User talk:Daniel Case

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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Sorry to mess up your neat archiving by resurrecting a thread that you had got rid of, but your archiving edit-conflicted me, and now I've written it, I'm damned well going to post it.

Interestingly, that account frequently edited AfDs up to February 2021, and then suddenly stopped, whereas the other account involved frequently edited AfDs up to February 2021, and then suddenly stopped, apart form a single edit in March 2023. Just one out of I don't know how many coincidences, one after another after another... And the poor innocent editors both got blocked because of those coincidences. How unjust. JBW (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just looked at it and noticed my talk page was then at 400K+! No more putting it off. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, because of the ping, I noticed you logged my block of the above user at AP2. I did not block Matthew for violating AP2 - and IIRC, there is a special block notice you're supposed to use for that, not to mention special rules for administrators unblocking the user. I don't believe the block should be logged. Would you mind undoing your edit, or explaining why you think I'm mistaken? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since it wasn't logged under AE, I will, but I really think that when someone gets blocked for the fourth time in two years in the same area long identified as a contentious topic, after he's been advised of same, it ought to be seen as something more serious. Daniel Case (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and perhaps it was remiss of me not to make it an AE block, but I figured making it a month - and in my view the last before indefinite - was sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article The Exorcist you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Exorcist for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ErnestKrause -- ErnestKrause (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but this user has made a wide range of disruptive edits on road articles, but has made such an insane number of edits that it is impossible to determine what each of them do without hours and hours of combing through. This user has been reverted and partially blocked to no avail. Please block them. Stormy160 (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a lot of other editors in the roads project would like to see this editor stop ... they have not responded to any requests to explain themselves. Unfortunately since not all of them (in my experience) have been unhelpful, I don't see justification for a block yet.

However ... since for the last two weeks they and another IP have been edit warring over rather minor things on a couple of articles, I think protection would work better. To that end I have just put Taconic State Parkway under semi-protection for three months. Maybe that would work on other articles where this edit warring is happening. Daniel Case (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Stormy160 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Exorcist you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bneu2013 -- Bneu2013 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You recently EW blocked Erenyeager008 for 24 hrs. It appears the pattern of behavior is continuing, only this time with more defiance on their talk page. Thought I'd bring it to your attention in case you feel further action is needed. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I saw you protected Economy of Vietnam with the reverted version active. I was looking at this edit war earlier. No disagreement about protecting it, of course. While the situation was not helped by a lot of IP usage from both camps (revert vs. restore) and the lack of edit summaries by the IP editor trying to make changes and improvements, I was troubled by the wholesale reversion of seemingly good faith edits from get get-go and (from a separate user) the rather severe vandalism warning for what appear to be good faith edits even if they are edit warring. I'd appreciate your take. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the irony of protecting it was that the IP that requested it will not be able to edit for the duration. Maybe they should have asked for full protection. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that your response didn't address my concerns. I'll proceed on my own. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do ... you've been able to put more thought into it, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A Helping Hand
	I just got a notification that my DYK was approved. Thank you both for proposing a better hook and for continuing to assist with getting it through. I really appreciate the helping hand. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Daniel. I've issued a final warning to 172.13.193.84 for his constant violation of sourcing policies, after a series of more polite admonitions. If you could monitor the article in question, to ensure that he does not violate them again, (or simply place an extended page protection on it) I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in his last edit, he told you he'd stop and hasn't edited since ... of course, it's only been a couple of hours. So, I am keeping the page on a tab so I can "shadow-watch" it.

I have no problem semi-protecting it, or partial-blocking them, if necessary, given that you've had the requisite warnings and discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, Daniel -- I was GA-reviewing Jon Brower Minnoch, and I noticed that while the article was indefinitely semi-protected by you in March, it still has its pending changes settings turned on from the previous protection. Is there a reason these were left on? I haven't seen this previously on articles that went from PC to semi, so I'm wondering if there was a change in practice recently or if it was just overlooked. Thanks for protecting that article, by the way -- it's really cut down on the issues :) Vaticidalprophet 04:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it's acceptable to have both PC and semi on if the editors working on the page want it; when you have PC on without the semi it's possible for disruptive editors to weaponize it by creating needless extra work reviewing revisions. ... there are other pages we've done this to. Daniel Case (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addedndum: Here's the request ... the editor does not seem to have realized that PC and semi can run side by side. Daniel Case (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just saw you have added an IP to my account, I would know if have you test before? What is reason? PL0TWiSTER (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not required to run checkuser to state our belief that an IP and a registered account are being operated by the same person. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional block on 199.254.238.56. The 12 hours was to halt the immediate AIV disruption while I looked through their history. You beat me to it with a longer one. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had been tangling with them since I went to AIV and saw that they had reported Isabelle Belato, who had in turn blocked them for six months from the page they had been vandalizing. I added AIV to it.

One of the problems with the current blocking system is that once you impose a new sitewide block, it wipes out any partial blocks that were otherwise ongoing. I put in a request at the last Community Wishlist for layered blocks and protections; it was popular but whether that actually makes it to fruition has little to do with how many people like it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'd be great if there was a simple option for maintaining underlying blocks (and page protections) when a superimposed action expires. Ah well, it is what it is. All the best. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some IP-hopping / sockpuppetry going on after those two /64 rangeblocks were placed, but I have tracked the 2607:fb91:12* IP range down to a /40 : 2607:FB91:1200:0:0:0:0:0/40. The other (2603:8081:A200:1D94*) range is definitely a /64, no more edits from it. Could you have a look at this? — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Daniel. I happen to notice you've added a number of page protections to the CT log performed by other administrators. From a glance it appears that most (all?) of these aren't actually protections which follow the contentious topic procedures. They are, instead, normal protections. Protections under CT require additional steps, including the sanctioning administrator making note of it in their protection log. In other words, just being in a contentious topic area does not mean a protection is part of the CT process. Using regular rather than CT procedures is actually encouraged under the contentious topics procedures (something new from DS) which notes as an admin expectation Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project. Let me know if you have any questions about this, as it certainly can be confusing. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I have made a block or protection as a CTOPS action, I have tried to log it as such, both at AELOG and in the protection or block log. Also see note e over WP:CTOPS:"Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the 'enforcing administrator'".

