Please use section headers and add comments to the bottom. Thanks! — Daniel Quinlan
On WP:PIA primary articles and WP:ECR discretion
Hey. The Evyatar protection request was already archived, but I got your note via ping. So, my understanding and modus operandi is that admins don't have discretion about WP:PIAWP:ECR for non-preemptive requests (which I approach as at least one recent disruptive or otherwise contested edit by a non-WP:XC user) of primary articles. This in contradistinction to related pages, where I do feel like we have the discretion to add an expiration (recent example), or downgrade, or lift outright, anything else. Might be worth seeking clarification about this at WP:ARCA. Also ping @Nableezy: the filer of this request and a user who is more familiar with this area of arbitration policy than most admins. Thanks and best wishes, El_C02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to leave that particular article indefinitely ECP, that's fine with me. Someone can always make a request on WP:RFPU.
Regarding WP:ECR, it says the restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required. Given that it says bothpreferably and though this is not required, it seems quite intentionally discretionary and note that's for a page that mostly or entirely relates to the topic area.
Also, the next item intentionally includes page protection (even mentioning pending changes) which seems to indicate page protection is a broader option and not limited to indefinite ECP: On any page where the restriction is not enforced through extended confirmed protection, this restriction may be enforced by other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
Finally, if you look at the enforcement logs for WP:CT/A-I, semi-protection and non-indefinite terms are definitely used sometimes in circumstances when the administrator deems it appropriate. I suspect that's due to articles being less related, less disrupted, or both. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Pinging you because you're the only person who responded to my question about this case on Discord (which I asked before the request was handled). Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having just reviewed the article it looks a lot more ARBPIA primary topic than I originally assumed after reviewing the lead earlier. In general, if something isn't completely primary I go with something around 6 months to a year in hopes that the conflict will cool and the article won't see conflict related editing. In this situation, though, my initial impressions of the article were wrong. I saw the request come through while I was taking a break at work and only took a peek at the lead which led to me giving you bad advice. Sorry about that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was about to go with a year of ECP before I saw it had been handled. It's definitely in the topic area, but it's been almost free of disruption the last few years. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Quinlan, sure, protection could be supplanted with blocks and other actions according to 'preference,' but like WP:GS/RUSUKR and WP:GS/AA sanction regimes, the default of WP:ECR is indef WP:ECP. A default which (all) the respective logs reflect, though of course there are outliers. To touch on what SFR says, this page about the Israeli outpost is a primary articlepar excellence. Which unlike related content, is guaranteed to always remains so. It contains material that will remain contested and contentious for the foreseeable. El_C03:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ilia Topuria
Please semi-protect his page instead of fully protecting it. He is now the UFC Featherweight champion and those details cannot be changed. Please educate me on who made the choice to fully protect his page. Marty2Hotty (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fully protected because people were edit warring over his nationality. Right now, people are edit warring over his nationality on related articles such as List of UFC champions. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:DRN#Ilia_Topuria. Hopefully, we can lower the page protection level soon. The article has been updated now. If you would like to make any edit requests on the talk page, please make sure you include a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. That includes providing a source if necessary. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another sock of Boeing/City of London School vandals
Don't worry. You're not the only admin who's done this. A while back someone else protected Marlon Brando under BLP (I know his performances often make him seem immortal, but he has been dead for 15 years). Today I saw that in the past someone had cited BLP violations on a past protection of an article about a fictional character. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected permissions gaming at recently protected page
No worries. I probably would have used WP:ANEW for this one. If you look at the top of any of those pages, there's an index of noticeboards. For issues with disruptive users, look under the User conduct section. If there are multiple issues or it's especially urgent, WP:ANI is usually a reasonable choice. For spam and vandalism, use WP:AIV. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goodies (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher.
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
Hi there, could you take a look at Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick and perhaps re-introduce protections (if necessary)? It seems like the paid editors are back on there to reintroduce the same edits made by the sockmaster "Anne Barrington". I'm not entirely sure if they are *exactly* the same people from the SPI, as it is also possible that the individual themselves has engaged and paid other individuals that may or may not be "Anne Barrington". I've nevertheless made a report. Thank you. John Yunshire (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have been contacting editors with experience in specific areas of editing to participate in a survey study. In order to limit access without forcing editors to disclose their identity in the survey form itself, I have been contacting them via email, which you have disabled for your account. If you would like to participate, please send me an email through Wikipedia and I will follow up with additional details and a link to the survey. Jonathan Engel (researcher) (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjones23: Thanks. I did see that discussion which seems to have been somewhat productive and suggests that the new editor has something positive to contribute. I also want to emphasize that the guideline is not just about being welcoming, it's about educating newcomers through constructive feedback in edit summaries and talk pages. When newcomers' edits are reverted in a bitey way, instead of it being a learning experience, it often leads to edit wars. If you feel the need to apologize, perhaps offering one to the editor on the article talk page would be appreciated. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Back in January, you blocked 2603:8000:2A00:3EE6:0:0:0:0/64. The same editor is back, engaging in the same pattern of edit warring and adding unsourced content. Given their history and some rather nasty personal attacks against me in the past, I'm inclined to request an extended vacation approaching three months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nodding off now, so ANEW will have to wait a few hours. If you have a chance to take a peek before I get around to it, let me know. Otherwise, thanks for the heads up. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you already got a free trial of what dealing with that editor is like[1], also just saw this happened[2], apologies to everyone for all that (even though I'm not the main culprit). Pob3qu3 (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I’d let you know this editor has gone back to their old ways at the topic they were blocked for edit warring as soon as the block expired. Don’t know if you want to take another look? Equine-man (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing things briefly, the edits from 82.211.205.45(talk· contribs · IP contribs ·WHOIS) that FlyJet777 is reverting look a little more like vandalism (i.e., removing candidates) than the edits in the previous content dispute. They could certainly be cautioned about their edit summaries being inadequate. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Equine-man I am just re-adding names of candidates that were previously removed by the IP address @Daniel Quinlan mentioned. So what wrong am I doing here? That was clearly vandalism and I reverted it. Precisely the reason I wrote "Rv vandalism" in the edit summaries. FlyJet777 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FlyJet777: You don't need to ping people on their own talk page.
Only 37% of your edits have an edit summary which is rather low and when you do include an edit summary, it's often the default summary or minimal. If you're reverting vandalism such as this edit, please realize it's not going to be obvious vandalism to anyone unfamiliar with this election. Reversion of subtle vandalism is better explained with more than just "Rv vandalism". And if it truly is vandalism, you should also be warning the editor on their talk page (eventually reporting them to WP:AIV), not just reverting the change.
It also seems like you are using the minor edit flag on some edits that should not be marked as minor: A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of the content should be flagged as minor edits.. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering if you could explain the reasoning for protecting the page under the Armenia-Azerbaijan contentious topic, as it prevents new users like myself from making edits to the article. Also, the protection duration is indefinite, was wondering if you could also provide reasoning for that.
Thanks UnknownHye (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UnknownHye:WP:GS/AA encourages administrators to use extended confirmed protection. I used an indefinite duration because the article had a significant history of reverted edits. After reviewing the article history, I have reduced the protection level to semi-protection. We may need to restore ECP if the article experiences significant issues at the new protection level. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gazette protection reduction
Hi, I'd like to request a reduction in the level of protection you implemented at The Gazette (band). It definitely needs some protection, but the problem edits all came from IPs and one brand new editor. I suggest semi-protection cause it'd be nice to tidy it up a bit, like adding a secondary source for the death instead of just a primary one, and clean up stuff like the WP:SELFREDs and large amount of all caps. The article is getting a lot of views now, and I feel that last one in particular makes Wiki look bad. lol Xfansd (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xfansd: I would like to lower the protection level, but it doesn't seem like sufficient headway has been made on the talk page towards resolving the content dispute that resulted in edit warring or at least explaining the relevant WP:MOS or policies to everyone clamoring for the change. If the band has indeed said something to the effect of the deceased band member being "eternal" then perhaps a consensus can be reached by mentioning it in the text of the article while keeping the infobox accurate. (If no such statement has been made then it's more of an exercise in explaining our policies and guidelines, linking the appropriate pages and sections, etc. And we could consider semi-protection based on unsourced changes.)
Hi, was about to message you to actually prolong the protection. Some fans already announced on Twitter that they would immediately change it again once the protection is over. They also don't seem like people one can talk reasonably to, insulting me as a POS, among other things: https://twitter.com/RUKICORE/status/1780610614164947395/photo/1 - so I'm afraid once the protection is gone, the page will simply just be vandalized again. Seelentau (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer to the WP:ELEVAR essay here. I definitely share some of those misgivings, which was why I labelled my replacement suggestions as only "near-synonyms". Nice work finding better ways to the same end!
Just for the record, the essay doesn't really touch on parts of speech other than nouns - or even on common nouns, after the very first illustration of the idea in the lede. Maybe it ought to be broadened, though? Or maybe not; the elegant variation article has somewhat similarly narrow scope, and directly addresses that point as well, so maybe other sorts of variation would not fit well under this umbrella?
