User talk:Daniel Case

I lived in NJ for a while! Close to Denville, and I worked in Earth sciences at Columbia. I passed through Englewood sometimes :) . -Darouet (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Other than what my birth certificate says, I have no real connection to, nor memory of, Englewood.

We lived in Leonia at the time, and later moved across the Hudson for a year to Riverdale (so I can say I once lived in the city ) I have more memories of where we moved later—Lyndhurst, Chatham and eventually Summit, the last of where we lived for nine years and where I consider myself to be from. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you look at the recent activity at AJ Styles and consider further temporary semi-protection? You’ve applied it a few times before, the most recent one ending in March, and now, after three months of protection, the same editor has made the same edit that got the article protected, three times in about ten days. I put it up for increased protection but it got denied for not enough disruptive activity. I think the admin only saw the most recent offense and not the previous two under different user names. Thanks. NJZombie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done It is now under six months semi-protection and I have logged this at WP:GS/PW. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated! NJZombie (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

173.23.106.234 has been disrupting articles by removing content calling them promotional without any reason. I tried reporting them using twinkle but didn't find right option. Can you please tell how exactly to report such Users? _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 17:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them 24 hours for disruptive editing since they kept doing it past their final warning (and do not really appear interested in discussion, which repeatedly invoking WP:NOT is, well, not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this user has again decided to ignore and blank a 3RR warning on List of United States over-the-air television networks, along with calling OVERLINK on an article where the link is fine, and continues to use edit summaries (including a mention of me, an unknown person to them, as bud) rather than any talk discussion (shut down with blanking) to continue maintaining their version of an article despite patient explanation from others as to why these edits are not needed. Nathannah • 📮 19:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on this one for now. Another editor restored a templated warning they had blanked, something they are allowed to do. This very often needlessly enrages people, and that seems to have happened here.

This was the right move on your part. Let's give them a chance. Because otherwise their recent edits seem not to have met with any objections. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Please look at my talk page for my response. This user seems to compulsively twist the narrative to make me look bad. They insulted me on my talk page by saying "Worry about actual article content" and I should just focus on stuff "that matters", even though I enjoy working on grammar and MOS related content. They are the only person to object to me lowercasing the "the" at the beginning of "the Walt Disney Company" in a running sentence per MOS:INSTITUTIONS. I've now responded on my talk page, but they did not seem very friendly and I do not like the way they frame things with outright lies. Wamalotpark (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have so seen. It is better that, as Churchill put it, you jaw-jaw than war-war. Feel free to bring other people into this discussion through a post to the appropriate noticeboard; you're more likely to get consensus this way. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

it's a known LTA (see their deleted edits for one of their usual tells, or email for details). DMacks (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

OK ... I see ToBeFree has taken care of them. It just wasn't clear to me from the report. Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup. The crazy stuff that happens when I step out for coffee and other Real World things. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hiya Daniel, could you please take a look at my talk page and advise on the request on the bottom there. I happened to agree with an IP on a matter and now the IP requests I make a page. Does this fall foul of some WP policy? I don't wish to be accused (or guilty) of doing summat that runs contrary to policy. I checked Wikipedia:No soliciting of cliques, but I'm not sure, ta.Halbared (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't AFAIK. You make a good case for deleting the article (which isn't to say there's no need for community consensus). But it's good that you erred on the side of caution and asked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, are you considering downgrading Harry Potter’s protection to either extended confirmed protection or semi-protection? I show no interest in editing the page itself, just concerned about how long the full protection will last. I understand that Harry Potter is a very popular article, and thank you for your contributions! HwyNerd Mike (contribs | talk) 23:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's downgraded to indef semi. I don't know why I put it on indef full ... must have been a mistake. Or did the request ask for indef? I can't remember. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit, you let an editor know that Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was semi-protected for 2 weeks. I'm not sure when those 2 weeks started/expire(d). The CTOP notice at the top of the talk page says that edits are limited to editors who are logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account, but there is no notice about this if someone attempts to edit the article (at least, I'm not seeing one, though I think there used to be one). Has the semi-protection expired? Or am I just misremembering about there being a notice that shows up when someone attempts to edit a protected article? (Asking because I just reverted a significant edit from an IP editor, who should not have edited the article if its still semi-protected.) Also, would it be possible to add an edit notice about BLP and AP2 applying to this article? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Answering in bullet points:

• Muboshgu protected the page for just a week, actually. I was perhaps confused by the request for a 2-week extension above it when I added the note that it was already protected, given that I review a lot of protection requests.
• Protection began, according to the log, on April 18 so it expired two days ago. When a page is under protection, the notice that appears above the edit window gives the date of expiry.
• When an editor who cannot edit a protected article attempts to do so, the edit window shows a red background of the same color as the aforementioned edit notice. Source text can be copied, and edited on another page if an editor not at that access level wishes to propose an edit request on the talk page, but they cannot save any changes they make to the original page.
• As far as adding an editnotice about the CTOP designation, we generally have not been doing that where we've imposed semi-protection since the software already takes care of that (and that would also be the case with ECP). It's most effective in cases like ARBPIA where the standard restrictions include 1RR or 0RR, and anywhere we've imposed that in other topic areas, since the software cannot enforce it and therefore we rely on users to police themselves and file ANEW reports when that restriction is breached.
• I would really like it if the CTOPS notice accommodated multiple topic areas. But currently it does not.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all that info. I'll put in another request for semi-protection, as we have IPs inserting false information and edit warring in attempts to make huge non-consensus edits to the lead (the article topic is still very much in the news, with the Trump admin still defying a Supreme Court order). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

One other question, given that the semi-protection ended: why does the CTOP notice on the talk page still say that an editor must be logged-in to edit the page? (Does that apply even if the page isn't protected? Or is there simply not a way to link the end of the page protection with the removal of that rule, so it remains there unless someone removes it?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Another change I'd love to see is a bot that edits those templates to correspond with the level of protection currently applicable. It's just far too much for a human to keep up with. But, as it is, if that deters bad-actor editors from the page, then why not? Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Since you have left a CTOP note on the tp of that article, can you take a look at Aetolia? They have been edit warring for some time, removing content sourced to academic RS. On the article's tp they have made some original research claims and have not provided any RS to back them. On their own tp they have received several warnings, including for making legal threats. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I have formally warned them for edit-warring on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I had the wrong impression that they had already been warned for edit warring. They are edit warring again, and keep making personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, Aetolia started to change the article again (and has caused a mess on the tp by copy-pasting our comments). They are using 2 maps which they claim prove their point. Since you seem to be interested in geography, can you take a look at it to check whether the maps are useful or not? Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Could you raise protection for Wikipedia back to ECP? It's been persistently vandalized by a now-blocked user. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I said essentially the same thing. You were nicer though, so hopefully it'll stick.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, we have to try that before we come down with a block, I think.

I do get the feeling this user may have some cognitive reason for doing this. Some people's brains just work that way—they can't handle adding a source at the same time as their text. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello hope you are well, can you please check and revert latest addition on Ivan Crnojevic page, I feel that there is some serious wp:gaming going on, first the ip started with the disruptive editing on the page [] and then directly after spending their 3rr this user appeared and did the same types of disruptive edits [] so I wonder are they the same person. Thank you. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. I notice they did not respond to your accusation of LOUTSOCKing. And the IP address resolves to Serbia.

I will ask them about this on their talk page. And leave a CTOPS notice on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes this is very strange behaviour, also the current stand of the lede in Ivan Crnojevic where they are stating that Crnojevic was Serbian leader according to Serbian historians is obviously bias, I don't think this goes under good faith edits, they could have added like Monetnegrin/Serbian leader or something like this. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NAT ... as I just told Critikal, it's at the heart of so many of our contentious-topic designations. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Khirurg made 3 reverts on Northern Epirus within 21 hours . After I warned them about edit warring , they stayed inactive on enwiki for a day, then returned and immediately made the 4th revert . Is the user within their rights here or is this considered a case of gaming the 3RR? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:4RR: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.

Especially given that the user's been blocked for edit warring before more than once (although, granted, the last time was over two years ago). Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

My last two edits are over a day and a half apart, not just outside the 24 hour window . Plus this is not really a revert - there is no previous version reverted to. And I have been discussing in the article talkpage, where I made my case, unlike the party that reverted me. Khirurg (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You keep posting on the tp, and you keep reverting at the same time. The diff you mention above is a revert, as you removed content that had just been added by me and Maleschreiber ("implausibly", "many", "systematic" which change the meaning of their sentences). You are fully aware of the DS regarding the Balkans, as you alert other editors about them and in the past you received AE-logged sanctions and alerts, so edit warring on such an article in particular does not give a good impression. Anyways, it is up to Daniel to decide what is the right path to follow in this case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

"My last two edits are over a day and a half apart, not just outside the 24 hour window" See WP:LAWYER. "Plus this is not really a revert [10] - there is no previous version reverted to." As noted by Ktrimi "You keep posting on the tp, and you keep reverting at the same time." See WP:STATUSQUO. Good and conscientious editors do not touch the article during ongoing discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok then how am I supposed to deal with stuff like this . Massive removals of sourced info, WP:NINJA-style reverts. How is a good and conscientious editor supposed to deal with that? Please advise. Khirurg (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You could request full protection for a short time. It also seems like at least one other editor agrees with you. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours, the edit warring is entirely linked to Alexikoua. If you check the reverts, they are all either Alexikoua reverting other editors, or other editors reverting Alexikoua. He has already made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. So IMO, better than article protection, Alexikoua needs to stop edit warring against multiple editors. The others too should not revert, but when there is a case of one editor vs multiple editors, the former is the one that has the most to reflect on. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:1AM. Maybe it's time to report this at WP:ANEW where some fresh eyes can take a look. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I gave them a formal warning. If they revert again, I will report. Otherwise if they don't revert again, I am happy to conclude that they have reflected on the issue. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: When a group of editors gang up on one or two editors and take turns reverting so as to avoid WP:3RR, isn't that considered tag teaming? Because this is what is going on here. There are two groups of editors with different POVs, but one group outnumbers the other. Khirurg (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I have to set aside the time and take a long look at what's going on. But it is increasingly looking like 1AM. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, the situation does call for an experienced admin to take a look . One side adds whatever it likes, and then removes sourced material with little or no explanation . If you look at the contribs history of the editors doing this, it is obvious that they share the same background. Khirurg (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Since you are making these "tag-teaming" accusations, isn't it a bit suspicious that Alexikoua returned after more than a month of inactivity, precisely when you ran out of reverts (you had made 4 reverts)? Is it a coincidence that in March too Alexikoua returned after months of inactivity, just to make some comments supporting your POV on the tp of Byzantine Greeks? Are you accusing others of things you are doing yourself? If each of us started to make accusations about everything we see as suspicious, the editing process would become impossible. Baseless accusations do not help, better focus on content. We need to improve the article, not accuse each other without evidence.Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You were warned in the past by another admin about making baseless "tag-teaming" accusations (and the admin blocked you 2 days later). Given this and the fact that you have an AE-logged warning about personal attacks, making such accusations after apparently gaming the 3RR does not help creating a good environment on the tp. Better focus on content. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

And you were told by an admin to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS like you did here , to the point where they felt the need to remove your comments from the talkpage , something which is incredibly rare. "Focus on content" yes, but I'm counting 6 reverts (removal of well-sourced info because "ahistorical") (an editor that has never edited the article before reverting me within less than an hour) in the last 3 days (of which 5 in the last 2 days) by editors that share the same viewpoint and background as you, so yes, I am calling ethnic bloc editing here. It's not just "multiple editors", it's multiple editors that have the same background. "Focus on content" sure, but it's getting really hard to do so when so many edits by one group of editors are being removed in this manner. If one side just adds whatever it wants and removes the other editors' additions, we have a big problem.

@Daniel Case: When something very similar happened at Pashalik of Yanina a couple of years ago, when the same group of editors refused to accept some well-sourced additions to the article , Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) placed an "affirmative consensus" restriction on the article , which worked like a charm in reducing disruption. Another potential solution is collective 3RR for groups of editors sharing the same POV, but that may be more difficult to implement. Thank you for your consideration. Khirurg (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I see you've pinged them; let's see if they join in and offer some input. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My input is that this looks to be a dispute ready for AE. Possibly the page should be fully protected in the meantime. Khirurg, you're close to being blocked solely on continuing to make unevidenced accusations of tag-teaming. It's not about other editors all disagreeing with you. It's about coordination. For an example of evidence of coordination, take your cue from Ktrimi991's point about the timing of Alexikoua's participation. It's not conclusive evidence, but it's the difference between a reasonable interpretation and an aspersion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

And you were told by an admin to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS The admin did not tell me to "stop", it was a single comment, and I agreed with the admin's advice and I thanked them. I did not receive any warning. People can check the diffs, anyone can see what happened there. The admin too can pinged for clarification if necessary. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Daniel, Alexikoua made 3 reverts within 24 hours . Then after I warned them, they waited for some hours and made the 4th . This is IMO a patent case of gaming the 3RR. Virtually all reverts on the article in the last 2 days are either Alexikoua reverting other editors, or others reverting him. As I don't have time to prepare an ANEW report, it would be helpful if you intervened. This is wasting too much time and some have resorted to baseless accusations etc. Maybe I am done with that article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

(unindent) @Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers: All my edits undone with a blanket rv , sourced additions, copyedits, even ref fixes. And again, by another user of the same persuasion, that has never edited the article before . Khirurg (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Khirurg, if you’re going to bring my editing to the attention of the administrators, I kindly ask that you have the courtesy to ping me directly so I can participate in the discussion. You also know very well that I am heavily involved in articles of this topic area, such as Chameria and Epirus, where similar disputes have now arisen alongside this current one. We’ve had many prior interactions, discussions, and disagreements, so please don’t pretend to be surprised at my involvement now. I’ve been consistently active in Albanian-related historical articles and have contributed constructively for years, and these articles are all on my watchlist.

@Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers - what’s deeply concerning here is the language that continues to emerge from Khirurg, and not just in isolated moments, but as part of a documented and escalating pattern of behaviour. Prior to the involvement of Firefangledfeathers, Khirurg had already used phrases like:

• “they share the same background”
• "editors that share the same viewpoint and background as you"
• “ethnic bloc editing here”
• “multiple editors that have the same background”
• “the same group of editors refused to accept…”

This kind of rhetoric already raised serious concerns, but after Firefangledfeathers directly warned them — “Khirurg, you're close to being blocked solely on continuing to make unevidenced accusations of tag-teaming” - Khirurg immediately resumed this pattern by referring to me as “another user of the same persuasion” in the comment above. At this point, it's really starting to seem like a racial profiling of editors. What does “same persuasion” even mean? Why is participation by multiple editors with an interest in Albanian history being framed as suspicious or conspiratorial? These are Albanian-related articles. Why are you surprised that editors from the Albanian topic area are involved?

It is completely inappropriate to imply that shared cultural or ethnic background constitutes some kind of bad-faith "bloc". This violates WP:ASPERSIONS (again) and WP:WITCHHUNT when you take into account the fact that they have been blocked for this behaviour previously and have unsuccessfully filed a "tag-teaming" report at the ANI previously. This creates a hostile, WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere where editors are treated with suspicion for merely engaging in content relevant to their interests.

At this point, it’s clear that this is no longer about a content dispute - this is an obsessive pattern of conduct. Khirurg has made it a point to track, label and discredit editors who engage with Albanian-related articles, repeatedly invoking ethnicity or presumed background as a basis for suspicion. This is not a one-off. It’s a persistent fixation, even continuing after a direct and explicit warning from an administrator. That should be the final straw. The warnings have been given. They’ve been disregarded. It is time for action.

I therefore respectfully urge you - @Daniel Case, @Firefangledfeathers - to impose a block or another appropriate sanction. This conduct goes against the collaborative principles of Wikipedia, and if allowed to continue, it sets a harmful precedent: that editors can engage in racialized profiling and battleground behaviour with impunity, so long as they cloak it in vague accusations. This behaviour is disruptive, targeted and escalating. Enough is enough. I would have taken this to the appropriate noticeboard if Khirurg had not already been warned in this discussion alone, only to resume that same behaviour soon after so that they may target another editor "of the same persuasion"... Botushali (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

OK. Firefangledfeathers has full-protected the article for a week, which is exactly what I was going to do. And I strongly second him on this going to AE.

I would also suggest that, when that full protection expires, we put the article on 1RR for the time being.

