This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sdrqaz, for the period November 2022 to November 2023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
So if Isabelle was one of two people who could have passed RfA without noms (true but also I expect Isabelle is rather grateful to have had noms as this turned out) who is the other person on your list? Happy to take your answer here or privately. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
I've sat on this answer for quite some time, to think through whether I was being too rash in my assessment. To get a few things out of the way, the criteria for the list were (and all three needed to be met):
could get adminship "at will"
without need for nominators
little opposition due to their competence and reputation
I don't see nominators as a mandatory part of the RfA process. Given the opportunity to run again, I'd probably do it without nominators. However...
Let's face it, quite a lot of voters (I'd hazard a guess at a majority if I'm in a cynical mood) just look who's nominating and – if they like them – vote for their candidates. They may not all say that explicitly, but that is a big part of their decision-making process.
There are other more controversial candidates where having a nominator would make zero difference, as the vast majority of the voting public would have ingrained opinions on them (or, at least, all of the respected ones that will lead to their followers saying "per x"). Maybe there'd be a difference if one of their antagonists nominated them, but I would be very surprised to see them run in any situation.
There are also others that I would put on the list if they hadn't ruled out RfA (or are widely assumed to have ruled it out).
Additionally, there are others that would probably pass without nominators but I wouldn't go so far to say could get adminship at will; uncertainty is higher for them but chances of passing are above 50%.
I can think of a couple or so that would probably fulfil two-and-a-half of these criteria, but would pass due to their popularity, rather than due to a reputation of competence. I'm not saying that they are incompetent, but ultimately voters are human and need motivation to vote against someone (as you've said in the past).
Hadn't seen this before, but it's funny in retrospect because EW was already in the pipeline when you wrote this (and has obviously now passed). I'm not sure I understand what the "at will" part means but lots of people could get RfA without noms. There's a reasonable argument that noms have been pretty unnecessary for just about every person I've nominated. But I think there is a reason that people tend to want noms anyway even if they, like you, would pass without them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: What I'm trying to convey with "at will" is the ease with which an RfA can be passed. With a nominator, generally speaking the risk of failure is lower for a candidate. Those differences in projected success rates vary across candidate profiles, so it would be smarter for some candidates (with lower name recognition or without a built-in base of support, perhaps) to have a nominator to support them. Nominators are expending social capital by putting candidates forward: they're taking risks. And to put what I wrote above less cynically, if people trust a nominator's judgement, they might just automatically support their candidates because they believe they've done their due diligence. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Looks like they're mostly targeting two epidemiologists known for their COVID pronouncements. The edits look childish, but I'm guessing that's a put-on. Good idea to check back on the bios. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Mmm. They seem to have taken a disliking (or is it a liking? I can't tell) to a couple of baseball players too (Ryan Pressly and Martín Maldonado). There has been no disruption at Deepti Gurdasani and Eleanor Murray in the half hour or so since my block, so maybe they've given up. I've added the articles to my watchlist; thanks for your vigilance. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
John, my involvement in this matter is purely administrative. I do not have a position in this. If you're referring to my history merge of the two articles, that was due to this request, as a user had made a cut-and-paste move. If you're referring to my page move of Talk:East West Rail, that was because the page histories of the article and its corresponding talk page were disjointed – they were in two different places, and that needed fixing. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I do understand that you were trying to clean up a mess that should never have been created in the first place, still less compounded. I'm sorry if my message came across as curt, it wasn't intentional, just late (my time). Fortunately the issue has been resolved overnight. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
This year I'm thankful for 12 new admins to add to the admin corps. Thank you for volunteering to take on more responsibilities on the project. We're lucky to have you! LizRead!Talk!19:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I politely request that you reconsider your decline to protect Farnaz Fassihi. This page has already been protected twice before ([2], [3]) within the past two months due to disruption by numerous other IPs. Furthermore, a related article on a liberal Iranian-American female journalist, Negar Mortazavi, is currently locked due to disruption by more than a dozen WP:SPAs or IP addresses. If the two IPs mentioned in my request are reported to ANI and blocked, then more IPs will very likely pop up in their place in relatively short order. Given this context (and the ongoing Mahsa Amini protests in Iran that are fueling this online campaign), not protecting the article will only delay the process, consume volunteer time at administrative forums, and allow content that likely violates WP:BLP to remain in article space for longer than necessary. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out. Previous protections usually make me more likely to protect pages. However, the two previous protections (in 6 October and 11 October) expired in mid-November and since then, disruption only began on 6 December. As I wrote at RfPP, I think that blocks are preferable to protection in this case because protection is meant to be only used"when a specific damaging event has been identified that can not be prevented through other means such as a block" (second sentence). And while a similar page has experienced disruption, policy prevents me from trying to guess whether that disruption will "bleed over" to this page and whether more IPs will pop up. For what it's worth, I agree that the edits are BLP violations. But (as I wrote) I would prefer that you attempt to communicate with 192.80.162.118(talk·contribs·WHOIS) on their talk page before things like blocks come into the picture – blocking is a last resort. I'm keeping an eye on that article. If, after you speak to them, they continue without any improvement, I will block them (no need to "consume volunteer time at administrative forums"). If another IP pops up soon, then protection will be in order. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Certainly did not expect pictorial proof – thanks, El C! I didn't take a screenshot of my ballot, unfortunately: I just put "S/" and "O/" next to names on a document... Sdrqaz (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
My first run coming within the same year as my RfA was close but unsuccessful. My second run was, obviously, successful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the message, Barkeep49. It's been difficult to process, and the secret ballot doesn't help. Despite all the criticism that RfA gets, at least candidates there know why voters have gone the way they have. Of course I knew this was a possible outcome when you transcluded your statement, and I had predicted that I would get the most neutral votes, but it's disappointing nevertheless.I know you've written about the importance of candidate statements, and I know I have been criticised for mine. I don't know if that criticism was entirely fair, but I can't help but feel that given the opportunity today to write it again, it'd be very similar.I don't know if there will be a second run next year. I was confident that I had the time to serve the community properly in the 2023–2024 term. I'll have to make assessments on 2025 when we get closer to November 2023. On the bright side, five out of my six favoured candidates made it, which is better than last year's three out of five. All the best on the Committee. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I certainly understand from my own experience how a loss can be a time of reflection and processing even when 70% of voters supported you. I think highly of your candidate statement and think you are right to say if you had to do it again it would be similar. In both of my successful runs I think my statements have been equally of the "I want to help" style, offering no specifics of what I plan to do this coming term in my most recent statement. Of course that can be offset by the rather more extensive platforms I've done. That said I think several other candidates offered general "I want to help" platforms. Perhaps a single specific idea is something that the electorate wants but also I think you were far enough out that this change at the margin wouldn't be meaningful. I think a second run could benefit not only from you being farther out from your RfA but also from greater name recognition both during the course of the year (people remember it was you who made a given comment/action because your name is meaningful now) and at ACE. All that's to say I look forward to seeing you around this year and thank you for your kind wishes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts, Barkeep49. I think my habits (as I noted months ago – I tried to turn that into a positive in my statement) don't lend themselves to high name recognition, though. Only time will tell. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair but even if you just continue the work you've been doing for another year having run at ACE once before will make your next election easier imo. Anyhow I'll leave you be other than with a wish that you have a Happy New Year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I highlighted (what I understood to be) a lack of an agenda or opinions in your statement because it was different from other candidates. I don't think that a platform like yours is inherently flawed – the support you received would have solidly won you a seat last year – but just that it differs/differed from most candidates this year, and the differences among candidates is something I aim to discuss in my guide. It wasn't my intention to criticize, but I understand how it could have been perceived as such. Giraffer(talk·contribs)13:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
It's difficult to perceive "I am struggling to find any particular reasons why they are running" as anything other than criticism, Giraffer. I don't blame people for doing so, because it's the right and duty of the community to scrutinise candidates properly, like at RfA (some of my critics may say that I believe in that too strongly). But looking through the statements this year, mine was by no means unique. Perhaps mine stuck out because it was written by a candidate who had not been a member prior to the election, coupled with lower name recognition (as borne out by the number of neutral votes). It was the same last year too, when you also had a guide, where a few platforms were effectively "not enough people are running". Sdrqaz (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
My intention with the lack of motivations/opinions comments was not that you were unenthusiastic about arbitration, but that voters didn't know as much about what you would do on the committee. In that regard, I personally thought your statement was unique among the new candidates. You're correct in that I treated former arb statements differently -- because they can be reasonably expected to resume their previous pattern of work -- whereas for new candidates it's harder to see what they will do. At any rate, your comments are noted, and happy new year. Giraffer(talk·contribs)23:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}}