Overdoing variation can be a problem with verbs too. It's also important to avoid inadvertently changing the meaning away from what sources state. My general approach is to look for opportunities to consolidate repeated information as suggested in WP:ELEVAR and to take cues from reliable sources. Those two approaches usually provide enough variation to alleviate the worst cases of overly repetitive text. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last edits to the Mexica are inaccurate. Not only are the dates wrong but the Mexica people are an existent ethnic group in Mexico today. The edit makes it seem like they no longer exist, which isn’t true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF01:6AAD:78CA:676A:E1F7:A756 (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
Thanks for reviewing my RPP request. Saw your recent comment suggesting to warn the user, but since this IP is rapidly changing (sometimes multiple times per day), it is doubtful they are seeing them. Nevertheless, they've been warned here, here, and now here in addition to your warning. I will continue to carry it out until we reach the final level. The IP range appears to be a wireless mobile carrier, however, so page protection might be preferred over blocking the IP range should we reach that stage. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoneIn60: I think that's enough warnings. It may help to discuss the disagreement on the article talk page where they seem to have engaged previously. An inline comment in the article is sometimes helpful as well. If they continue, I would recommend reporting 2600:1009:b100::/40(talk· contribs · IP contribs ·WHOIS) to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. In cases where a disruption is from a single editor, page protection is generally not the first step as discussed in WP:PREEMPTIVE. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fulfulde Wikipedia
okay is good I understand I talked with fulfulde Wikipedia community okay added me to English wikipedia editors group thank you so much here my WhatsApp number (Redacted)Adamu ab (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page was "permanently" semiprotected quite some years ago. It seems that someone decided to unprotect it, and the persistent troll is still at it. You should reimpose semi status not for a couple of months but for much, much longer. Like maybe another 10 years. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Baseball Bugs: When the article was unprotected, it did go six months without being disrupted again so it seemed appropriate to try a non-indefinite duration. If the same disruption resumes when protection expires, feel free to let me know and I'll strongly consider a longer duration (or make a request on WP:RFPP with these details). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also asked the guy who unprotected it a couple of years ago, to look into it. Evidently the troll wasn't checking it on a daily basis, but once he found out, he's been activated, so to speak. Like "releasing the kraken." I think there were some related articles that also required protection, but I don't recall just now what they were. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we can't predict whether a disruptive editor will return and never unprotecting any indefinitely protected article would be a worse option. Pioneer Courthouse Square and Pioneer Square, Seattle seem like the primary targets. It's probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pioneercourthouse who has a history of vandalizing the articles when they're semi-protected so ECP would be my inclination if they return. Anyhow, it's no big deal to reprotect them for a longer duration, possibly indefinitely, if and when it's needed. Regards. @HJ Mitchell: Pinging you as a courtesy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can predict it, in this case. It was needed 18 years ago, and it still is. Keep in mind that the mere fact we have to talk about this is feeding that troll. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the hard work on WP:RPP. Sorry I did not list every article to protect this time around. I appreciate your willingness to revdel as well, I know that it is a tedious task. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.06:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rare
Although a word may have a rare spelling that doesn't mean it can't be in the article. That goes for the definition. Regarding the lead (lede) information presented there is not required to only be there. Delectable1 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking people probably don't realize that you are an admin. Anyway, not necessarily wanting to get into a discussion with you but maybe a little back-and-forth would be fine. Assuming that you and I thoroughly know the Wikipedia guidelines or almost at least, I would say you and I could agree on adding some of the content (even without the rare spelling).Delectable1 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just an editor like anyone else on that article, not performing administrative actions. I think the definition in the lead section is probably sufficient, but the article would likely benefit from further discussion on the origination and rising usage of the term, provided we can find solid sources to support a new section of the article. And that might be a good place to further discuss the definition if there's more to be said than what's in the lead. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reported The Looney Tunes Show for page protection a while ago, which you granted. Unfortunately the slow "edit war" continues even after protection. I am starting to suspect there are some sockpuppets as well, but I not enough to go to SPI. I am not sure if this goes to the ANEW, AN, ANI, or DRN? Any thoughts? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.04:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an edit war, you could report it to ANEW, but I would start by identifying the parties involved and issuing them an edit warring warning. If one or more people continue edit warring after being warned, then proceed to ANEW following the guidance for reporting issues there. You could also try to start a discussion on the talk page to air out the disagreements involved and see if consensus is possible. Finally, you could request full page protection on WP:RFPP, but I would recommend including specific examples to illustrate repeated edits, etc. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet Investigation
Dear @Daniel Quinlan
I filed a sockpuppet investigation, for a user that you banned last week. Person uses other ip ranges and continue its edits. I would be happy if you review it.
Thank you.
Another IP from Romania has taken up the refspamming. I don't know if any action needs to be taken, but it seemed worth making a note of. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm part of part of couple of months long going dispute and preparation for RfC at Jinn, (starting around here). At the suggestion of Bookku (here), I was wondering if you could take a look at this post by VenusFeuerFalle and see if you find it in breach of WP:DR spirit of WP:AGF as Bookku (our informal dispute facilitator) and myself do.
(I'm having trouble finding an admin to do this and found your name on WP:LA, so I hope this is not too far out of your comfort zone.)
Example:
I am willing to give the involved users one last chance, to make one clear suggestion, I want to respond one last time. Then we can go step by step over to the other ones. If it fails, I will not reply to that anymore, and then either the edits meet the Wiki-Criteria or they don't. If they do not meet them, they will be reverted, no matter of you understand the reason or not. Because, I just feel my time being wasted. If the users again derail the discussions, I will report Eagle and let an admin check on all involved users for canvassing, harrassment, and potential sockpuppetry.
Hello wikipedia adminstrator, regarding Masoud Pezeshkian article
it is good that the article is protected now, but before it was protected the ethnic background of mr pezeshkian was edited and now part of it is removed. please revert it to the previous version inwhich it states both of his paternal ethnic background. please check the last versions of the article historic before it was protected. i hope you revert it and add the correct information again which was sourced well. thanks--Hedayts (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That page is the only place that IPs are supposed to report false positive edit filter hits. I understand that there has been disruption recently, but we generally don't protect the page due to disruption—indeed, disruption occurs on the page almost every day. And, when we do block, it's usually for extremely short periods of time (such as mere hours), and only when absolutely necessary. I understand that this particular master enjoys hitting the page repeatedly, but would you please lift the protection (or at least shorten the length)?
"Ali and his four siblings grew up in the Toronto district of Lawrence Heights — “The Jungle,” the locals call it, a neighbourhood fraught with gun violence and drive-bys — after their parents, mom Muna and dad Afendi, emigrated from Ethiopia’s Oromo region in the late 1980s."
Hi, can I ask you (or any tps) to take a look at the recent changes to the above? I came across this as someone was editing elsewhere to try and include this person. It was a refirect to a London music publisher. This looks like a hijack to me? Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Daniel, is there a chance the Economy of England could be unprotected or have a protection decrease? I'd love to edit it and improve it, and have some content to add with sources, but sadly nobody can. 2A0A:EF40:EDE:B201:4824:E15F:48BC:7448 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the current page protection level is appropriate and necessary due to severe sockpuppetry issues on the article. You can always make an edit request on the talk page to request a specific change. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A private edit filter had prevented me from responding to the other Daniel's comment. Can you please allow it?197.0.60.67 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email request because of suggestions to a private filter
I am requesting that you should email me because I have some sensitive regex/condition suggestions to add to private filter 1290 (hist · log) (in which it's better not to discuss this type of sensitive material here, and because you don't have email enabled), thank you. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk01:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Report of Potential Scam and Misleading Information on Intermedia (company) Page
I am writing to bring to your attention a serious issue with the Wikipedia article Intermedia (company). My Father received an email claiming to be from intermedia and offered my father to turn his book into film. They claim that they produced The Aviator and The Terminator among others-- which is an obvious blatant lie. The email contains a link to Intermedia wikipage and upon checking, it appears that the user Apon4971 has made edits to the article, including adding a website link that is being used to scam people. The link makes it seem as though the site is affiliated with a legitimate company, which it is not. The REAL intermedia is already defunct for more than 20yrs
Problematic Edit: Insertion of a website link purported to be associated with Intermedia but used for scamming. Upon researching they scammed authors by offering them to turn their book into film and asking authors for money to kickstart the process.
Rationale for Reporting: The inclusion of this website link misleads readers into believing it is an official and legitimate resource, potentially causing harm to individuals who may fall victim to the scam. This action violates Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliability of sources, and it undermines the credibility of the encyclopedia.
Request for Action:
Review the Edits: Please review the recent changes made by Apon4971 to verify the insertion of the fraudulent website link.
Remove the Scam Link: If confirmed, kindly remove the misleading website link from the article.
Investigate the User: Consider investigating the editing patterns of Apon4971 for any further malicious activity and take appropriate action if necessary and possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your efforts in maintaining the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia.