If Khirurg continues casting aspersions during the protection, or proposing the same unbalanced take on the lede that Botushali has pointed out, then he will be blocked as AE under CTOPS. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I strongly second him on this going to AE How can an article dispute be reported to AE? Do admins evaluate the content dispute or the behaviour of the editors? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This is seeming to be more about the conduct involved ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I thought that you were talking about the content dispute per se. It would be great to have AE evaluate the conduct of the editors, but seeing here how 2 admins just keep giving warning after warning to the same editor about the same "tag-teaming" and "background" comments without solving anything, I am not sure how much AE will be able to evaluate 7 or 8 editors. Anyways. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

This, especially for someone relatively new to this, is more complicated than the usual dispute. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In the Demographics section, the last ref of the article has an error. It needs the closing tag (</ref>) to be added. It would be helpful if you did that, so for readers the article does not end with confusing text. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done . Sorry it took a while ... I was busier than I expected IRL yesterday and as such took to bed earlier than I had thought I would. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Case, I'm just asking, why did you a semi-protecting a Volvo Cars page? I'm feel objected to the semi-protection on that page. I hope you can answer my question I've been asked for. Thanks. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I said when I protected the page that it had a long history of disruptive editing which had led to several protections so I would be protecting it indefinitely this time.

You could go to WP:RFPP/D and request the protection be lifted, although I doubt that would succeed. Perhaps a request to drop it to pending changes might work, but I make no promises.

Failing that, it will take some time and effort on your part, but once you have made 300 edits and gone 50 days from your first edit a couple of weeks ago, you will gain extended-confirmed rights (But don't try to do that by making a bunch of minor edits to random pages or something like that. You'll get caught. Get those rights honestly.

Also, the talk page is not protected, and you may post edit requests there, like this one from almost two years ago, if there are specific changes you think should be made. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It's 500 edits/30 days. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Whatever I think it is I always get it wrong . Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

More information May 7: WikiWednesday Salon @ Prime Produce, May 10: Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome ...

May 7: WikiWednesday Salon @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. This month's WikiWednesday will be focused on digital safety for editors. Guest digital security trainers will join us to lead this session. All are welcome! Please bring a laptop or the editing device of your choosing for hands-on training that will guide you through steps to take to make yourself safer online. While there will also be an online participation option, the meeting will not be recorded. Meeting info: Wednesday, May 7 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan Also online via Zoom
May 10: Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome
You are also invited to join the Wikimedia NYC Community and Rhizome for a community memory-focused edit-a-thon in the Financial District. All Wikipedia and Wikidata enthusiasts are welcome, new and experienced! Please RSVP on Rhizome's event page to gain entry to the venue. Meeting info: Saturday, May 10 Wikicurious – Amplifying Media Art with Rhizome (additional on-wiki RSVP optional). 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm 161 Water Street, Financial District, Manhattan All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

The disruptive IP editor who uses multiple accounts and vandalizes lots of road pages is back. They have been blocked for other things too and have had multiple temporary suspensions, but its really time to get rid of them as they always come back and do the same edits. Thanks! Stormy160 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed, too. Can you give me some IPs so I can calculate a range? Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

2600:1702:6DDB:2000:5D22:C848:10C9:63B3
2600:1702:6DDB:2000:D844:A207:E97F:20D4
2600:1702:6DDB:2000:9864:F605:C2F4:7EDE

Here are three but I'm sure there's more Stormy160 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

That should be enough to be covered by a /32, maybe. I'll see. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, it's a /64. How long did we block them last time? Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, saw that it was I who had blocked for a month last time. So six months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Stormy160 (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lithgow and Australia national soccer team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I hope you don't mind me posting here directly, but this user has resumed the same disruptive edits post-block that got them blocked the first time and is mass-reverting all of Geraldo Perez's reverts of unsourced content. Amaury • 21:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like they've been blocked for a week ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please explain this comment. Actually I am perfectly aware of what the template says. Zero^talk 12:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, I thought you might not have been because its name doesn't indicate anything about saying the associated page is ECPed. When you put that on a talk page in the future, make sure the associated article is ECPed somehow. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There are about 1800 articles where the talk page has an ARBPIA template but the article has no protection. This is not surprising, since, per WP:ARBPIA4, "the templates may be added to primary articles by any user" whereas of course only admins can protect. Until the recent PIA5 case, such articles were only protected if there was ongoing disruption. PIA5 ruled that ECP should be the default state for PIA articles regardless of disruption. Since PIA5, hundreds of such articles have been ECPed but there is a long way to go. I can't apply ECP because I'm involved in PIA, but I can add templates. Zero^talk 02:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, well, eventually, as happened, people will notice that the articles to whose talk pages those templates have been added have not actually received the protection claimed. I've noticed many people at least making requests at RFPP after editing the talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, thanks for unprotecting the Maldives article per this discussion I made that other day. Here we have another article that was supposed to be semi-protected temporary, but was just never set to expire. You intended the protection to last for only three days, but the protection log shows there was no expiration set. A request for unprotecting this article was also declined on November last year. I'm still fine if the protection is still necessary for this article, as it was protected under WP:CT/EE. BriDash9000 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I might be willing to reconsider it a year after it was set. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) protection for List of gurdwaras in North America due to persistent, ongoing addition of unsourced material. Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you upgrade the pblock you placed on Special:Contributions/2001:EE0:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 to cover the rest of mainspace too? They've been going around disruptively editing various typhoon and hurricane-related articles over the past week, e.g. this string of edits changing hurricanes to typhoons I reverted earlier today, adding/removing false entries to List of retired Pacific typhoon names, adding fake storms to this year's typhoon season, introducing false intensities on historical typhoons. I see the range has also been making edits to election- and airline-related articles, several of which have also been reverted. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I have made it sitewide. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 22:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you please make the page Thudarum semi-protected, as misleading and unnecessary edits are increasing. Thank You SRAppu ^💬 18:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 2 weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, it seems that the page Kurdistan Region–Palestine relations is getting quite a bit of vandalism (as are any pages relating to Israel-Palestine tbh). It would be helpful to protect it similar to Israel–Kurdistan Region relations. Thanks! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Indef ECP and 1RR under ARBPIA. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Grownarwahl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pig Goat Banana Cricket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, and apologies for the message.

As explained more thoroughly at WP:ANI#Slow-motion/quiet edit warring at Pig Goat Banana Cricket, the editor is continuing their edit warring (seemingly slow-motion/quiet), even after the recent 3RR noticeboard and subsequent 24 hour block from yourself. I haven't reverted their latest edit on the article as a precaution, but it's the same edit warring/unsourced information, so likely should be reverted once again. Not sure what more can be done here, as it seems like this will just continue on until further action is taken. Apologies again, and hope you can possibly assist with this. Magitroopa (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 48 hours this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Super Dromaeosaurus has been edit warring on Cham Albanians in the last 2 days against 4 editors. They keep removing or tagging well-sourced content as "outdated" or "unreliable", but they have not provided any newer RS to back their claims. On the tp they just keep posting personal opinions instead of RS-backed statements. After I formally warned them about edit warring, they responded with a "shush" and continued edit warring. An admin is needed to take a look and put an end to the disruption. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, they just admitted they plan to keep reverting . Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As they were alerted to CTOPS in this area almost a year ago, I have blocked them from the page for a week.

I will also be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I raised concerns on the reliability of the RS, I had quit removing the content by tagging it and I had also quit restoring the tagging after a fourth user intervened. I'd appreciate advice on what would have been the most appropriate response to the removal of tagging regarding my concerns with the article (which is effectively a lack of acknowledgement of said concerns). I will not formally contest the block but I consider it an overblown action. I would have halted editing the article had I received a warning not coming from Ktrimi991 who frequently employs personal attacks. Super Ψ Dro 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

First, as noted, you were alerted to CTOPS almost a year ago.

Second, once someone says they're going to keep reverting until they get their way, most of us consider the time when a warning might have an effect to be over.

You have edited for quite some time. You can't claim you're not aware of how at odds it is with community values to make that ultimatum. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not claim I will keep reverting until I get my way and very much less did I send an "ultimatum". I had scaled down my editing twice, and was the one who started the discussion at the talk page. Per WP:DETAG editors may remove tags when they not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page. You have blocked me for a comment rejecting the unjustified removal of template tags rather than for a content dispute, because I did not claim I would remove again the content I had disputed. This is apart from any CT issue.

Now, if you'd be kind so as to provide requested advice from the editor you blocked. Rather than issuing an admittedly pointy (but no "ultimatum") comment, how should I have reacted to the removal of tags? Super Ψ Dro 19:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

"If you are unable, the tagging will be restored until proper RS is provided." Please clarify for me how this would not be read by most rational people as a promise to keep reverting.

If the material were unsourced, you'd be more within your rights (although since BLP is not involved, such reversions are not unlimited under WP:3RRNO). But it's sourced, sourced to a source generally agreed to be considered reliable. You are the one who is questioning that source's reliability. I allow that you may have a point, but that point is only yours until and unless you find a reliable source raising the same question.

See WP:QUO Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

As I stated, that comment did not refer to the removal of the content I disputed (or to "getting my way") but to the restoration of dispute tags. If we can recognize this in particular is beyond the dimension of content disputes, I argue I am justified to ask for dispute tags to be kept while the discussion, which I started, took place. WP:QUO, which you have cited, states the following: do not revert away from the status quo ante bellum during a dispute discussion. Instead, add an appropriate tag indicating the text is disputed. I did; this is the first time I scaled down.

I fail to see how has your intervention brought us anyhow closer to a resolution. The users in question not only have removed the dispute tags but also reverted back any changes I did to the article (because they were "without any justification" , + the third user here denigrating my arguments as "personal opinions"). I also wish to continue arguing on the prematurity of your block. This other user in this thread has previously been unreasonably hostile to me numerous times . Unsurprisingly I am not fond of them, and I admit I did not take the warning they issued seriously. I maintain again I would have halted editing earlier had I received a warning from a different user; the biggest proof is perhaps the fact that, as you put it, I "have edited for quite some time" without any blocks against me.

If you have conceded that I "may have a point" regarding the content dispute, I ask you if it is possible to concede: that there is evidence I may have been more receptive of preventive input from you or anyone else; that I could have possibly argued my case had administrative action not taken place 19 minutes after my (unpinged, btw) "report"; and that I scaled down twice, something unacknowledged so far and opposite to the impression your block justification gives. I do not believe the handling of this case nor the provided justification was ideal from your part. Super Ψ Dro 12:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy that gives you the right to tag content whenever you are opposed by multiple editors. WP:DETAG and WP:QUO that you cite above are not official policies or guidelines. Read the notes at the top of those 2 pages.

WP:3RR, which is official policy, does not include reverts on tags among its exemptions. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not violate WP:3RR. The multiple editors in question are usual editors of the topic area who !vote and support in discussions as a single common bloc. As you know, there are several editors who have raised the same concern . In the disputed article was displayed clear WP:NINJA behaviour: after my edit stayed there for a year , I was reverted by four different editors in two days, two of which have not yet talked in the discussion I started (and a third, you, stopped participating), and one of them commented about my edits on an unrelated article previously edited by one of the four .

In any case I will not be responding to you here further because I am not talking to you. Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The multiple editors in question are usual editors of the topic area who !vote and support in discussions as a single common bloc This is a baseless aspersion. I added a note to the population part of the infobox , Maleschreiber moved it to the footnotes part , and Nishjan removed it entirely . I can cite many other cases where those editors disagree with me. I suggest to you to stop showing incivility like baseless accusations and referring to me as "the third user here". Focus on content, not editors. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"I did not violate WP:3RR", No, you didn't, or I would have said that in the block message. But as noted at WP:EW, "it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Daniel, thank you for your input, much appreciated. SD has been opposed by 4 editors; if they want, they can seek wider community attention as described at WP:DRN. Up to them. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by page protection on any page but I was a bit surprised to see it applied to Haz Al-Din as there hasn't been that much disruptive editing. There has been an edit conflict on the page recently but it's honestly been a bit low-key although the editor who requested the edit protection has been rather partisan in that conflict. Just thought you mght like the heads-up. I'll continue waiting for any of the parties to the edit conflict to reply to my question about a transcript for a podcast used as a source either way lol. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I had previously told that editor that the problems they were bringing up were really better dealt with at AN/I. This request seemed to have focused more on the issues that would engender protection, and I tend to feel that the kind of high-volume reversion in the recent edit history would be enough to justify short protection. We'll see how this develops. Daniel Case (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm going to try and give this article some attention at the source level. I'm going on vacation soon though; I doubt I will be very hasty about it. Lol. So I am interested to see what happens next. Simonm223 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I thank you for your efforts in processing RFPP requests but I don't think Robert Nutting warrants indefinite semi-protection. I know Pittsburgh sports fans aren't happy, believe me, I see it, but I think just protecting it until the end of the season would be fine. The vandalism isn't particularly high-speed and the only reason I sent it to RFPP was the IPs changing the nickname to "Boh." Thank you. Cutlass^Ciera 01:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I looked over the history and this has been going on somewhat regularly for over a year. As a BLP it comes under contentious topics, and I felt that justified that level of protection and making it indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This link says that the same IP who just vandalized James Brainard—who, based on that article's history, may be Dhcohen (talk · contribs)—was topic-blocked by you recently. Might you consider expanding that block based on this vandalism, and mmmmaybe seeing if its likely to be that named user, as well? Cheers, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have added the article to the block on the /43, and blocked Dhcohen (who really seems to be a single-purpose account indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The same editor has returned again, identically editing the same article as 151.0.251.14 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Was this at RPP the correct action to take? My apologies for returning here if it's inappropriate I do so. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Never mind! Seems it was! Again, sorry to bother you! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:33, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, this is another article I found which was supposed to have been semi-protected temporarily, but was just never set to expire. The protection request shows that the protection was supposed to have expired in six months, but the protection log shows there was no expiration set. You even stated that this was supposed to have been a six-month protection in the arbitration enforcement log. BriDash9000 (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I have lifted the protection as it would have expired ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AP stylebook 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 non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

What on earth - how is a block for a closed AFD page and a deleted article relevant here? A sockpuppet was deleting chunks of this article today and replacing it with slanderous information, including this choice edit. I'm simply asking for semi-protection to keep those who aren't logged in from vandalizing the page. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A block made in the last couple of weeks on an article and AfD for said article on a closely related subject on whose behalf you were accused of editing. An article created in the last couple of days after that .

That edit aside, most of the other IP edits have IMO a valid point: does an article about an organization need to have so much information about the life of the organization's founder, particularly when said founder may be angling for political office?

Other editors, including Discospinster, an admin, have been making the same edits as you. They can do that without the COI baggage.

I also find it strange that you complain about "slander" in the use of "Buttface" (a subjective and rather mild insult) yet regularly restored material to the article that others had taken out for exactly that reason (while it indeed had some negative information, it was indeed as far as I can tell properly sourced). Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Discospinster: only made two edits to the article - they were both reverts that restored passages I had written: 1 and 2. What are you even talking about? TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That they restored what you had written. You do not have to be allowed to edit the article for those edits to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

They also should be blocked from editing 2025 Buffalo mayoral election. They were perfectly fine alleging a vast unfounded conspiracy and take other editors to COIN with no actual evidence when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gainer was ongoing. They have since tried to turn 2025 Buffalo mayoral election#Democratic primary into a thinly veiled allegation of a conspiracy to fix the primary election since Gainer's article was deleted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@GPL93: has been hounding me repeatedly, and I've kindly asked him to stop. I am once again asking you to stop. You are free to edit whatever articles you choose or bring up arguments on the appropriate talk page. @BottleOfChocolateMilk: trimmed that section down and is apparently fine with it being in the article, so again, I'm not sure why you keep following me around like this. TheNewMinistry (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that @BottleOfChocolateMilk: acted this way because you took him to admins over a simple AfD nomination? TheNewMinistry had no problem accusing me of wrongdoing then doubling down and accusing me of being a liar falsely. If you think I am the issue, you can go to WP:ANI but I will not stand for you treating editors like @BottleOfChocolateMilk: and myself as bad actors because we believe that a candidate that failed to meet the requirements in a city primary election fails notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk)

I guess I should chime in here: I left the allegations against Sean Ryan on the 2025 Buffalo mayoral election page because they are cited to reliable sources and they are being repeated by Ryan's opponents in the mayoral race. If multiple candidates and (anonymous) members of the party committee are alleging a conspiracy to benefit another candidate, that is worth mentioning, though we can't treat it as fact and we have to mention that Ryan denies the allegations. For the record, I did have to adjust TheNewMinistry's writing because it was pretty clearly biased against Ryan (and thereby in favor of Gainer). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You didn't just adjust my writing, though - you also deleted the source I was referring to, claiming it was an op-ed. That's fine, but the original source I linked reflected what I had written ("as reported"). You also removed the other passage I wrote about Zellner's conflict of interest as both Party Chair and Board of Elections Commissioner, which has been reported on for years. I felt that was necessary to better explain Scanlon's "conflict of interest" quote, as the reader doesn't really get the full picture without it. Perhaps that's better served on a page for Zellner, but I'm not sure he'd pass notability. TheNewMinistry (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Erie County Democratic Committee was created to make the same weasel-worded accusations of rigging an election by TheNewMinistry. A wider block is necessary. GPL93 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Added that page. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Given the POV-pushing, I am going to draftify the article. If tone/POV concerns are stripped away and then submitted then there's a slight chance it could be accepted. Best, GPL93 (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This has become a big discussion on WP:AN, Daniel Case and GPL93. Your perspective would be great to hear now that there is more information about these articles. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

More information June 11: WikiWednesday Salon (Virtual) ...