Sdrqaz, the nominations has responded regarding the issues you were concerned about. It would be great if you could return to your review here soon. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Pichemist. Unfortunately, the prose of the draft is nearly identical to the deleted versions of that article, be it the version deleted at the February 2022 AfD or the April 2022 version by G4 (there is only half a sentence's difference for the latter). This is probably because it is the same person writing those pages (Zeddbrow872 for the draft and Zeddbot3537 for the G4'd versions). Since that draft being moved to mainspace would result in deletion under G4 again, I will not unprotect the title, sorry. I will let it continue developing in draftspace, in hope that things will change in the future. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
You recently protected the article Louis Conradt for vandalism. I've turned that BLP into a redirect to the fuller article on the event at suicide of Louis Conradt. I don't presume one way or another, but should the protection from the former be copied to the latter? — Fourthords | =Λ= |20:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you for letting me know, Fourthords. I'm going to say "no" for now, as most of the unsourced IP edits (that's why I protected) were regarding which political party Conradt was part of. With the old article, that information was prominent at the top of the article, while in the new one that information is further down. I'll keep an eye on the article you've written, and will protect it if things get out of hand (the protection is also set to end in two days, so is probably not worth copying over). Sdrqaz (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The new page is seeing the same vandalism as the previous at a rate of once every 3.26 days. I'm not versed in the metrics for such things; is that a rate warranting a semi-protection, or just regular old vigilance? Thanks, and my apologies for pestering. — Fourthords | =Λ= |21:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
A day or so ago, you increased the protection on this talk page from semiprotection to extended confirmed. The ECP has expired, but the semiprotection is also no longer active. According to the public log, administrator Bbb23 semiprotected the page from 18:52 (UTC) on January 2 to 18:52 on January 16. With a couple of disruptions from IPs at that talk page already since the expiration of the ECP, could you please restore the semiprotection that was on the talk page? Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for re-protecting the talk page, Sdrqaz. The article has just become completely unprotected; could you please restore Favonian's semiprotection of the page from November? (article's public log). Thanks again. MPFitz1968 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Got the problem resuming with autoconfirmed accounts vandalizing both the article and talk page, and likely sockpuppetry happening. Probably need a significantly longer period of ECP, especially on the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep. I blocked one of the socks. Since there had been two autoconfirmed socks, I was waiting for another account to pop up, but that works too. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Reaffirming
I hope that there's no added weight just for reaffirmation, and I agree that it's not a great trend. I think a lot of the reaffirmations are to elaborate on rationale. For instance, I gave a generic per nom style response initially, and seeing that weighing arguments would matter, I figured it might be wise to go into a bit of detail taking into account some of the opposition. Maybe that's not a great change to how RFAs are playing out now in contentious cases though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry – had a busy couple of days. ScottishFinnishRadish, I wondered whether I'd be inadvertently encouraging the practice by doing so myself, but I guess it's too late now. I think that the utility of reaffirmations is greater for supports than for opposes, given the current culture of "support as default" – since a vote in opposition is "out of the ordinary", they are expected to have a more thorough rationale and not requiring "topping up", unlike bare supports.There were slight rumblings in your and Tamzin's 'crat chats regarding reaffirmations, with some saying that they held more weight because it showed that the voter had taken into account what had transpired since their vote and had decided to keep it (unlike someone who did a "vote-and-run", for instance, and did not monitor the discussion afterwards). Examples of bureaucrats weighing them include Acalamari, Avraham, Bibliomaniac15, Nihonjoe, Primefac, Warofdreams, and Worm That Turned, while Dweller wasn't a huge fan. I think that one of the points of my reaffirmation (like yours) was to rebut claims without having to mass-ping voters or have the appearance of badgering. There are, of course, simpler ways to reaffirm...I still have mixed feelings on the practice. I think that greater voter engagement is a good thing – I never believed in making #~~~~ votes myself – but I don't think it should be an obligation for voters even if I believe it helps the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
No worries about the delay. I probably should have gone with "Elaborate on my support" rather than reaffirm. I think that it is overall a good thing when people civilly adjust their input and rationale based on other information, but I'd rather not see reaffirmation for the sake of reaffirmation. The back and forth is important, and in that last RFA I think that many supporters agreeing that the main reasons for opposition were legitimate was beneficial to the process.