Do you think you could protect the Harrison Butker page again, as you did two months ago? It is being repeatedly POV edited, bordering on vandalism. Multiple anonymous or very new editors are disruptively editing the page and have had to be corrected over and over. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did that as well, but it appeared that it takes a while. I thought I would ask you as well, since you protected it last time. If you're only supposed to request it on that page, I'll make sure do so in the future. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TanRabbitry: It just tends to work better that way because administrators have varying amounts of time to handle requests. In this particular case, I did happen to take a look at the article earlier, but I was concerned it looked like a possible content dispute and I didn't have a lot of extra time earlier to investigate further. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2028 Winter Youth Olympics needs to be protected for a long time
Hi @Daniel Quinlan. The article List of Telugu Films of 2024 was semi-protected indefinitely due to edit warring like behaviour from IPs. Considering the previous years articles of List of Telugu Films, it can be observed that IPs have made significant contributions. So if possible, requesting unprotection or reduction in semi-protection level period to 1 January 2025, giving chance to new potential editors. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer: Thanks for raising this, I don't think it's a good idea to change the duration. Based on the edit history before protection and the issues with similar articles, I believe indefinite protection is appropriate. The 2023 article also had a large number of reverted edits well into 2024. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three pages that have been vandalised, including removal of sourced information and the insertion of contentious information, with edit warring. The worst affected is Afro-Jamaicans.
The user is ignoring polite requests not to edit war and to engage in WP:BRD or other consensus-building processes, yet keeps reverting any editors who try to get involved. Lewisguile (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Daniel. I appreciate your haste and helpfulness with this.
Since this morning, I have discovered that the same user (possibly using multiple IPs) has been making similar edits to a whole range of Caribbean-related articles, nearly always inserting Coromantee Creoles into them, and blanking out/removing huge chunks of text in several cases. The user appears to be a WP:SPA with a particular agenda.
Although I have no idea what you did there, I still thanked you. Thanks for cleaning it up. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. Fully locking the article to allow time for discussion still seems appropriate to me. There hasn't been any discussion on the article's talk page about the content dispute at this point. I think bringing in dispute resolution help may also be necessary, but the talk page is the place to start. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just browsing around RM and happened to notice that the one currently open at New York City Police Department is move-protected, yet the article has no semi-protection. I noticed that you were the protecting admin at the original request here which only mentioned 2-day semi-protection, so I wasn't sure if perhaps the move protection was added in error? estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi estar8806. Most edit semi-protections preserve any prior move protection settings and that's also the sensible default for Twinkle. If you look at the page protection history for the article, you'll see it's been consistently move protected for a long time due to page move vandalism. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your BRFA
I will ask here as it maybe strays off-topic for the Bot policy talk:
It does sound like, reading your comments, that you felt a bad experience going through BRFA? If I'm right in thinking you thought your BRFA to be unpleasant: is it more the source code requirement that put(s) you off, or that you felt your BRFA was being derailed with the "source code of bots" discussion? Or something else? I ask because we do want to make BRFA a pleasant experience to encourage botops.
I suppose in addition, I'm also confused by However, I believe it's fair to say that some of the additional requirements that have been discussed would have likely deterred me from submitting a BRFA. because everything you did in your BRFA would easily satisfy any new requirements that have been mooted recently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Darth Vader was semi-protected indefinitely. I previously requested it for the same reason. It was semi-protected indefinitely in 2011 and it didn’t work. That’s enough! 2603:8080:D03:89D4:24B3:323B:92D5:B580 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection is reserved for exceptional cases that can't be managed otherwise. While it may seem like administrators frequently protect pages, it's a tiny number of actions compared to the total number of pages, and we deny many requests. It's a mistake to view page protection as the only solution for disruption. Wikipedia tries very hard to address disruption through registered users watchlisting pages, experienced editors giving newcomers feedback (and warnings if necessary), partial and full blocks, and many other methods. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khmer people
I had made the report on the “Khmer people” page (I wasn’t logged in) when User:Kromla vandalized the page. Then I noticed the page was semi-protected at the request of Kromla, which I agree it should be, but also the user seemed to do so to prevent the restoration of the page and continue their pro-Thai rhetoric (which is a violation since the page should support non-biased information). Yesterday, I fortunately was able to restore the Khmer people page to the form it was before Kromla’s vandalization. However, a Wikipedian professional restorer unintentionally reverted it back to its vandalized form under Kromla. I did submit a topic to his talk page to tell him what he did. Just in case, can you let him know that he reverted the page back to its vandalized form and request to restore it back to its original form before Kromla’s vandalization so there isn’t any misunderstanding? I really appreciate it! Mojomaaa123543 (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and will do so. I’m not expecting you to fully understand, but there is a lot of discourse between Khmer and Thai people solely due to how similar our cultures are. So it’s really disheartening not just to me, but the Khmer community in general when we see pro-Thai rhetoric, which had occurred on the Khmer people Wikipedia page, in an attempt to erase and severely manipulate Khmer history, especially since I believe strongly in co-existence. I will still try to use the article talk page, but if there’s a pro-Thai vandal on the page, it is highly likely there would just be an argument about Khmer and Thai history rather than fixing the situation which could ultimately lead to a similar situation as now. I just want to clarify things for the future, but I will take your suggestions as you would know best. Thank you. Mojomaaa123543 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with KH-1
Hi I have a issue with @KH-1.
He has reverted a edit I made on Postage Paid and has not given a reason for it.
He also tagged me with Vandalism in addition of Reference Spam.
I have requested some Admins to check this out at Wikipedia:Help desk.
But you have confronted this user before on Edit Warring, so I thought you should check it out too.
I do understand that I am a new user, but I am wanting to get other people to check this for the below reasons.
This user has a history of mass reverting other peoples edits.
This user has not given a reason for his/her reverts.
All of there recent edits are reverts.
This user has been contacted multiple times for the reverts they did.
Hey it is me again. So you seem to know a lot. So I saw wondering if you could give me some pointers.
And please don't tell me to go through the Tutorial, I have been told to go there lots of times.
I am not wanting to push any buttons (get it?). But anything you suggest I will read if I have not already.
Don't worry I have not edited to much either, most of the edits were references, and removing old tags that did not apply anymore.
Thank you! User PageTalk Contributions 04:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perennial sources if you are wondering about a specific source. If it's listed and green, use it. If it's yellow, try to find something better. If it's red, don't use it. And if it's not listed, consider asking on WP:RSN or just find a better source.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
I saw your message on my Talk page about my most recent edit on List of Wikipedias. I believe that this edit was done in error, because as I'm scrolling through the list of Wikipedias on the article, none of them have sources for the date that they started listed next to the start dates. However, the source for such information is linked on the article itself, and the same is true for smaller Wikipedia websites mentioned that have their own articles. Before redoing the edit, I will wait for your next message on the topic. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surayeproject3: The archived meta page that is linked as a source only seems to include dates for some closures and deletions. Unless I have missed a link somewhere that includes a creation date for Neo-Aramaic Wikipedia, other dates being unsourced is not an valid reason to add more unsourced dates. As stated in Verifiability: Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Several of the dates are sourced elsewhere in the article, but I would support removing all of the other dates that have no source in the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
There is no global user group that has sysop in it and the global sysop permission is not activated here, so I have an idea: replace it with just !("steward" in global_user_groups), and do we need the filter to only prevent edits to unauthorized users, or to also block moves without the filter having action == "edit"?
On WP:CT/IPA, it is indicated as Any uninvolved administrator may impose the standard set of restrictions in this topic area for up to one year. However on Asian News International, you have set the duration to indefinite. Should the duration be revised to one year, and then renew yearly if need be? – robertsky (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-protection
Greetings,
I was wondering how you protected the Snow Patrol page as extended-protection. I would like you to explain how you did this because I am thinking of protecting the San Francisco and San Diego pages like that as well. The reason why I am thinking of doing this is because the two articles are important as they are about major cities and could have vandalism at any time. Please let me know how you protected the Snow Patrol page as extended-protection so that I can do this for the San Francisco and San Diego pages.
@Hikingboii: The short version is that we don't protect pages preemptively (which is what could have vandalism at any time sounds like). Snow Patrol was experiencing a prolonged significant problem with sockpuppetry and disruptive edits when it was protected. In the past two weeks, I only see one clear vandalism edit on San Francisco and perhaps two on San Diego, which is not enough to justify page protection and that's why your requests were declined. You can read more about how page protection works at WP:PP.
Hi Daniel. Thanks for blocking Masquewand. They have since posted what seems like a pretty extreme threat on their talk page (diff), which I have reverted. I think this merits bumping it up to an indef with TPA revoked. Can you do that, or should I take it to ANI? --DanielRigal (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielRigal: Thanks for the heads-up. That edit is definitely a major civility violation, but it seems more like an attempt to blame future violence on other editors if they don't get their way. WP:ANI or WP:AE are reasonable options or we can see how they behave going forward.
