit caste. I myself am a researcher and belong to the same caste and therefore well learned on the issue. A guy with username Vedant Katyayan has been trying very hard to misguide and manipulate the page. He has deleted all the facts about the origin, evolution, warriors and events in their lives under the disguise of "POV Push" whereas the fact is that he is trying to whitewash with his POV. This is personally very derogatory and since I have less edits on wiki, I feel helpless. You had cleared the matter by restoring previous version and setting up editing lock but he has bounced back as an editor with more than 500 edits and thus deleting back. I confronted to him on his talk and he finally limited himself to saying that just because page numbers of the reference books were not mentioned therefore he termed it all false. this is unjustified. I can even provide page numbers with proper links but now I can't edit. Kindly help sir. Anshu1799 (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... we could increase the restrictions on the page, but I'm not sure that's the issue. Maybe you should consider an AN/I thread, where others might be able to weigh in? Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an ongoing discussion going on in Talk:Rajpurohit about the changes i made. This user @Anshu1799 is unnecessarily making personal attacks on me and even threatened me for consequences on my talk page while i requested him to maintain civility. Multiple times i asked him to cite Wikipedia:Reliable sources but it looks like he doesn't cares at all about reliable sources and even want to add information which wasn't even mentioned in any source on that article. I made my last change on Rajpurohit when another administrator allowed me to restore his version on Talk:Rajpurohit. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is consistently making unconstructive edits on different articles while poorly citing a Non-Reliable source to push POV for Rajpurohit caste. I hope you'll analyse his edits neutrally and will also warn him not to make personal attacks or threats to me. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I hope you can clearly see how jealous this person is. He is a propagandist and is just playing the victim card to gain sympathy. This article was already in a good state for a long time but suddenly this person has issues with the Rajpurohit community and he is so intolerant about it. Again and again he declares works of renowned historians as Unreliable sources. He has zero knowledge about the topic and is treating it as sacrilege. He did something similar with CHARANS as well but they could protect their page by imposing restrictions. I sincerely urge you to revert the page to the last edit that I made and elevate the restriction. I believe it will protect the dignity and decorum of the page and WP both from such people. I assure you in all my senses that the information on the article and mentioned sources are more than reliable, they are written by senior historians. I can accept that specific page numbers are not mentioned and I can certainly provide that but this should not be the basis to manipulate the identity of the community, which this user has done. A martial community with history dating back to more than thousands of years is not worth of a couple of lines that he has left the page with. He is misusing the editing privileges and I look forward to gain support from senior editors like you. I would once again request to revert and increase restrictions if at all I cannot be provided with special editing rights.

Regards Anshu1799 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He is a propagandist and is just playing the victim card to gain sympathy." If you can't assume good faith, don't expect to prevail in sourcing disputes. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits on 2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election page

Hello! I am writing this to bring to your notice about the disruptive edits being made by User:Ritwik Mahata on the 2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election page. Despite being given repeated warnings of not doing such edits, he repeatedly disregards all other editors to edit the page as per his liking. He is continuously adding candidates of parties which have not won a single seat in Jharkhand Legislative Assembly in the past decade.

Despite being called out by other editors to avoid doing so, he continues to add them. When called out, he responds by saying "You cannot decide which parties are major and which are not".

Therefore, please take a look at the page and consider suitable actions against the said user at the earliest to prevent edit wars. Thanks and regards! FlyJet777 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked them for 24 hours for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking required corrective action! Regards FlyJet777 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel Case,

Even after repeated warnings RITWIK MAHATA is adding candidates of a political party (Jharkhand Loktantrik Krantikari Morcha) which has zero seats in Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, and trying to portray them as main contenders in 2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election page. There are many political parties in India, we cannot add all parties candidates in the page. Alliance members of Mahagathbandhan and National Democratic Alliance have won 47 and 30 seats (out of 81 seats) respectively in 2019 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election, they are considered as main contenders. There are no other parties and alliances which have won significant number of seats to be considered as main contenders. Issue was discussed in Talk page and no one agreed with his argument. Can you please help? Sachin126 (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am facing the same problem with him while editing the article. He hasn't really changed his behavior and keeps reverting trying to introduce this new alliance called Janmat which has no seats, mostly of parties which don't have recognition or even articles and that I don't think anyone else agrees about including them. MrMkG (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked him for two weeks, given him a CTOPS alert, and put a CTOPS notice on the article's talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Sachin126 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parties & alliances