June 11: WikiWednesday Salon (Virtual)

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our virtual WikiWednesday Salon. This month's WikiWednesday will be fully online and focused on Wikimedia global trends, neutral point of view, and the Wiki Loves Pride campaign for Pride Month. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Meeting info: Wednesday, June 11 Virtual WikiWednesday (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm Zoom link All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Saw this at RfPP – only one edit was by a non-autoconfirmed editor since 22 May, and it was a good typo fix . Abo Yemen requested full protection due to apparent content disputes between experienced editors. I don't know if full protection is appropriate, but semi-protection won't have any effect here. Toadspike [Talk] 20:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this has occurred to me since. I didn't see enough recent evidence of edit warring to IMO justify a full-protect yet. Especially since neither editor has availed themselves of the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm only arguing against semi-protection, not for full protection. If this really is an edit war between two people, there are more targeted solutions than page protection. Toadspike [Talk] 21:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Wanted to bring your attention to recent edits to Lassi, which you protected as a India/Pakistan-related CTOP. An editor recently made WP:OR edits, which I reverted, and is now engaging in an edit war. I had placed a warning on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:M15s09 Thank you for your attention to this. -Ram1751 (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

They've responded. They have only made two edits to that page. As they're EC, I would have to full-protect the page, and I don't think the situation's ripe for it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the response, but it basically tries to justify the WP:OR they've added. Guidance on how to proceed? Thanks. - Ram1751 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I agree that they seem pretty dug in. But that's not so much a case of OR; what they've chosen to ignore is WP:CITE. If it is "basic common sense" then it should be easy to find a cite. And sometimes you do need to cite that the sky is blue.

If you want me to jump in and say this, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Daniel - yes, if you could do that, that would be great. - Ram1751 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, it might be a while till I can today (US Eastern time, that is). Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Ram1751 (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for articles which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm back after a 6-months break.

Seeing the stuff happening from the sidelines, I decided to step in and file the overdue ArbCom case myself - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Transgender health care misinformation on Wikipedia.

Can you please restore my advanced permissions again ([log]) (extended confirmed user, page mover and pending changes reviewer) so I can move freely and resume what I used to do prior to my wikibreak? :)

Thanks in advance, Raladic Raladic (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done I will be following this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

Yes, I'm curious myself where it will lead. ArbCom will not have it easy on this one.

Given that the area appears to only have heated up since I stepped back 6 months ago and as I said in my retirement message on my user page - I'd only come back when someone pings me when there's an ArbCom case to curtail the anti-trans misinformation that many users and I have tried to stop, and after I glanced the mudslinging at AE happening right now, I figured with my refreshed set of eyes, I'd just push the rock down the hill myself and submit the case myself (especially since in one of the AE cases, some other people starting raising their voices for this to go to ArbCom as well). I don't see ArbCom declining the case given everything that's been playing out in this space over the last months/years.

What the outcome and remedies will be, we shall see, it's not simple or cut and dry. Even if I wish it was and of course since we're all humans and have our own internal values system, I of course have an opinion and have phrased part of the case as such, we shall see.

No matter how ArbCom will decide to take it up, it will be interesting as I can see that it could have quite a lot of significance for the platform as a litmus test of the current day and age around misinformation and the abuse of online information platforms like Wikipedia to be used as vehicles for such. Probably also has a fair chance that media gets a wind of it I imagine.

In any case, I'm back for now to help the case along and maybe get back into the grove of more editing as well.

And as always, thanks for always having been a nice person to help me out with various administrative things when I was hunting down vandalism and such :)

I did consider whether I should list you as a party, given that you are one of the admins that do help with revdel of transphobic misgendering/deadnaming cases, as you have done several time upon requests from me, but beyond that, I believe you haven't been too deep in the area, so I figured, I'd leave it up to you if you'd like to decide to just make a non-party statement if you're so inclined once the case is open to help explain the administrative cost that queer/transphobia has on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. The issue Sideswipe9th and I had with wanting the OK to indef-ECP any pages where regular and deliberate misgendering of anyone, trans or not (yes, I actually did this for the page on a cis Wyoming state senator whose page was getting misgendered after he did that to a witness at hearing) was occurring was approved. That I knew about. I looked at your list of evidence and it goes into a lot of places I haven't had to. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

It was nice collaborating with you over the years.

Here's to sharing a few more cookies before I go.

And lastly, I wish to bestow this on you:

		The LGBTQ Barnstar
		Thanks for your continued efforts helping to enforce our guidelines around the prevention of MOS:DEADNAME, helping with countless redactions of violations and protecting many articles to prevent further disruption, and collaborating on creating WP:RVDEADNAME. Raladic (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Your block only blocked account creation. Did you also mean to pblock them from Suicide in South Korea? I'll add that if I don't hear from you soon. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks for catching that! Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. What caught my eye was the block log, that included blocked 114.10.134.0/23 talk from specified non-editing actions with an expiration time of 6 months. (emphasis mine) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I had gotten distracted getting the block reason in (really, I appreciate the improvements to the block page but if someone else doesn't go to Phabricator over the fact that every time you click on that drop-down menu's scroll bars it just up and closes, I will). Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh my. Yeah, that is not good. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, sorry to bother you, I would like to request protection for the page Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu as it is getting some vandalism recently. Thanks! TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

yes please. that is all. -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

That, and a Maghreb one ...

And British politics and personalities post-2016. And children's television and animation. And Philippines popular culture. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Talk:Iran–Israel proxy conflict.

I thought I remembered you as an arbiter but I checked and I saw there was a different Daniel who is one. Thanks! Aasim (話す（はなす）) 23:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheNewMinistry (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This CTOPS-protected (India/Pakistan-related) article has multiple issues, which I outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Little_India#Multiple%20issues The inclusion of many of the entries in this article is based on a WP:OR criterion. I proposed a resolution at the beginning of the thread, but a couple of editors seem dug in on the WP:OR view. I would like to clean up this article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I request your input (preferably in the talk page thread) to move forward. Thank you! - Ram1751 (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll get to this ... I am too tired after working at the polls all day (all hot day) to really be able to focus on it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, no rush! :) -Ram1751 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case a gentle reminder... -Ram1751 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks alot. It’s an actual trade and it’s going to happen and the sources are real Astrawiki3203 (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

You are a hardworking administrator.

StopLookingAtMe1 (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Kris_(Deltarune) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eldomtom2 (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

You appropriately extended confirmed access protected the Palestine Action article. I have a question about whether it is possible to give additional protection to (a small) part of this article (even some advisory notice when editing it might help). The question is in more detail on the help desk at 11:10, 9 July 2025. As you applied the existing protection, perhaps you know the answer to my question? Thanks, SciberDoc (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

We cannot use the software (yet) to apply greater protection to individual sections. It would be possible, I think, to put the section in question under 0RR if that would help, though that would depend on editors on the section enforcing it and calling it to admin attention. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

this is full of personal attack and verbal abuse towards other editor. Mehedi Abedin 20:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Also warned them. Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. If it's any consolation, it's happened to me as well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

More information Two Wikimedia NYC 400 events ...

Two Wikimedia NYC 400 events

Please join us for the launch events to recognize the Wikimedia NYC 400! Fulfilling Wikimedia NYC tradition, we'll start off the campaign with an edit-a-thon on Thursday and a Wiknic on Sunday, and will continue with Wikimedia NYC 400 events throughout the rest of this year. Event details and registration link below: NYC 400: Women Do News Edit-A-Thon When: July 17, 2025 Time: 5pm to 8pm (8pm to 10pm optional hackathon) Where: In person at Prime Produce (424 W 54th St, New York, NY 10019) NYC 400: Wiknic and Edit-A-Thon with Washington Square Park When: July 20, 2025 Time: 12pm to 4pm Where: In person in NYC at Washington Square Park All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, guess what? Can I offer you a cookie for your continued help.

Could you please help mop up some RD2's here: and .

There's also an open RfPP Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Peggie v NHS Fife if you'd like to help stop further disruptions.

Thanks as always and have a good day :) Raladic (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

All done, and the article's protection increased to indef ECP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this , I'm a tad bemused at your response. I'd have thought that the disruption evident at the page history over the past week or so would have been sufficient for temporary protection to be granted. This is an article about a 25-year-old film after all, it should be relatively stable.

Further, you declined to temporarily block the IP range involved by declaring the "user" to have been insufficiently warned, and issued a level 1 warning. What was the point of that? By my count, there have been eight different IPs on that range used to edit war on the article. It's seems unlikely that they'll return to using the IP address to which you've issued the warning. Barry Wom (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Since all the disruption came from that one range, I don't think protection is needed.

And I may seem old-fashioned and stubborn about this, but I don't think it's right to block most vandals who haven't been warned in some way. People should be given adequate notice that what they're doing is wrong so they can stop on their own. Edit-summary warnings are not enough ... less newer users than most people realize are aware that history pages even exist. Yes, they may be on a /64, but if you look at most edit histories where disruptive /64s have been involved, they're usually allocated a far more limited amount of addresses than the full 512 and often the dynamic returns them to one they've already used.

I must note that they haven't resumed editing today. Perhaps they got the message?

(I do agree, though, that we should have better ways of warning users on dynamic IPs. I think I might have suggested that once at that no-longer annual Community thing on Meta). Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So you didn't protect the page because the disruption came from a single editor, but didn't block said editor because every IP they used hadn't been sufficiently warned? You also appear to have glossed over the fact that this range had already been blocked earlier this year for two periods of a month each, which I also pointed out at the RfPP. Handily, another admin has now blocked the range again for three months, which is more in line with my expectations when I reported the matter. Barry Wom (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Barry, I reviewed what you wrote and I am sorry I missed that. I was not as thorough in reviewing the record as I try to be ... at the time I was pressed for time, and was only able to look at the last month or so of article history. It takes several pages to reach the last outburst of disruption, late last year.

As a result of that more in-depth review I just did I have put the article on indefinite extended-confirmed protection ... none of the IP or AC edits I could see seem to have been constructive, and as you say this has been going on for a very long time. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Daniel. Barry Wom (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, the same vandal that you have blocked for over 10 times, just returned to cause chaos again with a new IP address. This time it's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:A6A:B400:247A:2A99:C0E0:BA76 Panosgatto (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

/64 blocked two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Panosgatto (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The redirect T:UAA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 29 § T:UAA until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, you have been helpful in the past in reviewing updates at both Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. With all the recent activity related to Saks Global, Richard A. Baker (businessman)'s intro and career sections are no longer current. I am hoping you can take a look at my proposed updates here:Talk:Richard_A._Baker_(businessman)#Update_Intro_and_Career_sections and implement the changes if they look good. Thanks in advance! Maddie for Saks (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your thank you! I took that as a green light to make the edits directly. You are welcome to check my edits, and if you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Maddie for Saks (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as the notice at the top says, I may be busy at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

More information Two informal Wikimedia NYC events ...

Two informal Wikimedia NYC events

While Wikimania 2025 is underway in Nairobi, Kenya, you are invited to Wikimedia NYC's Satellite Social at Prime Produce on Thursday, August 7th, which will be an informal gathering of local Wikimedians and potentially feature editing, hacking, and board games. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Additionally, a second Wiknic of the season, this time on Roosevelt Island, is planned for later in the month (August 24th). Stay tuned for further updates! Wikimania Satellite Social When: August 7, 2025 Time: 3pm to 7pm Where: In person at Prime Produce (424 W 54th St, New York, NY 10019) Roosevelt Island Wiknic More info coming soon! All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Daniel! Thanks for this block. Unfortunately, in the 25th hour, the problem editing resumed. Could you either extend the block or semi protect the page? — Nat Gertler (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked again for two weeks (I had actually originally intended to make the block a week as editors on /64s may find it too easy to evade, especially if they're at insTitutions). Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! — Nat Gertler (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear sir , I hope you’re doing well. I’m writing to sincerely request the removal of the editing block placed on my account, which is currently preventing me from accessing and contributing to the Aryan valley page and the wikipedia library. I understand that the block was placed due to repeated issues in the past, and I take full responsibility for my actions. I truly regret any disruption they may have caused. At the same time, I want to highlight that I’ve also made a number of positive contributions, and my intention has always been to add value to the platform. I assure you that I’ve learned from these past mistakes and will be more mindful and responsible moving forward. I would be truly grateful if you could consider unblocking me so I can resume accessing the library and continue contributing in a constructive manner.For the time being, I wanna read books in through Wikipedia library. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Warm regards, Minaro123 (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Since that was imposed under CTOPS, as the block message suggests, I would feel more comfortable doing this (as I am not really intimately familiar with your history prior to that block), if this request were made at AE and there was a consensus for this. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Mind mopping this? Thanks :) Raladic (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case RightFax (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC) Subject: Vandalism Report

Dear Sir,

I am writing to bring to your attention a concerning issue of vandalism on Wikipedia. A user name, HelloWorld8800, has been continuously vandalizing the page "Kolkata Derby" and "List of Kolkata Derby Matches". Despite efforts to revert the changes, the user continues to make malicious edits. The vandalism includes "removing factual information" or "adding false content". These actions compromise the integrity and accuracy of the page, which is detrimental to the platform's reliability. I have tried to engage with the user and revert the changes, but the behavior persists. As an administrator, I kindly request your assistance in addressing this issue. Your intervention would be greatly appreciated in preventing further vandalism and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's content.

Details of the vandalism:

- Page: Kolkata Derby and List of Kolkata Derby Matches

- Vandalizing User: HelloWorld8800

- Relevant diffs: The correct stats 402 matches, 138 win for EB and 135 for MB, I think he's an EB supporter that's why he's changing the stats in favour of the team he supports.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Your efforts in maintaining Wikipedia's integrity are invaluable.

Best regards,

RightFax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightFax (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look at the pages, and the users talk page history, this seems to be a WP:CIR issue. The users seem to be edit warring over the match count. Rightfax has been warned by another user in the past. Helloworld seems to be a new account created last week, while RightFax's account is 6 months old. Also, remember to sign using 4 tildes. Putting your username in your message is not enough. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case @NacreousPuma855 RightFax

I am writing to follow up on my previous report regarding the vandalism of the page "Kolkata Derby" by the user HelloWorld8800. Despite your earlier warning, this user has continued to engage in malicious editing, demonstrating a blatant disregard for Wikipedia's policies and community guidelines.

The ongoing vandalism includes "removing citations," "adding false information," or "inserting inappropriate content". These actions not only compromise the accuracy and reliability of the page but also undermine the efforts of good-faith contributors.

Given the user's persistent behavior, I respectfully request that you consider taking further action, such as blocking the user or imposing other sanctions as per Wikipedia's policies. This would help protect the integrity of the page and prevent further disruption.