By the way, when you're giving warnings to people, I'd recommend trying to focus on potential consequences (like most user warning templates) without sounding like you're making a threat. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given sources says its gokturk victory unlock the page
Nomadism in Iran: From Antiquity to the Modern Era, D. T. Potts, page 154; "Xosrow appointed the Armenian general Smbat bagratuni marzban (“warden of the marches”) of Vrkan (Hyrcania, ... the invaders “sent out raids and made incursions as far as the borders of Reyy and of the province of Ispahan."
Pourshariati, Parvaneh (2008). Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran, p. 139; "At this point the Kushans asked for Turkish aid and a great force of 300,000 [!] answered the call and crossed the Oxus. A raiding party besieged the walled village...[..]..The Turkish army then moved westwards and got "as far as the borders of Reyy and of the province of Ispahan," and after plundering the region, returned to its camp."
Military History of Late Rome 602-641, Ilkka Syvanne, page 128; "The forces that Smbat had left were to small to offer much resistance so the Turks were able to raid as far as Rayy and the province of Ispahan/Isfahan before they withdrew to the other side of the Oxus."
Robert Haug, The Eastern Frontier: Limits of Empire in Late Antique and Early Medieval Central Asia; "In a situation where the Turks were available to provide support, perhaps they could push the raids further(it is only after the Turks join the Hephthalites and defeated Smbat that they travelled as far as Rayy and Isfahan).." ArxhentiVirzi (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daniel Quinlan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just got a email from Andy of the NFL COI case. I am unable to read the full email, but it did say that the editor asked why I was reverting his edits to his attorney. How do I read the email and put its contents into the proper noticeboard entry? DACartman (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You blocked this range: Special:Contributions/103.38.13.0/25. It's not a behaior with which I'm familiar, so I don't know the master. But Special:Contributions/103.38.12.0/24 looks to be the same behavior. Should this become a unified /23 block? DMacks (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 01:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC). 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.
I would appreciate it if you could advise me on how to handle the discussion. I am wanting to handle this properly. If you think that I should just remove myself from the topic that is fine as well. I am trying to learn the different rules and regulations of WP, but decided that I would need the advise of someone that has been doing this longer than me. Looking at you talk page you seem to be well respected and level-headed towards new users. I have found that a lot of the older users don't like new users or don't take them seriously/don't respond to them when they ask questions about their actions. User PageTalk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheriff U3: It's good that you're trying to handle this in a civil way using the talk page. If the talk page discussion is stressing you out, stepping back from the discussion is always an option. You might consider focusing on your specific concerns in the article instead of pushing for the tag, especially if there isn't a solid consensus to add the tag. Posting a brief notice about the discussion at WP:NPOVN could be another way to get more input. I think you may be hard pressed to get uninvolved editors to support adding a tag without a better summary on the talk page about your concerns, though. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input! I will the noticeboard first, but I think you are right about needing to get a better summary for why it is needed. Thanks for answering so quick! User PageTalk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fatima Sheikh
It was me who (1) requested for protection at RfPP, (2) edited out the infobox and all unsourced content, (3) removed misrepresentations of sources, and (4) added a historical photograph. So, please restore this version. Thanks! Upd Edit (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Upd Edit: I think it would be best if you made specific individual edit requests on the talk page. The changes you made need more explanation given how significant the changes were. Adding the photograph definitely needs to be discussed further on the talk page too. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have restored unsourced content such as the first paragraph in the Biography section (a third of the current content), the DOB, and the DOD. Additionally, Tschurenev (2019) does not support She taught at all five schools that the Phules went on to establish and she taught children of all religions and castes. Sheikh took part in the founding of two schools in Mumbai (Then Bombay) in 1851. So, please revert yourself. Someone has already re-added the photograph. Upd Edit (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Servite et contribuere: It may become necessary, but the most recent disruption was from a single IP address that was blocked. If the disruption resumes soon after protection expires or if it escalates, please feel free to submit a new protection request that mentions how long the disruptive edits have been an issue. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I was hoping maybe I could ask something about the page, specifically the mentions of the tragedies of Palisades and Eaton. The article mentions that they’re the fourth and second worst fires “respectively”, marking Palisades as 4th and Eaton as 2nd. I’m genuinely unsure if this is inaccurate info as the CalFire website shows that the Palisades fire is much bigger and has caused more damage than the Eaton fire or if I’ve just missed some info along the way? If I have missed info, I’ll happily look for it. Also, the page says that the Sepulveda, Clay, and Gibbel fires are still active in the second paragraph when those three have been contained, however the list of wildfires contradicts this as the list currently shows Sepulveda and Clay as contained (Gibbel was marked fully contained as of Jan 24th at 12 a.m, so I can understand how that hadn’t been updated as it’s fairly recent information posted to the CalFire website as of Jan 25th at around 8 in the morning). As well, on the list of wildfires, the Cantu fire that started on the 9th is listed between the Lidia and Sunset fires that started on the 8th. I’d add these myself but I’m finding difficulty with the permissions to edit due to *certain people* continuously vandalizing the page per the page protection history :,) Gh0ulish Fox (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove the protection of this page because of the third Anglo-Afghan war because I saw something wrong and I would like to edit it to fix it . So can you remove the protection let me fix the mistake and then put it again indefinitely . Of course I will explain the mistake later if you want to Panekasos (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me fix the result because I have sources that say the third Anglo-Afghan war was a strategic victory for the British and a diplomatic for afghans please let me change it and then you can put back the protection Panekasos (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put as specific date to the protection and remove the indefinite because you put this and it can't be removed from a random admin but a specific so can you put a specific date on the protection to end sometime in the future? Panekasos (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daniel. Thx for your research re name Fischer Random Chess (although I'm sort of "hands off" that article anymore). Do you mind if I have a little discussion w/ you re my concerns re Capablanca chess versus Capablanca Chess, and Alice chess versus Alice Chess. They once had those former proper noun titles, long-standing, and am sure RSs support same, and, I don't see any diff between those titles and the Fischer title, but I refuse to argue or Wiki-lawyer w/ editors over what seems obvious (editing s/b enjoyable and I don't see fighting beyond adding my views to Talk discussions as enjoyable, e.g. see Talk re dispute re article title Nimzowitsch–Larsen Attack where I actually quit WP permanently after contributing there after an improper non-admin close, and had no ambition to open an appeal; other editors thankfully came in sometime later to correct the title, which surprised & pleased since I'd believed there's no interest in ndash vs. hyphen. :) Ditto uppercase versus lower for variant articles. Thing is, for Capablanca & Alice, I lack the know-how & tools but mostly the motivation to research enough RSs to build arguments for competing w/ the gang of editors who decided variant names must be lc out of what seemed like a hyper demand for broad WP consistency. As a result I feel there're several improperly changed titles, but Capablanca & Alice are the ones that irk me enough to say anything, but to whom when am allergic to Talk fights? That said, w/ you be able to help? I don't mean to task you. I care but probably not beyond asking someone for help who seems to also care, especially an admin. ;) Thx for your understanding & consider. --IHTS (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ihardlythinkso. I don't have a strong opinion about the naming of those articles. The best place to raise this is the respective article talk pages. I'd suggest focusing on relevant policies and guidelines, assuming they support your view, rather than revisiting whether past renames were improper. Just a heads-up: article naming debates can sometimes get contentious, so it may not be the best place to spend a lot of time if these discussions have been stressful for you before. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks anyway. p.s. They aren't stessful, they're distasteful, and a waste of time & attention. (I have better things to do w/ my life.) --IHTS (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Largest Indian Cities
Using names at the time of census is a very good point. But I decided to an avoid a redirect nonetheless. I might just add a note in saying that is now Bengaluru (Or the other way round), it would be good if you helped me. If you do do it, just the order you think is best Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel Quinlan, Sorry for the late reply. I was up very early, and I have been somewhat tired all day here in Australian Eastern Standard Time Zone. I suggest changing the name on it to Bengaluru, but if you do it is very crucial to also leave a note like:
@Tahomaru: The policy at WP:PREFER allows discretion between the current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version. As those are the same with regard to the disputed content, it seemed appropriate to protect the current version of the article. If there is consensus for a change, someone could make an edit request on the talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking news needs to be added, but page is locked/ protected. Plz help. Here is said news item "
"Judge Chutkan rejects call from Democratic AGs for temporary restraining order blocking DOGE’s access to federal data," By Devan Cole and Tierney Sneed, CNN, Updated 9:56 PM EST, Tue February 18, 2025
Hello, you have protected the page for Bhojpuri language.