@Daniel Case

Please look into this matter :

Editor named Ankur0745 has removed sourced content of a third alliance from Parties & alliances section of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election. Also he/she is commenting that " Disruptive edit reverted" in edit summary. Before he/she also done this after reverting his edit. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir, I Just wanted to inform that the content that I removed was only this editor. Nobody was mentioning JANMAT Alliance and as of now the editors didn't add the alliance, I can say that I removed the content that was added by Ritwik Mahata. Which was clearly disruptive as many editors like FlyJet777 complaint about it. Thanks Ankur0745 (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case

He/She has cleared his/her thought about removing a sourced content. Please look into this matter. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 12:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the most recent talk page discussion, it looks like consensus is against you. You can always request a third opinion speaking directly to this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The matter:

There is a third alliance named JANMAT consisting 10 political parties in upcoming 2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election. I had mentioned it in Parties & alliances section of that article with two reliable sources. As it is from reliable sources no editor has written against this edit of me in the talk page of that article. Even there is no discussion about this matter in the talk page. I couldn't understand what consensus you have found against me about this matter which has not been discussed in the talk page of that article.

My compain is that the editor named Ankur0745 has removed that sourced content.

In this section of your talk page he/she clearly expressed his thought about removing that content -

Nobody was mentioning JANMAT Alliance and as of now the editors didn't add the alliance

He/She has removed it only because I (ID:RITWIK MAHATA) added that content (with two reliable sources). Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 16:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I can add it again, Please withdrew this complaint as I restored it but discuss about in the article talk page about this Ankur0745 (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

@Daniel Case

Can candidates of a alliance as third alliance in an assembly election be added in Candidates section? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you guys had resolved that. But anyway, I'm not the person to ask, even if I knew the nuances of Indian state and federal election law and procedure (and administrators aren't supposed to resolve content issues like that where it is based on local consensus). You might be better bringing this up at the India Project noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 21:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian filter coffee

Requesting India/Pakistan-related CTOPS protection (Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission) for Indian filter coffee due to persistent addition of poorly sourced material by IP users. I have placed a warning on the most recent IP editor's talk page. Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh et al.

Requesting a block of this user with large-scale recent disruptive edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Catwolfsbake3002 This editor has received a final warning: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Catwolfsbake3002 Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 04:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been warned since May. It's a stale warning. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Catwolfsbake3002#November_2024 Ram1751 (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: page "Russians at War" that you've protected

Dear @Daniel Case, I am impressed with your expertise in Wiki editing so I hope for a neutral look at the stalemate between editors on the Russians at War page, which you've protected from public editing. As one critic from Roger Ebert described it, this film "became … the subject of mass protests outside the venue (of the festivals) by supporters of Ukraine believing it to be mere propaganda (none of whom had seen the film), and even members of Trudeau’s government excoriating the festival for playing the film at all ^[1]. The film was screened only in Venice, twice at TIFF under strict security and in Winsor since Ukrainian protests suppressed its public screening at other festivals. None of the Wikipedia editors who call it "propaganda" (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) have seen it – they don’t deny it. These three editors constantly ignore helpful and well-sourced suggestions from other editors, even though some of these editors saw the film and spoke to reviewers from the media.

I was one of the few lucky people who watched the film. After reviewing its reception in media, I compiled a comprehensive and well-structured page for this film (with 87 sources and with sections according to other Wiki pages on films). The current version is outdated, doesn't include recent festivals-related events and has only 47 sources. If you investigate this matter, please, please compare my version of the page at User:EVS-VR with the current version Russians at War. My previous versions are all in the history of edits of the Talk page of Russians at War; they are used by other editors to verify sources and propose new versions. So naturally, there is similarity between pieces submitted by various editors. The majority of editors working on this page are not extended editors, so we had to ask extended editors, such as User:UrbanVillager and User:Manyareasexpert, to change something on the page. The User:UrbanVillager made several attempts to post my version of the page but User:Manyareasexpert, who mainly edited the matter related to Ukraine and so does not have neutrality position here, constantly reverts the changes made by other editor User:UrbanVillager. So I saw at least four loops of posting texts taken from my version by User:UrbanVillager and reversing the changes by User:Manyareasexpert, back and forth, back and forth. Using their superiority in this situation, User:Manyareasexpert adds references from people who admittedly haven't seen the film but ignores 40 sources that I proposed to be mentioned on the page. Now the page remains badly outdated, and the matter of Release at the festivals, description of the film, and Reception, i.e. the classically separate section in the film's description - all mixed up in one soup right from the introduction of the page. Please have a look.