 (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Chatbot-written requests will not be entertained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:17, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems the page doesn't have a lot of reliable sources. Daniel semiprotected the article, but Extended Confirmed protection may be necessary. Make sure you put your 4 tildes at the end of your message. My best option right now is for you two to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, rather than continuing to revert to your previous version, NacreousPuma855 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case @NacreousPuma855 Sir kindly please block this user name HelloWorld8800, I am trying very hard to solve the matter with him, still he's not stopping and continuously vandalizing the page. Please block him. If you take this step then it will help other users who seriously want to contribute for the community. Please take this step RightFax (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@RightFax For someone who is "trying very hard to solve the matter", I don't see a lot of posts on article talk pages from you. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Taking a look, it just seems to be more reverting. No discussion on the talk pages. The both of you are in the wrong. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

After continuous discussion, he's providing some unreliable sources and reverting the page. You should block this user right now HelloWorld8800 to make the community better for other users. RightFax (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately looking at the events, I think both of you are acting in the wrong. A page protection to Extended Confirmed, or a P-Block for both users might have to be given if they cannot stop continuously reverting. If you believe you’re still in the right, you can take this to WP:ANI at your own risk, as it looks like the conflict is too hard for Daniel to handle. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok I will stop editing that page but block that user man god damn please because I will stop but he'll never reverting. RightFax (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

First, please don’t use inappropriate language. Second, I believe Fred mentioned that although they are edit warring, their edits weren’t bad faith. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Man what are you doing? Today another user is also complaining about this user name HelloWorld880 for vandalizing the page and you are not blocking him. Please block him as soon as possible, after having several conversations in the talk page he's not stopping and continuously vandalizing the page and reverting again and again. Do something Dear Admin. RightFax (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I highly suggest you do not complain about an admin not taking action. Daniel is busy and he can’t respond to requests without clear evidence. Again, you may want to try to take this to another admin by going to WP:ANI. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you NP. @RightFax:, as noted at the top of this page I am traveling and have limited ability to respond to what I read here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Needs to lose TPA. Lynch44 13:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out re: Ninjatō and User:2603:7080:1FF0:A330:0:0:0:0/64. Just FYI, the user is trying to evade the block with other IPs. See edit history for Ninjatō (again), Predator: Killer of Killers and Prey (2022 film). Danmakusaur (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I have extended the block on the /64 another two eeeks and blocked the IP for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Danmakusaur (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Talia Lavin needs some protection again. Polygnotus (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but it looks like they are confirmed and I don't wanna keep reverting. Gotta admit the word "braphog" was new to me. Polygnotus (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

They’ve been blocked. Let’s see how they take that …. 20:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC) Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

quick drive by request for mopping:

Hope you have a Good Friday. Raladic (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done i am actually almost all done with Friday right now, here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if possible could you please review Draft:2008–09 Mohun Bagan FC season. Its been in the draft section for 3 weeks (~) now and I have to start with the 2007-08 season 😕 Thank you.m Aban05 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I took a look, the article seems to be okay. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

So, is it possible for you to move the draft page to live page? Thank you. Aban05 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don’t have the rights to approve the AfD submission. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You had protected this page with CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related). An editor recently added unsourced material, which I reverted, and is now engaging in an edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_India&curid=1544482&action=history This user has received several level 3 and 4 user warnings for adding unsourced/poorly sourced material in the past year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nzs9 Guidance on how to proceed? Thank you. Ram1751 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted them again and given them a level 3 unsourced warning, based on their history of warning and combative mentality, although they have made productive edits.

As for your question about this article months ago, I do think you got consensus but … since BrownHairedGirl has been banned since then, it might be a good idea to get someone else involved, maybe via WT:INDIA, and revisit the discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no edit war at all I don't care or have any affiliation or bias with any relation to India or Pakistan. For you to accuse me of this is ridiculous. The area I posted is a suburb deemed as Little India in West Melbourne. Nzs9 (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Then add a source. Your edit history show you have done this before when asked to. Daniel Case (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: The second graf I wrote above had nothing to do with you; it was meant for Ram in reference to an earlier discussion we had.

I am even less impressed with you now than I was a couple of days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

To sum it up, essentially, you had blocked 2603:7080:8C00:B396:0:0:0:0/64 as block evasion of 173.243.160.48, with both blocks expiring on August 2 of this current month.

That time has obviously come, and both blocks concluded, but the range 173.243.160.0/24 was given a 3 year block in September 2024. Now that /64 range is no longer blocked, and has even edited, seemingly continuing the slow edit warring of Grownarwahl on Pig Goat Banana Cricket (Grownarwahl may need a block as well, as they are continuing their slow edit warring previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1188#Slow-motion/quiet edit warring at Pig Goat Banana Cricket). Would that range need to be blocked once more for block evasion? Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 for three years this time, and Grownnarwhal for 72 hours (I’m not sure a partial block from the article would make much of an impact, unless it was very long-term or indef, as they edit it only infrequently). Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

On 14 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Suicide by electrocution, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that suicide by electrocution, while usually very rare, was one of the most common suicide methods in Nazi concentration camps due to the surrounding high-voltage electric fences? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Suicide by electrocution. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Suicide by electrocution), 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.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

An editor has been engaging in an edit war: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barfi&action=history Their edits appear to promote a India/Hindu POV. I left a message on their talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8_%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%80#August_2025 They are also exhibiting a combative mentality. Requesting CTOPS (India/Pakistan-related) protection for this page and additional guidance. Thank you! - Ram1751 (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the issue, seems to be a problem with the type of language and the word origin/meaning. NacreousPuma855 (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected it indefinitely this time (the previous one-year protection expired in April) and logged it at CTOPS.

(The food’s name is sort of unintentionally amusing from a North American perspective …. Daniel Case (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

CreatorTheWikipedian2009 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I see this has already been taken care of by the impeccable Dianaa Daniel Case (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

How are you mopping skills doing on a Tuesday? Looks like it was the cookie aisle, so here's some cookies as a token of appreciation. :) Thanks. Raladic (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like Primefac already got it :) Raladic (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Came across another spill if you got a moment & .

Thanks in advance :) Raladic (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

More information August 24: Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island ...

August 24: Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island

You are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Roosevelt Island, at Southpoint Park. Please dress for the weather and bring a blanket or lawn chair for seating; we will be having this picnic on the grass. Bring some potluck as well as some board games to add to the fun! All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 24, 2025 Wiknic @ Roosevelt Island Time: 2:00 - 7:00 pm (come by any time!) Location: Roosevelt Island – Southpoint Park; look for our Wikipedia/Wikimedia NYC banner. (In case of inclement weather, we plan to relocate to our usual venue, Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan.) All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You recently applied or modified a range block to 2409:4000:0:0:0:0:0:0/22 blocking the pages Nim, Talk:Nim, Jainism in Bengal, Bengali mythology, Haryana Police, Sivakarthikeyan and Konkani language with an expiration time of 20:33, 21 February 2026. The same IP range is also making unhelpful edits with respect of:

• Talk:Aurangabad
• Aurangabad district, Maharashtra
• Aurangabad (disambiguation)

Is it possible to extend the block to any article with Aurangabad in the name please.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I wish it were. We can get up to ten pages in a range before we have to go sitewide or articlespace. And that range is a lot of addresses to block.

When I am finally back from Africa in a couple of days, let’s see if we can work on a smaller range affecting just this user. Right now I am working from an iPad and using the range calculator tool for IPv6 addresses is rather difficult. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. He/she has also attacked Independence Day (Pakistan) -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, hope you're enjoying Nairobi. I see you also warned 2600:4040:90BD:D300:B80D:14EF:A763:FAB5 for disruptive editing. I'll also send this to AIV, but if you happen to get to it first, I think a block of 2600:4040:90BD:D300:0:0:0:0/64 is warranted. They continue to ignore all warnings and add unsourced tables of bus fleets. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I’m actually in Brussels Airport right now … last stop on the way home.

I’ll see what I can do re that range right now …. Daniel Case (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Izno blocked them for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it. Thanks anyway! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I pinged you over at the draft for a discussion on fixing up RVDEADNAME, but just in case you have too many pings, asking you here if you could pop over there when you have a moment. Thanks in advance. :) Raladic (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll do what I can; it's Labor Day weekend and I have family to attend to ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah there's no urgency, enjoy your long weekend with your family and maybe you can take a look sometime over the next week :) Raladic (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

As per a review of my unblock request here, User:Wikiislamtime has been confirmed to not be my sockpuppet. However he is still blocked. I plan to quit editing wikipedia soon, so hopped that you could free this editor from his dungeon which he was accidentally placed in by User:Skitash. It was all a mistake and he didn't do anything wrong. KashanAbbas (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you sir. You saved a random innocent man or boy. KashanAbbas (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Daniel. There's a problem with the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clicklander%7CClicklander who reverts the edits on Greece men's national basketball team with no reason whatsoever. Although the edits are clearly justified and referenced, he keeps reverting them, stating that they are "not-referenced". Despite the fact that I explained to him every detail, he was warned on both the history page of the article and his personal talk page, but he just ignored me and kept being stubborn and reverting the edits again and again. Panosgatto (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This pattern of editing sounds familiar ... I will attend to it a little later; I don't have time right now. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Regrettably I have had to block you both for a week. Not only have you continued edit warring during your talk page discussion, to a point way in excess of 3RR, the edits you are warring over are not covered by the very limited exceptions to that rule. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection, since there has been a flood of attempts to edit the article that are more than PC can reasonably deal with. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Fine (I still can't help seeing "Romana Dildo" when I see her name ) Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

More information September 10: Annual Election & Members Meeting, P.S. Next event, September 19 — NYC 400 Edit-A-Thon: Nueva Yol ...

September 10: Annual Election & Members Meeting
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Annual Election & Members Meeting, in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan and also via Zoom. The Members' Meeting is similar to other WikiWednesday meetups, except that its primary function is to elect new members to the Board of Directors. We will elect three board seats – half of the elected seats on the board – and the elected board can appoint up to five more board members. As part of the Members Meeting, we will also focus on the Wikimedia NYC Programs Plan for the coming year, 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 8 and 8pm EDT on September 10. For additional information, please consult the Election FAQ. Meeting info: Wednesday, September 10 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 and Photography Policy.
P.S. Next event, September 19 — NYC 400 Edit-A-Thon: Nueva Yol

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Could I get assistance with housekeeping issues at Talk:Ron Sexsmith? An editor with editorial disagreement made a personal attack edit summary at Special:Diff/1309709252 and I've asked them to stop but they're not acknowledging it and replied back another another snarky/personal attack edit summary in Special:Diff/1309713038. It is difficult to collaborate with this kind of behaviors. And if you could comment if one of us may be misunderstanding how the guidelines are interpreted in the way due/undue is handled.

Thank you Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh God. I have a history with this editor ... so let me take some deep breaths before I decide what exactly to do. Once again, I think this diff is once again particularly ironic. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Graywalls: OK. I did it in the mildest way possible. Look what it got me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I need some advice on how to proceed because the IP continues to make edits on Saving Private Ryan under different addresses and continues to insert issues such as double use of "soldiers" in a sentence here "The men travel to a rallying point of 101st Airborne soldiers, where they find scores of wounded and displaced soldiers." Yet I feel I am unable to do anything because the only response is to restore it to how it was. Can you advise please. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The IP also appears to have followed me to a separate article where they have also made a bad faith/personal attack on me at a separate page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABatman_Returns&diff=1310084577&oldid=1310072479 and I'm not sure who/how to report it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I just warned them about the last one. While I think that some of their critiques of the prose you restored in the Saving Private Ryan have merit (i.e. , "learns" is better and clearer than "receives communication that"), this behavior is going beyond that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I see that the page has been protected for a couple of weeks, as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I see you are the one that has protected the 2026 FIFA World Cup article. Can the same protection, but for a short period of time, be afforded to the 2030 FIFA World Cup, due to persistent disruptive editing, especially with Porcupine Landak and other inanities? Or show me the link where I should go to make such a request. Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like another admin blocked 182.253.48.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours. If they resume after it's over let me know, or report them to WP:AIV. If other IPs not on the same range, or newly registered accounts join in, you can either let me know or (better) file a report at WP:RFPP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think temporary semi-protection would be reasonable at this point, it's getting a bit silly. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, unless we block every Romanian IP from editing the article indefinitely.

I think I can do this myself as it's not really a content dispute; while I could see how it could be content-related, the editor's prolonged refusal to discuss in any fashion has been prejudicial to that presumption, and their continued block evasion has strengthened that impression (They've made edits on a similar theme to other unrelated articles ... I wonder if this some LTA that I don't know about).

But, if you think I should nevertheless ask at RFPP, I will. Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've made the request . My hope is that protection of sufficient length will break their editing pattern and cause them to lose interest. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I have suggested we get six months, and put a CTOPS tag on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. The redirect at Template:Infobox NFL biographyTemplate:Infobox NFL biography is prominently transcluded on 30,000 articles (in particular, biographies) and still falls under WP:HRT as it applies to "template redirects", as the transcluded redirect could be hijacked to vandalize those articles. MusikBot II would have automatically re-protected it after 7 days, though I have brought that forward by restoring the title's long-standing protection. (I doubt you will have any objection, but if you really think unprotecting it is a good idea, you will need to add the title to the exclusion list at User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector/config to keep it unprotected for more than a week.) (CC: Sophisticatedevening who requested unprotection.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 09:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking action on the Leah Harvey disruption. FYI you might want to take a look at the blocked user's filter log and the contributions of the user whose page he was attempting to edit. Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Those are interesting but ... the filter log entries are over two years old, so not so relevant today unless they start making the same edits, and as for the other account I do find that interesting and at some point we might want to open an SPI, but for now they're both blocked so that would not be considered a problem. Daniel Case (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our Wikipedia NYC 400 Edit-A-Thon: Nueva Yol on Friday Sep 19 from 5pm to 8pm, hosted with the NYU Latinx Project. And if you're interested in the development of wiki-based games, we'd like to invite you to apply for the WikiGameJam on Oct 3-5 — we're hoping to publicly showcase some of the best projects at our next Wikipedia Day! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This is excessive protection IMO, maybe PCP would be better since the Italian brainrot trend died out. ArbCom says "the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment" (so maybe put a comment at the "Controversial audios" section). —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think given the topic in question this should be discussed at AE. Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Done :) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please ignore the above link, turns out ACE was not the appropriate place like I thought. New link at FYI —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 22:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

You extended protected this article, however it has been a while since there was any vandalism. Maybe it's worth trying indef semi on this article. CherryBlossomGuy (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

When requests along these lines come up at WP:RFPP/D, our standard response is to point out that of course there hasn't been any vandalism since the page was ECP'ed. Just like you could say that since we put the combination lock on the room, nothing's been stolen from it. But would that mean no one wants to steal what's in there anymore? Hardly.

So I would not unprotect, and neither would any other admin who reviews those requests, on those grounds alone.

I would ask myself, even if the request did not, what gave rise to the vandalism or disruption. If it was something time-specific (like a now long-past sporting event or occurrence, or a news event), I'd be inclined to at least consider unprotecting. Or if the last vandalism/disruption had been some time before the protection (which is why we generally don't protect articles that haven't been vandalized/disrupted very recently). Or if the article had never been protected prior to the long-term protection.

But in this case, none of those things are true. I protected the article shortly after a series of edits of which this was the last. Edits that followed on the expiration of the latest in a long series of protections.

Yes, I know it's being argued that that Skibidi-toilet thing has died down somewhat in the last year. That doesn't mean it's completely gone. I remember years ago, long before you were on Wikipedia (maybe before you were born even?), there was an unending parade of people thinking it was cute to replace the entire text of Atlantic Records with "YOU SUCK!" in the biggest letters possible because, well, Weird Al did it in the video for "White & Nerdy" (See screen shot in article), because he'd had a recent contract dispute with them. So we had the article on semi-protection for the longest time.

One time around 2010, several years later, I was reviewing unblock requests when I found one from someone who wondered why they had been blocked indefinitely for just making that one edit. I thought it was a little harsh, so I unblocked ... only to have the blocking admin come down on me all up in arms afterwards.

That was how I learned about all this history. I had never heard of, much less heard, the Weird Al song. The blocking admin explained that only recently had they decided it was finally safe to lift the indefinite semi (ECP didn't exist then). The editor, too, had had no idea everybody else had been doing this, and we decided to let him go and as far as I know he never vandalized that article or any other again (He may not ever edited again, I don't know, but that's not relevant here).

But it did lead to the page being long-term protected again. And as you can see from its protection log, that has continued until it, too, was put on indefinite ECP a couple of years ago.

So, the lesson here is: Never underestimate the long-term appeal of vandalism fueled by Internet memes. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I would like to offer a counter argument. In your example of the Alantic Records article, anyone can view the music video and be inspired to vandalize. However, these Gen Alpha internet memes (especially Skibidi Toilet) are mostly viewed by people under the age of 10 who probably don't know how to become autoconfirmed on Wikipedia. If you look back at the vandals of the Ohio Article, all of their accounts are globally locked for "Long-Term Abuse" or "Vandalism-only account", suggesting that these people knew exactly what they were doing and they were deliberately vandalizing the article for attention on the internet. By raising the protection level to extended confirmed, you are giving these vandals the attention they want. It's a similar case with the Skibidi Toilet article, that article has a long vandalism and disruption history, but as of a few months ago the extended confirmed protection has expired and there hasn't been any vandalism since.