If a page in a contentious topic is getting the kind of editing that makes it contentious, but either the user hasn't been blocked before and is not a sock, or the page hasn't been protected before (in most cases), I do consider shorter-term actions to be routine administrative actions that, well, we'll see how they work, and don't log them as CTOPS action. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe as your practice in the second paragraph is reasonable and if officially asked I would support what you described as good practice. The problem is that you can't impose this practice on other admins. Other admins get to decide, in their discretion, if something should be a regular or CT restriction and that too needs to be respected. As you note if you do a protection using the contentious topic procedures there are steps to follow. The procedure only allows for another admin to put something in the log; so if someone did not create an edit notice and clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions it's not a contentious topic restriction. And so when you add it to the log you are not logging the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. because it's not one and it isn't made one just by you adding it to the log. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that edit notices are only required when a page is under 1RR or enforced BRD (and in my opinion that should be done only with some consensus, not unilaterally). The CTOPS page mentions nothing about edit notices being required. In fact, it doesn't mention edit notices at all.

Note f on that page also says: "If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a dummy edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator." Granted, it's probably a good idea to consult with the admin first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the idea that any of the admin had intended to make it a contentious topic restriction and just forgot? We know in one case Bbb23 didn't want it labeled as such and I'm just wondering if there are different circumstances that lead you to believe the 3 protections you've logged for others in the last couple of days all qualify? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because I was pinged. I'm not an expert on CT or CT logging, so I haven't read everything you folk are quoting (and don't feel like it either), but it seems to me the solution is an easy one, which is what Daniel suggests above. If you think an admin intended their sanction to be subject to CT but just forgot to log it, ask the sanctioning admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, last year you assisted me with blocked a revolving IP range who was vandalizing various articles, particularly fire, police, and military pages. The vandal is back and under a new IP range. Here are a few of them: Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C92:57DA:7037:30F0:F1A5:D8D4, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C05:5DEE:559F:368E:C666:273, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C1F:1A41:B0DF:466E:A5B:5B68, Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:8C11:9D25:C9DA:9CF1:91B7:3C1D.

Any assistance in blocking this range would be greatly appreciated! HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2607:FB91:8C00:0:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back again with disruptive editing following the block. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two weeks this time. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back with a vengeance after the latest ban. HankScorpio1519 (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three months this time. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have be evading that range block with a different one:

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1872:C664:F163:6DE9:76D2:8AE

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:9D:5538:3518:8010:2C8:D9D5

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1879:847A:C953:33F9:3184:F8F1

- Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:189D:D028:7D18:7018:82BC:AB67 HankScorpio1519 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I found that a /35 range block would take care of all four of those T-Mobile ranges, there would be too much collateral damage, so I just blocked the /64s associated with each of them instead for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review regarding an action which you performed. The thread is Block of 2600:1017:B400:0:0:0:0:0/40. Thank you. (adding this as a courtesy; I'm not the one who started the discussion) Floquenbeam (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been moved to WP:Administrator's noticeboard for further community input. Shim119 (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you've been indefinitely blocked, so that takes care of that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

I wanted to seek your assistance on a 3RR Noticeboard discussion. I was recently reported to the 3RR Noticeboard by another user. The discussion has gotten quite long and complex, with much of the discussion referring to multiple 3RR discussions you have previously closed (on users IJball & Alsorianio97).

Given your understanding of the underlying facts, I was wondering if you could take a look at the discussion. Most of the other discussions above and below have already been reviewed and closed by administrators. Carter00000 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience reports with the long discussion that, had it taken place on the talk page before anyone reported would likely have eliminated the need to report, usually get passed over in favor of those that can be more quickly evaluated.

The underlying issues here are really not going to be resolved by an ANEW action. If it were just the July 5 page, I'd be inclined to mark it as no violation. But you admitted to violating 3RR on the June 26 page, which the history corroborates, and ... well, I don't think we can just let that one go.

I might prefer something less than 24 hours sitewide, given that this was two weeks ago and you have admitted it and never been blocked before. Maybe a really short block (like 3 hours?) Or the 24 hours but only from portal namespace? Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

I agree with you when you say that had conversation taken place on the talk page before anyone reported, it would have been better for all parties involved. This is a key point of the dispute and something that I have repeatedly tried to encourage and make clear to the reporter .

I further agree with you that there are underlying issues. I believe that these issues exist as both personal issues with my reporter and those that are related to the general editing system of the portal . While those general issues may take time to resolve, I fee that the issues with my reporter can be addressed with more immediacy.

As I have asserted (and in my view substantiated) in my replies on the AN3 discussion, I feel that there are a number of WP:CIR issues with my reporter, who has very limited understanding of key WP policies needed for productive and non-disruptive editing. More seriously, the editor has misleadingly presented a previous conflict as evidence against me, knowing that the accusation was untrue, and actually benefiting from my efforts to resolve the conflict. Furthermore, the user has continued to edit war and refused to follow WP:ONUS, even during the AN3 discussion. I think a block at this point to "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia" would be warranted, given the attitude of the user and continued disruption and refusal to follow WP:DR as mandated by WP:ONUS, and would fall under all three criteria per WP:BLOCKP.

However, while I admit to edit warring and breaking 3RR previously, I do not agree with your proposed course of action to block me. As per WP:BLOCK, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". The policy further states that "once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate".