To underline: all my sources are Western media specialists and Western journalists, so they are neutral in terms of WP:RUSUKR issue, whereas all three editors (User:0lida0, Stoptheprop, User:Manyareasexpert) vandalizing the proposed edits show a pro-Ukrainian uninformed (haven't seen the film) bias. I am sympathetic with Ukrainians fighting Russian aggression but here they simply react to the noise without knowing what this is about, throwing the baby with the water. Anti-war films shouldn’t be edited by the sides that are involved in the war, as both sides will scream “propaganda”. I, therefore, kindly ask you to compare the two versions of the page and to intervene, letting Western journalists be heard, as part of the "Reception" section of this film's wiki page. Thank you, Daniel, for reading it, I appreciate how busy you must be with having many messy pages and requests like this. I hope you will find time to assist in decision making regarding this page. Yours truly, EVS-VR (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "TIFF 2024: A Canadian Perspective on This Year's Festival-of-festivals". Roger Ebert.

Seeking Guidance on Content Review

Hi @Daniel Case, regarding the last protection on the Qaboos_bin_Said page, I am reaching out to seek your guidance on handling an ongoing issue with this page, since 2006, personal life section has been subject to continuous edits by multiple editors, many of which include content that I believe does not fully comply with Wikipedia's core policies.

Many contributions rely on poorly sourced material, including opinion-based sources that may not meet the standards outlined in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and I've discussed this in details previously with @Ip says in his/her talk page.

I am open for a discussion among editors to achieve a solution that aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines and I would appreciate your advice on the best way to address this issue. Should a formal content review be initiated, or is there a recommended step I can take to ensure that the section reflects sourced, neutral, and balanced content? Itshrabkhan (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to engage me in an editwar. I think you're quite familiar and experienced enough with WP: rules and guidelines to know how it's done here. Ip says: Work Better yes. (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again @Daniel Case,

I’m reaching out to ask for your assistance in reviewing the ongoing situation on the Sultan's Talk page. There has been a recurring issue regarding the inclusion of claims about the Sultan’s sexuality, which contradicts the outcomes of a previous RFC (Request for Comment). As per the RFC's consensus, it was decided to exclude claims about the Sultan's sexuality. This decision was made to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding privacy and verifiability.

However, I’ve notesed that users Contaldo80 and Cagliost have consistently attempted to repost these claims despite the clear consensus established in the RFC. This has led to repeated edits and edit warring, which seems to disregard the RFC outcome.

Given the ongoing nature of this issue, I would appreciate it if you could review the situation on the Talk page, particularly the RFC discussion and its outcomes in Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 2 and Talk:Qaboos bin Said/Archive 3. It’s important that the consensus be respected and enforced.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Itshrabkhan (talk) 10:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those discussions being relevant to the current dispute is that they both took place while BLP was still relevant: in the first case he was still alive; in the second he had died within the previous six months so BDP applied. It's been four years and BLP does not apply anymore, barring some consensus that the circumstances demand an extension of the six months. If you still wish to exclude it, its inclusion will have to be attacked on some other grounds. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the BLP policy application in this context. I appreciate your guidance on looking into this matter.

Given that BLP no longer applies, I would like to raise additional points some in which were related to the previous RFCs outcomes that may justify reviewing the inclusion of these allegations or rumours:

Weak and Speculative Sources: the sources used to support these allegations appear to lack credibility or rely on speculation, as they are primarily rumor-based or come from less authoritative outlets. According to Wikipedia’s policies, sources need to be both reliable and independent, especially for contentious claims. Regardless of whether these claims are sourced, rumors—without robust evidence—remain unsubstantiated and can detract from the article’s quality.

