Click here to leave a message... This talk page is archived manually on the 15th day of every month, when the previous month's conversations are filed into storage. This applies unless it would lead to no conversations being left. If the user switches to bot-based archiving, the account has been compromised. Send help.
Personally I agree with Favonian that we shouldn't be wasting our time processing requests from a likely sock, but on the other hand I don't particularly care whether or not swimming is protected at this time. If this user starts filling up RFPP again with pointless requests I will likely block them however. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly typing, that is what I planned to do in the future, but compiling the pages in one edit like this one, nonetheless excluding media-related articles given the fact that the LTA case in my region being prevalent. But seriously, I was making requests mainly because of two reasons: 1)Page protector is inactive, and 2)Page is protected long enough (provided that it doesn't have a lengthy list of protection history). Why are you considering my case "pointless"? If you believe they are "pointless", then why did you accept my request for unprotecting pool (cue sports) in the first place?102.156.121.163 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: These requests are pretty valid from a policy point of view and are not what I would call pointless (I could get that perspective if they were requesting semi-protection removals for redirects, but these are "live" pages that have very little need for continued protection). I hope that the link between the LTA and these IPs isn't just being made because they're from Tunisia, given that this IP doesn't fit into the behavioural clues listed at the LTA page regarding lack of communication. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only "lacking communication skills", but also persistent reverts. Users might have mistaken me an LTA user by accounting my reverts to this edit as well as this edit. I am currently decreasing my activity for a while, as a means of accepting the wp:so, provided that one of my ranges is meant to be blocked for 3 months.
I find out that negotiating issues with experienced editors interesting. However, there is one thing I intend to avoid but also uncertain if I am ever commiting it (if it is, I am sorry to type this) and that is: wp:hounding. I understand such behaviour leads to serious consequences/sanctions, but how can anyone tell if I am ever commiting it? (see also user talk:el C)102.156.121.163 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)(It appears that users seem to appreciate my comments and/or requests nowadays.)102.158.229.169 (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realized you did not remove or shorten protection from one of the pages. Since I have made that request again at user talk:lectonar, I am unlikely that I would request that again given that he explained why indefinite protection is still necessary, albeit being protected for over five years.102.156.121.163 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that you down-protected almost all of them from semi to pending (actually that's also my take, downgrade to pending with time-limit, to evaluate the effect of it) whereas the Big brother ones are only pending changes protected to start with, afaics, and are still experiencing disruption on a lower level. Lectonar (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but when there are on average only two reverted edits by non-autoconfirmed users in the past year, the need for continued protection is not as pronounced. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruption returned, including from another address which starts with those same numbers as I am, unrelated to me. Per previous editions' protection history, could you consider a month long protection?102.158.132.236 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't been following this thread since June, but I blocked that IP because they just hit a filter hitting a filter attempting to edit TV-related aritcles, which is exactly what the filter is intended for. If you want to unblock them, be my guest, but I suspect they are the user the block is intended for. OhNoitsJamieTalk02:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: I asked you in June how this user's behavior meets the behavior listed at the LTA page (especially regarding communication) and you didn't respond. This IP seems to be trying to revert the LTA (example, removing a YouTube source) and you blocked them from doing so (both literally and through the filter), which seems counter-productive. I will unblock shortly. I understand that it may be frustrating that there seems to be two people on the same range editing in TV-related areas, making collateral damage difficult to avoid, but the block seems very much avoidable. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the behavior isn't identical, it's certainly plausible for the LTA to adopt different behavior. In any case, the filter is going to prevent anons in that range from editing a large swath of TV articles, so I'm not too worried about it either way. OhNoitsJamieTalk12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RegierungDavidlands1852. I removed some personal information from your user page, including information about your location. The material was suppressed, meaning that the information was removed from public view, with administrators also unable to access it (only members of the Oversight team can).This was done to prevent possible harassment; you may find this useful. As there is still some personal information on your user page, you may want to remove some of that too after reading the link above. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking why the content on that page was only removed and suppressed years later, that's because there is no automatic system for suppression. The Oversight team is dependent on people noticing suppressible content and sending reports to the team. And so that may occur years later, though there are dangers with implementing such old reports. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my article about 'Ravinder Kumar.' There wasn't any article there before, just some internal links that I was keeping. You deleted that as well. Please restore it as it was. I want to reach people with the best quality. The article I am writing is about a social worker who I have seen helping people. Shouldn't we write about such people?