I will request you to unprotect it. Recent changes made by user without discussing on the page for which there was conflict. Since user is an extended user, he edited it. Adrikshit (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made edit request but no reply by editors. I will request you to add that information. I have already shared resources in the article talk page. Adrikshit (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know waiting can be frustrating, but responses take time, so you need to be a lot more patient. It can also help if you are a bit more specific about reliable sources that support the change by adding page numbers, quotes, or both. Also, just for clarity, your post wasn't actually an edit request. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Dabney Coleman
On 24 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dabney Coleman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 9 to 5 actor Dabney Coleman flew to New York City to pursue acting the day after an actor stopped by for a drink? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dabney Coleman. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dabney Coleman), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, I hope you are well. I wanted to ask for your opinions around Rotten Tomatoes as I am struggling to understand the wording. I know that it suggests that it should not be used for biographical information (e.g. DOB), but I am a bit confused if it is okay for credits; such as if it was used as an actor to show that x appeared as y in z movie. I ask as I have seen it used in BLPs before and was under the assumption it was okay for credits but was told by another editor that it is not, so I wanted to check. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: It's not considered a reliable source for credits. The cast and crew data, or other film and television data part of WP:ROTTENTOMATOES hopefully makes that clear. If you see it used that way in an article, the source should generally be replaced with a better source, the citation should be tagged with {{better source needed}}, or the information should be removed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 02:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC). 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.
For putting an end to the seemingly endless vandalism at Carter Vail. You have no idea how much I appreciate the action you took, I really had no idea how much longer that was going to go on for. Seriously, thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daniel Quinlan, I saw that you added semi-protection status to the Sanjay Govil page. I am hoping to make a few small edits to the page to update it for timeliness. As Sanjay Govil is the owner of Washington Freedom (cricket), there is interest surrounding updates with the team, so I do believe that making a few edits to the page might be justified. I'm hoping we might be able to work together on this to downgrade the protection level on the page. Thank you for your consideration, I greatly appreciate any help you can give! Lauren at L Strategies (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow it's crazy to see the actual artist notice the WP page you created, but also it getting ECP locked is kinda funny lmfao. Thanks for your help! wizzito | say hello!11:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some python code that seems to be working pretty well (based on the tests I did in my sandbox). What kind of annoys me though is that the bot in its current state probably won't stumble upon an article with these incorrect date formats very often. This is because right now it just uses a random page generator to find what articles it checks.
If you have any solutions that could make the bot more efficient in this way (maybe this is where we use an abuse filter??), I'm open to any ideas. The code is here.
Thanks for the fullprot ... I doubt this will bring them to talk, though.
(I may well take this to AN/I; it appears that this isn't the only time they've done this, and the account looks a little, uh, interesting. Created in January 2024 but they didn't start editing until December). Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Sorry about not using ECP. If there was more than one person reverting these edits, it would be easier to consider some other options besides full protection. Anyhow, there's an opportunity for discussion now. It might be worth reaching out on the talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've encountered this very weird, disruptive IP. I've put some very long blocks on some of their other addresses but not managed to pin down a range. It's not so much the edits themselves which are quite often harmless, sometimes wrong, but always unsourced; but the edit summaries that are disruptive. What you've seen is pretty normal for them. While they keep it short, I've let it go but when we start getting the "... based on (long list)" then that's when my patience goes out the window.
They seem to be branching out, until now it's been a fixation with cBBC programmes and characters, sport is new for them, so unless you want a very long watch list, it'll be deal with them when encountered. Nthep (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IP range that you previously partially blocked from page protections should probably now be blocked completely
I see that you partially blocked this IP range from making page protection requests in November 2024. This IP range has now delved into an increasing amount of vandalism (ex: here, here) over the past month or so. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Unfortunately, a /40 block is so broad that it's often only practical for specific pages unless the overall proportion of disruptive editing is much worse than this. Looking at the last 100 edits from the range, I don't think it's at the point where we should block it outright. If it gets significantly worse, you could try reporting it to WP:ANI. Page protection may also be an option if there are specific pages being targeted repeatedly. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. 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.
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. 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.
@Jooe2023: First, you need to have a discussion with the other editor. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the article talk page explaining your edits. You can also leave a message on their user talk page(s) pointing them at the article talk page discussion. Insulting them in your edit summaries (like you are very weak in data and ethic) is bitey and not in keeping with civility standards here. It would also be helpful if you started using edit summaries more consistently to explain your edits. Finally, you're both edit warring which is not productive and may result in a block. As a result of the edit warring, the article has been fully protected for a week. Please use this time to resolve your disagreement. If you're unable to resolve it, please seek out dispute resolution help. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stale time
Regarding this, one edit and a few filter hits over three minutes with nothing before is pretty stale by my reckoning. The vandalism didn't look particularly egregious, no BLP, no racism or other isms. It's a judgement call, and if the vandalism had been different I likely would have blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This user's behavior is just destructive. After a week, he didn't have a single line of interaction and immediately started to sabotage after a week. Please lock both articles and block the IP.
By the way, this is very clear and simple. We are not going to ask permission from an IP troll to add a simple number or make a minor correction. Closing the article for a week and asking for interaction was also wrong. He simply intends to continue his wrongdoings and feels ownership over the articles.
By the way, I think one or two accounts from this article are associated with this IP.
@Jooe2023: At this point, I'd prefer that another administrator take a look. Given the continued edit warring, it may be best to report the matter at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI (please just use one noticeboard at most and follow the guidelines at the top). Also, please remember to sign your comments in the future, and there's no need to use full URLs when linking to Wikipedia pages (see Help:Link for more information). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Asking himself to report himself for his y, what himself is assuming ownership of the article. That's why he left the comments on the talk page. He just wanted his contributions to stick. --116.87.80.136 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, I blocked Falguni98 after you declined the AIV report so I thought I'd let you know why as a courtesy. First, I'm deeply suspicious of any account whose first and only edit is to spam a commercial link; there's almost always more to it if you look deep enough. This link in particular had a "source=wikipedia" referrer in the URL, which clearly shows the link was made for SEO purposes rather than an attempt to add a useful reference. I'd have happily blocked for that alone, but I ran the domain through Spamcheck (which is an incredibly useful tool) which showed another account spamming the same link here and on the Italian Wikipedia. I blocked both accounts and asked for a global lock at Meta. I did also run a checkuser, which confirmed the two accounts to each other; not a surprise but I hoped it might show up any other spam accounts. I know AIV is not well set-up for that kind of investigation but if you're not sure, please do pass reporters on to somewhere like WT:WPSPAM or even to my talk page. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the follow-up. I use spamcheck often and agree it's awesome. Most of my additions to Special:BlockedExternalDomains are based on using spamcheck. I was trying to clear a few last requests before heading to bed and definitely didn't take the time I should have on this one, even considering the context (stale single edit with no warnings). If I had dug deeper, I would have landed on blocking too. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "Snow Patrol" article
Hi @Daniel Quinlan, I'm wondered why the Snow Patrol article was in extended-confirmed protection? Also, I notice when I saw in the protection log, it was expired set on September 15, 2026, but when I saw, it says "This article is extended-confirmed protected" but there's no "until September 15, 2026". Can you explain it to me? Thanks. Rizky Juliandief (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rizky Juliandief: The article has unfortunately had a lot of disruptive edits from sockpuppet accounts. It was previously protected multiple times for similar reasons. If you want to request a change, post an edit request on the article talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel Quinlan, I see that you're the operator behind the Protection Helper Bot, the solution (I guess) to the long-term issue where it's not possible to layer a shorter-term higher-level protection over a longer-term lower-level protection (except for pending changes protection) and in most cases, would need to have the previous protection restored. For example, the MrBeast article was semi-protected indefinitely on January 2021, but was then extended confirmed protected for three months on August last year. When the extended confirmed protection expired, the bot restored the previous semi-protection. That's probably fine here; just imagine all the crazy BLP violations this could receive if completely unprotected. I was just wondering: does the bot try to restore all lower-level protections right after the higher-level protection expires, or does it restore protections depending on the context subject? The Minneapolis article was semi-protected indefinitely on March last year, but was then extended confirmed protected for one year on May that year. When the protection expired, however, the previous semi-protection was somehow not restored. Looking at the article's recent history, there doesn't seem to be really much disruptive activity right now to warrant another protection. A request to restore the previous protection was also declined a month ago. BriDash9000 (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BriDash9000: The bot doesn't change its actions based on the type of article. The bot generally compares the expiring protection to the previous protection action, but there are some cases where it looks further back in the protection history. Reviewing Minneapolis and several similar cases, it looks like reprotection would have made sense based on the protection history so I've updated the code to allow the bot to look further back when there are several successive temporary protections at the same level. Backtesting this over the last five years of protection logs, this would have only caused an additional seven reprotection actions so it's a pretty minor change. Regarding Minneapolis, it doesn't seem like reprotection is needed at this time, but I would be mildly surprised if the semi-protection wasn't eventually restored given the article history. Thanks for letting me know about Minneapolis. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EFM
Hello,
I'm thinking of applying for EFM sometime soon and would like to seek your opinion on that. I've worked on quite a few filters both private and public in the last three months since my request for EFH was accepted in early april, including parts of 1161/1202/1242 (will not discuss these in public), 1296/1297 (fix weather-related FPs), 869 (add tasnim news), 1163 (fix math tag FPs, which you just implemented), and 547 (will not discuss this either in public).