_{Source number [53] based on assumptions. Source number [54] based on the claims of only three people, not to mention that one of them has been arrested in 1994. Source number [55] based on believes. Source number [56] quoted from a book and the book writer quoted from "Graham Diaries" but none of the Diaries published by Oxford University Press contain the quote, which conclude that Tony Molesworth actually perhaps didn’t mention anything regarding Qaboos private life.}

Lack of Significance to the Subject's Legacy: These allegations don’t seem to add substantial value or relevance to the overall article. Readers are unlikely to gain meaningful insight from unproven claims that lack significance to the individual’s contributions or public image. Wikipedia’s policies emphasizes giving appropriate weight to content, and I believe the article might benefit from excluding material that doesn’t contribute substantively.

Cultural Context and Sensitivity: It’s important to consider the cultural implications of LGBT-related content, especially given that this individual is from an Arab country where such topics are often highly sensitive or legally restricted. Wikipedia policies, allow coverage of controversial topics; however, we should still ensure the content serves an encyclopedic purpose rather than merely presenting information that could be perceived as culturally inflammatory or out of place.

In light of these points, I believe it might be worth re-evaluating whether this content genuinely meets Wikipedia’s standards for relevance, neutrality, and verifiability. Itshrabkhan (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've obviously put some thought into this. However, I'm not the one to decide this ... you should open this discussion again on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while

But no worries, I'm back with another friendly request for your assistance, if you could please help RD2 this gensex vio. Thanks as always :) Raladic (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, same talk page. I honestly think there'll be an ongoing barrage of this for the coming time. I'm also confused why the OS admins have not actually cleaned up the redir discussion and related notice that also went on the talk page, feels a bit concerning that they're just leaving clear violations as is. Raladic (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the talk page revisions. As for the redirect ... I thought about salting it but, it's a common enough name and what, say, would happen if a rookie baseball pitcher or NASCAR driver came up next season with it (OK, it would be easy enough to leave it to an EC editor to be allowed to create it, but still ...).

Then I wondered ... are there any existing Tim McBrides who might be notable enough to start an article on? I looked around ... maybe this guy might be? Or his book? (We don't have to have an article on him per se, just something that would justify a redirect).

This guy goes by Timothy, but that could also justify a redirect to an article on him. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and fair point on the salting. I just hope it doesn’t get recreated by someone and pointed there again by someone with malicious intent.

So yes if there was indeed an article as a valid justified target we could point it to, that could mitigate it potentially. Raladic (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that first guy, the Saltwater Cowboy ex-drug smuggler, looks good. The Times reviewed his book, and I found a MassLive article about him. But I'd feel comfortable with more.

Both of them would be even better; we'd cover both Tim and Timothy (we should see how much the latter guy's work gets cited by others on Google Scholar). Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one on the talk page.

I've logged another RFPP for the talk page since the prior protection expired. Raladic (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another admin already got it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Saga has now expanded to McBride (surname) - mind taking care of this please, also this here.

I already submitted the user to AIV under WP:NOTHERE. Raladic (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly ping on the above in case you missed it the other day. Thanks :) Raladic (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got it now. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah McBride saga continues. A lot of editors who may not be familiar with our policies on deadnaming and misgendering have repeated various transphobic messages by Nancy Mace at this new article Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act. I just submitted the page for Arbitration enforcement at RPP Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Protecting_Women's_Private_Spaces_Act if you have a moment, unless another admin gets there first and did a roundhouse cleanup of various instances of misgendering in the article, but it might be hard to track down all the edits that created them for RD, so hopefully just adding the arbitration enforcement makes it clear to users not to repeat them again. Raladic (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of hoping the article was going to be deleted—that would have solved a lot of problems. Doesn't look like it now, though.

Because one of those problems is that GENDERID is, as written, strictly applicable to what we say in Wikipedia's voice. I do not think it applies to quoting other people misgendering the person in question when it's clearly attributed to those people. There are other ways of dealing with that in the article—I would think most of those examples just aren't necessary, and might better be dealt with more generally.

Also, arguably, it's POV to paraphrase someone's statements as "misgendering" Rep.-elect McBride. You and I and quite a few others would see it that way, but Marjorie Taylor Greene, for one, would not. We could perhaps be better just stating that more factually and neutrally, with something like "Rep. Greene and others used male pronouns in reference to McBride".