Right now, I think its important to consider the innocent editors who can't edit the page because of the extended confirmed protection. These people could make significant contributions and make the article so much better. For all of the reasons listed above, please consider reducing the article's protection level to indef semi. If for whatever reason the vandalism persists, the vandalism can be easily reverted and the article can be easily protected again. CherryBlossomGuy (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

They can make edit requests on the talk page. That's not protected. And if they devote their editing attention to other, unprotected articles (there are, ahem, many), they'll attain EC status sooner than they realize.

And unfortunately nothing we do can possibly stop those people who've been globally locked/indeffed from creating new accounts in some way that evades an account-creation block on the IP, if they're determined enough. We have a lot of LTA pages for this exact reason. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask you to temporarily protect my user talk page and hide all the revisions that were spammed there by the LTA. I would greatly appreciate your help with this. Thank you. —Pminh141 ^{[ Talk ]} 01:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I have semi-protected for a year since your user page is already protected indefinitely. However, someone just saying they don't like you is not something that qualifies for RevDel. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your help, even though there are many rules on Enwiki that I’m not fully familiar with. The reality is that these sockpuppet accounts are personally targeting me and several administrators/patrollers on viwiki, and they sometimes even make threats against my life and the lives of others. Perhaps this person is just some kid seeking attention and trying to stand out. However, this behavior is seriously bothering a lot of people, myself included, and I really don’t want to see those messages—so I’d like to ask if you could hide them. Once again, thank you so much. Wishing you a great day. —Pminh141 ^{[ Talk ]} 03:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I took another look at the criteria and decided that RD3 covers this. So it's done. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! You recently edited the pblock for range 111.94.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The most recent IP in the range (this /32) recently edited Batam and Makassar in the same disruptive way, and has done so in the past with other IPs in the range. I'm writing to ask if you'd consider adding those pages to the list of pages blocked for the /16. Thank you :) --tony 15:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done They must have upped the limit on how many pages there can be in a partial block ... it was already over 10 for this one, and I was looking at other possible solutions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you recently protected Olib so that only administrators can edit it. I am not involved in the edit war at all, but am instead in the process of expanding the article itself. I was about to add a bibliography and expand the History section, when my edits could no longer be posted. We also have an ongoing dialogue on the talk page to resolve the infobox picture issue. Thank you. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 22:29, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The protection will expire in three days ... we rarely full-protect for longer than that. And if the issue is resolved before then, I'd be happy to lift the protection early. Let me know. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

How about replacing the pp with pp-extended? The only involved editor that has touched the page in the last month is not yet extended confirmed. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 03:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Where the editors involved in the dispute have different access levels, and what they're differing over is a matter of editorial preference rather than clear-cut policy, we try to avoid protection that would bar one side from editing but not another, as seems it would be the case here. It looks like we're picking a winner. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

They editor in question (the one that would be advantaged) has not edited the page since July, whereas I have about 50 kb of pending changes to the page right now. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 04:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No one edited the page during the entire month of July ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You're right. It was June 29th! Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, just noticed that you placed the Gorilla article under a three-month semi-protection per this request. However, it seems that you forgot to set the semi-protection to expire. BriDash9000 (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Oops! Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

HI Daniel, could you please look at the recent activity by a new user "Truthreconciliation18" at NCCM and consider further sanctions? They are repeating the same MO of a previous user "Chichifat" (who you blocked from editing indefinitely because of similar WP:BATTLEGROUND violations) and they are not seemingly here to build a NPOV encyclopedia. I've given the user a warning on their Talk Page, but I don't think they are going to stop. Thank you. Ottawacan (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I have just alerted them to contentious topics; we'll see what that does. It's a little tough here because most editors who demonstrate a battleground mentality usually make it evident with incivility or corresponding battleground language as well. This editor so far is keeping their cool. If it's that editor I blocked, they've at least learned something. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #106702 is from Leemsj2075, who was blocked five years ago by Future Perfect at Sunrise, and you removed talk page access. There's something close to a consensus to unblock, but you may wish to express an opinion. JBW (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that Human safari and not Human safari (terror campaign) is on this list, after a RM some time ago only the later is in it's scope—blindlynx 14:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Realistically this should be a bot task—blindlynx 22:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Daniel, hope you've been well. Azoral, who was blocked for 3 months from editing Battle of Kosovo last year , has been reverting a lot since early September. If you take a look at the history of the article, AzorzaI has been reverting every now and then against multiple editors, but has never breached the 3RR per se. They have received an edit warring warning . Does this reverting spree count as slow edit warring or is he within the rules? Also, the admin who closed the RfC today, apparently feels under attack by Azor , so this makes the reverting spree even more worrying tbh. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This strikes me as a situation that, as ToBeFree said, needs to be discussed at AN/I or even, given that it's within a contentious topic area, AE. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Tbh ANI/I is usually useless when Balkan issues are concerned; the discussion turns into walls of text and admins tend to stay away and not get involved. At AE, how can slow edit warring be reported? Should all diffs be listed, or just a link to the article history? AzorzaI has also been involved in source misrepresentation, which is more suitable for AE, but IMO the apparently slow edit warring too needs to be looked at. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, where did ToBeFree suggest an ANI/I report? Can you please provide me a link to that discussion as I am not able to find it? Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Here, on his talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of that discussion. There TBF is suggesting an ANI/I report on both AzoraI and Botushali. The question which remains is how to report slow edit warring at AE. Should all diffs be listed, or just a link to the article history? Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Btw, a week ago a merging proposal was made there , and it seems that no one is going to be against. Wikipedia:Merging, which isn't an official policy page or guideline, says that anyone can do a merger. Based on that, the OP can go ahead and do the merger himself now? Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, when you protect a TemplateStyles page like Template:Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox/styles.css, please remember to add /* {{pp-template|small=yes}} */ at the top, so the category is populated. Thanks, —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 20:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I have been unsure of doing that because a) some people don't and b) I have always assumed that the reason they don't is to avoid accidental transclusion of the notice. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

This bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions:

• 19:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC) (Tyler Wotherspoon)
• 20:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC) (Jake Allen (ice hockey))
• 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC) (David Reinbacher)

These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to. If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, just wanted to let you know that this was the first time the bot ran live as part of its BRFA trial (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClerkBot), so I'm especially open to any changes that make this feel more useful/less annoying. The ultimate goal is to decrease the cognitive load on AE admins so you don't need to waste time logging the protections by hand in the future, so I certainly don't want this to be burdensome! Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright! I hadn't thought about this as a possible improvement to the process but it's certainly welcome ...

Now, a couple of questions that occur to me on this ...

• Will/can the bot take care of the talk page banners, reverting it to just "{{contentious topics/talk notice}}" after a protection expires? I have usually just left those as they were to better give bad actors something to think about, but some people have said that would be more honest.
• What will happen with PIA protections, where we have to put in an editnotice about 1RR (And honestly, given the drastic measures required, I have always been more comfortable with making them manually as that makes you really think about whether it's necessary. With some well-meaning people nominating some articles really tangential to the current conflict, or even the conflict at all, like (hypothetically) Quilting in Israel, and then some RFPP admins more or less rubber-stamping those requests because of their sheer volume, I think the importance of careful consideration of them cannot be understated).

Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

These are helpful questions! #1 seems quite doable. I'm less familiar with the whole template stack but perhaps @User:HouseBlaster and @SilverLocust could chime in on #2? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

From time to time I check PIA protections for missing notices and add them (as can others), though it could potentially be done by a bot. While PIA notices "should" be added to affected pages, I don't think protecting admins have to place a PIA editnotice as they aren't personally imposing the 1RR, just the protection. If there's protection but no editnotice, the topic-wide 1RR just applies in the same way as if the page were unprotected — i.e., it depends on whether the editor was otherwise aware of the restriction and the reverts were related to the conflict.

I'd personally recommend just not listing page protection in a talk notice, as page protections are self-demonstrating. That's why an editnotice isn't required when the only restriction imposed is protection.

But if a talk notice is mislabeled as protected (e.g., after protection expires), it doesn't actually show the page as being protected and instead categorizes the page into Category:Wikipedia pages about a contentious topic mislabelled as protected. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, if 1RR is in effect, it seems only fair to give adequate notice at the point of editing.

Other people have wondered about why the CTOPS notice is on the talk page, as most people won't go there first. I wasn't privy to that decision, so I can't speak to it, and I understand the criticism. But getting over to the talk page and seeing it might help an editor understand what's going on and why they would need to calm down.

Of course, I wouldn't be opposed to a CTOPS editnotice that explains more specifically just why you must tread carefully on this page, and if applicable why you can't edit it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks for the assist! Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

User talk:155.137.27.93 Please remove TPA from the IP.

Thanks, --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Ping – @Daniel Case --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Most of those edits removed old warnings and other edits to that page, which is permitted under WP:BLANKING. Even for IP editors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Well he did replace the template with "United States of America". --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 02:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, and can you also block 73.115.218.132 and remove TPA? Lots of personal attacks. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

That I have done ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Daniel Case, heads up, I think you probably meant to remove this edit summary as well. Thank you :) --tony 03:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Now block evading, 2601:2C6:8580:ADF2:AC5B:5BCF:D1D2:8F10. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

2601:2C6:8580:ADF2:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked three months. I will also be extending the original block to that length. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If they keep doing that, then yes we might want to do this. But the balance of what they've done so far was within their rights. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The IP previously mentioned was just harassing me. I cannot Thank you enough. Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

To block talk page access from Special:Contributions/2601:2C6:8580:ADF2:AC5B:5BCF:D1D2:8F10, they're still accusing everyone of being a Nazi there Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 04:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

where is the block notice? Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

When we block ranges, there is (as yet) no central page in the range to leave a notice. The software thinks the "/64" makes it a registered account, or one not yet registered.

Believe me, they will see a block notice every time they try to edit from that range ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done It's applied to the entire /64. I should have done that when I made the block Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: You recently blocked PJK 1993 for edit warring in a contentious topic area and warned them about their battleground mentality. Unfortunately they haven't changed their behavior. Despite having been warned multiple times about their edit warring and personal attacks they keep edit warring in the same article and haven't stopped their false accusations and misrepresentations. Among other things, they keep saying I'm "sanitizing the article" and removed a source without any evidence (see this comment or this edit summary). As another user has already pointed out, that is not true. It is almost impossible to collaborate effectively with the user, since they either react with these kinds of personal attacks, ignore and delete discussion attempts or reply with unsourced statements which seem to be based on personal opinion. There also seems to be a case of IP sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. An IP from Poland (5.173.164.81) repeated the same false claims made by PJK 1993 and has the same focus on Poland-related articles. The "sources" mentioned by the IP are the ones I provided to refute PJK 1993’s statements — once again highly misleading. All of this is happening in a contentious topic area. Could you please have a look at this? Regards, JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have decided this time to block them from Gdańsk for two weeks, since their edits elsewhere in mainspace haven't been problematic, at least not yet ... let's see what happens. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the situation and for your quick response. I’ll keep an eye on things. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It appears that PJK 1993 is increasingly running a personal campaign against me (see here), which provides yet more evidence of their battleground mentality. I’m reaching out to you because I know you’re familiar with the background of this case. Could you please take a look at this? JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, just saw that you placed this article under a three-day full protection per this request, along with Guillermo Ochoa and Cuauhtémoc Blanco . However, it seems you forgot to set the protection for this one to expire. BriDash9000 (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article FTC v. Balls of Kryptonite is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PJK 1993 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Does it really fall under the scope of ARBECR enough to justify indef? JayCubby 21:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been a while since I protected it, and, given the nature of the topic area it was protected under, I think this is best taken up at WP:AE as CTOPS procedure requires. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. JayCubby 23:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's been 5 years, do you want to give unprotection a try? Lynch44 13:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes ... I can't see why I chose indefinite back then. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The user you just blocked Moyette Muhummad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continually spamming their user talk page with incoherent text even after several reversions after the block. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you are well. I recently posted a straightforward edit request for Neiman Marcus at Talk:Neiman Marcus#Lengthen Intro and add Awards section. Since you edited the Saks Fifth Avenue Wiki article in the past, I am hoping you might want to help out with Neiman Marcus, too. Thanks so much. Maddie for Saks (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, just noticed that you placed this article under semi-protection. While MakaylaHippo1998 requested for indefinite semi-protection, and the protection log shows that you indeed placed it under what was requested, you stated that you intend to protect this article for only six months. I wonder if your reply was an oversight this time, and not the protection duration, unlike the other times I noted that some articles were accidently set to indefinite protection. I think an indefinite protection was more justified here, given the context subject. I'm also aware that some articles which were accidently protected indefinitely might actually need longer-term protections after all, as one of the articles I "rescued" (Maldives) was semi-protected again a month ago. BriDash9000 (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That "six months" was likely my brain being not totally conscious at the wheel late last night North American EDT after a long weekend and late last week. Indefinite semi is indeed what I intended, as the history more than justifies it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, I really appreciate your work at WP:RFPP and want to thank you for protecting so many pages from vandalism and disruptive editing :D

I wanted to ask for a clarification regarding your page protection of The Tashkent Files. A few days ago, I requested that the article be indefinitely protected since it falls under WP:CT/SA and has been subject to IP vandalism. You replied with, "Semi-protected indefinitely. To be autologged as a CTOPS protection. Normally I don't extend SA to Indian movies and TV, but this stretches into the area clearly covered by it." You also mentioned the same in your edit summary, but it appears that an expiration limit of one year was set. I wanted to ask whether you intended for the page to be indefinitely protected but mistakenly set it to expire after a year, or if you intended a temporary protection and mistakenly stated that it was indefinite? — EarthDude (Talk) 08:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you. I did mean for an indef protection and probably misclicked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you also able to check the protection you added at F1 (film) a couple of a days ago? It doesn’t seem to have stopped the IP edits. Seasider53 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because it's PC, which is I think what was requested. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I see that the page for Scream 7 has been locked to newer editors and I am trying to better understand why, so I had a few questions. When my edits (which had citations) were erased and I reverted them I got a notice that this might soon become an "edit war" so I stopped editing the page immediately and used the talk page to try to understand people's concerns. No one responded to my questions there. Then the page was locked.

The main concerns people cited were that the BDS Movement's call for a boycott of the film was not relevant to the film's history. I don't understand this and would like clarification. I have seen cultural history and controversy sections on other film pages, including BDS calls for boycott (see Snow White).

Another concern was that I used an Instagram post as a primary document to demonstrate that the BDS Movement had called for a boycott of the film. I have seen other Instagram pages cited as primary documents (including Neve Campbell's announcement that she would return to the film on this very page). In any case, I was about to add a news story citing the BDS/PACBI endorsement of the boycott when the page was locked. I was also going to add the information to a different section based on the comments of another editor.

Can you please clarify for a new user why these responses were not sufficient or how I did not follow the correct process for editing? Thank you. Whatalark (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi there, as well as being one of Daniel's friendly talk-page watchers I'm also something of a subject matter expert on the Scream movies. I can also help you a bit with some of your questions. For one: new users should not be editing any material related to the Israel / Palestine conflict. I'll send you the CTOP notice immediately after I post this comment if you haven't got it but, basically, due to an Arbitration Committee ruling, material related to that conflict may only be edited by an editor who is logged in, has at least 500 edits and has been an editor for at least 1 month. Furthermore only 1 revert is allowed on a related page per day. Your repeated insertions of that content could potentially be seen as edit warring even without that requirement. Frankly Daniel locking that page only was doing you a kindness. You could have faced a more severe sanction.

Regarding the content of your edit please review the policy WP:ABOUTSELF - you can only use social media for statements directly about the subject of the statement. You cannot use it to suggest that a movement or organization was calling for a boycott. Relevance is determined by WP:RS so, while you should not be doing so in this case due to the Arbitration remedies, in most cases you would need to show secondary sources discussing the boycott of the film to demonstrate its relevance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I've given everyone involved in that back-and-forth revert except for the IPs a CTOP notice for Israel / Palestine FYI. So they should all be looped in as to why the page was locked. Whatalark is not the only person who is probably discovering they can't edit the page t oday so I figured it'd be good to make sure they all understood why. Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please block 189.203.0.0/21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) like you did to 187.184.4.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log). Same guy, same behavior. Thanks. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I also responded to their unblock request, and lengthened the original block due to the evasion. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Now using 148.230.7.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Maybe you should protect the page instead. Ikhouvanjou14 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Three months.

Really, this guy amazes me. I can't believe he has the time to keep going at it with me on one of his talk pages and still sock like this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I am messaging you to inform you that your opinion would be appreciated here. Cheers. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel Case. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.

Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.

How do temporary accounts work?

• When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
• All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
• A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
• As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
  • There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
  • There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.

Temporary account IP viewer user right

• Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
• Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.

Impact for administrators

• It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
• It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
• Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).

