User talk:Daniel Quinlan

Archived discussion: Archive1, Archive2, Archive3

Please use section headers and add comments to the bottom. Thanks! — Daniel Quinlan

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)

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:PIA WP: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_C 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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 both preferably 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)

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)

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)

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 article par excellence. Which unlike related content, is guaranteed to always remains so. It contains material that will remain contested and contentious for the foreseeable. El_C 03:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another sock of Boeing/City of London School vandals

Bobcomŵ appears to be another sock of the vandals at Boeing and City of London School.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 10:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably. If they resume, please report them to WP:AIV. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Garrett Morgan

The article probably should have been protected, but I'm not sure BLP (or even BRDP) applies to someone dead for over 50 years. Was I missing something in the edits? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You're totally right, I must have autopiloted the pulldown menu in Twinkle. I'll fix the log, etc. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Calling it full autopilot. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Suspected permissions gaming at recently protected page

Hey, Elim Garak a page you recently protected appears to have someone WP:PGAMEing and edit-warring should you please take a look?—blindlynx 23:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, when you encounter this type of blatant disruption, could you please report it to the appropriate noticeboard such as WP:ANEW, WP:AIV, or WP:ANI? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, will do! I wasn't sure what the appropriate board was but i guess anyone will do?—blindlynx 00:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Daniel Quinlan :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Graharipu

Admin sir, Please lock the Graharipu article. 2409:4085:8C87:3CA4:0:0:81C9:5B00 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please request page protection on WP:RPPI. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• 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 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• 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.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

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:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

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)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia study

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)

The Lion King II

Hey, there. While I did open up a discussion about the recent changes at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride#Changes to the plot and lead a few days ago, I apologize if I have ever bitten the newcomers; it was never my intention to hurt or upset anyone. Also, keep up the good work, as usual. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@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)

No problem. Also, as an addendum, the IP's edits to the plot summary turned out to be unneeded after all. Otherwise, thanks for your understanding. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Request renewing an IP block

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)

@Pbritti: Hi. That was a while ago and I don't remember them off the top of my head. Could you please report them to WP:ANEW? I'll try to take a look at the report later. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Contentious topics question

Í don’t want to edit the page or anything, í just wanted to ask why the Chola Empire is a contentious topic. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

All edits related to related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan fall under WP:CT/IPA. The contentious topics article has more information and general sanctions is a good overview of all topics covered by sanctions (which includes contentious topics). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

About Analyticalreview

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)

Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel

Can you protect this page please? Pornography is being spammed... Ecrusized (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: It looks like Acroterion already added a brief protection. If you ever need to request page protection, the fastest way is to submit your request at WP:RPPI. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I had to get this to somebodies attention fast because extreme hate speech was being spammed in edit summaries. Ecrusized (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. It looks like the edit summaries have all been handled too, which is good. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for stepping in and blocking an apparent vandal of Deaths in 2024 DarkStarHarry (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Your recent 24 hour block on User:FlyJet777

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)

After reviewing things briefly, the edits from 82.211.205.45 (talk · 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)

@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)

@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)

List of equipment of the Armenian Armed Forces Protected Page Reasoning

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)

@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)

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)

@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.)

Please feel free to ask me again if more headway is made. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

That is unfortunate, sorry. Regardless, please try to assume good faith for people commenting on the talk page. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Elegant variation

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?

- 2A02:560:59A1:EF00:51BD:7C45:D59E:A2DE (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)