And in the long (perhaps not so long) run we should find some way of addressing the issue of quoted misgendering in policy. Because, yes, leaving quotes untouched opens the door to the kind of coatracking like this in an attempt to bypass GENDERID. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, for the most part I just removed those quotes as they were really not necessary as you also said to make the point of the article. But also the scope of the article as it stands is quite fuzzy (as I already brought up in the RM and AfD since it's really about Transphobia in the House and likely will continue to grow (baring CRYSTALBALL in mind of course). I guess we'll see what becomes of the article. But for starters, hoping that at least red-tag arbs enforcement makes it clear to editors that they should not just willy-nilly repeat slurs in the article, just because they were made. Raladic (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really about more than Mace's bill, TBH—there's no way that passes, much less gets voted on, before Congress adjourns, and we usually don't consider bills that don't get voted on notable. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see

Hi Daniel,

I think it's been since George Santos went to Washington since we've crossed paths. I'm asking you about my minor problem since I think you might be the only person with the proper background. I've been placing most of ROY KLOTZ's pics for a dozen years now - from back when he was an octogenarian - and haven't really had any problems. Maybe a few pix in Bergen County with the same name (different addresses), a covered bridge in Ohio where everything was known except the name and location, and the worst case - my favorite pic of his got lost somehow. It was him and his family in front of a long washed out Peruvian railroad with a school bus converted into a trolley car ready to take them straight down the mountain. Six months after I posted it the whole article disappeared without a trace! But, hey! no problem --- 999 done out of a thousand is pretty good in most leagues.

This one is a bit different though. The Electric City Building in Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pa was listed on the NRHP (I thought it was a long time ago!), but there's not even an article on it yet. There's lots of pix at [51]. For the small pic at the county NRHP list I thought I'd concentrate on the big sign up top as being the most striking part. But in either the building or the sign category, there are some other good pix, e.g. from Carol M. Highsmith and myself. I finally decided that Highsmith's was too dark for the small space on the list, and therefore selected mine. I hate to tell Roy that I thought my pic was better than his. Could you go to the category and objectively pick the best pic for the spot?

And as long as you are there the last 4 pix Roy has uploaded at [52] should be checked for posting. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Without even looking at the author, your photo stands out among those that show the whole building and fill most of the frame. Roy's is a little overexposed and needs perspective correction.

I'm glad you wrote, actually — I have been meaning to let you know that I have done quite a lot of those library pictures you were soliciting some time back, the "one inside, one outside" pics for every library on the planet. Check out the libraries categories for Dutchess, Orange and Ulster counties on Commons. And there are still some more to come. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla train crash

Hi, this edit of yours to Valhalla train crash introduced a no-target error "Harv error: link from CITEREFNTSB_report20177-8 doesn't point to any citation", and a broken reference name error "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named BBC31124170". I have fixed them with this edit and this edit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I had to do some rewriting per my FAC nomination, and it was rather tricky. I got it the way I wanted (more chronological in that section), but then my wife said dinner was ready and I should really eat it before it gets cold, so I decided to put it off for later. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Thompson

Did you mean to indefinitely full protect this article in response to what appears to be a dispute over which photo to use? Iffy★Chat -- 11:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God ... thanks for bringing that to my attention! Brianna Wu he is definitely not. I have shortenened it to three more days, and I might lift it if the dispute is settled. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22 + 26: Free Culture Friday and Wikicurious photo event!

November 22: Free Culture Friday
You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, November 22. This event will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal salon and game night, utilizing Prime Produce's vast collection of board games. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Friday, November 22, 2024 1:30 pm – 7:00 pm Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St
November 26: Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment
Jefferson Market Library You are also invited to Wikicurious: Capturing the Moment, the third event of the beginner-focused Wikicurious series, at Jefferson Market Library on Tuesday, November 26, in collaboration with WikiPortraits and AfroCROWD. All are welcome to attend, especially those interested in photography or contributing to Wikimedia Commons. We will explore the art of capturing the moment through photography and learn the basics of Wikimedia Commons, and (weather-permitting) we are also planning a photo walk, so bring your camera (or use your smartphone)! Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:00 pm – 8:00 pm Jefferson Market Library, 425 6th Ave RSVP on Eventbrite is required for event entry!
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hurricane Helene

Why did you admin-protect that page? Isn't that a tad bit excessive? Tavantius (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why at WP:RFPP/D. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

Hi Daniel Case, I am a globally active dewiki administrator.

