User talk:Daniel Quinlan/Archive3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy New Year, Daniel Quinlan![edit]

Happy New Year!

Daniel Quinlan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Irwin[edit]

I presume this is a result of this! :) MIDI (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*click* noice[edit]

i like ur gaming article
Republicans when you try to edit George W Bush: Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing reversal of collapsible county table for US elections[edit]

Hi Daniel,

I have been attempting to, state by state, convert existing county table for presidential elections to collapsible tables, which I feel gives a much better look as the reader is not overwhelmed when looking by the county tables (which, uncollapsed, occupy the vast majority of space on the pace in desktop view, although in mobile view each section can be hidden).

Many of my edits (some done anonymously out of fear that I will be reverted when I am identified doing this) of county tables for elections in South Carolina (1976, 1980, 2000), Kansas (2000 and 2004) and Mississippi (2000) that covert county tables to collapsible have been reverted by a group of anonymous mobile editors, usually with the justification that

or

or

In my eyes, my versions, especially when I used {{nowrap|}} for all multi-word candidate, party or even county names, constitute much better formatting. At all events they look better in both desktop and mobile view than the wrapped-over versions that various anonymous editors have created, especially when they create them as fixed-width tables for large numbers of candidates. Compressing even two-word names to one word per line looks extremely ugly to my eyes vis-à-vis names maintained as one line even with overflow (common on mobile view and found even on desktop).

On Help:Collapsing#Sortable tables, the captions which I have inserted and had removed in the edits to the 1976, 1980 and 2000 South Carolina elections, and the 2000 Mississippi presidential election, are the recommended means of making a sortable table collapsible.

I attempted a compromise by shortening candidate names as the reverter suggested in the South Carolina and Kansas cases, but I have continued to have my conversions to collapsible tables repeatedly reverted. I am now highly annoyed to the point of slowing down my work out of fear.

I have attempted to communicate with the anonymous editor who was making these reversions to discuss why I thought collapsible county tables looked better, but nine days later there has been no reply and I am sure the editor is moving to other sites — possibly to avoid discussing the question with me. That is why I feel that protection – which, minimally, would mean whoever is reverting my conversions to collapsible tables could be identified and what policy should be adopted and why more easily discussed — is an effective answer to these edit conflicts.

I am attempting to add background to many of the elections I have been editing recently, especially the 1976 South Carolina election, whereas whoever is reverting my collapsing the county tables and adding captions is not doing this. Consequently, I feel that these reversions are a disruptive edit although I am not sure that they strictly are that. I did recently post about this issue at Talk:1976 United States presidential election in South Carolina but am pessimistic about being able to discuss the question with whomever is reverting my collapsible county tables with captions, and fear this person will refuse compromises anyhow.Luokehao (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend using a single logged in account, using anonymous accounts in addition to your own account will be viewed negatively by many people. There are processes you can follow and recommendations on how to work through disagreements. I don't think you are going to make any progress leaving long screeds on user talk pages, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Ronen[edit]

On June 28th and July 16th, I made an attempt to clarify Ronen's stance on police by changing the section to public safety to make it more broader and provide sourced clarifying information. However, both of those times, your completely reverted my edits in less than 24 hours. Your comments did not provide any specific reasoning for why my edits were reverted.

The present section Ronen's stance is a mischaracterization on her stance of police and public safety which I have sought to clarify in a neutral manner. My edits have still noted there was criticism of her stance but sought to explain her reasoning which she justified in a newsletter to her constituents and in an interview with the San Francisco Examiner.

I respectfully ask you to provide an explanation on why you reverted my edits and what guidance you have to provide accurate information on Ronen's stance on police and public safety. SFHistorian1850 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that you read through the WP:BLP and WP:SPA articles. To be more specific, it seems like you are here to present a specific point of view and that's why your edits are problematic. As noted by the BLP policy, "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful". Removing reputable sources and replacing them with quotes you're selecting because they sound good to you isn't okay. My most recent edit summary was clear about that. This is an encyclopedia, not a campaign website.
You might also recall that my original involvement with this article started with my concern that someone else had added (negative) POV material to the article. I did my best to resolve those issues, find better sources, and phrase the article more neutrally. I'd encourage you to do the same and examine whether you have a conflict of interest that is limiting your focus and your objectivity. I've edited dozens of articles in the last few weeks and the Hillary Ronen article is the only one related to San Francisco politics. In contrast, it seems like you're only here to edit that article which is very concerning. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Cloud page protection[edit]

Hello! I understand everyone's busy, but I've made a request for page protection for Angus Cloud since his dead, his article has received unproductive edits/vandalism from IP/new registered users. Please, is there a way to protect this page from IP edits/new registered users. Look at the talk page and it's been an exhaustive ordeal undoing countless of vandalizing edits. Thank you! :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TDKR Chicago 101: Most requests get a response relatively quickly so I'd suggest being a bit more patient, but I can take a look. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jai White[edit]