As far as supports not needing a rationale, I think it's reasonable that they're considered "per nom," and since there's no opposition statement at the beginning it makes sense to elaborate. I also don't have any issues with opposes that are just # per X ~~~~ as that's essentially the same as a bare support. I'd really like to see a move to, or at least an option for a week of discussion followed by a week of secret ballot with no discretionary range which would take any of the timing of votes out of it, and after a week of discussion all of the cards will hopefully be on the table so each voter has the information before the vote. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I agree with your first paragraph. As for the second, I know that there's currently a discussion at WT:RfA about that, but I don't like it, as someone who's been through both an RfA and an election. At some level, I don't think that discussion without voting will elicit much useful input, just as how six of the pages at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Discussion were empty and three more had a single statement. There are fewer incentives for publicly dissenting in an election environment, because why would someone go out of their way to be badgered when they can just vote against them without any consequences in the second week? The only incentive there is is the ability to persuade others – maybe that's enough for people – but I'm sceptical. For some supporters of this adminship election idea, I suspect that that's a feature, not a bug, however.Candidates at ACE also have to deal with a lot of unknowns: you don't know how you're doing before and during and after the voting period, as well as not knowing what went well or what went badly when the results are out. RfA forces all of that out in the open and at least gives you concrete reasons for why failure has happened. They may well be reasons you disagree with, or reasons you think are terrible, but you know as a certainty. My RfA may have had more drama than my ACE run, but it was more enjoyable because there were fewer unknowns. It was also far shorter. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that you'd still see significant discussion about RFA candidates, unlike for Arbcom candidates. Most of those running for Arbcom are known, and unless there's something in particular to bring up then people already know what they're getting. An RFA has a degree of magnitude fewer participants, but in any contentious RFA it creates enormous piles of text. I think you would still see that in the pre-vote discussion. I'm also not sure that the discuss-then-vote method would be a great replacement, but offering it as an option could increase the number of people willing to stand at RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps, ScottishFinnishRadish. Barkeep49 has held that ACE voters are generally lower-information voters, which is natural when people who may have very little interest in projectspace matters are all given a usertalk message telling them to vote. People in elections can vote for people because they like their username and for no reason else. I think that my concerns are largely with the length of such a process and the unknowns you have to deal with. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect an Admin election would see more discussion about individuals than ACE but less than the current RfA for the reasons you two talk about but primarily that the jump from not admin to admin is larger than admin to arb, because the number of questions/discussion decreases during any simultainous candidate situation whether that's RfA or ACE, and because it would be a slightly more wiki-elite electorate at RfA than ACE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Forcing people to enter public rationales discourages casual voting (though I'd argue it happens a lot anyway). It's interesting that the elite issue has happened at RfA, given that the only threshold on paper is possession of an account. As for questions and discussion, that's one of the reasons why I chose to run alone at RfA. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Previously, I had a look; given the user had a long history of unimproved drafts on similar recurring shows, as well as A1s, I considered a speedy (in particular, many singular infoboxes without any supplementing text content). Thanks for reminding me of A1 criteria and to be less bitey. As for this, I added the rationale template while monitoring RC as it was in mainspace, with the same singular infobox, at the time. I returned back to the page after a while to see a lead blurb; I attempted to remove the template but we edit conflicted. Also must have gotten my RC filters wrong; it wasn't supposed to look for new pages. Thanks Silikonz💬22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Silikonz: I see, and thanks for the message. A1 is very narrow: you're not supposed to be able to figure out what the article is about, at all. As the text of the criterion states: "If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate." The title – The Voice Kids Indonesia (season 5) – made it clear what it was about, even if the text had not been filled in yet. It seems like the creator's talk page is full of templated messages. Perhaps a handwritten one, encouraging them to work in draftspace before moving to the mainspace, could work. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello. In case you were not aware; you can request oversight by email via oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org. The reviewing recipient will decide the degree of action required and rev'del more often than not (in my experience). By this method, we can avoid spreading offensive matter around, and almost always get the fastest possible response. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs21:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree @Fred Gandt, in hindsight emailing Oversight would have been the better option in this case. My knee-jerk reaction was to find an active admin, though. Thanks all! S0091 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry if my butting in felt unwelcome; I am a tad over-tired and perhaps should just mind my own business sometimes. I've just always found the reaction via oversight blistering fast and very sneaky, which is great for clearing up the offensive stuff. Good to meet another human who cares enough to report it 😊 Fred Gandt · talk · contribs21:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Fred Gandt speaking for myself, you were spot-on with your advice so certainly not unwelcome. Not everyone knows about Oversight and you had no idea if knew about it or didn't. No worries! :) S0091 (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I honestly didn't think it was a serious attempt to create an article, considering how it was written, but I wasn't sure exactly how to tag it. So why do we now need to wait six months to delete this garbage? I've no interest in improving it, and I seriously doubt he's notable. Automatic notability is swiftly going out the door on Wikipedia, and being mayor of a small town (and I've been there many times) isn't likely to be enough to overcome local notability. Now if he gets caught doing something he shouldn't as mayor, and that gets broad coverage, perhaps then. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@BilCat: I'd admit that the chances of it being improved to the point that it is an article in the mainspace are slim, but it certainly has better odds than most of the stuff in draftspace. The page was created in talkspace and the A-criteria don't apply there; even if it were formatted badly, that doesn't make it a test. With A7, we need to remember that significance ≠ notability: significance is a much lower bar. Ultimately, I don't think that it's up to me as an individual administrator to decide who is or isn't notable – that's the role of the community or a more streamlined version of it. It would be unfair for me to not even give that IP editor (and anyone who might stumble on it, which they now might do) a chance. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair points, and though I still disagree. I honestly think it was a student posting on their teachers, with no real understanding of what an article is supposed to be, or that Wikipedia isn't a social network. However I won't contest it further, as I could be wrong! BilCat (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Btw, should the other person's name be revdelled? I'm assuming they're a teacher, but considering how poorly written it is, it could be a student's name. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Being a teacher is probably more strenuous, as Ringgold isn't very big! They may both be part-time jobs, but I don't know for certain. Another editor has begun improving the article, so it may well make it eventually. BilCat (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Checking in, I'm pretty sure I'm nearly done with the online sources, now for the newspapers. Sdrqaz, BilCat, do you think the draft here passes WP:NPOLITICIAN? It does have a AP News reference and a couple of local news sources, though I am not quite sure if this draft meets the NPOLITICAN criteria regardless. Does it? TailsWx04:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work. As far as I can tell, he's never held statewide office or higher, which is necessary per NPOLITICIAN. I don't know if the AP source is enough to establish broad coverage per WP:GNG. It honestly reads like a local story put on the AP wire. But even if the draft or article is deleted, it can always be restored and expanded if he meets GNG in the future, or wins a state-level office or appointment. BilCat (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I'll try to see if there are newspapers depicting some more information on Millwood, however if the newspapers aren't enough for the draft to pass NPOLITICAN or GNG, I'm fine with the deletion and like you stated, the draft can always be restored at any time if a significant event occurs (e.g. winning a state-level office). TailsWx17:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz, I noticed that the New Page Reviewer permission has been removed from my account due to inactivity. I appreciate your diligence, and you are correct that my last edit was 12 months ago. However, this has been a temporary absence due to some of my other obligations, and I intend to resume contributing to the English Wikipedia shortly, including (hopefully) reviewing new articles. My account has not been compromised, and I would request that you kindly consider restoring my ability to patrol new pages. Thank you, Tony Tan·talk01:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC).
Thanks for reaching out, Tony. Given that the removal was purely procedural, I will restore it to you – however, I would advise you to use it with greater care than usual since you last used it in 2018. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. I have been traveling a lot. I started a draft page for an old friend who is a leading medical researcher. While I was away two messages were sent to me informing me of the looming deletion of the sample page I created. He now wants to work on his page. If it is possible to restore it, please do. If not, so be it; he'll start from scratch. Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Wikepedia. Ntid4wpid (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Ntid4wpid, I've restored it, but have blanked it as well. The contents of the page can be retrieved from the page history. Much of it, unfortunately, is promotional and unsourced. Things like "Dr. Bers' extensive leadership experience, outstanding research accomplishments, record of training pre- & postdoctoral trainees, broad scientific expertise and highly collaborative spirit make him well-suited to serve as a Principal Investigator (PI)" are things you would find in a hagiography instead of a serious biography. I hope that the page can be toned down significantly. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a quick note about the above draft which you declined a G11 and pinged me in the summary. I didn't nominate it for deletion I only rejected it as a draft. It's no big deal but I'm sure you were trying to reach the person who did actually nominate it. McMatter(talk)/(contrib)04:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Goodness, I could've sworn... Thanks for letting me know, Mcmatter, and sorry for the incorrect notification. The one who tagged it for speedy deletion was JCMLuis, and I see that Jimfbleak has deleted it despite my declination. Can I ask you to reconsider, Jim, given that there is no promotional language on that page? The closest thing is "She posts photos and videos primarily related to makeup and fashion." I don't think that pages written about selves inherently necessitate deletion as unambiguous promotion. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be kind of pointless to undo the deletion? Even if it didn't had much promotion it still would not follow general notability guidelines, let alone ever be in mainspace. The draft was clearly an autobiography to publicize herself. There is only one source that I found that covers her, and it isn't even a reliable one. luis💬13:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
It's an autobiography making no claim to notability and sourced to instagram, which looks like self-promotion to me. I admit I didn't notice your decline of G11, for which I apologise, and I have no objection if you wish to restore, although like JCMLuis I'm unconvinced that it adds much to the sum of human knowledge Jimfbleak - talk to me? — Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Sdrqaz! I saw that you were the "proposer" for WP:WikiProject Edit requests. I made a request at George Pyne. After two months I dropped a message on the WikiProject Talk page but it didn't get any response. 5 months after my request was submitted, it was partially answered by an editor who didn't actually upload the changes they thought did merit inclusion and seemed to misunderstand WP:PAYWALL. I tried to engage in discussion with that editor to see if this was oversight or if they had other arguments, but the responder never actually replied to my follow-up to the point where I had to submit a new request.