While reviewing a dewiki vandalism report, I've seen that there are multiple ranges blocked at enwiki, for instance 151.135.128.0/18 and 78.163.128.0/18.

Both ranges are now blocked on dewiki too, but I still don't have much information about this LTA, thats why I kindly ask you to give me some more details. Does this LTA have a name and/or a documentation page? Is there an abusefilter? Was there an ANI-discussion with further information? Do you know other ranges?

Your help would be much appreciated.

Best regards, TenWhile6 10:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see they're now both globally locked. Looking at the contribs, I remember this one as being based in Turkey (I think) and fanatical about making well-intended yet disruptive edits to articles about automotive engines until we just had to do this.

As far as I know there is no LTA page for it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/AudiGuy-1204?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history of D-4D yields Sevgilerde and the route to many many IP ranges. Looks about right. This isn't the Audi-guy that I'm familiar with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP LTA

Hi, it is regarding another IP sock of the LTA I discussed in June. As usual, they have been using t/p as forums, modifies other peoples' quotes, boldface [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] and apparently has a fixation with the word howler [58] [59]. This talk page has been turned into a forum by various IP socks of this person as well as others, some of which were moved into a collapsed into 'off-topic debate'. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

I see that you have a usebox that says this user appreciates our good neighbors Canada. Is there one that says this user appreciates our good friends the U.S.? Is so please give me access to it so I can add it to my userpage. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is one, but if there isn't it would be relatively easy to create one. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to create them. Could you please create it for me? Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kolkata_Derby_matches#Statistics

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata_Derby#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_West_Bengal#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Indian_Derby#Notable_matches

first 2 pages need check of few recent editors, possibly socks; second, any leftover grammar clearing after the known sock; last link with massive personal style section. Cenderabird (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Infotalks23&redlink=1

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Genuine_10&redlink=1

"bobanfasil" style socks Cenderabird (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way you could help other admins with recognizing rd requiring edits

Hey, another one that needs cleaning up please. Sad that an experienced editor even does something like this.

I was wondering on a general basis how many of the other admins seem to just ignore our policies around this and might revert something like this, but they don't clean it up with RD, even though it's clear policy. Is there some kind of channel you have among the admins to maybe help raise this to make them aware of it, so they help RD content violations like this, so it doesn't just fall on a handful of admins like yourself to then have to go and clean up after it? Raladic (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... this is not yet policy really. It's only because ArbCom said we could (but not that we have to) that I do it.

I suppose we could add something to MOS:GENDERID, WP:GENSEX, WP:REVDEL and the various MOS templates (TW/TM/NB). But that second one, really, might be better justified with another ArbCom amendment request. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some instructions on how to handle it to the MOS:DEADNAME section for now at WP:RVDEADNAME. Hopefully this at least will help make it more common for people to have a place on how it should typically be handled.

I think the ArbCom amendment request could also be a good idea, though I'm wondering if that should be rolled up into a larger case about some of the prevailing Transphobia on Wikipedia, not just by vandals coming here for deadnaming, which, while annoying, is relatively straightforward, but the more complex cases of constant civil POV pushing by some editors who are clearly trying to use Wikipedia to advance their WP:FRINGE anti-trans organizations. But so far, I've only dealt with some AE cases to get some editors that very clearly stepped over the line TBANNED, but I've never handled drafting of a complex ArbCom case to try to see if the general guidelines around this could be tightened, so I'm not quite sure on where to start even. Raladic (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russians at War page

Hello! Hope you're well. I notice you've been active on the Russians at War page. Two of the accounts that have been involved in vandalism and edit warring have been banned by admins for sockpuppetry. In light of that information could we please revert the page to the previous, balanced version instead of the current version that is essentially a whitewashed piece of PR propaganda for the film, written by the now-banned socks.