Hi. I did some more digging and I found a classmates.com profile where he's listed as an alumni of 1982[1] and I think this actually may be a profile that White himself made back in 2007. Because in the "about" section, he talks about his wife and five children(this was likely made before his two youngest children were born), he mentions that he had an upcoming movie coming in October of that year(Why Did I Get Married) as well as Undisputed 2 which came out the previous year. He also mentions three girls he had crushes on in high school. Two of them are listed in the 1980 yearbook of Central High School as Sophomores and the other is listed as a Freshman. I can't seem to find White himself in the book though. This may be because he either wasn't present on the day those pictures were taken or he didn't attend CHS until he was junior. I even browsed through the comments made by other CHS alumni and a few of them acknowledge him as being a 1982 graduate. One of them who graduated in 1986 points out he started the fall after White graduated and sometime in late 1982 or early 1983, White came by the school and spoke with one of the teachers.[2]

I know we can't use this as a source for the main article. I just thought I should mention this. This may be much easier to resolve if the 1982 yearbook was online. Kcj5062 (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcj5062: I made a resource request. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request rev/del please[edit]

[3] and [4] Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone had caught it. Sorry to bother you. Knitsey (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Knitsey: Don't worry about "bothering" an admin with a request. If you ever need to find an admin for a RevisionDelete request, CAT:REVDEL can also be helpful. Purely out of curiosity, from which page did you pick up my username? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I saw your name either on an article on my watch list or did you recently block someone from AIV? I have a lot on my watch list so I'm thinking you must have come up there. Knitsey (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the rev/del list. Knitsey (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You protected Roméo Lavia on my watch list. Knitsey (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I was curious because you seem to have more activity on AIV and I've mostly been handling RfPP requests lately rather than AIV. There's definitely overlap, of course. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manipur (princely state) protection[edit]

Hi Daniel, I saw that you have enforced protection on Manipur (princely state). The request was made by one user @Kautilya3. The reason given for this was, "Content dispute/edit warring – Edit warring." I just wanted to point out that I made multiple contributions on the page (backed by references) and removed historically incorrect statements on that page (without any citations). The references I provided on those edits are historical scholarship articles and books. These edits were reverted back multiple times without proper cause, despite requesting discussions on Talk page first. Check [5][6][7][8][9] and [10]. I have just been following guidelines and Wikipedia policies on those edits. Now due to the protections enforced by you, I can no longer make edits on the page. Note that the page now contains historically inaccurate statements without any references. The page also need enormous additions to make it resourceful to the readers. Would it be possible to reconsider your decision on this? I'd appreciate your opinion on this. Cheers! Tanglei ariba (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics are often subject to discretionary santions due to how often they provoke edit wars, unreliable source usage, non-NPOV edits, etc. and those issues were present on Manipur (princely state) which is why I protected the page. I would suggest discussing each of the changes you are proposing on the article talk page. It looks like there has already been some discussion about your changes. I think you may also find it beneficial to become more familiar with the policies on edit warring, reliable sources, NPOV, and identifying reliable sources (for history-related articles). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan Despite my efforts to remove historically incorrect statements (with reliable sources - scholarly publications), the editor in question refuses to remove it. In guise of contentious topic, no edits on the page are being allowed. I even tagged you in the discussions on the talk page. Is there something you can do to resolve this. I'd appreciate your help on this. Thanks! Tanglei ariba (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other editors with more experience in this area, but it definitely seems like a contentious topic based on the edit history of the article and how much passion you have for winning this disagreement. Again, I can only suggest you read the resources that I linked above and perhaps also some essays on how to collaborate on Wikipedia such as WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, WP:We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm passionate indeed, to correct incorrect statements on Wikipedia without any proper citations or references, as you can see in that page. Thanks for your time though. Tanglei ariba (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for your good work! Andre🚐 04:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skullgirls[edit]

Soetermans failed/refused more than once to explain why my source I wanted to add on Skullgirls article was considered (by him) unrealiable, since there's no proof, not even on Wikipedia, of that. And to make it worse, you blocked the article for two months adding as explanation for that a random and false accusations towards me. Why this? 151.18.208.38 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. It would also help if you created an account instead of using multiple IP addresses to edit. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for protection of page[edit]