I was just reviewing reports at WP:AN3 and came across this. I can't remember a time where anyone (at least purposefully) completely locked a main space article for two weeks, although interestingly the protection policy says nothing about a recommended length of protection aside from the catch-all "as short as possible and at the lowest protection level sufficient to stop the disruption". In general, I wouldn't full protect for more than 24 hours; after that, the talk page starts filling up with edit requests, at which point blocking is a better option. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ritchie333. I agree that protections should generally be kept as short as possible. A protection period of 7 or 14 days seemed appropriate in this case due to repeated edit warring between these users over the last month with little sign of resolution. I also considered partial blocks, but that's often less effective when one of the parties isn't using a registered account (although you can always supplement with semi-protection if necessary). Given the involvement of third parties via WP:3O, I was also hoping to unprotect the article well before the protection period ended.
For context, full protection durations are often longer than 24 hours in prolonged edit warring cases (see below table of 485 main space full protections in 2024 and 2025 due to edit warring).
Duration (days)
% of full protections
<1
2.7%
1
6.6%
2
20.0%
3
21.6%
4
3.9%
5
0.2%
7
27.2%
10
1.9%
14-15
9.3%
28-31
3.3%
indefinite
3.3%
Regardless, I appreciate the feedback and will make a point of looking for situations where a shorter full protection might be sufficient in the future. I'm also keeping an eye on the situation at Talk:Penang and will lift protection early if progress is made. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I appreciate you blocking the vandal but I would like to express my concern that your limited 24 hour block is an understatement given their subsequent response [8]. Borgenland (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind the ping. Sennecaster mentioned that User:Ronhjones/rescaled.js is broken on pages with previously redacted revisions (the same applies to User:Ronhjones/rescaledsidebar.js and User:B/rescaledsidebar.js), and I noticed you're using one of those scripts. I've rewritten the script to fix the issue, modernize the codebase, improve the user interface a bit, and it should work on every skin. Basically, feel free to check it out at User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Rescaled because not broken is good, and shiny and new is better, right?
If you don't see any of those three scripts in your common.js, look in your vector.js, monobook.js, vector-2022.js, or modern.js. If you're not currently an administrator, you may want to remove it, but if you're planning to return, it's probably best to not keep using a broken script. If you have any questions or run into any issues, please feel free to ask me here. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you saw my reply over at ANI, so I figured I would repost here: at what point does it stop being merely a content dispute and becomes disruptive editing? Because I'm pretty sure their content removal is/was disruptive. I already explained why I feel it's disruptive, and I even included the following message when I warned them back in May: The Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman podcast is, in fact, real. Yet you completely disregard the citations provided proving its existence - [9], [10] - to remove its entry on the article and make the patently false claim that it's "not a real podcast". Please do NOT remove it again. Fast-forward to now, and they have decided not to listen to me and go ahead and remove it again. TheGrandDelusion(Send a message)20:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Grand Delusion. I responded on WP:AIV. The only other thing I'll mention is that it sometimes helps to throw a ping into responses where you are hoping for a reply on AIV because Discussion Tools doesn't allow subscribing to individual reports for responses. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Justin Trudeau semi-protection
Hi there. I see that you protected the article Justin Trudeau in January. Trudeau is no longer Prime Minister and isn't as much of the controversial figure anymore, certainly less so than Pierre Poilievre, which remains unprotected and has seen plenty of productive contributions from anonymous users. I live in hope that we can unprotect this without issues now... The helpful edit requests from anonymous users also weighs towards unprotecting this. Wondering if you might be willing to remove it. Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MediaKyle: The protection I placed has already expired. The current semi-protection was placed by Bradv so you would need to ask him. Considering the level of disruptive editing we've had on that article, I believe it's too soon to unprotect it, and there haven't been many edit requests since the election. Pending changes protection might be worth trying at some point next year. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/23.150.248.73
This IP that you blocked earlier is a proxy and should be blocked as such. [11]Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 06:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel,
we have another anonymous user who keeps adding the (already discussed and disputed) release date for this particular album to the page. I'm afraid a new protected status is necessary. Thanks. Ray1983a (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel work for the artist of the page which you recently restored i added changes before the warring state and all those changes you removed please restore that part i added before you protect the page. Thanks Bradmayor (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradmayor: The dispute started before those changes so I think the best option is resolving the content dispute. That's not likely without any effort being made to discuss the disagreement, finding reliable sources relevant to the dispute, etc. If the edit war resumes in several days, the article may end up being fully protected again, potentially for a longer period of time. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel Quinlan, it's been a year since we've had the Protection Helper Bot up and running. It has been a nice solution to the issue I've already noted above. I was wondering if the bot could be reworked in a way that it will restore protection if the reason for the previous one actually returns, and not just soon after the higher-level protection expires (except for those being protected under the ArbCom remedies, some of which are now being protected by default). I've come across the Rachael Lillis article; that was semi-protected indefinitely in 2016, but was removed following a one-day full protection in 2019. Of the 42 edits so far this year, 14 were from IP users, and 10 of them have been constructive (there were only 4 reverted IP edits, one of them being clear vandalism). Restoring indefinite protection here would now only prevent the IPs from contributing to the article, rather than disrupting it. Plus, this wouldn't fall under WP:CT/BLP, as Lillis has been dead for over a year. However, I've also seen articles with indefinite protection removed after a temporary higher-level protection, only for the previous indefinite protection to eventually be reinstated. One example was Miami; it was semi-protected indefinitely before in 2014, but was removed following a two-day full protection in 2019. It was later semi-protected indefinitely again last February. BriDash9000 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BriDash9000. Thanks for the suggestion. Protection Helper Bot is only reprotecting about 150 pages per year and only about 90 of those are indefinite protections in main space. That's less than 1% of all indefinitely semi-protected pages in main space (about 12,000 pages including redirects), and they tend to be articles with significantly higher levels of disruption. Also note that administrators raising protection levels temporarily can unprotect pages first to prevent automated reprotection so humans are very much in the loop. Given all of that, the major coding effort required to have it protect a few less articles each year wouldn't be the best use of time. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A fox for you!
I have just reorganized my common.js based on asilvering's and now everything loads incredibly quickly. Probably ten times faster than it used to. This is amazing. As I am told you are responsible for this awesome innovation: Thank you!
Hi Daniel. If there could be only one person I'd want additional initial thoughts from, it would be you. Thoughts on this? You can email if you want, but there are some inevitably public aspects. -- zzuuzz(talk)11:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some measures are working, but it's expected that some accounts will slip through. Administrators are also watching for these disruptions, but there aren't enough administrators for perfect coverage, especially at 08:32 UTC. There are also ongoing discussions about ways to improve page protection, but it's a tricky problem to solve. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts: I tried a few scripts, but couldn't reproduce that result. Next time that happens, could you email me a copy of the full page HTML and any console errors? Also, please send the HTML after loading the page with ?safemode=1 appended to the URL and then pasting your entire common.js minus the Catatonic.js line into the JavaScript console. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Starting on the category page, select "Page information" in the Tools menu. The link to enable or disable a category will be next to the page ID in the first table. I didn't want to clutter every single category with a Tools link when most administrators aren't going to be adding or removing categories very often. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. FYI I found your participation via XTools.Czarking0 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With a few other editors, I've been working on rewriting our understandability guideline. Before I bring it to a wider audience, I'm looking for at least one more person to comment on it, so I can refine it. Would you be happy to have a look Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop. My goal is to give editors many more tools to actually write understandably, which is something we struggle with. (I see you've done some chemistry editing, so if you have any examples from that field, I'd be keen to switch out biology ones). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to put Sprunki and all characters to abuse filter 614: Memes and vandalism trends (moomer slang + zoomer slang), when they're filtered?
@ChildrenWillListen: Thanks. That's definitely enough context (and evidence) to block, and it's obvious enough to be fine for AIV too. It looks like another administrator beat me to the block. Anyhow, it really helps to include this type of information in AIV reports. Please try to do that more often in the future. Thanks again. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChildrenWillListen: The spam blacklist and blocked domain support is interesting. That said, the changes really gutted my script. You might want to check out the new version I rolled out a few days ago with page history and diff page support.
In the future, feel free to reach out if there's a missing feature that's important to you. I can't promise I'll add everything, but it helps me prioritize. For example, history support became a high priority after a request, and a few people were testing an alpha from September 23 until the release. I'll also definitely look at adding support for the additional log types. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out the new version I rolled out a few days ago with page history and diff page support.: That looks nice, thanks! I wish I had seen the alpha version earlier; unfortunately, I saved the contents of the script locally just days before it was merged.
That said, the changes really gutted my script.: Yeah, I removed (well, the more accurate term would be not implement, since I decided to rewrite most of the script) several features that aren't useful to me, like viewing deleted contributions and xwiki date support. It's also a little bit faster since it doesn't make API calls to see if a page exists, and I'm also using afldir=newer with constraints to only get the log entries I need.