I believe that a block on me at this time would fall under WP:NOPUNISH. As you noted, the breaking of 3RR was two weeks ago. I ceased reverting the entry and apologized for my actions. As a sign of good faith, I added a section to the material to increase its notability, resolving my initial concerns on whether the entry met the notability standard for inclusion. I made this compromise, despite the fact the my attempts to follow policy and start a discussion was stonewalled. All of this was done two week ago at the time of the dispute.

I feel that taking into account the time which has passed and my good faith actions to compromise, it is clear that "the risk of present disruption" from me "has clearly ended" , and a block on me at this point would be "blocking retrospectively" which would "usually not appropriate".

My subsequent actions in the portal has been to encourage compliance with policy and have not broken 3RR. In the dispute I was reported for relating to July 5, I have already self-reverted [1], upon the provision of a reasonable rationale [2] for the inclusion of the material by a third user.

Please let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see ToBeFree has mooted this discussion with a two-week block for both of you from Portal namespace. But I agree with your reasoning re not blocking you over that older 3RR (I would just ask that you understand that there's a sort of Murphy's Law to this: the block of the only bright-line rule we have that you pass up on out of the hundred blocks you make is the one someone else comes back and throws in your face two months later when you least need it). Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and acceptance of my rationale for not blocking me. I also acknowledge your point that 3RR is a bright line rule, and not acting upon it can have issues further down the line.

I have filed an unblock request to contest the block. I have mentioned you in the request, as you were involved in both the AN3 filing and prior cases mentioned.

Please take a look and see if there is anything you would like to add. As per WP:GAB, I understand that unblock requests can take some time to review. I would appreciate any assistance from you to expedite the handling of the request, if you feel it is appropriate.    Carter00000 (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 16,762 views (698.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of July 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting XHAS-TDT. Now can you protect KJLA, KXLA and KVMD? These articles have had disruptive edits for so long. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just note I did that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AGeneral_sanctions%2FArmenia_and_Azerbaijan&diff=1164911650&oldid=1164299306 over on the GS log, though I acknowledge the overlap of the sanctions make it questionable where to log such actions, the community GS explicitly calls for ECP, hence logging it there. Maybe double logging is ideal? Honestly don’t know… I think this is the on,y one where ArbCom and community sanctions have so much overlap… Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do all the logging at the AE page where subsections exist because I think it's a good idea that we have one place where all the active sanctions can be seen at once. It's helping us see trends (i.e., all the GENSEX entries that have to do with repeated deadnaming/misgendering). Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the GENSEX misgendering is really apparent on the AElog. I guess if I ever have to enforce those AA general sanctions again, I’ll dual log, though given how sparse usage is, they appear to have been enacted and then forgotten about. (Actually, the other case I can remember community and Arbitration sanctions overlap, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War, the protections almost invariably get logged there and not as ARBEE, even though most could be done under that authority. I’m not sure I have a point here, just observations) Courcelles (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RUSUKR sanctions reflect an intense and ongoing armed conflict where ECP is required of new articles, so I log them on that page (It would overwhelm the AELOG page otherwise, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 19: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! We are proud to announce that monthly free food has returned! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Prime Produce encourages the wearing of masks when indoors, and especially be mindful of those in your proximity. Wednesday July 19 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (RSVP on-wiki). 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan) Also online via Zoom
July 29: NYBG Environment of the Bronx Edit-a-thon!
You are also invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our 9th Editathon with the New York Botanical Gardens! Attendees familiar with editing Wikipedia can edit off of a worklist focused on the environment of New York City; as well as, a sub-list focused on the environment of the Bronx. Additionally, LuEsther T. Mertz Library will pull topical media from their collection to assist the editing. You can also learn more and RSVP on the NYBG website here. Bring your own laptop if you can, the Library can only provide laptops on a first-come, first-served basis. Entrance to the Library is free; when you arrive, alert Security that you are here for the event. Please enter through the Mosholu Entrance at 2950 Southern Boulevard. Saturday July 29 NYBG Environment of the Bronx Edit-a-thon (RSVP on-wiki) 12:00pm - 3:00pm (Mertz Library at the New York Botanical Garden, Bronx)

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd found this link a while ago and I'm not sure if you believe it, but they might do a sequel to the newly released film.

https://www.cinemablend.com/interviews/teenage-kraken-director-honest-more-mermaids-movie-one-thread-explore-sequel

Kevbo128 (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure why you're asking me this? What past edits is it in relation to? Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The director of the Ruby Gillman says that he likes to explore the sequel in the link I’d sent you. So it means there might be a sequel to it. Kevbo128 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the article (again), but you logged it as one month while the protection is in fact indefinite. Favonian (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Of course I see it eventually reaching that point anyway ... this controversy is not going away anytime soon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pbritti (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic, but I noticed you worked heavily on Independence Pass (Colorado) and Independence, Colorado. I wanted to mention that I briefly lived in the latter as part of an educational program hosted by a local history org. Small world! If you've ever visited, I'd love to exchange notes on our experiences and see if I can color anything in those articles with images I took (once we're good on the current matter at hand, of course). ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly expanded that article after passing through it in August 2010 with my father on the way to my stepbrother's destination wedding in Aspen. When we got up to the pass, it was snowing slightly so we got out and took pictures of ourselves standing in front of the sign, wearing short-sleeved shirts, in which the falling snow is faintly visible. I took a lot of other pictures of the pass generally ... it was pretty cool to just get right out of the car and be in that kind of above-treeline alpine tundra environment (in the Northeast, outside of Mount Washington, getting to that kind of environment requires a substantial hike.

Originally a lot of those pictures were in the article; between other people's uploads and what I've subsequently found on Flickr, it's down to one (so what, though? They're better than mine were). I had a ball working on that article, and I had the idea at some point in the past that if I could get both it and Colorado State Highway 82 to FA it would make a cool Main Page double bill on July 4 some year.