I request you to give extended confirmed protection to this page for at least a month as soon as possible: Jailer (film) since this movie has just been released and the box office numbers are coming in and there is already a lot of vandalism in that page and I expect it to increase. Thanks. Cinephile4ever 20:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPPI is the right place to make requests for page protection. There is a backlog right now so it may take some time to get to your request, but it will be reviewed before too long. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks please check it as soon as possible because there is a lot of vandalism there. Cinephile4ever 20:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you are reviewing requests which were sent after I sent mine on that page. Please review mine too. Thanks. Cinephile4ever 21:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I reviewed your request several times, but I am undecided at this point and leaving it to another administrator to handle. Please be patient. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn my request. Cinephile4ever 21:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would do that, but it's your call. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's useless. I know how to get that page extended confirmed. Cinephile4ever 21:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some requests on the page have been there for more than a day because the backlog is pretty bad right now. You didn't even wait an hour. How do you plan to get the article extended confirmed protection? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's backlog because you have been reviewing requests sent after mine. I will get it protected by an admin who can decide. Cinephile4ever 01:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators review requests out of order all of the time. Some requests are easier to review. Some requests are more outside of an administrator's area of experience. Sometimes we're just not sure about a request. Your request likely would have already been reviewed by another administrator if you had left it up. We cleared the backlog earlier. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested another admin I hope they will protect Cinephile4ever 02:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is protected now. Cinephile4ever 03:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! In the future, please use WP:RPPI for requesting page protection and WP:AIV or WP:ANI for abuse issues specific to an account. I assure you that an admin will review your requests even if it's not the first admin that takes a look. Admin shopping isn't necessary. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delwar Hossain Sayeedi[edit]

Hey, thanks for protecting the page as per my request. Unfortunately, even after the semi-protection, biased users came back and removed factual statements regarding the subject. The page had lots and lots of NPOV issues, which I removed, but still, a lot of copy editing is required. On top of all that, it's really extra work for other editors to revert new disrupting edits (in the case of this page, it's mostly me who's housekeeping it). So, to spare me and others the extra workload of reverting bogus edits, I'd request the page to be extended-confirmed temporarily. Would like your opinion on this, then I'd post a formal request at WP:RPPI. Update: Recently a relatively unexperienced editor has started to revert my constructive edits without proper justification. I feel like this page has become really prone to an impending edit war, all the more reason to extend its protection. I've now requested at RPPI. They've even removed semi-protection and multiple issues templates. And has falsely thrown assumptions at me.

Thanks. X (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in the midst of a content dispute, I recommend following the guidance at WP:DISPUTE. If you can't resolve the dispute on the talk page, I would suggest seeking outside help such as getting a third opinion or a mediator. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Quinlan, I did not revert further as it'd been a waste of time because @LucrativeOffer kept reverting mine and leaving all sorts of unwarranted bogus warnings on my talk page. I laid out my rationales, and a third party ( @SpaceExplorer12 ) has seemingly brought back my version of the page citing Reading Xkalponik comments and edit summaries, I agree with them. Reverting to their version. But soon after, another user made NPOV edits. I really feel this page should be extended confirmed protected. X (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SpaceExplorer12 has been blocked by another admin. If you're serious about resolving the dispute and building consensus on that article, please read those articles. I'd also recommend focusing on the content, not users. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Thanks Daniel for protecting page of Abot-Kamay na Pangarap. I appreciate you for protecting Abot-Kamay na Pangarap 😊. Rhianna543 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
For all the nice work you do at RFPP. Great job! #prodraxis connect 04:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on For All the Dogs[edit]

Hey, you protected this article after I requested. I feel two weeks is too much because the album could be released next Friday and there could be more information then, so please reduce it to shorter than a week if possible. Thank you! 172.59.196.241 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had a lot of disruptive edits throughout August so two weeks seemed appropriate. If the article needs to be unprotected at some point in the next two weeks, you can submit an unprotect request at WP:RPPD. Bear in mind that any autoconfirmed account will still be able to edit the article during this period.
You may also wish to consider creating an account which will allow you to edit semi-protected articles before too long. It's quick, free, and anonymous (you don't have to give away any real-world information about yourself). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating another account isn't going to work so well for this guy. It would be quickly blocked after being listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rishabisajakepauler. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, Special:Contributions/172.58.176.0/21 is still blocked. Many other IPs have been blocked in the past. Binksternet (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

??? I literally put a reliable source in my edits, what? Rusted AutoParts 01:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A news story about a tweet is not a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Twitter, especially this part:

Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.

Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between writing an article about a tweet, and citing a news reporting made on social media. If this was the standard most of the current breaking passings would not be allowed since they were broken via social media, such as the recent death of Bray Wyatt. The tweet made the announcement of her passing, reliable secondary sources have since reported on it. We can cite reliable secondary sources citing the social media announcement. We have been doing such for awhile. Rusted AutoParts 02:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that allows for tweets like this to be cited as a reliable source, especially for a BLP article. That it has happened initially in other articles doesn't mean it is a policy. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using the tweet as the linked source on her page though, it's Extra TV's reporting of it. Social media is a valid field to see news being broken. That is why I cited Wyatt. His death announcement originated via a Twitter announcement by the WWE's CCO. It was then picked up by many reliable sources who then reported on it. Your metric makes it entirely difficult to use any secondary source reporting her death if them reporting the news is disqualified simply because her death was first announce via Twitter. Regardless, a reliable source is presently available to cite her passing, that was the one I used in her article. Rusted AutoParts 02:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up[edit]