This is the version we need:

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Russians_at_War&oldid=1247878515 Stoptheprop (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Stoptheprop is violating WP:RUSUKR and have brought up the matter on their talk page. --Yamla (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er, we're allowed to make constructive edit requests on talk pages. Stoptheprop (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that one of the now-banned users petitioned your personal page in an attempt to get you on side. These were the previous discussions about the need to restore the earlier version of the page (which is still, in my opinion, a version very biased in favour of the film but still better than the current mess).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russians_at_War#Propose_previous_version_of_page_be_restored Stoptheprop (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will just have to politely say that as the admin who protected the page, I believe I should recuse myself from making edits like this. I express no opinion on any other admin or EC user's decision to do this, however. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you advise me on how to get editors eyes on it as my previous requests to restore the original version of the page are thus far being ignored. Stoptheprop (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you go to one of the project noticeboards and get someone there to take a look. As it is, I should note, your username is not exactly implying a commitment to NPOV. Now, you may well be correct in your assessment, but I think we'd all be more comfortable if that edit was made by someone seen as having no dog in the fight. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like being against propaganda is a pretty neutral position – being against false balance is true neutrality imo Stoptheprop (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the question is who defines what is and isn't propaganda ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking 2001:4450:4F0B:CC00:300C:EB99:9C41:223A

Thank you GAMERBOY102 (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altani

Hey, in the latest AfD for this article the participants suggested that the redirect would be restored, as it was redirected to another page after a merge. Do I have your permission to undelete this page? Fathoms Below (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just restored it to a redirect and blocked the editor who had recreated it. No worries. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I would've done a long p-block for that account from that page, but a 24 hour block also might work. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't been blocked before, ever. This might get their attention, and going against the results of a closed AfD is not something we just let go. So let's see what they do once it expires. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection request

Hi I don't normally do this but please can you see my page protection request? Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a day since it's a relatively new article. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent edit warring

Hello @Daniel Case hope you're well. On November 5th I made an WP:ANI report regrading this editor [[60]], [[61]] who has a long history of WP:battleground on Balkan related topics and a were reported several times already i.e [[62]], in some cases for personal attacks or harassment on other editors [[63]], but so far there was no action against them, what they do after they get reported is that they don't respond on the issues they are involved in, lay low for a month or so and continue with the same behaviour. Example is on Niš page where they already broke the strict 1rr rule in 24h applied on this page (yellow banner when you click edit source) [[64]] - [[65]], [[66]], [[67]] and continued to leave comments on a talk page like this [[68]], can something be done? Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Let sources speak for themselves"

Hi. TropicAces is removing sourced info and writing "let sources does (I think they mean "speak") for themselves" as their reason. I had already pointed this out and warned them about it when I first saw them doing this back in October, but they seem unable to understand that writing reliably sourced information without any synthesis doesn't mean that we don't let sources "does for themselves". They don't care to check their talk page but maybe an admin could draw their attention. ภץאคгöร 12:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article's talk page, where another editor is also taking their side, it seems like this is a genuine content dispute best resolved by seeking consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam wikipedia page

I have added some sourced content in the malayalam wikipedia page but its constantly getting reverted. I have added multiple credible sources for the same. But its keep getting removed. I have commented in the talk page but they are not allowing me. Jino john1996 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please solve this issue? Jino john1996 (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's what the talk page is for, and reverting during discussion is generally frowned upon. It looks to me like consensus is against you. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ip disruptive editing, etc.

Hi Daniel Case, sorry for bothering you but I have realised that you have partially blocked this IP 92.53.12.235 from the page Rožaje with an expiration time of 3 months for disruptive editing. Now the same IP continues its disruptive editing, incl. edit warring, nationalist editing etc. on the article Hristo Uzunov. I thing this is WP:SPA and its block may be expanded on this article too. Greetings. Jingiby (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant Georgi Sugarev? I've added that to the block on the range (we cannot block it as an SPA because it's an IP). Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu temples in the United States

Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) and semi-protection for List of Hindu temples in the United States due to ongoing, persistent disruptive editing: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hindu_temples_in_the_United_States&action=history Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bobanfasil" style

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daruma2020&redlink=1 Cenderabird (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAP-XX

Hey @Daniel Case, just saw you reverted my speedy request for the CAP-XX redirect.