This new request has also sat in the queue for another month of silence, so I wondered if there might be a way to improve the takeup and help discourage COI editors from taking matters into their own hands. Could the request size in bytes perhaps be featured to help people clear out smaller, easier requests? Or perhaps tags for navigating subject matter, based on either article categories or input COI editors could specify like "updating recent news", "correcting misinformation", "tone review", etc? I know there's an indicator of the page protection level, but that doesnt seem to encourage engagement. I imagine Wikiprojects could also maybe be utilised to clear the backlog.
I would welcome any of those actions if they helped to encourage a better collaboration from editors who have a COI and volunteers. Let me know your thoughts, I'd be interested to hear your side on helping to make the process less painful for everyone.
(If you feel like reviewing the request in question I would also obviously be hugely grateful!) Thank you! Stoppat (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Just a note to say another editor kindly answered this request, but I will leave my thoughts on improving the request log here in case they are useful Stoppat (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
you should investigate more about this person. Open this page and remove the Semi-protected feature of this person because he committed various heinous crimes and he's avoiding the Country (Philippines) and living his life as a Fugitive. You haven't done any in-depth research about the victims of this person.
And It is still unacceptable 😤 that you named him as such, a celebrity??? He himself admitted that he was a scammer and have video evidences and documentary himself on it, and he is not going back to the country after scamming too many people; definitely a Fugitive.
I am discussing this with you so that you can get the clearer picture but I am still thankful that you are protecting the page from deliberate defacing and misuse of public information.
I will recommend our conversation to the victims of the people he scammed,as well as to her Ex Gf and I hope you will research more because there's plenty of evidences lying around the internet about this person. Sacredfeather (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The article says he's a Business man, which in fact he has NO LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES, Also we know that he's a scammer. Way back before it was edited, I remember that he's a Fugitive and a Con-Artist.
If you may give me permission to edit the Page, I will control it myself with your permissions and guidance, ensuring that legitimate sources are also included as well at Footnotes section. Sacredfeather (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
You declined protection here, under "Warn the user appropriately", and left a message at one of the IPv6 talk pages. Will they even see that? The reason I didn't originally pursue this at ANI was because of lack of ways to get their attention, given how their IP address continually changes. That range seems to have been single-purpose adding variations on that single item over a dozen times since June 2022, and every single time it has been reverted by someone else.
I don't know of any way to leave a message that someone at that location will see that the next time they edit. If there is a way to deal with this more appropriately, I'll do that next time. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, Tarl, I left the warning at the last active IP's talk page as a somewhat of a last resort. I was not hopeful that they would see the message, but I thought that we should have at least tried. With the advent of IP masking, the Foundation says that communication with IPs (or people without accounts, as they will soon no longer be identified with their IPs) will become easier, since their identity will be dependent on browser cookies instead of IP addresses. It remains to be seen whether those promised benefits will come to fruition, of course. With the disruption having mostly come from a single /64 range this year, I thought that it would be preferable to block that range instead of protecting the page, and have done so. I'll continue to watch that page. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. As for IP masking, it's one of the reasons I'm trying to walk away from Wikipedia. I expect it to make the the problem worse, not better. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 16:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware)
Hi Sdrqaz, I'm wondering if you can move the page Funland (Rehoboth Beach, Delaware), to Funland, Rehoboth Beach. I'd do so myself, but I don't know how to. Thanks in advanced, and thanks for unprotecting the page. 108.48.61.64 (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure – happy to help. Moving a page is unfortunately restricted to only autoconfirmed users, which requires creating an account. In the future, if you think a request is uncontroversial, you can make it at the technical requests board. If you anticipate some dispute, or if it's not straightforward, requested moves is available. Of course, asking here is fine too. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) – note added 15:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time, and help. This article is heavily outdated right now, and I don't have time to edit it any time soon, as I'm currently working on a big project for my channel. However, the most recent correct version of the article, (which is now also heavily outdated), was contentious with other editors that know nothing about Funland. I know a lot about Funland, as it's my favorite amusement. In the past, I've added info about important information about Funland that makes Funland famous and popular. However, other editors that know nothing about Funland, have been reverting my edits, and getting me in trouble when I've provided sources confirming what I was saying was true. Can you take a look at the last correct version, and tell me if you think it's appropriate to restore until I have time to fix the outdated stuff in there? I don't wanna do it myself, as I know it would have to be reviewed anyways, and my guess is the same editors that had reverting my stuff in the past would return and try to get me in trouble again. Your help, and opinion would be much appreciated. Here's the link to the last correct version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Funland,_Rehoboth_Beach&oldid=1087525757. I can provide you with sources to validate what I put there. I acknowledge that the Haunted Mansion section is the longest section of this version, but that's because it's the ride they're most known for. I was also told that I should change the history of their ticket prices to a chart, and plan on doing that when I have time. Lastly, I just wanna say thank you, as all the other admins dealing with this article has always sided with the editors that know nothing about the park, and haven't been listening to anything I've said in the past. All they say is, you have to get consensus. How am I supposed to get consensus with people that literally know nothing about the place, and what's it's known for? I don't see how that's possible. I'd like to, and I've tried to, but nobody, including the other admins have listened. So, it refreshing to have somebody that's willing to help and listen. I'm not trying to cause problems, or be a disruption. I'm just wanting to have a rational conversation with somebody to try to figure this out, and I'm hoping you and I can do that. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions, or concerns. 108.48.61.64 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Reading every revision of a page
"A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its history is also eligible" and "Before deleting a page, check the page history to assess whether it would instead be possible to revert and salvage a previous version" fall a long way short of saying that one always has to read all revisions. It is difficult to imagine that you didn't realise that when I pointed it out to you, even if you hadn't thought it through when you first posted about it. JBW (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
How else do you ensure that all of a page's history is eligible for speedy deletion? If someone replaces a legitimate page's contents with "POOP" or blanks an article, I hope that administrators won't delete them as vandalism or as blank articles without checking the history (eg Special:Diff/1110098964). I will reiterate what I said two days ago and point out that I'm not even asking for that: I'm asking that people read pages properly before tagging or deleting. That's a very low bar.Our interpretations of the policy obviously differ, JBW, but when processing speedy deletions, going through every revision of a page isn't as onerous as it seems at first glance. If you have pop-ups, you can go to the page history and read the first revision, then hover over the diff links for subsequent revisions. That doesn't always work, because of how it truncates complex diffs (meaning that you'll have to open them), but it does make things more efficient.I know that our duties are often difficult and time-consuming, but we owe it to the community – whether it entrusted us with our tools in 2010 or 2022 – to use them with as much care as we can muster. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for providing more context, Cahk, but as I pointed out at RfPP, there are different rules for user talk page protections. The user pages you've pointed out were protected because zero collateral damage results from the salting of a indefinitely-blocked user's subpage. However, with a user's talk page, that's different – while that user has been blocked since November, they still have the right to appeal their block. I could see perhaps semi-protecting User talk:Candygummie and granting confirmed to them, but I still don't feel that the disruption has been enough to justify protecting it. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Message from 103.87.140.118 (moved from top of page)
hi actually you have deleted a page about pallabh raha can I know the reason behind it? I mean there is nothing harmful or falsehood in that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.87.140.118 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully - I tag spam accounts on a daily basis. Some of them, while appears to be a "new" user experimenting on Wikipedia, are in fact spambots. Whether you want to block the account is up to you, but I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say I've reported thousands of accounts. Your message on AIV is rather unnecessary. Cahk (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Cahk, I didn't mean for my message to be insulting. Given that AIV is an administrative board, if I decline a report I'm expected to give a reason for it, and so I advised you that a {{db-spam}} tag would have been even better in that situation. I've also blocked accounts that you've reported, such as Mach96. In my opinion, a single promotional edit in isolation should not result in a block without warning. I think that our responsibilities as experienced editors include erring on the side of caution and choosing to assume the best in others. That's not to say that I've never blocked an account without warning, such as those with promotional usernames engaging in promotional activity, but I think we should give the benefit of the doubt by default. If people take advantage of that, that's a shame, but we tried our best. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Impersonation/socks
Hi, and thanks for blocking that impersonation account Novam Linguae. If I recall correctly before you deleted the bogus AfD Wikipedia talk:Articles or deletion/Billy cranston (couldn't even spell "for" correctly!), there was an upvote from another user on there. I didn't make note of the the name, but I imagine it was another sock. Did you happen to spot who it was? --Drm310🍁 (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
From this page under "club competitions rankings" we can see that Saudi Arabia is 1st and Japan is 2nd as mentioned in the vandalised part.