Hi Daniel Quinlan. Juyiscally has been globally locked for using multiple accounts abusively, and I would like to rollback the editing of a few pages such as Category:Jasic incident, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do so (even if we do discuss it somewhat, it's still more or less controversial), so I'm looking forward to hearing from you, thank you. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 14:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Reverting edits from blocked accounts is not considered edit warring. but please be careful to not revert other editors' good edits. If you have ongoing discussions with other editors, you may want to keep them in the loop or finish the discussion first. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I am not quite sure whether it is considered to be over or ongoing because it can be said that this relevant discussion has been going on for several months, and we only have a general direction, but no one has gone to carefully review and rewrite them. Sigh. I will revert some pages that I think are necessary. ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 18:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Black Wikipedia page[edit]

Are you even familiar with the Leon Black mess? The Dechert review WAS PAID FOR BY THE HEDGE FUND HE FOUNDED, APOLLO CAPITAL. The Dechert review is therefore, by definition, not independent (thus they also did not release the details of their "review"). The U.S. Senate Finance Committee review is by definition independent and will be the final word on this. They have not finished their review and thus have not released their conclusion, but when they do, it will be the final word on this. This is discussed in today's Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/jeffrey-epstein-calendar-names-ec88e7a0?mod=hp_lista_pos3

Also, if the Dechert review is supposedly "independent", then why is the Senate Finance Committee even bothering to perform a review on the Dechert conclusions??? Obviously, there are a lot of people who do not believe the non-independent Dechert review (paid for by Apollo Global Management, which Black founded).

Thank you. Betathetapi454 (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the Biographies of living persons policy which states, in part:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

You are adding material which is clearly contentious and you are doing it without a source. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may blocked. If you want to argue for adding it, you need a source and you should be discussing this on the article talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source you found, but I also phrased it similar to how it was phrased in the source. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have read the Leon Black page's history, or are familiar with it. I am NOT the person who has added contentious material, or any material at all. Other people have added that the Dechert review is "independent". It is not independent - APOLLO PAID FOR IT (Leon Black founded Apollo). I am simply taking a step back from this and noting that Black "has claimed" that he was paid for tax advice - until there is an independent review of it, that is all it is, i.e. a claim made by him. But it looks like there is going to be an independent review - by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee. The reason why they are doing this is because, except for people associated with Apollo and Leon Black, almost nobody believes that he paid $158 million for "tax advice" from someone who had almost no experience with taxes, and was not known to have ever given tax advice to anybody else. The problem is that on Wall Street (I work on Wall Street) and in Wash DC, people believe that Black paid the $158 million because of something to do with Epstein's pedophile activities. Was Epstein blackmailing Leon Black? We don't know - because Dechert won't release any details. The Wall Street Journal noted that Black had ONE HUNDRED meetings with Epstein, with most of them at Epstein's Upper East Side mansion - did Leon Black not notice all the teenage girls running around barefoot?, and that there were no older women around aside from convicted sex offender/pervert Ghislaine Maxwell???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi454 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Dechert Price & Rhodes is "independent", then why doesn't Leon Black come back to Apollo as Chairman and CEO??? Answer: Because Wall Street doesn't believe what Black and Apollo and Dechert have said (none are "independent"), and Apollo already has a problem keeping clients due to what has happened, and Apollo would no doubt hemorrhage clients if Black came back without an independent review and explanation for what he did. But it looks like we will now get that independent review now that the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has said that it is going to dig into the mess, both the huge $158 million payment to pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and Leon Black's taxes and past tax returns. I would not want to be in Leon Black's shoes right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi454 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Can you explain why you reverted my fix to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_submarine_B-237

You put back a partial word and incorrect sentence structure. Tas50 (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake. I was trying to undo a different edit. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greta Valenti[edit]

I was surprised you denied indef semi-protection to this article. I've never seen an article hijacked four separate times before (which all happened of the course of less than 1 year). It's very much a low traffic article, and as you can see with this diff, the hijacking has been left to stand for months at a time before. Would you be willing to reconsider? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the most recent incident, the article hadn't been edited since March. It's not nearly enough disruption to justify semi-protection, but I added pending changes protection for one year. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP[edit]

Hi. I'm very confused at your dismissal of all four of the articles I've requested protection for at WP:RFPP. The articles have been repeatedly vandalised by a LTA sockpuppet per the history of the pages, with one having even been ECP'd because of the severity, and I'm pretty sure 3 out of 4 of them would meet all five of the criteria at WP:RGTSP. Could I request you take a second look at these, or at least give me some sort of guideline of what you perceive as necessary to protect an article? I ask this because this is now the fifth time out of five that you've declined a request I made at RfPP because of this exact sockmaster, having previously told me to go to SPI with it instead. Thanks. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a further update: between the time of me leaving these two talk page comments, all four of these pages have again been vandalised by the same sockfarm in the absence of semi protection, as is the habit of this sockfarm. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I carefully reviewed your protection requests. Including links to relevant LTA or SPI cases can help improve evaluation of requests like these, especially when the disruption is identified early.
Regarding previous requests, Jodi Rell is the only RfPP of yours that I've processed in September until today and I don't see any in August or July. I protected that article because of the significant number of disruptive edits as well as a clear long-term pattern of disruption. I've protected many pages being disrupted by LTAs and sockpuppets as well as political articles, but if there were older declined requests of yours that were declined, I'm happy to take another look at those.
I protected all four articles in question due to the renewed vandalism. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair point - in future I'll try remember to link the SPI page with my requests. Thank you for protecting the articles. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 23:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppenheimer (film) page protection[edit]