I'm an AfC reviewer and am happy it just about passes notability, so wanted to accept the draft. But can't do that while a re-direct is in place, so requested a speedy. :)

Would you mind deleting the redirect so I can accept? qcne (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been cleared by someone else ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Formula One World Championship

Also this page is part of some ongoing vandalism just because people like anticipating things. A semiprotection might be needed (maybe not a really long One compared to 2024 and 2025). Regards. Island92 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Daniel Case. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed updates for Spanx

Hi Daniel Case, I'm reaching out to you as a member of WP: Fashion as I think you'd be interested in my draft proposal for the Spanx article. Spanx has expanded into apparel and I would appreciate your expert eye in reviewing the draft and, if you agree that it improves the current page, implementing it. Thank you very much, I look forward to your feedback. Red Workout Pants (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PotC

Hi Daniel, I know I'm circumventing process here, so I'm happy to go through RFPP if necessary, but the same IP range that led to you protecting Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is also active at Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, where they are also disregarding requests to discuss the matter rather than trying to force through their changes. Again, happy to go through RFPP if that's your preference, but figured reaching out directly might be more expeditious. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested protection at RFPP. DonIago (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I have granted it indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DonIago (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back

Hi, the latest AE saga has shown that sadly anti trans editors can just go about editing ignoring their COIs. So I'm going to retire for the time being. Please remove my advanced permissions and I'll re-request them if I ever come back. Raladic (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry to see you have to step back; I hope it will be only temporary. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Seen you around a lot, I appreciate your work and feel like you would deserve this. Wasn't able to see your presentation over at a certain meetup sadly, maybe I'll be able to go next year! Fathoms Below (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! As it happened I wasn't able to give that presentation; wasn't even able to make it to Indianapolis. So you missed nothing.

Perhaps another year, another conference. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Daniel Case. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balush, again

Hi, as you G12-deleted Balush (tribe) a few days ago, I just wanted to note that it got recreated today (again with a lot of copyright violations and close paraphrasing). I've removed the problematic parts, if you want to go for a copyvio revdel. I have a strong suspicion that the content was copy-pasted from last time, as it still had tags dating from November, although I can't see the deleted version. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you again, they re-added it at Special:Diff/1263390251. I left them the copyvio explanation for beginners. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There have been no edits to the article since I RevDel'ed the CV revisions. That's already been taken care of by other editors. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but that edit (that reinstated the same copyvio) wasn't revdeleted (likely because it came after my edits and so wasn't part of the tagged range). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I should have thought of that. Done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Daniel Case, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For helping quell the disruption on my talk page. I've been trying to stay away from drama on Wiki recently because of personal issues, so to see that other users were willing to come to my defense against harassment is very humbling. You have no idea just how much I appreciate your assistance. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits by IP range

Hey, how have you been? You have blocked that IP range from Rožaje and Georgi Sugarev. The same IP range has been making disruptive edits on Šar mountains as well, even after a semi-protection there expired. Would you consider extending the block to the Šar mountains article as well? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have extended the block to that article and lengthened it another week (otherwise it would be fairly short). Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Miloš Obilić has had a number of reverts in the last 24 hours or so, and the discussion on the tp is far from reaching a consensus. Could a DS reminder on the tp be a good idea? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems that there is some kind of a DS reminder on the top of the tp already. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Guess who put it there? Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I had forgotten about it. Also, if time permits, can you keep an eye on the article and its talk page? I am preparing an RfC, though if will take a month or more to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Given the edit warring, the rejection of proposals for a "middle ground" solution, the refusal of one or two editors to open an RfC, and the reversion of my restoration of the pre-dispute version before the RfC, there might be trouble even after the RfC. In the past I have seen cases where editors did not accept an RfC conclusion, or in case of a "No consensus" closure, did not agree their version was not the pre-dispute/stable one. An admin keeping an eye would be of help. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access for a blocked range

Hello, Daniel. On 19 August you removed talk page access from a blocked IP range, 203.37.238.0/23. There is no doubt whatever that you were perfectly right to stop the person responsible from having talk page access. However, the editing which led to loss of talk page access came from just 2 IP addresses in the range 203.37.239.48/29, and it all took place within 2 weeks in August. I don't think it's necessary to keep the block on the whole /23 range for almost 3 years, because of that short-term vandalism from a tiny proportion of the range. I would remove the talk page block completely, but at the very least it could be reduced to a much shorter time on a much smaller range. JBW (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[“RogEb”-1] "TIFF 2024: A Canadian Perspective on This Year's Festival-of-festivals". Roger Ebert.

[1]