I think one of the reasons I rewrote it is because I couldn't understand what the norev things were doing, and I wasn't able to insert different types of "fake revisions" without messing up their order. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 03:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had misread the documentation earlier, but that's no longer in the code. I fixed it in September. I do fetch fewer entries than the maximum intentionally, though, so any filter hits at the top of the page load a fraction of a second more quickly. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barry Mitterhoff made a Flying Fish album called “Silk City (Mandolin Music)” in 1988. I read about that album when I looked him up on the internet. I saw Hot Tuna albums in the Hot Tuna article and Skyline albums in the Skyline article after I read about Barry being in those bands. 2600:4040:606E:A800:1890:B63C:F546:7A2B (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PharyngealImplosive7: Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. I'm not sure about the action change for this specific LTA, but we can try it out for a while. Also feel free to send me an email or message me on Discord if you want to discuss it more. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw this while on Recent Changes Patrol, from an IP you blocked from editing mainspace (and they deleted the notice as well). I reverted it but I let you know in case you want to block them from talkpages as well or delete it from the page history. I'm sorry they're saying that about you and thank you for keeping Wikipedia free of trolls. smallest red boyhe/she/it (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. This message is being sent to remind you of significant upcoming changes regarding logged-out editing.
Starting 4 November, logged-out editors will no longer have their IP address publicly displayed. Instead, they will have a temporary account (TA) associated with their edits. Users with some extended rights like administrators and CheckUsers, as well as users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will still be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range.
How do temporary accounts work?
Editing from a temporary account
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5).
All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser.
A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
As a measure against vandalism, there are two limitations on the creation of temporary accounts:
There has to be a minimum of 10 minutes between subsequent temporary account creations from the same IP (or /64 range in case of IPv6).
There can be a maximum of 6 temporary accounts created from an IP (or /64 range) within a period of 24 hours.
Temporary account IP viewer user right
How to enable IP Reveal
Administrators may grant the temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right to non-administrators who meet the criteria for granting. Importantly, an editor must make an explicit request for the permission (e.g. at WP:PERM/TAIV)—administrators are not permitted to assign the right without a request.
Administrators will automatically be able to see temporary account IP information once they have accepted the Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy via Special:Preferences or via the onboarding dialog which comes up after temporary accounts are deployed.
Impact for administrators
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this (see a video about IPContributions in a gallery below).
Rules about IP information disclosure
Publicizing an IP address gained through TAIV access is generally not allowed (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 previously edited as 192.0.2.1 or ~2025-12345-67's IP address is 192.0.2.1).
Publicly linking a TA to another TA is allowed if "reasonably believed to be necessary". (e.g. ~2025-12345-67 and ~2025-12345-68 are likely the same person, so I am counting their reverts together toward 3RR, but not Hey ~2025-12345-68, you did some good editing as ~2025-12345-67)
It is possible to view if a user has opted-in to view temporary account IPs via the User Info card, available in Preferences → Appearance → Advanced options → Enable the user info card
This feature also makes it possible for anyone to see the approximate count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
Special:IPContributions allows viewing all edits and temporary accounts connected to a specific IP address or IP range.
Similarly, Special:GlobalContributions supports global search for a given temporary account's activity.
The auto-reveal feature (see video below) allows users with the right permissions to automatically reveal all IP addresses for a limited time window.
Not sure where to flag a potential problem. Since November 2, six or seven accounts starting with "~2025-" left comments on Talk:Donald Trump. The intent of some of them seems incendiary, both pro and contra Trump, and not intended to improve the article. Turns out that there are over 2,500 accounts starting with "~2025-": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsers&username=%7E2025-&wpFormIdentifier=specialactiveusers&dir=prev&offset=%7E2025-31193-90&limit=500. Space4TCatHerder🖖10:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the Wild username, after moving all of these pages, and performing the moves back, it is extremely tedious you had to do it, but it had to be done! Valorrr(lets chat)15:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Malayalam - last edit got locked when you protected
After I made the vandalism report for Roshan Dickwella(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log)[15] the article Malayalam, the page got locked with the last pov push from the editor.
Extended content
This was the original one of the image caption:
VeerakkalTamil-Brahmi inscription (1st century BCE) raised in memory of tīyaṉ antavaṉ, who died in a war protecting the village called kūṭal ūr. The words 'peṭu' and 'tīyaṉ' are regarded as specific pre-Malayalam forms; this linguistic evidence submitted by Iravatham Mahadevan, contributed to Malayalam being granted classical language status by the Government of India, recognizing its antiquity of over 2,000 years.[1][2][3][4]
References
^Mahadevan, I. (2014). Early Tamil Epigraphy - From the Earliest Times to the Sixth century C.E., 2nd Edition. p. 643.
^Nayanthara, N. G. (27 October 2010). "തേനി ലിഖിതം മലയാളത്തിന് ശ്രേഷ്ഠഭാഷാ പദവി നേടിക്കൊടുത്തു [Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status]" [Theni inscription which granted Malayalam classical language status]. India Today (Malayalam Edition) (in Malayalam). p. 50. ഇതിനിടെ, മലയാള ഭാഷയ്ക്ക് 2200 വരെ വർഷത്തെ പഴക്കം അവകാശപ്പെടാൻ കഴിയുന്ന ചില രേഖകൾ തമിഴ്നാട്ടിലെ തേനി പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് എന്ന സ്ഥലത്തെ വീരക്കൽ ലിഖിതത്തിൽ നിന്നും വയനാട്ടിലെ എടക്കൽ ഗുഹകളിൽ നിന്നും കേരളത്തിന് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്. പുളിമാങ്കൊമ്പ് ലിഖിതത്തിൽ കണ്ട 'തീയൻ' എന്ന പദം മലയാള ഭാഷയിലല്ലാതെ വേറെ ഒരിടത്തും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതല്ല. ബി സി രണ്ടാം നൂറ്റാണ്ടിലേതാണ് ഈ ലിഖിതമെന്ന് ഇതേകുറിച്ച് പഠിക്കുകയും സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ വിദഗ്ദ്ധ സമിതിയുടെ ശ്രദ്ധയിൽ ഇക്കാര്യം എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്ത പ്രശസ്ത ലിപിവിജ്ഞാന വിദഗ്ദൻ ഐരാവത മഹാദേവൻ പറയുന്നു. (Translation: Meanwhile, Kerala has received some documents that can claim the Malayalam language is up to 2200 years old, from the Veerakkal inscription at Pulimankombu in Theni, Tamil Nadu, and the Edakkal caves in Wayanad. The word 'Theyan' found in the Pulimankombu inscription is not used anywhere else in the Malayalam language. Renowned scriptor Airavatha Mahadevan, who studied this and brought the matter to the attention of the expert committee in the state, says that this inscription dates back to the 2nd century BC.)
^Nandakumar, Sreeja (6 December 2013). "മഷിത്തണ്ട് — Vol 7, Issue 1". മഷിത്തണ്ട് (Nellu.net) (in Malayalam). Retrieved 2025-11-05.
I would like to understand why my edit was reverted. I have reviewed the sources cited, and none of them explicitly state that pre-Malayalam is a separate language rather than a dialect. For example, Mahadevan mentions: “The verb ‘peṭu’ in this inscription MAY BE regarded as a pre-Malayalam form.” How does this serve as proof for claiming an antiquity of 2,000 years?
Citing a source and then adding your own interpretation constitutes original research, which is not allowed. Moreover, the Malayalam page repeatedly states, with multiple sources, that Malayalam originated in the 9th century CE. This seems contradictory. How can the same page claim that Malayalam has an antiquity of over 2,000 years while also stating that it descends from Middle Tamil and separated between the 9th and 13th centuries? Roshan Dickwella (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh I can just put my own interpretations on random Wikipedia pages and when someone revert it, I can keep restoring it and report the other person for edit warring. Understood. Thank you Roshan Dickwella (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hey, saw you blocked this temp/IP acct and if you have the time and ability, it seems to be a common issue and might be worth a filter that disallows, though I'm surprised it didn't hit any existing ones that would disallow it. See also this, this, this etc... (the last two pre-date the IP switch over to temp accounts for clarification and are visible to anyone in the history of any article, including temp accounts.) TURKEYDICAE🦃19:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Daniel Quinlan. 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.