Hi. Regarding your declination, I would like to point out that most of the IP edits on the page are by the same editor(s), i.e. sockpuppets who've been blocked by admins recently. Therefore I don't think a temporary semi-page protection would cause "collateral damage" to editors making improvements to a highly visited page. ภץאคгöร 07:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I reviewed it, most of the recent edits by IP addresses appeared to be good faith edits. Reviewing the last ten edits by IP addresses over the past 30 hours:
It would obviously be better if there was a source on a few of those.
It can help to include links to specific edits or editors and, ideally, a link to the relevant SPI or LTA case if that is why you are requesting protection. Even with the benefit of hindsight now that the user has been blocked, I would still be concerned about collateral damage given the predominance of good faith edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Right here is a solid boomerang in action. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edits similar to "Nolan's direction" etc., which may "look reasonable", are unsourced and/or WP:SYNTH contributions. That IP is one of several IPs (and accounts) that have been blocked by multiple admins. You can check my user talk page contributions for these discussions, but I guess believing an IP is easier. ภץאคгöร 07:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration, but let's keep things civil and collaborative. As I mentioned, providing more information can help, especially because most administrators are not CheckUsers. I also linked the edit that led to their new block by a CheckUser so there's no need to be rude. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything I've written is uncivil and "rude". Goodbye. ภץאคгöร 10:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Row over Oppenheimer movie article[edit]

@Daniel Quinlan @Daniel Case Woah, can't respond on the other talk page for whatever reason, so responding here-- since there is a correlation, and ongoing discussion, to this allegation by @Nyxaros

I am absolutely not affiliated with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2607:FB91:7B9:D49:457B:39E4:B30E:320B&action=history and hopefully a checkuser, SPI or simple behavior test can clear that up?!

We do not use Checkuser that way. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do think this is an attempt to WP:CANVASS administrators to WP:GAME an outcome-- with either page protection or blocks to advance a point, whatever point that might be. The conflict in question is very esoteric (i.e.how to open a film article) and can't this be resolved on the article's talk page with a WP:CIVIL debate or some consensus-reaching exercise?!?! Case in point: the enduser @Nyxaros feels like it's either their way or the highway, and he doesn't WP:OWN the page. Taken on substance alone, the anon IPs and other registered users challenging him are making reasonable edits, as he was reminded here already. How about we work together??

Can't we first attempt to get along without playing this, IMHO, WP:GAMES? 50.238.87.250 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having a dispute with another editor, I recommend seeking dispute resolution help. I would also recommend registering an account. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed, this IP who, like other blocked IPs and users, keeps adding the same/very similar unsourced information because they don't like what is written on the page and fabricate stuff while citing guidelines as if others can't fact-check, apparently has an account but is on a "work break" and some users "WP:OWN (their) role in any of this drama", "WP:GAME" the articles, and are "pushing a POV", as well as "vandalizing their talk page" and "eagerly not WP:HOTHERE" (all of these responses are also somewhat too similar to the blocked IPs/editors). ภץאคгöร 09:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and possible 3rr violation from persistently disruptive editor[edit]

I saw that this user named Nyxaros has reached out to you, and another administrator-type @Daniel_Case when they feel like a user is being disruptive and needs to be banned, either on a technicality or more serious behavior. I figure what is good for the goose is good gander.

Clearly, a battleground mindset and edit warring by this editor. Examples are abound, like this, where editor is making a threat to report another user, and for what exactly?? Disagreeing with him?! Persistent rules-lawyering to enforce his arbritary edits, like this. If you look at ALL his edits on that page, you will find that as a theme, to WP:BLUDGEON others into his pov.

He was recently admonished by a veteran user with administrative rights and privileges, for "blatantly disregarding" a ettiquette for the pages he is warring on, see this.

Basically, the beef here is that an ongoing wiki-film problem are zealous editors wanting to defend films using aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritics, which are not reliable sources per say but a metric of sorts. This is a policy about how to approach film pages to cut down on fanboy servicing of films, and other such emotional spin, called WP:ACCLAIM, but the problem of using MC as the primary source or justification for describing something as "acclaimed" is Metacritic's jargonistic grading system, this is simply not good enough. Metacritic only counts the number of positive/negative/average reviews, it is not an arbiter of critical consensus, etc.

If you examine the user's history, you will see an effort by several of us to reason with him and accommodate him. But that effort is proving fruitless, and the pain is now outweighing the game.

As you can see here, the user tries to frequently canvass and if not cast WP:ASPERSIONS on what is supposed to be the film's talk page, despite being reminded many MANY times that these allegations are best made on WP:ANI. Again, examining his history will provide countless examples.