I was sort of waiting for some guy who'd written an environmental guide to the Pass to issue an updated version of his book (he told me he was planning one in an email). Yes, anything you have would be interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could you take a look at [3]. I've reverted it. Knitsey (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've also warned the user. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would this Sergius and Bacchus count as a same-sex marriage? According to this here: Sergius and Bacchus: The Gay Soldiers Who Were Made Saints By The Church and Adelphopoiesis, it seems to be yes, but I need to know for sure if I am to add it to the List of same-sex married couples. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to see if Cultura Colectiva is something we can consider a reliable source, but I can't find any sort of "about" page which would say whether their writers submit to editorial oversight or not. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add it to the List of same-sex married couples or not. An adminstrator's decision is a one that I will surely stick with. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I found nothing on RS/N about it. But we have an article on it, and it seems some other articles have cited it. So go ahead for now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been adding their years of births to the article. Should they be added or should I remove them. Davidgoodheart (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The List of same-sex married couples. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

Iron Gwazi passed its FAC! Although I am a primary contributor to the article, your involvement was just as significant. The road to FA relies on community consensus and voluntary commentary. You dedicated your time and skills to help improve the article to its current condition. Without your input, the article would not have reached its status quo. You are a significant contributor! Whether you are a one-time commenter or contribute to other GA, PR, or FA candidates, I hereby award Daniel Case with the Teamwork Barnstar! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Iron Gwazi article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review process was of importance in shaping the article to FA status. You stepped up to the challenge, printed it out (which I took as a compliment), and gave one of the most comprehensive reviews. Your time and paper are greatly appreciated. Hopefully, I can get a passing grade on that. Thank you. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Sorry it took a while to acknowledge this. I'm delighted it made FA! Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to inform you that, even though they were blocked by you 25 days ago, User:Erenyeager008 continues their edit warring. They are ignoring the warnings, removing reliable sources and adding unsourced information on pages including Oppenheimer (film). I believe that taking prompt action is necessary to address this matter. Thank you for your attention. ภץאคгöร 12:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week this time due to having reverted your edit above in addition to the edit warring, showing clear awareness that it was edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reaching out again for the same issue, but this user continues to make the same edits, removing reliable sources and trying to own the article while providing invalid reasons to justify their edits, and does not exactly pursue dispute resolution. ภץאคгöร 16:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recently pinged you at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). The discussion has now been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Massive wide-ranging IP block on Airtel India users. JBW (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance you don't regularly follow AN drama, there is a discussion at AN that involves a mutual acquaintance of ours, and as the blocking admin I figured you might want to know. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I appreciate your effort to manage and resolve issues regarding editing on Wikipedia. However,I was just trying to do the right thing. It might help if you review my editing history on the Oppenheimer page. It was never my intention to be disruptive, but I understand why it may have come across as such. I would be thankful if you re-consider the ban. Thank you.Erenyeager008 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed the user. They apparently went on a vindictive vandalism spree and explicitly invited an indefinite block. I obliged.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sort of felt it would end this way ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - this didn't stick; they went right back to the same behavior. Could I ask you to do something more lasting? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 72 hours this time (Keep in mind that "permanently" is not possible, as they're an IP address). Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same person, new IP: [4] - maybe semi the article? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected that article for three months and blocked 2600:4040:BFEF:9F00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You reverted this edit. I think that the caption ("Most recorded grain entrapments have occurred in corn"), itself, is a complete sentence; because of using the verb have occurred. I just read your edit summary indeed; but, as a non-native-speaker of English, if I'm still wrong, I will be thankful if you guide me more. Best, Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, thanks. In fact, in the file details, the "caption" and "alt" were displaced. I just fixed them. – Hamid Hassani (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, I wanted to follow-up on a recent block you made on a user. You blocked IJBall for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. Upon the IJBall's request, the block was extended to indefinite.

A group of editors has started a discussion, making numerous unfounded allegations and personal attacks on both myself and yourself relating to the block. Of especial concern are the comments by User Amaury, who seems to be conflating the circumstances of the block with separate unrelated incidents, and misinterpreting the reasons behind the block.

Amaury has previously acted disruptively in relation to this block. When I posted the initial edit warring warning on IJBall's talk page, Amaury reverted the message twice [31], [32], claiming the message was illegitimate, and minimizing the IJball's actions, while quoting WP:DTTR, which was stated to be baseless by a admin. I had to revert Amaury twice [1], [2] and warn Amaury against disruptions of WP:DR, before Amaury stopped reverting my warning. Amaury was warned by a admin that his subsequent actions relating to the block were unacceptable.

While I understand that some venting may be acceptable, I feel that taking into account Amaury's past conduct, and the warning from an admin, I find the current actions to be of concern. I would appreciate it if you could take a closer look at this. Carter00000 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since most of that happened over a month ago, nothing would be accomplished by blocking Amaury now, although I might have felt differently at the time.

I am amused that someone is "stumped" that I granted a user's request to be indefinitely blocked, something that was well within my power and authority to do and not without precedent. Are we supposed to assume that no one could ever actually mean that? If they feel they're too compulsive to restrain themselves from editing and getting into trouble again, far be it for me to try to convince them otherwise.

They all need to recognize, as others have failed to do so, that there is nothing that says action on an ANEW complaint must await the complained-about user's response. If a reviewing admin sees that edit warring has occurred, even if it's not a clear 3RR violation, they have the go-ahead for a block. It's not AN/I (and frankly if most admins, myself included, see clear block-on-sight conduct reported there, we don't wait for a response either). Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and clarifications.

I agree with your assesment that further action may not be needed at this point. I will let you know if there is any further escalation relating to the issue. Carter00000 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that they found more IPs to hop to yesterday. Ingenuity has already blocked the 105s, though.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I would have blocked the range 105.74.14.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) but it seems that they only used those two IPs. Keep that in mind if they find other IPs to use, though. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel,

Following up on this RFPP request, the IP/s have continued to make the same edits after your response. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whose edits adding the quotes do you keep reversing? It seems some IPs are making constructive edits to the page; if we could just block the ones that are making the disruptive ones that might work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous edits, the edits seem to be made by a person with a dynamic IP originating from Russia.