Rules about IP information disclosure

• Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
• Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
• See Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer § What can and can't be said for more detailed guidelines.

Useful tools for patrollers

• It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
  • This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
• Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
• Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
• The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.

Videos

• How to use Special:IPContributions
• How automatic IP reveal works
• How to use IP Info
• How to use User Info

Further information and discussion

• For more information and discussion regarding this change, please see the announcement from the Wikimedia Foundation at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts rollout.

Most of this message was written by Mz7 (source). Thanks, 🎃 SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the Roblox Wikipedia article set to extended-confirmed protected indefinitely or for a temporary period of time? I'd like to make some edits. DudeJay17 (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Indef. You can see the time limit (or lack thereof) in the red box above the edit window.

You are free to make edit requests on the talk page and participate in discussions there because, as the article isn't in a contentious topic area to the best of my knowledge, there's no ECR in place nor could there be. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island (BFDI) has a page now, so there won't be any more disruptive edits happening due to "BFDI" redirecting to it. TheSilksongPikmin (talk | contribs) 19:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Like you, I am also unsure about just what is going on there, but I'm looking at it like 🤨. Joyous! Noise! 22:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, could you please make the page Diés Iraé semi-protected, as misleading and unnecessary edits are increasing. Thank You SRAppu ^💬 17:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

In Mirzapur district page, wrong information which is far from true is being added by user name blaada. Mirzapur has 18% bhojpuri speakers but the user changed it to 6% and added awadhi which is not spoken there. Kindly take action against him. Adrikshit (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Work it out on the talk page. No one's used it in eight months. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

i have already discussed but he kept changing it. You need to recheck it once. He is using several ids to change the information. Adrikshit (talk) 04:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I checked your contributions history. You have not made any use of a talk page in a couple of months.

Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on a talk or user page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 03:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC) (Green March)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

More information November 15: Kelly Street Garden edit-a-thon ...

November 15: Kelly Street Garden edit-a-thon

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for an urban gardening-themed edit-a-thon at the Kelly Street Garden in Longwood in the Bronx. This is the third event in the Community Garden series and is part of a collective project of remembrance. All are welcome, new and experienced! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Saturday, November 15 Kelly Street Garden edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki) 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm Kelly Street Garden, the Bronx

Close

(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) 19:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I would like to understand why I am blocked from a page that I created myself and where there is a clear conflict of information between added sources, given that at no point did I initiate an edit war and I tried to reconcile the conflict at all times. Not to mention that the information added by the ZIKADERO account is objectively wrong (see ) and was maintained. Svartner (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

You were edit warring. It does not matter whether you started it, only that you joined it. Nor does it matter that you created the page, or what the source said. As the edit-warring policy page says very clearly at the end of its very first paragraph, "Claiming 'My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is not a valid defense."

Further down that page is this section, which you would do well to read as it discusses how you can deal with a situation like this without coming to this end. Most to the point: "avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date. Avoid reverting during discussion." As I noted at ANEW, the talk page for the article was untouched. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The alerts were all issued on the user's talk page (including an alert being removed). I simply reverted the changes because there was absolutely no consistency in the information provided by the sources, not merely out of bad faith. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Bad faith has nothing to do with whether you were edit warring. There are a few narrowly defined exceptions, and these edits did not qualify for any of them. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I've tried mocking up a lead section to address your suggestions from the FAC, and would appreciate feedback on how to make it more concise/how to improve wording. This is for the second paragraph of the lead, which was the main troublesome point; let me know your thoughts on how it can be improved if you have time.

"The Ice Warriors were created by writer Brian Hayles, out of his interest in life on Mars at the time, when the production team was looking for new recurring antagonists. Originally, the Ice Warriors had been conceived as being akin to cyborg vikings. Designer Martin Baugh, inspired by their name and influenced by crocodiles, designed them to appear reptilian in nature; this also prevented the design, originally described as a cyborg viking, from being confused with another antagonist, the Cybermen. These costumes often proved heavy and cumbersome for actors to wear. For their appearances in the show's 2005 revival, showrunner Steven Moffat originally did not want the Ice Warriors to feature, only allowing them to come back after writer Mark Gatiss was able to pitch the idea of an Ice Warrior outside of its shell, which would be adapted into "Cold War". The Ice Warriors received a design overhaul but were kept largely the same visually, with "Cold War" also showcasing the creature beneath the armor." Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you revdel the summary of this? I accidentally typed something that may be offensive instead of the intended "add". Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Mind revdelling this too? Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

here too Freedoxm (talk · contribs)

Seems like someone else took care of this already. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Case: there’s been a series of disruptive edits by an anonymous user in the contentious topic area WP:CT/EE. The edits again involve the Gdańsk article, but also other articles. The POV is similar to that of the editor who was recently blocked for a month (for example, they both cite the same source ). Could you please take a look to help prevent further disruption? Thank you in advance. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked that temporary account indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what happens if I indef-block a temporary account. That account presumably exists because a registered editor is editing while logged out. Does the block apply indefinitely to when the user is logged out, or also when logged in? Does it indef-block the IP address? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The temp account is connected to a cookie on the computer used. Only the temp account is blocked unless you make it a hard block (and I think now we should ask for something I've wanted for a while: the ability to make IP blocks apply only to temporary accounts, or non-autoconfirmed accounts, or autoconfirmed accounts). Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, a temp account is created to mask the IP. It does not matter whether the user behind it is a logged-out user. It's device-specific. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It would also be useful if the cookie also somehow recorded the block state of the user, so the same device can't be used to evade the block by logging out while using an ISP that rapidly reassigns IP addresses. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The cookie is device-specific so the temp account remains the same even as the IP is shuffled around (I have seen this a few times already ... I have my preferences set up so I can see both the temp account and the IP) as long as the same device is used. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a new temporary account that attempted to restore the edit of the previously blocked account and is now edit-warring in the Gdańsk article. Could the article be temporarily protected? JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I blocked one of the temp accounts based on the IP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

And another one, again restoring the same edits… JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI: shortly after the recent block, a new temporary account appeared on the Royal Prussia talk page. This is somewhat reminiscent of the previous incident... JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

An IP range block may be in order here, although when I checked, the IP range of the ISP was too large to block. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for checking and letting me know. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Case, looks like the extended confirmed protection for this article wasn't set to expire, despite what you stated on the protection request. BriDash9000 (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yep. I had wanted to see a station in McAdoo, but didn't want to waste more time. Obviously had we known, we could've done both. Mitch32^{(it's you I like.)} 04:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Next time. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, the full protection on Hasan Piker recently expired, and it seems that Protection Helper Bot hasn't bothered to restore your indefinite semi-protection from last year (see here) yet. I believe it is for the benefit of Wikipedia to restore page protection as quickly as possible, given that the aforementioned article's subject is a controversial political figure. Giovanni Potage (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Toadspike has restored the indef semi. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, I’d like to bring another incident involving PJK 1993 to your attention. They recently removed several reliable sources from this article, so I started a discussion on the talk page. As in previous disputes, they just keep repeating their POV, but don't provide any sources, preventing a meaningful discussion. Instead of working collaboratively, they again started edit warring by restoring their preferred version shortly after the discussion had begun, despite all the previous warnings and blocks. This article, too, falls within the WP:CT/EE area. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have now blocked them for six months and made it ArbCom-only-appealable. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Heya DC. As far as I'm aware, the ArbCom-only appeal thing is just a PIA-specific option. Am I in error? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have done that with many AE CTOPS blocks regardless of the topic area. I'm sure it gets used a lot more in PIA, but if it were meant to be used only in that topic area then the template documentation should be changed to say that, because right now it doesn't say anything about that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Which template? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The documentation for the aeblock template Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything about ArbCom-only appeals in that documentation. Maybe you're referring to the noappealtome parameter? That still allows for appeal via AE or AN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The point to me is that it does not say that the noappealtome parameter is limited to use only in PIA cases. Yes, you're right that most users so blocked will likely take their case to ArbCom, but they do have the other options (and isn't AE really just another way of taking it to ArbCom?). Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You are certainly free to use the noappealtome parameter wherever you'd like. Those blocked in such a way could still email you (assuming you have email on) or ping you at their user talk page; they're just less likely to do so because you haven't presented them with the option. If they don't care to talk to you, they can appeal at AE and AN. AE is not synonymous with ArbCom, and we only have the power to turn off that option if it's a PIA block, because that was a PIA-specific remedy. Otherwise, you're removing multiple appeal options guaranteed by policy without authorization to do so. Sorry to be spending this amount of time on such a wonky matter, but I think it's important both to any blocked editor and for us all to have a shared understanding of where the lines are. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, not a problem ... perhaps the documentation could make that clearer. There is something of a slip between cup and lip where CTOPS is concerned. Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I took a shot at the documentation. CTOP lives in that weird zone where we suck as a group at making things sufficiently legalistic but are trying anyway. Would you please amend the AE log entry? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done . Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to look into this – I really appreciate it. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel Case, my apologies on the RfC closure. I feel if I were more experienced I could have made it work toward eliminating the duplication that I have come to agree with you about. It's disappointing that editing can be so laborious and contentious. I'll probably take another break from RfC's. Be well. Dw31415 (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that Mztourist was most concerned (needlessly, in my opinion and experience) with the idea of the title being removed from the lede. In the midst of responding to their arguments, I have also proposed a compromise wording which would both keep that and eliminate the redundant wording. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Someone else just changed Fall of Saigon but I reverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Saigon&action=history Dw31415 (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking re-opening the RfC is probably the was to go as suggested by WhatamIdoing at DfD. Thoughts? Dw31415 (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking the same thing too, this time posting notice at the MOS talk page as also suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Good comment by an editor over at Saigon. I updated the closure request page to indicate that it will be reopened. I'll look at that tonight. Dw31415 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case p.s. the word "lede" doesn't really apply to wikipedia (see Lead_section#Comparison_to_the_news-style_lead if you're curious. My apologies for mentioning it if you're already familiar with that and choose to use it anyway. I just find "lede" very interesting. Dw31415 (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Having worked in journalism, I use "lede" to refer to only the first sentence of an article. Everything else at the front is the intro. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, FYI whatamidoing recommendationed just reverting my close, see Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#c-WhatamIdoing-20251121203100-Dw31415-20251121130700. I’ll probably do that this evening unless a better idea emerges Dw31415 (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no objection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I just did a bunch of work to reopen. I listed at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Fall_of_Phnom_Penh_has_an_RfC. You may want to use that template on some other "Fall" pages. And withdrawl your RC. Dw31415 (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have done so, or at least stated my intent to. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

With the removal of one of the photos from this article (Oct. 26), you also removed information about its major 2024 restoration, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Irina S.B. (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, then, isn't that fixable by looking up reliable sources about that renovation and adding them to the text? As it happens there was no other mention of the renovations other than that cutline (which did not cite a source), and that picture doesn't show them (indeed, the lighthouse is so far away in it it would be unlikely to do so). Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, will do. Irina S.B. (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you need any help feel free to ask ... Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Not with this straightforward topic, but thank you. Irina S.B. (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hiya, if you're still online can you please see if this can be revdelled? It's got another editors real life name in the edit history following on from ANI. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done For future reference, it's easier to do this when the link is to the diff, not the whole revision. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Shoot, I did that by accident, sorry! Thank you Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That's OK ... I have sometimes done that, too. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, following up from the Republican makeup – Mar-a-Lago face merger discussion, which I've just closed. Respectfully, i wanted to remind you to please refrain from bludgeoning in the future; I know you put a ton of work into Republican makeup, but ten relatively unfriendly comments is a lot for a fairly small discussion, and "other people were doing it too" is not a great justification. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:09, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I had sort of been avoiding that lately as a lost cause anyway. I'm not upset about the merger per se as much as about how (I feel) it was allowed to derail the DYK nomination.

I feel betrayed. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.

As I said, it would have been one thing if that nomination had failed on its own merits ... that has happened with a couple of other nominations of mine. It's not how you want it to end, but it's a possible outcome, you accept that it is, and you move on. But for a discussion completely irrelevant to the nomination IMO to have caused it to drag out this long ... as you pointed out this is a huge opening for bad-faith actors.

Since the nomination ended this way, as suggested I will be reusing the QPQ for another nomination, something I expect to be able to do before the year ends. Probably something uncontroversially tamer, something no one will want to merge to any other article. I've learned my lesson.

I am also considering opening a discussion at WT:DYK on how we should handle our time limits in situations like this in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

On 28 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Killing of Lloyd Reed, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the family of a man charged with murdering a police officer ten years ago today were surprised when the jury acquitted him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Lloyd Reed. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Killing of Lloyd Reed), 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 nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,206 views (933.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Heya!

Back in 2008, you username hardblocked Abunchofcrap. He's asking to be unblocked 17 years later! I'm thinking, really, that's a pretty mild offensive name...thoughts? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

As long as they are willing to change it, or go through a username RFC. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You recently EC-protected Battle for Dream Island following a request by Giovanni Potage who has now been blocked for EC gaming after this ANI report. In that report I also requested that the protection be reduced as the disruptive activity was overstated, and Potage has concurred. Unfortunately it appears that the report was closed before you had a chance to consider it. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems there was consensus behind the result. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see any consensus for protection of the article, general grumbling about the topic of BFDI (and some disruption at other articles) sure, but not for EC protection of that article specifically. The original request stated that it was plagued by disruptive edits from auto-confirmed accounts and the number of unhelpful edits from registered users largely outweighed any sort of vandalism from IP editors (sic), but both of those statements are incorrect, and the original filer agrees.

I reviewed 94 edits immediately prior to protection (just went down the list of the 100 most recent edits), 14 non-EC editors made a total of 38 edits, 13 were undone in what I would describe as consensus by editing. I did not count immediate self-reverts, and sequential edits by a single editor were counted as one edit (had I counted them separately the ratio of kept to undone edits would be even larger). If you would like I can provide the list I made while checking. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the report was made on my talk page, and I made the protection during a short break from the holiday period. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I must have missed any report on your talk page, apologies. The request for EC protection I saw was made at WP:RFP/I on 06:35, 29 November and was replied to and actioned by yourself 3 minutes later (archive link). fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's where it was. I had thought it was here because they tagged me Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

More information December 5: Free Culture Friday ...

December 5: Free Culture Friday

You are invited to Foundation and Friends' Free Culture Friday at Prime Produce on Friday, December 5. This event will be held upstairs in the Cybernetics Library and will feature a reception with Wikimedia Foundation staff in the afternoon, followed by a more informal gathering for editing and socializing into the evening. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! Friday, December 5, 2025 1:30 pm – 3:00 pm (Wikimedia Foundation staff + community meet-and-greet) 3:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open salon, hacking, and board games) Prime Produce, 424 W 54th St All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct and Photography Policy.

Close

(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) 00:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel - Chaotic Enby and I discussed the question you left Epicgenius here as part of our role as election monitors. Because the question was already answered, we decided not to remove it, but we did want to note the risk that your question could result in other editors being put in an uncomfortable position if they had been named in the answer, especially without warning. This isn't a big deal since that didn't happen this time, but we wanted to make sure you were aware of the implication. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That's why I made clear he did not have to identify anyone (But if I ask that question again, I will specifically tell them not to identify anyone. Would that be better?). Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

As long as you specifically say something to the effect of "Without naming any specific editors" beforehand, that would be fine. You might consider asking what kind of qualities they would look for in users they would nominate for adminship instead, since its hard for candidates to give a specific answer to a yes-or-no question. We're not going to remove either version of the question! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's probably a better way to put it ... I sometimes think that should be a requirement for adminship, that new admins nominate another editor within a certain period of time of gaining the tools. Clovermoss nominated Elli within a few months of becoming an admin; that worked out very well for the project IMO (OK, I have met both of them in person, which helps too). It would help assuage concerns about the decline in new admins, I think (although as discussed at Wikimania this year, the advent of elections has helped a lot).

And yes, it occurs to me that in almost two decades with the mop, I haven't done this myself. I am thinking of some people to approach discreetly in the next year or so though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolina effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! Sorry to bother you with this, but a user keeps removing a literature reference on the Fortran page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fortran&action=history . You correctly flagged the page to a higher protection level, and this is appreciated. The user also claims that the accounts of several people from the Fortran community are fake, which I can assure you is not the case - see User_talk:Krystophny. The issue is already being discussed actively in the Fortran community on https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/mfe-removed-from-books-in-current-fortran-wikipedia-page/10529/13 . Is there a way to settle this in a meaningful and constructive way? Krystophny (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think he's claiming that the other editors are socks, just that the attempt to reinstate the link is being coordinated off-wiki to promote the book. Maybe it might be a good idea to bring other editors into the discussion by posting a link to it at WT:COMPSCI and WT:SOFTWARE, the talk pages for the two projects the page comes under currently. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel, for your kind reply here and on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. The level of hostility I have seen now also from follow-up comments from senior Wikipedia members, and banning persons from the talk pages leaves me no option but to give up. This is also the general feeling in the Fortran community now. Still happy that there are friendly persons around here. Krystophny (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

But it does seem as if the discussion on the article talk page is headed towards allowing the book to be listed in "Further reading". Even MrOllie implied he's OK with it as long as it doesn't seem like it's being done on behalf of the bookseller. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No I would not. In fact I am amazed that you think I should apologize for your wrongdoing.