I wish I had more time to do this, and I'm doing this on the fly and can not log into my account proper, plus I lack experience in any case for reporting this stuff. But it's became disruptive enough across many accounts involving this disruptive editor that someone needs to step in, and it appears that this covers articles from the Barbie film to Barbenheimer to Oppenheimer to Mission Impossible Dead Reckoning and now Anatomy of a Fall. Speaking of which, by my math, he seems to be in violation with at least 3RR.

In any case, thank you for your time and hoping for action on this as a deterrence to this editor's persistent edit warring with everyone. 170.167.196.167 (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having trouble logging into your account, Help:Logging in § Login issues and problems and Help:Reset password have some advice.
If you want to make a complaint about the behavior of a user, please use the Administrators' noticeboard. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Hello, I noticed you blocked an IP account after edit-warring at Royal Marines. Both that account, and the registered account they were warring with were at 3RR, just curious why block the IP and not the other? - wolf 01:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at this earlier, I only saw two reverts from the registered account. The previous edit was the original change. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the IP address editor has had multiple previous warnings for edit warring on this specific article and I factored that into the decision to block them for 24 hours. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks - wolf 04:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely semi-protected/extended confirmed protected pages needing prior PC settings reset[edit]

Greetings, the following indefinitely semi-protected or extended confirmed pages have not had their prior PC settings reset for whatever reason:

Would you please kindly fix this on each of the above pages? Thank you. Spaniolo (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes has no effect on pages that are protected at the semi-protected level or higher so it's not necessary to change anything. I have fixed the page protection template on several of those pages, though. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavanth Kesari[edit]

Could you please check the article Bhagavanth Kesari and User talk:Shan79. User:Shan79 is been vandalised by adding unreliable sources and removing content from the article. I have warned him several times. Please take any action or protected the page. Thanks. NaanReady (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend starting with a discussion about the sources on Talk:Bhagavanth Kesari. If another user is edit warring to add material against consensus, you could also report them to WP:ANEW. I would also recommend being careful to avoid edit warring or violating WP:3RR yourself as well, even if you believe you are right. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you please protect the page? Other users also have warned him. Thanks. NaanReady (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Their account is autoconfirmed so semi-protection would not have any effect and I don't think that extended confirmed protection would be appropriate for this article at this time. Please use the talk page. (Also, in the future, please make page protection requests on WP:RFPPI. Thanks!) Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. NaanReady (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hello, I'm MarydaleEd. I wanted to alert you to the fact that vandalism is against Wikipedia policy, and continued vandalism, such as your October 24, 2023 edit to the Tennessee Titans article, can result in you being banned from continued contributions to Wikipedia. Please refrain from such disruptive behavior. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was to remove vandalism, not create it. It might be wise to double-check before issuing warnings. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In observing your other Wikipedia work, I did find what appeared to be your vandalism to be strangely out of character for you. I am happy to recheck and issue an apology if one is required. If you would, can you please provide the name of the author of the offending edit that was reverted? Thank you. MarydaleEd (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, after reviewing the edit, I realize that I actually reverted a good edit which was itself removing vandalism. It was an unintentional error on my part. I was reviewing hits of Special:AbuseFilter/735 on sports articles and saw this article was being targeted, and somehow ended up reverting a good edit. Thanks for looking out for the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. As I said, in researching your other contributions to Wikipedia it truly appeared to be out of character for you to commit vandalism! So happy we were able to work this out. And, I would like to thank you very much for agreeing to my request that the page be protected. The vandalism has become ridiculous, and with the Titans beginning a rebuilding, it is likely to become worse before it gets better. I hope we get the opportunity to work together again. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A-I block[edit]

Hi, you blocked HumilatedGoan for 72h on October 22 to enforce Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically because they had been editing related articles without having 500 edits. The user has continued to do the same thing since the expiration of that block, including creating October 2023 Egyptian border incident, which I've deleted. I would like to indefinitely block the user but long ago stopped getting involved in AE for several reasons and, to be honest, don't really know the procedure. Also, while trying to find the elusive template that should be used for the block notice, it looks like the maximum block I can impose is one year. Is that true? Anyway, what are your thoughts on all this?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply, I was considering the best approach. Based on their conduct not meeting expectations, I believe an indefinite ban is an option under WP:CTOP and that was the action taken by Tamzin. The guidance in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: enforcement of restrictions could be clearer, especially when WP:ARBECR and WP:CTOP overlap. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee, which has not yet been addressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick[edit]