1. 80.234.76.147 [5]

2. 80.234.72.92 [6]

3. 80.234.76.240 [7] Carter00000 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 80.234.72.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from the page for a month. Hope that helps. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your assistance. I will let you know if there are any further related issues. Carter00000 (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP (88.200.230.960) from Russia has shown up at the page, making the same edit as the previous IP's. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Carter00000 (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi. I would like to inform you that User:Theadeoyetunji has been editing Oppenheimer (film) page similar to the blocked User:Erenyeager008. Their edits on multiple pages are reverted by me and other editors and they ignore the edit summaries and warnings. I think it is necessary to take action to solve this issue. Thanks for your attention. ภץאคгöร 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific on where/how these two accounts are editing similarly? Looking at Thea's contribs I don't see as many reverts, some helpful edits, and the edits to Oppenheimer don't seem to show the same fixation on the "Barbenheimer" thing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced synthesis, a similar addition to the aforementioned user. Another one. I'm not saying they could be the same person, but rather their edits involve adding unsourced and/or incorrect information, as well as ignoring other editors' comments and warnings. They've also added some questionable writing and I think all of their edits have been reverted, so I wouldn't consider any of them "helpful". ภץאคгöร 19:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some diffs from Eren that show the pattern? I'd like to see a bit more. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ภץאคгöร 09:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I needed. Indeffed. (Sorry if it seemed like I didn't quite believe you, but it didn't fit the "obvious" sock pattern ... it wasn't created right after getting blocked (rather a couple of weeks ago) and didn't make the edits that stuck out on the original account).

The fact that this account was created a couple of weeks ago suggests to me (as, well, my regularly escalating blocks should have told them) that Eren expected this. There may be other sleeper accounts; if another one turns up an SPI might be a good idea because that would be the only way to find them before they're used). Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't quite sure about it either, just looked suspicious. Thanks. ภץאคгöร 18:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi in case you didn't notice: an IP address that you've blocked three days ago has made a mis-formatted unblock request. However, since then the same person has managed to evade your block here but has not edited since then. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the formatting for them ... as for the other edits, for now let's let them go. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their contributions and those of the blocked NapoleonX (which strike me as quite similar with the insistence on removing "Sr." suffixes), I suspect sock puppetry. Since you were an admin who has conversed with this user, perhaps you could block the evading IP address? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked for two weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had EC protected 2023 Haryana riots as a CTOPS action and judging by the enforcement log have experience with WP:ARBIPA. The reason that article needed EC was in part because of the editor Plumeater2, who I twice blocked for edit warring on that article and who has been enforcing their POV on the article since its creation. At the time EC was implemented the editor had around 422 edits across 11 months, but after EC was implemented their contributions quickly filled up with multiple pointless edits per minute until they reached 500 edits in order to continue editing the article, which seems like WP:GAMING. Given their edit warring, POV pushing, and combative attitude towards editors that disagree with them I think it would be best to use CTOPS to WP:ABAN them from the article, but as I've never done anything with CTOPS I wanted to ask someone with more knowledge if that would be the best course of action? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked in on 2023 Haryana riots to see whether it might have improved enough for me to change my "Oppose" vote on including it in WP:ITN and I came to the same conclusion: User:Plumeater2 seems to have gone on an editing spree to hit 500 edits so they could continue edit warring on 2023 Haryana riots, immediately made a significant edit to the article, and then the rapidly editing immediately stopped. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of my possible agenda items for next year's Community Wishlist Survey would be perhaps the ability to revoke or suspend a user's EC or autoconfirmed status for a particular page (the idea of making rangeblocks more of a spectrum, so they wouldn't apply to users who had been autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed, depending on the admin's taste.

However, for now it looks like for now blocking Plumeater from the page indefinitely (something I have done within the scope of IPA enforcement; see Minaro123's record) is really the best option. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could unilaterally impose that; page bans are part of the standard set of CTOPS restrictions that an uninvolved admin may decide to impose. And I think the editors here form some sort of consensus for that action (not that it's absolutely necessary IMO, at least not for a page ban, if it were we wouldn't have partial-block capability). Make sure you log it; that way it's clear that for the first year any appeal has to go directly to ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have notified them and logged it (I also added the WP:GAMING context to the talk page message and the log). I'm assuming there's no reason to p-block them from the article unless they violate the restriction? - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess so ... if they manage to act honorably, no need to use the stick. Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to bring to your attention a CTOPS violation on this page. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kulfi&action=history Thank you. - Ram1751 (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

In reference to my previous thread Un Verano Sin Ti above, 2603:8081:A200:1D94:0:0:0:0/64 is back at it again, edit warring against MOS:THEBAND on Data (album). Worth noting that not long after the previous 2-3 days blocks placed on those IP ranges, they continued the edit war on the articles Un Verano Sin Ti and The Marías, which have since been semi-protected for a year. Unfortunately, their disruptive editing continues, spread over to the Data (album) article.

Along with that, a few new IP addresses and ranges have spawned in this as well, 2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 and 192.136.229.34. Quite a number of other edits from the /32 range surrounding 2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 also look quite unconstructive, with some uncivil edit summaries as well, and it has a history of prior blocks too. Just noting it down for the record. Anyways, my focus here is on 2603:8081:A200:1D94:0:0:0:0/64 and 192.136.229.34, since those were the most recent IPs involved in the disruption. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the 2603 range for a week this time

2A01:B747:18A:344:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was last active three weeks ago; too much time for a block to be anything but punitive. Likewise 192's been quiet for a couple of days. But of course we'll keep an eye on them. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. 39.40.19.87 is an IP sock of DilophosauruZ (and PaleoPlayer43) as per this edit. Could I ask you to block? Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The block is over now boss. Can I or you remove this label from my Talk page? I understand that blocks are not considered to be punitive and once served are considered to be the past. I don't want this stain on my profile forever. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it yourself once it's expired ... there's no requirement you keep it there. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danke schon. Richie wright1980 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitte Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel! I am sorry to trouble you again but I think this needs attention. As you know, I was the subject of a recent ANI Edit warring case (see [8]) but unfortunately for me you sided with Betty Logan who reported me.