@Revirvlkodlaku: Unfortunately, administrators are still bound by linear time and cannot use future events in decision-making. I have blocked the account and added the domain to the list of blocked domains. Protection is often not the best option when there are other effective ways to handle a disruption, and even if we had protected the page earlier, it would only have been for a short period of time (probably two days) per the protection policy. If they resume despite the domain being blocked, please submit a new request for page protection. Finally, when users make vandalism or spam edits, it's helpful to leave a warning on their talk page when reverting. With additional warnings, it would have been possible for an administrator to block this account earlier if it had been reported to WP:AIV. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
...for blocking that LTA. I would also recommend yanking TPA, they've been at it on their talk pages with other socks for a while now. Cheers, Lynch4403:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lynch44: No problem. I came very close to revoking TPA. At this point, since they've already submitted a unblock request of sorts, I'll let the reviewing administrator handle revoking TPA if needed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy First Edit Anniversary Daniel Quinlan 🎉
Hey @Daniel Quinlan. Your wiki edit anniversary was 1 day ago, marking 23 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙✉17:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal TPA
Hey there, thanks for blocking that TA vandal earlier. I'm confused as to why you revoked their TPA though, as they haven't edited their talk page at all. Can you please clarify? Gommeh📖🎮22:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gommeh: They had not, but there was some other user talk page activity in the filter log for the user. Given the escalating accusations, harassment, and personal attacks, it seemed necessary. They can still request an unblock via UTRS. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the user highligher script doesn't sanitize pipe characters from malformed usernames, which then causes the API call to fail because it thinks more than 50 usernames have been passed. See [17] for further context. Thanks! ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protection question
Question... In your protection of Tylor Chase, you said you suspect this may need another protection in several days... Why not protect it for longer? To be clear, not questioning your judgement as an admin (which I obviously am not), just seeking to understand . Thanks in advance! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Mostly, I'm following the guidance in the WP:PREEMPTIVE section of the protection policy. I considered protecting it under WP:CT/BLP which would allow a longer duration, but I don't like to do that for a first protection unless it's clear the article will have longer-term issues. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU/OS rolling appointment application – January 2026
The Arbitration Committee has received an application for CheckUser and Oversight permissions from Daniel Quinlan(talk· contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and has reviewed it in consultation with the functionaries team. The committee invites the community to evaluate the candidacy and comment on the talk page of this noticeboard until 23:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC). For the Arbitration Committee, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, you declined my request for page protection for In the Mouth of Madness saying it was a content dispute that should be worked out at the Talk page or via DR. Fine in theory, but the TAs are not respecting the lack of consensus favoring their preferred text at the Talk page. This isn't a content dispute because there is a consensus against the changes the TAs are trying to make; this is the TAs editing disruptively to try to force their edits through. Page protection seemed like the least disruptive option available. Please advise as to how I should have better handled this; I would advise you to review the Talk page discussion as well. DonIago (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Doniago: I took another look at the article history and talk page discussion, and I agree that page protection is the best option. I semi-protected the article for one week. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel! If the issues persist after the protection expires, should I file another RFPP request, or would you lean more toward reaching out to you directly? Thanks again; I hope your 2026 is off to a great start! DonIago (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For your outstanding work in edit filters, and for writing/maintaining some very useful scripts (Blame, FilterDiff and Unfiltered are my go-to scripts!). Codename Noreste (chat) 01:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Senior Editor abuse of power. Requesting immediate intervention!
Hi,
The editors Joshua Jonathan and Fowler&fowler appear to be using their (rollbacker)powers and status as senior editors to suppress significant (majority) views while using original research and cherry picked sources to promote biased one sided arguments. This appears to have been going on for several years.
Details:
The Mauryan Empire had a centralized administration and this type of administration applied to at least parts of the empire. This is the majority view and there are plenty of references to this in books, websites and AI. Instead of this view, they are promoting the view that the empire was “decentralized” and have removed any mention of the word “centralized” from the text. None of the sources which they have used say it was decentralized. On the contrary they say that parts of the empire were indeed highly centralized. Therefore the claim that it was decentralized is purely based on original research. I tried to mentions that the core regions of the empire were centralized using one of the same sources (Kulke and Rothermund) which they have used but my edit got reverted immediately by Fowler&fowler, and the reason given was “consensus”. I have gone through the talk page history but could not find any discussion related to this, even if there was, no consensus taken by editors can violate core Wikipedia principles like WP: NPOV. In accordance with Wiki guidelines I started a discussion on the Mauryan Empire talk page, but Joshua Jonathan still refuses to allow the word centralized to be used in the text despite being repeatedly told that he is violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Their status as senior editors, strong control and aggressive guarding, has created a situation where only edits which they approve of are allowed to go on the page.
They are also exercising similar levels of control on other related pages like the Mauryan – Seleucid War. I recently made an edit on that page as well as the Seleucid Empire, Seleucus pages mentioning that the terms of the peace treaty implied a Mauryan victory, but my edits got reverted by Joshua Jonathan and the explanation given was “POV pushing”. What I had written is what many historians say and the sources I used were all valid. Here again Joshua Jonathan appears to be trying control the narrative by unjustifiably and arbitrarily reverting valid edits.
To Summarise:
1. Using their power and status to suppress significant (majority) views while promoting others based on original research.
2. The use of false explanations to justify the reversion of valid edits.
I apologise if I am bothering you, the reason why I have brought this matter to your attention without taking it to the noticeboards is because it involves powerful senior editors and appears to have been going on for several years.
Could you, as an administrator, look into this matter and make sure that what is written on those pages is in accordance with WP:NPOV, and that all editors including myself are following the rules and guidelines set by Wikipedia.
Let the administrators decide on this. I have been discussing these issues with you for almost a month now. If we are indeed innocent then we have nothing to worry.
using their (rollbacker)powers and status as senior editors to suppress significant (majority) views while using original research and cherry picked sources to promote biased one sided arguments. This appears to have been going on for several years.
"to suppress significant (majority) views" - no, you're pushing an outdated narrative, giving undue weight to outdated sources and ignoring relevant, recent research;
"using original research" - that's rich, for someone who draws thier own conclusion based on outdated publications diff; all these publications predate Olivelle (2013) and McClish (2019), and obviously do not adress them; "However, there is not yet enough evidence to completely abandon the idea" is Oceanbed347's conclusion, hence WP:OR. Nevertheless, what exactly in my edits is OR? False alllegations are misplaced, and should be sanctioned;
"cherry picked sources to promote biased one sided arguments" - no, using the relevant up-to-date publications, instead of promoting outdated narratives;
"This appears to have been going on for several years" - so, how would you know, a newbie who's been editing for just five months? And where exactly did this happen, repeatedly? Please show us.
The Mauryan Empire had a centralized administration and this type of administration applied to at least parts of the empire. This is the majority view and there are plenty of references to this in books, websites and AI. - already explained at the talkpage of Arthashastra: this idea is based on the attribution of the arthashastra to Chankya, which is incorretc; the arthashastra post-dates the Mauryan empire. WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I also explained that if a part of the empire had a centyralized administartion, this logicaly iplies that not all of it was centralized.
It looks like Oceanbed347 is either unwilling or unable to comprehend the arguments, and the workings of Wikipedia; jumping right away for afmin-help doesn't help to improve to impression. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!20:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As said earlier, let the administrators investigate this. I will be providing evidence and counter arguments once they get involved.
Thanks. I have a question, though, for Oceanbed, regarding I tried to mentions that the core regions of the empire were centralized using one of the same sources (Kulke and Rothermund) which they have used but my edit got reverted immediately by Fowler&fowler, and the reason given was “consensus”. -which revert are they referring to here?!? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!21:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for replying. I had initially thought of the methods you mentioned but decided against them as I thought Joshua Jonathan would never agree to it, hence I decided to contact you. If Joshua Jonathan is willing, I am more than happy to take the steps which you have described.
I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused you.
Following private and public consultations, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint Daniel Quinlan(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log) to both the Checkuser and Oversight teams.
The committee thanks all editors who participated in the consultation.
Welcome to the team! Just a note: we're waiting for the WMF to confirm your signature on the ANPDP. The stewards can't assign permissions until they have that. Once that's sorted, you'll get some emails about the various access you'll need (private wikis, mailing lists, VRT queues, Discord channels!). It's a Sunday, so we're hoping the WMF will get to it tomorrow but it sometimes takes a few days because there are only a handful of staff authorised to do it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?23:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@LittleJerry: I responded to your appeal after reviewing the block, the talk page, and the article history. It's only been a week since the block and it seems like you're still a bit caught up in the dispute. Before you appeal again, I'd recommend focusing on editing constructively and in a civil way elsewhere for a while. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you clarify what you mean by "it seems like you're still a bit caught up in the dispute"? Polygnotus and I have made peace.LittleJerry (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your appeal focused heavily on the other editor and their actions. It sounds like you're ready to jump back into the dispute if you meet any resistance to making the edits you want to make. In addition to focusing on other articles and allowing more time to pass, I'd recommend rereading both the decline and the guide to appealing blocks before submitting another appeal. Note that I will likely allow another administrator to handle your next appeal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did mean the Unfiltered script. It seems I had the script both in my global.js and my common.js here, which caused it to duplicate, which appears to be the issue. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
; see Talk:Dabney Coleman for comments about the article, and Talk:Dabney Coleman/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 167.98.155.186 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Beyond My Ken § Bad copyediting guy is back. wizzito | say hello! 00:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Enable the user info card
_raised_in_memory_of_Thiyyar_Andavan,_who_died_in_a_war_that_took_place_in_village_called_Kudal_Ur.jpg)