Hi there, I see you have fully locked the article on Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick. These IPs are socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anne Barrington, which were first blocked for WP:UPE via the sockpuppet account Will Bonela (talk · contribs) here on the same article, which is why I was reverting these IPs. If possible, while the article remains locked, the IP edit made here should be reverted instead of being left in place. John Yunshire (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into this. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've removed the sockpuppet edits and modified the protection. It's clear that sockpuppets are attempting to add the travel agency to the article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Daniel Quinlan. John Yunshire didn't give you the correct information. The latest version added by Jbroer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is different from the one added by Will Bonela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock ban was correctly applied by @Kuru: on 9 May 2023.
WP:BANREVERT doesn't apply to Jbroer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (as they are not blocked) unless someone take to WP:SPI and a checkuser can connect them to the olds socks. This is unfair and against norms of Wikipedia. Can you please revise to old version and let the changes happen through consensus? Thanks 23.252.44.137 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 1275[edit]

Hey, I'm looking to prune a few old filters. Do you think 1275 is still needed? A quick skim suggests this is just typical IP-and-new-user editing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it as deleted. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Kansascitt[edit]

Hello! You previously protected Kansas City, Missouri from an LTA sockpuppet called Kansascitt1225. That person lives in Overland Park, Kansas so we need that and Downtown Kansas City protected now. See my report at the bottom of here for details! It has gone unanswered, probably because like Serge previously said, he isn't familiar with the subject or whatever. I'm pretty sure you previously told me you'd expand things as needed. Maybe I should have gone to RFPP but it also needs an IP block because this guy's standard operating procedure is extreme IP hopping. Yes, he said he actually TRAVELS around Overland Park to a circuit of open wifi for the explicit purpose of sockpuppetry as a lifestyle. Thank you. I'm telling ya, this guy seriously is on a tear to reignite the Border War of Bleeding Kansas days. So I would appreciate an active admin across WikiProject Kansas City's municipal topics basically forever. — Smuckola(talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overland Park, Kansas hasn't been edited in 4 days, but if disruption resumes on that article (or any other articles in this topic area), please request protection on WP:RFPPI and make sure you mention the severity of the sockpuppeting as the reason in the request. Most of the admins handling RFPPI requests are pretty familiar with this type of abusive sockpuppeting. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Overland Park, Kansas hasn't been edited again only because I didn't revert it yet until someone protected it! So he's spent days copying the same garbage everywhere else instead. Geez all the same editors see his abuse constantly on those articles, and they STILL always feed the same troll, leaving "good faith" encouragement on the talk page after reverting his garbage, and scolding those who revert it. Wikipedia culture is extreme toxic positivity. I just now made a note on the SPI case archive page, of his latest WP:SEALION confession here on your talk page. During his previous episode in August, I reported it to SPI and it went absolutely unanswered. Yeah I'll file with WP:RFPPI and link to the SPI archive. Okay so that's all I know to do, because they leave the barn door wide open on this site instead of banning all IP editors and securing accounts. Thanks Daniel. — Smuckola(talk) 04:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't assign individual administrators to monitor specific projects. Use WP:RFPPI for faster responses. Numerous administrators monitor that page. Mention the active IP(s), the ongoing sockpuppetry, and block evasion in the request. You can also make a new report to WP:SPI to report IP(s) being used to evade, but you need to do that when the abuse is fresh, not multiple days or weeks old. The same goes for WP:RFPPI requests. Revert the abuse and report the issue when it's recent and significant. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a n00b at SPI; aren't you jealous? So if I file a new redundant SPI request just to get attention, and I link to the existing case, then what? Who merges them? I already filed WP:RFPPI and WP:ARV tonight. The LTA history is already historically significant at each article, and the history shows the pattern of it never stopping each time, like any LTA. So I hope any admin would see that any evidence of WP:QUACKery by this LTA, even one edit, must be treated as a litany. This person is extraordinarily ill. — Smuckola(talk) 05:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appending more IPs to an archived case at SPI that already has a lot of stale IP addresses is probably not going to be productive. You've already reported the current disruption more than enough, but the next time this happens, try submitting a new SPI case, especially if you have clear and simple evidence. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What next time? It never ended. My only purpose in doing that was to head off the unthinkable scenario that he does attempt the standard offer someday, and to reset any such clock on that. I'm not trying to be annoying, just wondering if I missed something, but is there any reason why you haven't continued blocking him or protecting the pages while he runs roughshod all over us all night? I reported his new IPs directly below this comment, and elsewhere because you said that's so fast, while I'm watching nobody answer RFPP and I'm watching ARV answer every other request than mine, all night. I guess I have to make a new SPI case. — Smuckola(talk) 07:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My recent edit history reflects my inactivity today, the reasons for which I don't need to explain to anyone. Again, please use the appropriate pages to report issues. And please exercise some patience. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waiting on somebody to block 192.63.2.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 136.33.15.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). — Smuckola(talk) 05:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply to my request[edit]

Hi. I seemed to have guessed such event precisely, though I understand your point. Fortunately, another user reprotected the article within an hour, only to be expiring after a week.41.230.166.247 (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of having temporary protections is to double check that the problem still exists before reprotecting an article. It's also policy. It looks like the new duration was just a week because it was protected as part of a group of articles being disrupted by a single person. If the disruption resumes in a week, please resubmit it and mention the previous protections. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I C. But how would you comment about the case with the article's talk page? Quite astounding that it has more protection logs than the article itself. The current protection is set to expire after seven months, which, in my opinion, still isn't enough. Happy New Year's Day anyways.41.230.166.247 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive URLs in 2023 Israel–Hamas war[edit]