I saw that you closed the article Harrison Butker to edits. Another editor has been repeatedly attempting to force through what is, in my opinion, a POV phrase into the aforementioned article. While I do think the article needed temporary protection, I think you may have made it excessively stringent. In addition, the version that is now sealed is that which was pushed by the other editor. They have come extremely close to violating the "three-revert" rule. That editor has also neglected to ever make any statement on the "talk" page in defense of their changes. Hours ago, they added a statement there which I removed due to it being needlessly hostile, and bordering on personal attacks against me. I would be happy to state my objections on said "talk" page to their POV edits. If possible, could the protection be lifted, or else the section be changed back to the previous consensus? As it is now, their POV changes are locked in. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my understanding that returning an article to its previously accepted status quo from sudden and controversial changes made without even an attempt at consensus constitute "edit warring." The other editor had those two weeks in which to state their case and gain consensus and yet made no such attempt. I must therefore, strongly disagree with said controversial changes being made unchangeable for a month. As a compromise, perhaps you could change the two phrases to something truly neutral, or even remove the section entirely for the moment? Why should the other editor even bother to state their case on the "talk" page, considering that they appear (at least for now) to have won the debate without actually making an argument?
I am aware of the controversial nature of this terminology, however we do not necessarily follow other organizations' guides. A principal portion of my position is consistency with other biographical articles. I am unaware of other articles that describe the subjects as "in favor of abortion," or "not supportive of abortion." Rather, they generally use the self-styled terms, "pro-life" and "pro-choice."
I hope that you may consider some form of a compromise in this situation. I do think that it is up to the other editor to make an argument considering they are the one who is wanting to change the article's current (or rather, recent) wording. Thank you,
TanRabbitry, returning an article to its previously accepted status quo from sudden and controversial changes made without even an attempt at consensus is not an exception under the edit-warring policy (this does not come under point #7).With regards to your previously accepted status quo, silence is a weak form of consensus. You can presume that there is a consensus for something if nobody objects, but once people start objecting, it evaporates. Based on my look through the history, the "Pro-life advocacy" heading was inserted on 15 May, but was changed 12 hours later to "Anti-abortion advocacy". There have been back-and-forth reverts on that topic in May, July, and August (with you participating in many of those reverts). When faced with such a situation, I think that it's safe to assume that there is no consensus for that heading.It unfortunately isn't my role to come up with a neutral phrase that isn't 'pro-life' or 'anti-abortion'; arguments here about whether we should use other non-Wikipedia style guides should be put on the talk page. I would urge you (as above) to come to some sort of consensus on this issue. Regarding Why should the other editor even bother to state their case on the "talk" page, the other editor has come to discuss the issue as you've noted above. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. The reason that I considered it a consensus is that several months ago, I and many other editors went over nearly every line in that section. We debated numerous portions and that section certainly came up. I would note that I don't consider a non-argument complete with personal attacks to count as a discussion. I have asked them to remove their attacks and actually make an argument, but so far they have done neither. They have instead accused me of "pestering" them. I hope they change their tune, but I don't know if they will. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., editor Whasha just mentioned me on a noticeboard without notifying me. It specifically says you must do so at the top of the article in bold, bright red text and they didn't. What now? TanRabbitry (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While people should notify others when reporting them at noticeboards, it is not an offence to miss that out unless it's being done on purpose – reasons for that occurring may be banner blindness or simple carelessness/forgetfulness. It frequently occurs (especially when people are unfamiliar with starting reports) and I think that I did so before when I was a newer editor. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Considering the editors behavior elsewhere, I am suspicious that it wasn't intentional, but without direct evidence, I guess I can't assume that. You would think they would have said something about not knowing to do so, though.