Similarly to this we can use leagues points to sort them in a global ranking which was done there. I accept that the MLS part didnt have a place there and was a dig at the Messi/Ronaldo rivalry (As the person who edited the post mentioned) but I dont think anything else apart from the 1 sentence was just adding additional information from other pages ( such as Asian football cconfederation) into related topic. NateRMA (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm the page was being vandalised in the recent time due to the haters of the leagues player Cristiano Ronaldo. Very large chunk of the Leagues ranking part is important and informative (Apart from one sentence comparing it to Major League Soccer). NateRMA (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies about that and you're completely right; for some reason I had it in my head that MoD documents were exempt from the gov.uk OGL. I've added attribution: thanks! – Isochrone (T) 06:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Aedes. sticticus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a global renamer or steward, Bbb23, so I can't be certain. But given that they haven't edited since then (in May) and they chose that new account name and they requested the deletion of their user page, I'd say it seems like a vanishing. The username doesn't really follow the "proper" username for vanished users (see Meta and English Wikipedia), but that doesn't seem like a big deal. Perhaps a renamer like Deepfriedokra can tell us what m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/106870 roughly says, just to be sure? Sdrqaz (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Are we allowed to call you 'Okra? :-) BTW, I intend to file an SPI because I believe that Retired user 78767 has been socking since - and a bit before - their "retirement". I'm filing rather than blocking because the evidence isn't as persuasive as I'd like to block based on behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome, Fxxkingbay, but please specify a size for the images in the "Userboxes" section (the boxes are at a, b, and c). On the non-mobile website, it takes up the full screen. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz I hope all is well. Thank you for your help in the past. I've finished a new page and wanted to see if you would be willing to review it and provide me feedback. Are you able to access my Sandbox or do I need to publish it somewhere else for you to read it? Rusty at MTI Global (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Rusty. Yes, I am able to access your sandbox. I also see that you've gotten feedback at the Teahouse. While the way that they have given the feedback is a little harsh, I mostly agree with the substance of their messages: the page is written in an overly-promotional tone. Based on this revision of the page, I think it needs to be streamlined greatly. Phrases like "provide global leadership", "maximizes member asset performance", and "consistent, valuable input" are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, unfortunately. A lot of it reads like what you would see on MTI's website or a promotional brochure – instead of writing with the purpose of letting the world know about its benefits, it needs to be an encyclopaedic article. I would also advise having a look at the notability guidelines for companies, as the bulk of the article needs to be written using reliable and independent sources; examples would be reputable newspapers. All the best, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Sdrqaz, i requested the deletion of the redirect page "Gobryas (the lance-bearer of Darius the Great)
" as is the one holding the interlanguage links instead of the correct one "Gobryas (noble)". This was rejected but the thing is i can't edit interlanguage link of Q454695 by myself as it requires admin privileges, can you help me with that? many thanks! User:Ramses Rodriguez.Martinez — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramses.Rodriguez.Martinez (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: Message was following the declination of a G6 CSD nomination.
Johannesburg, Wisconsin
Maile66, in response to this: I've agonised over whether I should reply, but I think that it's important to not have misunderstandings and not have unnecessary bad blood.
I'm sorry: I didn't mean to lecture or disrespect you. When I think of your name, I think of your work at DYK, an area in which you have far more expertise than me. Even though you maybe aren't as active as you once were there, that work – and your work in general – is appreciated, as we are all volunteers on this website at the end of the day.
I have not "been keeping a list, checking it twice". I looked through the page history of your talk page to see if this had been a persistent issue. I thought that if I were the only one who had taken issue with your speedy deletions, then maybe that was because my standards for CSD were too conservative and I might have been overly sensitive and over-reacting.
"Stuff happens, as all humans make mistakes", yes. I make mistakes both here and in my off-wiki life. And when people call me out and hold me accountable, it hurts sometimes – that's my pride speaking. Yes, as you state, you have been an administrator for far longer than me. We still have access to the same buttons, and share the same responsibilities here. Part of them is listening and responding and justifying our actions. As I state on my userpage: "There's still a lot I don't know, a lot that I won't ever hope to know, and I won't ever be the smartest editor in the room". I have no doubt that will continue to be the case for a long time. I'll work to soften my tone when contesting others' actions – thank you for pointing this out.
You're free to ignore this message, but I think that clearing the air is a good thing. I don't go on this website seeking adversaries and want, like you, to continue "trying to resolve an issue" together.
Eh ... let's move forward as friends. We both kind of tripped over our intentions on this one. Post on my talk page whenever you like. Best wishes to you. Thanks for clarifying. — Maile (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Haha, Stanmarsh97 pitched me a googly. I'm familiar with the history of this UTP, and fully agree that it shouldn't be deleted. Which is presumably exactly why I was baited to request this. :) 1-0 to Stanmarsh97, I reckon. Anyhoo... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sdrqaz, for the period November 2022 to November 2023. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.jpg)
.png)