Since then, I have in good faith read the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing article that you signposted me to as well as a few other advice articles about consensus building etc... I have learned that following any block, editors should take note of 'Repeating the same argument without convincing people'. I have in very good faith took this on board and returned to Talk:Millennials#Date and age range definitions with modified arguments which take on board all the comments on that page. Betty Logan who reported me to ANI is now asking above and beyond what any editor should be expected to tolerate by:

• Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources
• Expecting others to find sources for your own statements
• Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others

Without boring you with too much detail on the case I am trying to make on there, I have in good faith supplied sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, yet the user in question is engaging in this behaviour. Therefore, making it extremely difficult to make constructive contributions and improvements to the encyclopedia. Also, as you know this user herself engaged in the same edit war and also has a long history of reverting editor comments and undoing other people's work on the page. See [9]

On 04 March 2020 - she even compelled another editor to seek permission to add their sources. This is surely not acceptable behaviour and she has obviously had a very good run on this page since.

I honestly do not know how to proceed. There is a genuine case to improve the article as well as a labelled request to improve it at the top of its page yet her behaviour is disruptive and unhelpful.

I also fear that she is using Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling - with the threat of her using it again - to maintain a version of the article that supports her opinion. Are you able to offer any advice? I will not tolerate bullying of any kind and will simply not be dissuaded by bad faith behaviour like this. After 15 years on Wikipedia and hardly ever coming across my usual work being reverted in this manner - I think I am well aware of what constitutes acceptable content.Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has just come to my attention; Richie wright1980: if you are going to start threads about me then you have a duty to inform me. I did not "compel" another editor to seek permission to add sources. As you can clearly see from the edit, I restored sources that the other editor removed: [10]. Also, Richie, you should take a close look at that edit and note how the other editor deleted the sources for 1980, and in the interests of keeping the article balanced I restored them—given your advocacy for the 1980 date I would thought you would have approved! The person I actually reverted in that edit was this this person i.e. somebody who is now indefinitely blocked (nothing to do with me), so perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to assume I was the "bad faith" actor in that instance. Betty Logan (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan I did not want to put you through a formal ANI report, rather I have sought the advice of an administrator. I am concerned that you have attempted too far to discredit the reliability of apparently good sources and are still in danger of deleting the pertinent cited additions of others.

However, I am willing to drop the argument of adding any subheadings for the sake of keeping the peace. In saying that, every Wikipedian is encouraged to introduce verifiable and reliable sources to portray any viewpoint. It is not the concern of editors whether a real life debate is imagined or not – that is not for us to settle but to describe. If you feel so strongly that no such debate exists then by all means introduce a reliable source that supports that viewpoint and source that suggests that 1981 is the one true, undisputed cut off point until the end of time.

As per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, it need not concern editors exactly how many sources are provided to support a viewpoint. Therefore, I would like you to refrain from engaging in the aforementioned behaviour.

If I introduce more citations to support 1980 as a starting birth year for millennials (which I intend to do), do I have your word that you will not undermine this work and not engage in an edit war? I would like an administrator to witness your answer here. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Daniel Case, In the best of faith I have been attempting to build consensus for improving the Millenials page and every step of the way have responded to the comments coming in on the Talk page in compliance with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. I am afraid the above user Betty Logan is back again - this time with another threat to take me to ANI again. I am afraid there just seems to be no pleasing this particular user as she is simply unable to compromise on anything we have discussed at length. Wikpedians are encouraged to Wikipedia:Be bold, however, the atmosphere she has created on the Millenials Talk page is seriously discouraging. In the spirit of sincere collaboration I hope you can now intervene. I am afraid she is simply taking this too far. Please see her two latest comments directed to me -

[11]

[12]

Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also make this clear. This is the first time in 15 years of Wikipedia that I have ever contacted an admin in this manner. Something is definitely not right.Richie wright1980 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a bit of gaslighting going on here. What is not right is that Richie finds it seemingly impossible to reconcile his edits with WP:NPOV: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:_Richie_wright1980. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts! That was the first time in 15 years that I had ever come across ANI. I didn't even know it existed before then. I prefer to stay well away from drama thank you. As it happens - both of us at that time left the ANI voluntarily and parted ways on very good terms. There was even a message at the end of the discussion that we should stay in touch. You should read the entire thread that you have highlighted as I made completely valid points throughout. What I do find disturbing is when people find it hard to not let things go and to modify their arguments as things progress. You should have noted by now at Millennialls that I have made substantial efforts to modify my proposals, arguments and to take on board your concerns ad nauseum. Above and beyond what should be expected. Have a great day.Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having just watched this play out over the last couple of days and hoping it will be for the best as it seems it might be: All I can find fault with in Betty (full disclosure: I am familiar with Betty's work on John Carter, which having been the one who did a lot of expansion work on that article last year in the hope of attaining future recognition for it I very much appreciate) here is just some minor misunderstandings: 1) she should have used "consensus" instead of "permission" in that March 2020 edit, and 2) while good wikietiquette is to let someone know, even with a linked mention as I did above, that you're publicly discussing them with a third party, there is no requirement to do so. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Daniel! I do sincerely grieve for all poor horse carcasses out there but I can assure you that my stallion has plenty of life in it, it just has a few more hurdles to jump! I must be weary of those who would rather it go out to pasture and turned in to glue. Richie wright1980 (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I am glad to inform you that the horse is very much alive and well and a new consensus has formed to support my proposed change to the Millenials page. The following users all now support my proposed changes to the 'Date and age range definitions' section of the Millennials page: The consensus is as follows:

Danbloch – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Dimadick - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Nerd271 - supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Some1 – supports the new proposed 'Date and age range definitions' section

Betty Logan - opposes changes

Zillennial - awaiting feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

Clovermoss - awaiting feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

BappleBusiness - awating feedback - I have requested feedback on their Talk page

I am afraid Betty Logan above is now further disrupting the page and preventing the natural process of consensus building to take place. I am now certain that she is engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour.