Blocking me without talking to me.

There is no requirement that we hear from the user reported for violating 3RR when the violation is clear cut.

Blocking without engaging with what i raised.

Again, there is no requirement that we do that when you edit war. As WP:EW very clearly states in its opening paragraph, it does not matter whether you were right when you edit war. And your edits did not meet the very clearly and narrowly defined exceptions to that policy.

Blocking in contravention of 3R and W:Block

Please tell me how these four edits are anything but a 3RR violation.

Very dissapointing. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Very misspelled .

You are further evincing a battleground mentality. Please do not contact me on my talk page again, ever. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I hope you are well. Thank you for unprotecting GetResponse under my request and offering assistance. Can you please see my sandbox draft and suggest anything. I was planning to publish it, should I publish or submit via draft. I guess you're have all the expertise and authorities to either submit or publish the page through your wonderful and impressive experience here. Thank you again. GreenPolly (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republican makeup is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Just curious - should the article 2025 IndiGo disruption also be protected in the same way as IndiGo? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Wellll ... the article is a) about a breaking news event and b) now up for deletion. Those two factors, for me, raise the bar for protection for reasons I've explained on other occasions. And notwithstanding that, there really hasn't been a lot of disruption on that article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries :) was just drawing your attention to it since it's brand new that's all :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 04:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC) (Kaftan)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I already did place a warning on the talk page. It was promptly ignored

I cant be expected to refresh the history page for 24 hours straight in case an EC editors decides to change the name of the person from "person of interest" to "suspect". I have a real life to tend to as well

Trade (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the second time i reminded people to respect BLPCRIME on the talk page of an article this month and EC editors just disregarded anything i said anyways without even bothering to engage with me at all Trade (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

While I can relate to feeling like it's all your responsibility, it doesn't have to be. You can certainly ask other editors to pick up the slack at other fora. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

While the extended-confirmed protection of Talk:2025 Bondi Beach shooting was a good idea due to the nature of the shooting (the motive, targeted people, etc), I've noticed that you set the protection period straight to indefinite; while this would be suitable for an actual PIA-related topic, I've found out that the duration of the EC protection on the main article is in stark contrast to this, with an end date of about 4 days from now. Furthermore, looking at the protection log of the main article, an administrator actually changed the contentious topics selection from ARBPIA to GS/SCW&ISIL. Just figured I'd point these two things out - the protection duration being indef while the main article is not, and the precise topic area being ISIL rather than AIC.

IMO, given there have already been a number of protection adjustments on the main article and that the initial protection was also temporary, the talk page protection should be set to have an expiry date rather than the main article's protection being extended indefinitely. Otherwise, it makes no sense to have an article that will (eventually) be free to edit by all users while the talk page of that article is forever restricted to EC users only.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have now shortened it to the same expiration as the article (TBH I felt it was borderline to put it under PIA to begin with; it seems now that the more we know, the less that fits). Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Why the same length as the article? Shouldn't there be more leniency with talk pages than articles? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

We have in the past protected some talk pages, when we had to protect them, for the same length of time as the corresponding article. Usually, to be fair, that's because we protected both indefinitely.

If there is consensus to lift this earlier, I will do it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Seriously. Weird how we both tripped into it, nearly at the same time. Did we both stumble across the same something on the news somewhere?

I'm really not 100% on the merge, but I doubt either of us are going to sway anyone from that today. The WP:FORK if it comes around will be due to simple size/bulk factors, but not till it's pushing 150k. It's 60s now.

I am very much mentally lining up more and more for the 3rd name option, but I have no clue what would be a good one. I should look through the various RS we have again (including other languages) to see if there's any common repeated term or phrasing.

Where are you on that option? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I had as far back as the beginning of the year done the research (after reading about Suzanne Lambert's Tik Tok on Buzzfeed) to establish that it was notable. And this summer I checked again, and found more. So I started it in draftspace before going to Kenya for Wikimania (between that and going on safari I knew I would not have the time to work on article creation and development), finished it when I came back, and figured after getting it done and moving it to mainspace that it would just be a matter of getting the DYK hook approved.

I would be more supportive of the third-name option if we had to merge but ... if we did it, as Viriditas pointed out, we'd have to go farther back than 2015, so "MAGA" couldn't be part of the name.

Honestly, though, as I pointed out before, any effort to create some sort of overarching article about personal aesthetic trends among political conservatives would inevitably entail some degree of original research on our part Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I'm hung up on the name choice. We could do some "Republican beauty trends" or something but no one calls it that. And an officious name like that even if in extra-dry wiki voice would still be fought over. The closest I saw for a term before that comes up is "MAGA beauty" in like a half dozen sources. There's just no 'it' name for it, or yet, that I've seen.

I can be convincing and pedantically thorough on sourcing, though. Even some of the "that topic" stuff on my user page, once I lock something in from sourcing, even the anti-that crowd tends to not touch the page again. That's why I've got a bunch in the GA pipeline now (hint: ufo). I could probably make a compelling sourced argument for MAGA beauty trends or something like that, but... 2015?

@Viriditas why can't we use MAGA in the name because of 2015? I feel like I forgot something. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, they didn't make that pronouncement. But they did, during the DYK discussion, point to articles about the way Fox News reporters made themselves up from 2012, which predates Trump announcing his presidential run by a few years, and then went all the way back to Tammy Faye Bakker's famous makeup job in the late 1980s. So I think that goes beyond MAGA ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Israeli blockade of aid delivery to the Gaza Strip has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. CNC (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of humanitarian groups accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Israeli blockade of aid delivery to the Gaza Strip has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/2023 Israeli–Palestinian prisoner exchange has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/2024 Tarqumiyah shooting has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:53, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

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 2026. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

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 2026. Happy editing, Wishes from Vestrian24Bio

Click here to see the Christmas message I wrote...💞! Vestrian24Bio 13:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case Day Creature

Administrators, could you please review this article Venadu kingdom and verify it against reliable sources? Since you oversee sensitive pages, I’d appreciate it if you could check it for possible vandalism. RahulSharma1978 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi RahulSharma1978, I'm not sure why you've pinged me here. I'm not an admin, and in any case administrators don't oversee particular articles. It looks like you're involved in a content dispute on that article, in which case the thing to do is to discuss it on the article talk page as you've been doing, and avoid any edit warring. Day Creature (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. Happy new year!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel. I see that at 19:50, 30 December 2025, you speedily deleted Draft:The US of A (TV series) under speedy deletion criterion G13 (Abandoned drafts and Articles for creation submissions). However, the draft was created 37 days before you deleted it, and last edited 2 hours and 44 minutes before you deleted it, so evidently you must have made a mistake in thinking that it had been unedited for 6 months. It is so obviously a mistake that I considered just restoring it, but decided it is more courteous to let you know so that you can correct your mistake. JBW (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do; I should have just protected it so that editor (or, better, blocked the editor from the page indefinitely) wouldn't be able to keep taking the tag off. I will correct that oversight as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel Case. You blocked Lionkings3t3t3 for being nothere on Matt Goss. I think they are now editing as Guinnessdrinker32, based on writing style and editing preoccupations. Not sure if this needs action? Thanks for your help as ever. Tacyarg (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Indeffed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

More information January 25: Wikipedia Day ...

January 25: Wikipedia Day
You are invited to Wikipedia Day 2026, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at City Tech in Brooklyn. Help us celebrate the 25th birthday of Wikipedia! Together we will explore the past, present, and future of the free knowledge movement, and celebrate all the people, communities and ideas that make Wikipedia possible. Eventbrite registration is required for entry: Register here We'll also have a session of 3-5 minute lightning talks and we invite community members to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited. Sunday, January 25, 2026 11:00 pm – 5:00 pm The Theater at City Tech, 275 Jay Street, Brooklyn
All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct.

Close

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Daniel Case. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey and a blessed New Year. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey I've gotten conflicting advice on reporting IPs/ranges at AIV. I've seen them reported there before if there was vandalism by multiple TAs. When I asked about it I was told that they could be reported there so long as I did not explicitly link the IP to any particular TA. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we're all working this out. I just decided to err on the side of caution. If there's an explicit exemption for doing this (or maybe we could set up something like UTRS), I'd feel better. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I see. Would it be okay then to request an IP rangeblock when reporting TAs then? E.g. Report TA 2026-XXXXX-XX and just say "please block /24 range" or something like that? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

People have been doing this already. Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Although I am obviously not happy happy about my actions that have caused me to being reported here, the saving grace is that I made my acquaintence with your user page, in particular, your work as a journalist with a weekly supplement to the Niagara Gazette and your masters in English at Buffalo.

For this takes me back to the 1980s. Although I never made it to Niagara Falls, despite invitations from family and friends, I did make two good friends, one of whom went on to work for a few years at the Elmira Gazette, then owned by the Gannet family, and another whose dad taught English at Buffalo. I'd rather not disclose any names, but I did visit Elmira, which is but a few hours drive from Niagara. I loved the Gazette 's newsroom, especially my friend filing her stories, which shocked me—from the Chicago-style newsroom from the 1930s I had been imagining—straight into the digital age. Also, visiting Mark Twain's summer study in Elmira (where I think he might have written both Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn) was inspiring.

So, thank you, for bringing these memories back, and allowing me to reminisce. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I lived in the Buffalo area for about six years, during which I got married (my wife is from the area).

I've passed through Elmira many times, but never gotten off Route 17/I-86 and visited anything there (I suppose I still could ... it would be a long day trip from where I live now, but doable). Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Agelodit/Seragomt/Various IPs editor is back at Disappearance of Tammy Kingery as ~2026-22177-3 making the same edit again. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked the underlying IP range for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Back under a different IP, convenience link: Special:IPInfo/~2026-22177-3. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

TA blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Back as Gavelost with this edit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

~2026-7990 . fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to New Hamburg rail disaster when you modified the page, you introduced conversion errors. The {{convert}} template can be complex and I encourage you to read it's documentation but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it and when conversion errors are present they will show up in red. It is strongly recommended that you always use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed them myself. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The page has been full protected since November over a single edit war that occurred that is long over regarding his tenure ending. Full protection is quite extreme since nobody has been able to edit the page since that edit war (with the expiration date being set to November of this month, or 1 year and 4 days after full protection was applied). Would you consider removing page protection entirely or at the very least decreasing it? Thanks in advance!   Jalapeño   (u t g) 16:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I have dropped it to ECP. I hadn't realized it was full ... perhaps either I had put in the wrong protection, or the wrong time. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! Hope you are doing well. I am thinking about a WP:TRYUNPROT for Category:Critics of Falun Gong, which you indefinitely semi'd back in 2024. It has been almost two years, it was the first time the page needed protection, and there is not extensive history of disruption; these three factors all lead me towards unprotecting. But I wanted to get your opinion before pushing the button. Thanks :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see. That whole CT has been very quiet lately. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Falun Gong has been so quiet it just got removed as a CT ;) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Here we go: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. I'll do more if needed. Mitch32^{(it's you I like.)} 23:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but this Australian doesn't understand a damn thing about how the European Union works. How the 27-country army works. European army is unfortunately complex but the relevant article was written clearly. This person cannot distinguish a unified army from a federated one with 27 countries involved. It's all written in the European Union documents.--Dorian88A (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

As I've said before, find a single quote from a reliable source that clearly states that there is a federated army called the European Armed Forces with the member states' militaries as its service branches (as you have claimed) and I'll remove the disputed information notice. Jace Aotearoa AU (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Here you can find the article from when the Chairman of the EU Military Committee (CEUMC), General Sean Clancy, coordinates with the Italian armed forces for a shared European mission, in this case, I believe, patrolling the Mediterranean in Libya. And the same thing is happening with other European armed forces. Here you see the famous round EU emblem. Dorian88A (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

European military structures are not like those of other conventional armed forces; they are complex. Dorian88A (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is the European Army's control structure. More precisely, the European Army is the final stage when it comes to actually putting military boots on the ground. Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is, more precisely, the thinking machine of the European army, but it cannot act completely autonomously; it must coordinate under NATO control. Dorian88A (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy#/media/File:Organisation_of_the_European_Defence_Community.svg

I think it's still this way but maybe it's changed.

Not all the list of vehicles of the armed forces should have been included on this page but rather they should have been reported in the article on the European Army. But it's a huge, crazy job that I had planned to do. Dorian88A (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Lots of militaries coordinate with various organisations. Nowhere in the first source provided is a single quote that states that there is a federated army called the European Armed Forces with the member states' militaries as its service branches (as you have claimed). In the diagram provided, the Supreme Commander of the European defence forces refers to this American officeholder and not a European army. Notice that "defence forces" is not in capitals? It is because it is plural and referring to multiple defence forces and not a unified army. Jace Aotearoa AU (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Common Security and Defence Policy clearly shows the coordination level and the tactical operational level. To put it simply, the Common Security and Defence Policy is the head, while the European Army is the boots on the ground. Dorian88A (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

In fact, it is not a unified army, it is an army made up of 26 armed forces coordinated through the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Dorian88A (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

It is not an organisation that exists. It's like saying that there is an African Armed Forces because certain militaries in the African Union cooperate with external organisations. Additionally, Wikipedia articles are not a reliable source of information. I don't mean to be rude but do you have anything better to do like playing video games? If you don't have a source to back up your claims, that's fine, but please don't waste my time. Jace Aotearoa AU (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Dorian88A, Jace Aotearoa AU Gentlemen: As I said, please remove this discussion to the article talk page, not mine. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for taking up the discussion in your talk space. Best regards Dorian88A (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, there’s a new incident in the WP:CT/EE topic area involving a newly registered user (Ender-theBoy) that strongly resembles PJK 1993. Several TAs were recently blocked as sockpuppets of Ender-theBoy. This account shows the same behavioral patterns as PJK 1993, in particular edit warring and refusal to get the point (for which they were recently reported at ANI). There are also overlaps in the edits themselves. For example, similar to PJK 1993, they are very keen on removing the German name from the lead sentence in Gdańsk. They did the same in Wrocław. One of their TAs also restored edits made by another TA that had previously been blocked as a likely sockpuppet of PJK 1993.

Could you please take a look at this case? Many thanks! JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I have indeffed Ender, noted this at the SPI and suggested that Urabura and PJK may be connected as well if someone wants to take the time to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Big thanks! I really value your prompt and decisive handling. It saves me and other editors a lot of time we can use more productively. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It looks like they’re back under a new account, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJK 1993. I’d be grateful if you could take a look at this. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I have blocked this account indef on behavioral grounds. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding User:AmazingWikis1000 (talk · contribs) ...

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ChronicleBooks885. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Aha, it looks like it's been taken care of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, in the future, if it's an LTA situation, please say that (with a possible link to the LTA page) when making the report. Otherwise we can only go by the edit history. Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Will do. The user has a pretty obvious m.o. I should point out that it was another user who told me about the LTA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You recently blocked the IPv6 of ~2026-52716-3. Thanks! The person also uses an IPv4, for example in this edit. Adding unsourced stuff since November. Could you block that IPv4 as well? Thanks! (The previous TA on that IPv6 and IPv4 got a wall of final warnings, and the TA before that got indeffed.) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 20:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC) (Josiah Didier)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @Daniel Case. Thanks for taking the time to protect Clavicular (influencer). I have 3 problematic revisions which contain potentially harmful and offensive content that have been overlooked. The first two^{[W 1][W 2]}, authored by who I now suspect to be an IP hopper, concern a "Jack Najarian" that allegedly was in a livestream with Clavicular. Searching the aforementioned name turned up no evidence of any such name being associated with the manosphere or its adjustment online subcultures, and all the results I did get appeared to be almost entirely Linkin profiles of private citizens. These edits are potentially defamatory as Clavicular is — pardon my language — a piece of shit. He is a conman who is known to be associated with many far-right figures (e.g., Nick Fuentes, Sneako), one of his claims to fame is promoting a plethora of harmful pseudoscientific practices such as bone smashing and injecting meth in order to look lean, and as per his own article here, regularly uses racial slurs. It should go without saying that having a private citizen's name being associated with such a public character has harmful implications.

