User talk:Daniel Case

Hi, welcome to the 26th volume of my talk page.

P.S.

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)

Protection for AJ Styles

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)

Report

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)

Wamalotpark/3RR

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)

AIV

[1] 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)

Advice

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)

About Protection of Harry Potter

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)

Quick question about lack of edit notice on a semi-protected CTOP article

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)

Lake Gistova

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)

New message to Daniel Case

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)

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did

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)

Can you please look at this

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 [[2]] and then directly after spending their 3rr this user appeared and did the same types of disruptive edits [[3]] 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)

3RR interpretation

Khirurg made 3 reverts on Northern Epirus within 21 hours [4][5][6]. After I warned them about edit warring [7], they stayed inactive on enwiki for a day, then returned and immediately made the 4th revert [8]. 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 [9]. Plus this is not really a revert [10] - 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 [11] 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 [12]. 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 [13]. One side adds whatever it likes, and then removes sourced material with little or no explanation [14]. 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)[15]. 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 [16] to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS like you did here [17], to the point where they felt the need to remove your comments from the talkpage [18], something which is incredibly rare. "Focus on content" yes, but I'm counting 6 reverts [19] [20] [21] [22] (removal of well-sourced info because "ahistorical") [23] [24] (an editor that has never edited the article before [25] 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 [26] a couple of years ago, when the same group of editors refused to accept some well-sourced additions to the article [27], Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) placed an "affirmative consensus" restriction on the article [28], 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 [29][30][31]. Then after I warned them, they waited for some hours and made the 4th [32]. 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 [33], sourced additions, copyedits, even ref fixes. And again, by another user of the same persuasion, that has never edited the article before [34]. 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 [35]. 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)

What happened?

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)

NYC: May 7 WikiWed + May 10 WikiCurious

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.

(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)

Disruptive IP Editor is Back

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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

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)

User:Wander2014

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)

Question

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)

Qeparo

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 3 days, but the protection log shows there was no expiration set. A request for unprotecting this article was also declined in 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)

List of gurdwaras in North America

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)

IP range you pblocked

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)

Semi protect page

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)

Protection of page

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 continued edit warring

• 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)

May 2025

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Edit warring concerns

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" [36] 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 [37]. 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" [38], + 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 [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. 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 [44] [45] [46]. In the disputed article was displayed clear WP:NINJA behaviour: after my edit stayed there for a year [47], 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 [48] previously edited by one of the four [49].

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 [50], Maleschreiber moved it to the footnotes part [51], and Nishjan removed it entirely [52]. 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)

Haz page

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)

Robert Nutting

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)