Another issue has cone up. The editor in question apparently combed through the "talk" page history. They re-added old portions of long discussions that I had previously removed. The have implied I did so dishonestly. The real story is that several months ago, I and other editors discussed the page at length, arguing over everything from what counts as balance to what constitutes a standing ovation. The sections are now, old, outdated and need to be removed. It is twenty-eight thousand-odd words that are mostly irrelevant now. Additionally, the section contained a false accusation against me (for which the editor, who had made a mistake, apologized) and a long expression of anger by an otherwise productive editor who delved into a childish fit, including multiple obscenities. Most importantly, toward the end of one discussion, another editor said we were finished, I said I would remove the section after a period and no one objected.
Editor Whasha has restored these sections again. They seem to think Wikipedia is a forum or social media. I don't think nearly thirty-thousand words cluttering the page is necessary. They think otherwise. Wouldn't it be the perogative of an editor who was actually involved in the discussion to question the removal? Thank you,
Nevermind, I was informed that the discussions should be archived, rather than deleted. I didn't think theses were important enough, but apparently they are. Thank you,
Sorry for the late reply, Kurnahusa: I'm travelling. I don't really follow your reasoning. My block of the /30 was very wide, yes, but as you note it was a partial block. Its collateral damage was other IPs in the same range who wanted to edit the same three articles; if I semi-protected those three articles, the collateral damage would be all IPs and new accounts that wanted to edit the same three articles (therefore a far greater collateral damage as it would cover IPs around the world as well as non-autoconfirmed accounts, not just an AT&T range).As you note, my block has since been superseded. Hammersoft, that /30 may be too wide for a regular site-wide block; perhaps a few more targeted (narrower) site-wide blocks would be appropriate? Sdrqaz (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I wouldn't know how. I superseded the partial to a site-wide due to the IP range continuing the vandalism outside of the targeted articles. If you want to modify it to be more specific, be my guest. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Mr(s). Sdrqaz. I realized that you are in charge of removing some user rights from users who made no constribution for the past dozen of months. I'm not sure how you have that ability to track them.
Hi, IP. I'm not in charge, but do it semi-frequently. I check it manually, looking through lists of users like at Special:ListUsers/extendedmover, so thank you for letting me know. I have removed one of the users' permissions for now. When I do inactivity-related removals, I do so a day after a year has passed from their last edit (so for Jack, it would be on 2024-09-10 as their last edit was on 2023-09-09). Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue on that page is that IPv6 /32 that had been editing until right up to when I protected it. It was some woman who apparently has the delusion that now that he and Lisa Bonet have split up that she's Jason's new love interest, and went so far as a) fabricating a source (easily ID'able as unreliable, but to her it doesn't matter) reporting the relationship in celebrity-news style and b) making similar edits to the article on the Greek Wikipedia (she is apparently fluent in that language as well). I think on the basis of how long those edits had been going on, and how long ago she'd been willing to do this based on when we had had to protect the article, I chose the long protection since, after all, it is a BLP and this was relevant to that.
I agree that we do not need to renew the protection on the article just because the most recent one had expired. But I am not sure that "Aquawoman" as we came to call her won't be coming back ever, so I wouldn't be surprised if she finds out the article is unprotected and resumes soon. And for that same reason I would leave the talk page protection on. Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of dropping that protection to three months now ... we'll see what happens with the article; we have no way of knowing as of yet whether Aquawoman will find another IP to edit from or find some other way of indulging her delusion online. As for the other template, go ahead. I didn't understand as much about when the request was made. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About Rauf Javad
Hello, have a good and successful day, valuable and honorable lady distinguished by her intelligence! We need your help, lady! Please lend us a helping hand! Don't spare us your help to make the Rauf Javad page back to what you ordered! Thank you in advance for your help! Sincerely — Arif Hikmət türk (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Arif Hikmət türk. I deletedRauf Javad because it did not have a claim to importance. The article that you wrote had information about his family, education, and learning from poets/philosophers. It did not state anything about why this person is important. Please note that all articles need to be notable: they need to have other reliable sources which have covered them in detail; please try and find those sources first before writing about Javad. If you are unblocked, please work on the page in draftspace instead of moving it to become an article; when you are finished, you may want to get help by adding {{subst:submit}} to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
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.
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.