Please see the latest discussion in which a new consensus has formed to support my proposed change and the latest contribution by Betty Logan: Date and age range definitions (Amended as per Talk page consensus and feedback).

You have been witness to my extensive efforts throughout to engage in the consensus-building process and my efforts to listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article.

I am certain that Betty Logan is engaging in disruptive behaviour. I must admit I have never filed an ANI report on someone before but I need your advice on how to proceed. Richie wright1980 (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just got to WP:ANI and click on "Click here to start a new discussion" button, and then just copy over all of your grievances from Daniel's page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging three recently active admins. I am very concerned by the editor Betty Logan's behaviour and conduct. I have made recent and extensive efforts to engage with the community to garner consensus for my proposed edit to Millennials#Date and age range definitions - Please see Talk:Millennials - The change I believe isn't particularly substantial in any case. I would like your advice on how to proceed as there is a risk of disruption to the consenus building process by the user Betty Logan. I feel that the issue needs urgent intevention. Many Thanks for your time... @User:GiantSnowman @User:Jimfbleak @User:Parsecboy Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found you all through this [link https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?admins] under the advice on the ANI page - Want to skip the drama? - find a recently active admin who may be able to help directly. Richie wright1980 (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy for my conduct to be subject to review, but you must be willing for yours to be subject to review too, because there are two sides to every dispute. The appropriate place for that is the ANI board. I would be more than happy for the admins you have summoned here to review your conduct and mine, in the appropriate context. Betty Logan (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for the advice from the administrators. Richie wright1980 (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case This is now clearly the last straw. After one week of intense discussion on the Millenials page, a consensus has finally been achieved to update the Date and Age range sections with the editor @User:Some1 proposing a perfectly reasonable solution to all the concerns. Betty Logan has reappered on the talk page asking the page to take a vote on RichieWright1980's version or Some1's version thereby turning this in to a popularity contest between two editors - this is clearly against policy and is clearly about asking people to take sides. From day one Betty Logan posted on the article talk page with my username as the header asking people to form opinions from day one - she succesfully had me blocked for 24 hours by you Daniel but her conduct now has overstepped the mark. I don't come to Wikipedia to have my username placed in to a popularity contest by disruptive editors. Exactly how much leeway are you prepared to give this editor? Never in my whole time have I witnessed an editor get away with blatant disruption. See these diffs by Betty Logan making the consensus building proposal about me personally:

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

In any case - there was never such thing as Richie-wright1980's version or some1's version since both versions were arrived at by editor feedback and amended as things advanced. Please take action.

Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, could you please investigate a possible link between the user Wikiboo02 and Betty Logan - neither of which have user Talk pages.

See this diff where Betty Logan has edited a revision by the user Wikiboo02. The user Wikiboo02 has suddenly joined the page making underhanded sly remarks about my efforts to build consensus over the last week. See this diff where Betty Logan has made a change to Wikiboo02's revision. Now why would she do that?

[19] Richie wright1980 (talk) Pinging three active administrators to take immediate action - this is now clearly a conduct issue about the user Betty Logan. @User:Amakuru @User:Canterbury Tail @User:Valereee (Richie wright1980 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I have nothing to do with this, please don't ping me. If you think you have a genuine case then post it to ANI, otherwise don't ping random people into a random user talk conversation. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't know to use the ANI process. It is far too complicated and time consuming, I would have thought this conduct is a blatant abuse of the site as it is. Can you please help. The advice on the ANI page id to reach out to an administrstor. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to read your wall of text above. Please open a thread at ANI. It's rather straightforward, just briefly state the nature of the problem and provide WP:DIFFs illustrating the problem. Admins will read it and if they think there's an issue then will deal with it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. This is a very difficult user. They will go out of their way to draw it out. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi Daniel, I am so sorry this has ended up on your talk page yet again. These are the edits that Richie is complaining about. There are currently three versions of the disputed text under discussion. With the three versions more or less finalised (Some1's version seems to be acceptable to both myself and Richie, but nobody else has actually commented on it so far, so I established a straw poll to ascertain opinion. Richie needs to appreciate that he alone does not get to determine the consensus, and as you will know already, this is a usual step at the end of a lengthy discussion when the various parties arrive at a tacit consensus. I names the two proposed versions after their principal authors. Rchie has changed the names to "Version A" and Version B. As you can see here I am ok with that. I 100% refute the allegation I have edited Wikiboo02's comments at the discussion. I don't think there is anything susipicous about Wikiboo's involvement in the discussion: they are an established editor and if you check their contribution history you will see that they regularly edit articles about demographic generations. Richie is just a bit miffed that they didn't take his side; I have established a straw poll partly because of Richie's tendency to dismiss dissenting opinion. I see Richie is once again attempting to summon admins to your page. If you don't mind me saying, I think you would be doing both your talk page and Richie a favor if you formally advised him to take his grievances to ANI, which is the appropriate forum to review editorial conduct. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which I am about to do Betty. I have absolutely no qualms about people disagreeing with me. This is exactly about how you have conducted yourself and your conduct. Daniel is an administrator familiar with both myself and yourself and has been following the developments. I pinged other administrators because Daniel has probably got other cases to deal with and the advice is to find an active administrator - please see ANI page. Richie wright1980 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would suggest you to WP:RFPP and put in a request for a decrease in protection level. Given that it's in a contentious topic area and I only recently protected it, I doubt you'll succeed. But ... you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, nice saying. I will wait for the riots to become a little old. Thanks. Imaginie (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or climb to extended-confirmed level lol. Imaginie (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, be mindful of WP:PGAME if you take that route. People have been blocked and have had permissions lifted for doing a whole bunch of random edits to get to autoconfirmed or EC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well there goes the plan of fiddling with the user page, hahaha. Imaginie (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’m sorry for asking you about this, but I was asking if you could put a protection back on for the article Fush Yu Mang. There has been an IP address (operating under the beginning numbers 89.205) that has been disruptively editing the track listing section on a consistent basis. I was hoping maybe putting protection on them would help stop these edits, or at the very least, block the address that’s causing them. Valddlac (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took some time to respond … when you posted I was en route to Singapore to attend Wikimania. Due to some technical issues, I was unable to edit until recently.