Hi, posting about your reply to a request I added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Edit&diff=next&oldid=1194012107 You said "it can be done at any point in the future", but that is not 100% true; only if the URLs are archived at around the same time they were accessed. If the pages are archived (e.g.) months later, they may not reflect the same information (or may not even exist). Is there no policy/process to prevent this? -- o_andras (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been personally involved in this area. The most commonly used web-based reliable sources are archived a pretty good percentage of the time. If you're concerned about references in a specific article, it's possible to request archiving of specific URLs. Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations has some more information on the topic. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

90.241.160.140[edit]

Despite clearly having read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Unsourced edits (and completely missed the point in their reply), this editor has begun counter-reverting my removal of their edits. Is WP:AIV the appropriate next step? (as it is not really vandalism, just incompetence). Going to WP:ANI seems machine-gun v grasshopper. Any suggestions? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: I think WP:ANI is probably the best option at this point. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

So how can I protect this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oswin1 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot. Pages can only be protected by administators, pages are not protected preemptively, and the level of disruption is not sufficient to justify protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Ordinary Man[edit]

Can you have another look at this? AIV would be the obvious place for a user who is vandalizing but at this point it is random IPs. CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has also happened since that report was filed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can report IP address editors to AIV. Overall, the level of disruption doesn't seem sufficient to justify protecting the page, but if you can provide a list of specific recent edits and can explain why each is vandalism, I'll take another look. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the legwork, starting in December which has been widespread not only on this page but with other Hindu-language film pages (some of which have already been protected for such). Of course I could file them all with AIV but that would seem a waste to keep reporting each and every IP address as I would be told that each needs an ample warning prior to them being blocked. That's why I asked for page protection.
December26 (removal of sourced information about film review), December28 (adding unsourced negative information which was reverted by another editor on the 28th, January4 (more addition of unsourced material which was reverted), January6 (addition of unsourced material which was reverted), January13 (now edit warring by adding back unsourced content that was previously removed), January13 (a third revert by IP), January14 (addition of gross box office information which is something we are being hammered with by many film-related SOCKS as of late). Pinging @Materialscientist: as well since they were the one who did the revert of that one.
Also note that none of the IPs leave an edit summary with a reasoning for the addition or removal despite there being edit summaries left by others as why they were removed or re-added by experienced editors. If you look at the edit history you will see it is more than a single IP (there are numerous). --CNMall41 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing more information. I agree that there has been some disruption and box office number tampering is definitely a major issue across Wikipedia, but that article is not quite at the point where semi-protection seems necessary. It's closer to the point where I'd pull the trigger on pending changes protection. If the level of disruption increases and you decide to make a new request at WP:RFPPI, you might suggest pending changes as an option in addition to semi-protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That honestly never crossed my mind but it would meet the same goal so I think that route is best. Thanks for looking into it!--CNMall41 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:AB88:2485:DA00:0:0:0:0/64[edit]

You might want to block that range for edit warring, instead of the single IP. MaterialsPsych (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I missed rechecking the /64 option after changing another option that deselected it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste O'Connor[edit]

Hi Daniel, curious why you went with indef ECP here - I don't see any disruption from confirmed users here (though a indef semi is of course easily justifiable with the amount of disruption from IPs). Galobtter (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like a very high level of disruption, but I missed that it was just non-confirmed accounts. I agree that we should try semi-protection first. Fixed. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia[edit]

What is the difference between one name or another, given that everything is without sources? They are all singers from Bahia, so the information remains correct.2804:14D:5C87:8E8C:A04F:9387:305A:9AE3 (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in Help:Edit summary, edit summaries help explain why you are making a change. Are the singers you are removing less popular? Are the new ones more popular? Or are you just adding singers you like? We can't tell unless you explain the edit.
Also, please read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Once your edit has been reverted, it's time to discuss it. Not time to edit war. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Force-closing requests I attend me to in my capacity as uninvolved admin is poor form, in my view. So, in the future, I think the best thing would be that you don't force-archive requests I'm actively attending to, while I in turn would extend the same professional courtesy to you (which I already do). El_C 22:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I've restored the discussion to WP:RFPPI. I'll respond here at length in a moment. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I just didn't want the question template to hold up the bot. I misinterpreted the state of the request. I hold your contributions to WP:RFPPI in high regard and would never intentionally undermine your efforts or those of any other admin. I don't have strong feelings about the question in the article although I might check later to see if there's a talk page discussion. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: It looks like the bot still archived it again, I probably left too much of the archive template behind. I restored it again, hopefully it will stick this time. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. I've replied at length at the request entry (premalink). Take care. El_C 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Quinlan/Archive3&oldid=1202597156"