The third and last revision^{[W 3]} contains blatantly offensive language directed towards Clavicular that I will not repeat in this message — there's not much else I can say about it. Just the usual kind of edgy "trolling" you sometimes see here.

Hello Daniel. At WP:AIV, you removed a user that I reported from the list with the edit summary of "rm blocked" (diff). Yet the user (Rhumagai) is not blocked. Was that an error? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

In that they weren't blocked, yes. However ... I wouldn't have blocked them anyway. Last edit (of very few) was five hours ago, and they hadn't gotten a lot of warnings anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

After Badbluebus got this article ECP'd for falling under the Gender and Sexuality CT, they've heavily rewritten it to be incredibly non-neutral.

I've already discussed this on the talk page, but Badbluebus has made the following edits that veer the article into non-neutral territory: - sections about how ineffective sex offender registries are (which does not count as activism)

- broad statements like "Pedophilia is one of the most rejected mental conditions." (unsourced, from the "2000s-present" section in Background) and "There is little evidence that such [sex offender] registries are effective in deterring crime." (sourced with an opinion article from the NY Post, from the "To Catch a Predator" section in History)

- pervasive violent language in the article and emphasis on deadly efforts and mass hysteria (the previous versions did lean on more violent efforts, but used language that was less charged)

- Addition of weasel words (some of which are marked and have gone uncorrected)

- Addition of several images, many of which advocate for killing of pedophiles (before this point, the article only had one image that implied that pedophiles deserve criminal penalties)

- Non-neutral statements like calling Stranger Danger a "myth" (from the "In the United Kingdom" section in History), this specific instance is unsourced and contradicts the Stranger Danger article

- Removal of mentions of less violent activist and support groups, like Silentlambs

Before Badbluebus started editing it, the article had a much calmer tone and cleaner organization, albeit with less sources. None of the other articles about pedophilia are protected for GENSEX anyway, so why this one? Donowa53 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend reducing it to semi-protection, as that's what the other pedophilia-related articles are at. Donowa53 (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would be more comfortable if you raised this at WP:RFPP/D where the community can discuss it if desired. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Daniel Case. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC). 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.

thetechie@enwiki:~$ she/they | talk 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1972 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts robbery is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally! After nine months! Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you think moving this comment, its replies, and every other comment on its relative collapsible section to the other comments section in this RfC would be appropriate? Its move is contested, but all three comments (as of right now) are disruptive to be placed on priority, and none of the two starter users who initiated the comments have replied. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 21:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean removing it? I think collapsing it was just fine. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I meant moving it to another section rather than removing and deleting it completely; thank you for your input. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 03:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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. Chess enjoyer (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I just sent you another one. Thanks in advance for reading it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your semi-protection for 2026–27 AFC Challenge League. Are you please able to extend this, as per the request, for exactly the same reason, to apply to the associated tournaments 2026–27 AFC Champions League Two and 2026–27 AFC Champions League Elite? It's all likely the same editor - their edit summaries are almost always the ever helpful "goo" or "ed". Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

More information February 15: WikiConference North America scholarship deadline February 25: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce ...

February 15: WikiConference North America scholarship deadline February 25: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce

WikiWednesday is back, and please register soon if you want a scholarship for this year's WikiConference North America, being held in September 2026 in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada! You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, with an online-based participation option also available. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Photography Policy. Meeting info: Wednesday, February 25 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm (Open Hour) 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm (Wiki Salon) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom

Close

(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) 23:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1972 Montreal Museum of Fine Arts robbery has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Reidgreg -- Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the 7 day thing. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article AB-Aktion is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Borsoka -- Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello Daniel Case,

I'm a bot that helps log arbitration enforcement (AE) protection actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As a result of a September 2025 motion by the Arbitration Committee, administrators are no longer required to manually log AE protection actions. Instead, this bot is responsible for logging AE protections to the AE protection log.

While logging AE protections, this bot detected that you recently took the following page protection actions. These action(s) seemed to be AE actions based on the edit summaries, but the bot wasn't able to tell which arbitration case they related to:

• 06:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC) (Ibn Battuta)

If these were AE actions, please take a moment to log the appropriate topic code at the AE protection log. If they were not, feel free to remove the actions from the AE protection log, and optionally let the bot operator know about the false positives.

Going forward, in order to help this bot categorize AE actions, please include a link to the contentious topic under which the action was taken in the protection edit summary (for example, [[WP:CT/BLP]] or [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons]]).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to the bot operator or to the arbitration clerks at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard.

Thank you! ClerkBot (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Hi, could you update medall tally world map on 2026 Winter Olympics medal table? Silver Medal on Georgia is lacking

Thankx PindoramaBoyy (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You're extended-confirmed, so you should be able to make this edit yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, could you block my dopplegänger account? I created it as a legitimate account that won't be used for socking, and I want it blocked to show that it's not for WP:SOCK purposes and that it's used for a legitimate reason, to prevent impersonation. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. The template Template:Infobox India university ranking is very much outdated and needs a good update. I requested at Template talk:Infobox India university ranking#Request to add parameters and did whatever the other user said me to do. I updated in the sandbox and showed at the testcases page. But the user is not responding to the request any more. So, if possible, can you update the template? AnkurPl 15:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for protecting the Connor Storrie article. I was wondering if it could be changed from pending changes protection to temporary semi-protection, as semi-protection is typically applied to biographies of public figures such as actors and musicians. IvyBluu (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no requirement that BLPs be semi-protected. The degree to which we protect is a matter of admin discretion. PCP is usually applied if only some of the non-AC and TA accounts are being disruptive and others are editing constructively. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I stomped on your protect because I was typing it out as a CTOP/AP and CTOP/BLP action. I had set mine for 6 months, but I can undo it if you feel shorter is better. --slakr^\ talk / 23:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, the return of the race condition bug with the reply feature ...

Don't worry about it ... the way things are going, we were probably headed there anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you reduce the protection status of the page to semi-protection please?

The user who vandalized the page has been indeffed and it was clearly just a sole-user troll account that has now succeeded in WP:GAMING his gambit, so that he could freeze the page with his WP:SYNTH violating edits intact at the expense of his one account.

If you were not aware, there was already an RFC in the works that was debating how the lead should be worded and the prevailing consensus was to keep it at the neutral version it was BEFORE the troll disrupted the page.

If you examine the activity in the days prior, the activity was civil on the article itself, so it is extreme to protect the page this harshly over one user acting in bad faith. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S.If you go to the talk page you will find several other editors have also made this request, but the admin overseeing the RFC is gone for the week on vacation and was deferring this call to others as he was unable to give this proper attention. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondamonae (talk • contribs) 19:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done That resolves the main issue that led me to choose full protection ... Jojoraebbit had not been warned enough to justify a block and their behavior was such that I did not feel comfortable invoking NOTHERE. Now that they're not editing, the only thing left is for me to deny their last unblock request and revoke talk page access. Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case An editor has resumed the disruption of the now indeffed editor @Jojoraebbit if you look here, which is inappropriate given that the information removed enjoyed an prevailing consensus, and was awaiting the conclusion from an RFC that was derailed by a disruptive editor who now TWICE has tried to cancel an RFC both

here and here

Note that the user is trying to cancel an RFC, which only an admin can do, and essentially is vandalizing it with a strikethrough of the RFC. Shouldn't we be allowed to debate what content is allowed and now allowed through that process?

And to make matters worse, this same user is making obvious misleading statements that "I have been found to be a sock", as their justification for censoring my RFC, even though there is NO such finding.

Asking you to step in and you are familiar with this drama, and the disruptive user is attempting to undo your efforts to stabilize the article. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems to me to be retaliation for his ANEW complaint and SPI against you.

At the former, ToBeFree, as he almost always does, has advice you would do well to take. At the latter, while GM did indeed misrepresent the finding, you in your turn misrepresented PhilKnight's remark and the SPI is still open.

As suggested, if you believe you have been wronged in some way here your recourse is AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case So, you are saying that the disruptive user can continue to close my RFC (as he just did here again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melania_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1339755172) on the basis of someone accusing me of being "a sock"? As you stated, he is misrepresenting the SPI, claiming that I am all but a sock.

He does not have a right to disrupt the talk page and close my RFC. And though ToBeFree has "advised me" on NOT being disruptive, there is nothing wrong then with my WP:civil path in attempting to ask the community to decide about a contentious edit.

The disruptive user is basically saying that HE has a right to control and censor my edits on the talk page. Again, see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Melania_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1339755172 and decide if you are okay with him having that power over me. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, now that you finally included the {{rfc}} tag in your RFC, you may have more of a case if he removes it again. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Thx! Sorry for my inexperience in these things. My bad. Hamiltondamonae (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case Here there, I tried to ping you as there is a user who continues to WP:HOUND me, and may have tried to even WP:BAIT me with a strange message on my talk page with them.

In any case, I mentioned you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Needless_hounding_and_provocation_over_days in the event that you want to weigh in on your observations. P.S. I've been offline for the last week tending to a death in the family, so my time here will be sparse. And yet the other user is claiming that I have been hounding him for days though I've literally made NO posts for this time, and other than ONE remark I made on MY talk page to another stranger who left a drive by comment on my page, there literally is NO evidence of me hounding him. He made a failed SPI against me, and attempted a couple of times to provoke me, that was a week ago, and I stopped interacting him after the SPI closed, having only responded to his accusations then (again, a week ago). Hamiltondamonae (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Here and here, a user who has been disregarding MOS:ACCLAIM and WP:SYNTH has opened discussions about me, and has also begun making unfounded accusations. Despite being warned by an administrator about additional issues such as WP:NOTVAND, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and WP:BOOMERANG, they are still continuing this behavior. This user has not made constructive changes and continues to attack me. Given that their conduct also appears consistent with WP:NOTHERE, is there any administrative action that can be taken? Usually I'm okay with dealing and reporting editors like this user but it's getting tiring after some point. ภץאคгöร 19:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Generally I would agree with The Bushranger that you two should try, at least for a while, to stay out of each other's hair. Although to be fair to you, they are the ones who have given us more rope.

I don't think we can at the moment directly invoke NOTHERE ... usually I block on that basis (and I'm just speaking for myself) when it's some new account coming with a clear agenda. This one isn't.

But I agree that it's a little interesting that for the last year or so, they re-emerged from several months of inactivity to focus like a laser on editing strictly an article about one movie and its star. And before that, they did have a similar focus.

I'd want to look at their earliest edits, which might show a little more knowledge of how Wikipedia works than you see in most brand-new accounts. You may be on to something here in a different way than you think. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

On 22 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ashokan Rail Trail, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Glenford Dike section of the Ashokan Rail Trail may be the earliest example of an intentional rail with trail in the U.S.? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashokan Rail Trail. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ashokan Rail Trail), 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 nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

You recently blocked accounts that were vandalizing the article about Rob Jetten, but vandalism by temporary accounts and new accounts has become significantly worse after the article appeared in the In the news section on the Main Page. Would you consider applying page protection? A new request for an increase in page protection has been made here. Justthefacts (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@Adakiko: @Dajasj: --Justthefacts (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done I semi'ed it for three months. Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Your user page did not cite any sources. I will put on the maintenance tag if you still couldn't add any citations. Thank you. Feather&Martin (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

? Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes? Feather&Martin (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the barnstar, but ... we usually don't cite sources on user pages. That's what I'm wondering about. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

This is the huge problem of Wikipedia! Nobody knows if the information in user pages are fake or not because sources are not required! If one day I become the CEO of Wikipedia I am gonna change that. You better do your best to add citations to prove the information on your user pages is true.

Thank you. Feather&Martin (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of musician and band name etymologies, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Damned was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Could you redact the diff of this WP:PA edit that contains profanity? Thanks. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I was looking at this for a few minutes. I think there's a possibility it might be WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cypriot Chauvinist. Just wanted to let you know since it looks like you took care of the underlying. Izno (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it. Should I lengthen the block to a year on those grounds, then? Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

6 months is probably enough. Izno (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Just a heads-up that the BLP violations (and edit warring to include them) over at Irene Montero have recommenced since the page protection you implemented expired. Note that I also posted about the content dispute at BLPN. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I protected the article for 10 days this time. If this editor resumes after the protection expires, you have a case for going to ANEW. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems the user can still reply, and are not really doing the best thing on the talk page. Can you possibly go and block that too?

Update: I did revert the edits, also the account was created apparently for a IP appeal, clearly not true with what they wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperJames888 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 17:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

When accounts are blocked sitewide, the default setting allows them to retain access to their user talk pages in order to appeal the block should they wish.

We can revoke that if that privilege is abused, as I have done in many cases and just did in this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for locking Kid Rock, @Daniel Case. But may I kindly ask why you'd opted for 1 year instead of indef? The page has a long history of disruption going back many, many years; evident by how it has remained a target despite a whooping 15 (now 16) temporary protections. I think leaving this page open will only serve to waste admins' and productive editors' time. On the side note, I apologize if my request seemed too rude or demanding. Giovanni Potage (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I am outside of situations that mandate this level sort of leery about putting pages on indefinite protection if we haven't gotten through a year first. I am a little surprised that the protections between my last protection and now didn't escalate the length, in which case this probably would have been the indef protection, but other admins may not share my preference for that sort of slow escalation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, are you open to the idea of another admin changing the duration to indef, or do you prefer to leave it as is? Giovanni Potage (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Welllll ... a year is still a pretty long time on Wikipedia (I mean, it's certainly possible that he could die between now and then, and if that happened within six months from now the page would no longer be eligible for BLP protection. I also can't imagine that dead, he'd attract as much disruptuion). Until then it won't make any difference how long it's protected. If the year expired and the disruption resumes, then I would protect indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the BLP cutoff date three years? Giovanni Potage (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:BDP, usually six months, unless for some reason people feel we should extend it and get a consensus for that (usually the circumstances of their death(s) creating ongoing issues for other living people, per that policy). Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

You semi-protected Rob Jetten on February 26 set to expire in May, I was wondering if you would consider reducing it to pending changes protection. There's a very substantive edit request on the talk page that seems to be in good faith and I think it would be good for the user to implement it themselves. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This sort of request is usually better made at WP:RFPP/D where other admins involved regularly in page protection can consider it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I asked here because of the note there that says to check with the protecting admin first. I'll post it at RPP ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There is indefinite page protection on Talk:2026 Minab school airstrike which hinders users in my situation (non-XC) from correcting errors in the article. I have gone through the first step to remedy an error, by requesting an edit and yet the factually incorrect information persists in the article.

Current article: "At the time of the airstrikes, the school was located approximately 600 metres (660 yd) away from the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex which includes the headquarters of the Asif Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy."

Article source for '600 metres' BBC 3/1/2026: "It is located about 600m (1970ft) from the base of the IRGC."

News source for 'less than 100 yards' NPR 3/4/2026: "The school was located within less than 100 yards of the perimeter of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base, according to satellite images and publicly available information."

News source for "near" BBC 3/5/2026: "The school building is located near the IRGC base. Satellite imagery from 2013 appears to show the school building was part of the same compound, before a wall is seen in 2016 separating it."

News source with additional clarity on proximity NYTimes 3/5/2026: "The school at one point was part of the Revolutionary Guards’ naval base, according to satellite images from 2013 reviewed by The Times. Roads had led from other areas of the base to the school building that was struck on Saturday. But by September 2016, satellite images show, the same building was partitioned off and was no longer connected to the base."

Related/Linked Article: "On 28 February a girls' elementary school was hit in American attacks on Minab, according to Iran. The school was less than 60 meters from the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex" TheLoveMuscle (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did get your email (apologies; I was very busy and away from my desk most of yesterday, and of course with my luck that's the day before the spring-ahead Sunday here in the U.S. (if that's not where you are), so I'm recovering ).

WP:RFED is where these requests are ideally posted. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the repeated attempts and not knowing where best to post these requests. I was following the notice to contact the administrator, but will now pivot to WP:RFED. Thank you for your help! TheLoveMuscle (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, nothing wrong with contacting the admin first ...

But this is better to take something like this to RFED. I really do not know enough about this subject to assess the edit requests. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you previously semi-protected the Jeddah Tower page for a bit due to disruptive edits. The protection expired recently, and the disruptive edits have already resumed. I've got no clue why there are so many users insistent on filling the page with excessive amounts of information, but it keeps happening. Do you think it would be wise to protect it again for a while? Semi-protection seems to be enough, as most of the users making these edits are IP users. Thanks, DoO2 19:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of musician and band name etymologies, a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Kay was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)