I decided after reviewing the history to block 89.205.128.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) from the article for three months. There are other users on the range editing productively, so it wouldn’t be fair to them to block them all sitewide.

(This was actually an interesting challenge here since I am editing on a tablet where it’s not easy to open up another tab to calculate the range. I had to write the IPs down on paper to do that! Daniel Case (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 23: WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce
You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for our WikiWednesday Salon, with in-person at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, as well as an online-based participation option. No experience of anything at all is required. All are welcome! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct. In addition, to participate in person, you should be vaccinated and also be sure to respect others' personal space, and we may limit overall attendance size if appropriate. Wednesday, August 23 WikiWednesday @ Prime Produce (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
August 27: Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island
Additionally, you are invited to the picnic anyone can edit on Governors Island, at Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house, as part of the Great North American Wiknic celebrations (and Wikimania satellite events) being held across the continent. This is the first big summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused on Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia (recently of perpetual stew fame), as well as plenty more food topics drawing on the potluck ethos. All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 27, 2023 Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island (RSVP on-wiki). 2:00 pm – 7:00 pm (come by any time!) Wiknic Discussion Groups: 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm (session A); 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm (session B) Picnic site: Governors Island, 406b Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house. Reach the island by the Governors Island Ferry. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct, and don't forget your sunscreen!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[20] - found it when a pov editor complained they couldn't post to Talk:Noah's Ark because their IP is banned -it's in this range that you blocked. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm … I think this is a situation where I extended my original block on this range in response to reports of later block evasion at AIV (see the history at articles like Police ranks of the United States and Ventura County Fire Department). If I were at home right now I’d look into it more, but from Singapore there’s only so much I can do.

HankScorpio1519 seems to have a history of tangling with this sock/LTA; he may know more. Daniel Case (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he does; see the “Disruptive Editing” section higher up the page. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing because I think we've had a bit of unnecessary friction, but much more than that, there's what I believe to be an extremely serious problem regarding Post 1932 AP articles (if I have that right) regarding which I think you can be helpful. I would rather the discussion of the same be off-Wiki, but I didn't see a way to reach you by email. You can connect with me through my USER page. I know that you're probably up to your ears in Wikimania & time zone changes. I'm going to be at a convention for the next few days so there's no rush. I've posted this note here, where it's unlikely to be stumbled upon by those deeply involved in the problem. Activist (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The chronically abusive IP range 2600:1012:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 is lying here, here, and here about why they were blocked in the first instance (i.e. before the block evasion), and also when they claim that I said they should be unblocked. They definitely should not. See in particular this unblock decline by Tamzin and my comment below. In my opinion this user appears to be shaping up to be a real LTA in the making and should be given no further rope to disrupt the project. Thanks, and enjoy Wikimania! Generalrelative (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to consider revoking TPA if this keeps up. I think they are sincere in wanting to edit and be part of the community but they have shown that for now they cannot be trusted with even the most basic tools. Daniel Case (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the deception really compounds the disruption. Reasonable minds can of course disagree as to the precise definition of NOTHERE, but to my mind statements like this qualify as an almost textbook admission. As a community there are the big time sinks like this to consider, and then there's more obviously malignant stuff like this. Generalrelative (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100.16.203.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, you previously blocked this IP on 4 Aug and again on 5 Aug. I want to let you know that they have reappeared today making some of the same edits that got them blocked previously (mostly with the "we are not fish" / "we are not animals" theme). CodeTalker (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPS - Let’s try a month, then. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CodeTalker (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the renewal of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article to continue to protect vandalism attacks. Jon2guevarra (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following the review of article timeline edits of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines. Here's the following usernames that using Filipino language typos on English Wikipedia under "How do you improve the article?" section:

User:Khyan_Jewel_Cacapit

User:Goodbmi7

User:Daniel_Dunga

As pending on the timeline of History of vehicle registration plates of the Philippines article. Three users will be permanently blocked due to Filipino language typed in input on English Wikipedia article. Jon2guevarra (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the expiration of the protections on the Neocatechumenal Way page the same vandal has returned making their disruptive edits. Can you assess the situation again? Ncwfl (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

August 27: Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island

You are invited to the Annual NYC Wiknic, "the picnic anyone can edit" on Governors Island, at Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house, as part of the Great North American Wiknic celebrations (and Wikimania satellite events) being held across the continent. This is the first summer Wiknic since the 2019 edition and will feature an edit-a-thon focused Governors Island and ArtCrawl Harlem, Depths of Wikipedia and perpetual stew, as well as plenty more food. All are welcome, new and experienced! Sunday, August 27, 2023 Annual NYC Wiknic @ Governors Island (RSVP on-wiki). 2:00 pm – 7:00 pm (come by any time!) Wiknic Discussion Groups: 3:00 pm – 3:30 pm (session A); 5:00 pm – 5:30 pm (session B) Picnic site: Governors Island, 406b Colonel's Row by ArtCrawl Harlem house. Reach the island by the Governors Island Ferry. All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct, and don't forget your sunscreen!

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

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]