Ehsan Danish

Thank you for deleting the Draft "Linbi (idiot)". As I do not have an account and want to help Wikipedia anonomously, think of this as someone using the "thank" button. 71.78.136.213 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Thanks for tagging it! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there are 2 edits prior to my revision on STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting which fall under WP:RVDEADNAME. Thank you in advance! Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jiltedsquirrel, thank you for the message and sorry for the delay. I've consulted with a couple of other administrators and we think that since the dead name is covered in reliable sources like CBS and the New York Times, it should not be deleted. Your reversion is absolutely fine, though. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for the confirmation! Trying to make sure to be doing the right thing, so I appreciate your response. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jiltedsquirrel: It's a slightly grey area, I think. I would say that the I am not 100% convinced that the addition to the BLP policy is that well-written, as it seems to imply that all dead names should be deleted, while previous discussion has emphasised that it's discretionary. I suspect that different administrators will have different approaches. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for protecting User:Magitroopa/sandbox/MasterChef (American TV series). For the same reasoning (same sockpuppetry), could User:Magitroopa/sandbox/List of Supernanny (American TV series) episodes be protected as well? Was literally just hit by another of their socks. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked, protected, and requested a lock. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your Protection decline -- the article is apparently under Arbitration Committee requirements for this:

You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)

Why wouldn't it be thus permanently protected? I thought the Committee's decisions were superseding binding on anyone and anything? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Very Polite Person. The Arbitration Committee's relevant action was to designate the post-1992 American politics area as a contentious topic, but didn't act on the article specifically: that was done by Daniel Case, who protected the article until April (Daniel: the restriction is not logged, so maybe it is confusing to have the restriction in the talk page notice?). The designation of "contentious topic" is indefinite, but the protection is not and will expire unless it is extended. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally haven't been logging CTOPS protections on the AELOG pages when the protections are less than six months long, because three months is usually too short a period of time for someone to bother appealing the protection ... it's likely to expire before an appeal can be fully processed.

Having the CTOPS notice on the talk page, though, reminds people to be on their best behavior so they don't get blocked (which under those circumstances, is an admin's choice as to whether to make it an AE block or not, as you doubtless know).

I do wish there was more flexibility in how we word the CTOPS notice template, especially with page restrictions involved. I looked into changing that wording and adding some clarification (for instance, that both AC and EC user access can be revoked by an admin if abused ... as presently worded, a user would be forgiven for believing those grants to be inalienable) but couldn't figure out where to make those changes. Maybe that's just as well as I don't do much template editing and something like that might best be left to the, I guess, professionals. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys for adding the context and explaining. Cheers. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks Daniel (sorry for the late reply – was busy over the weekend and didn't get 'round to this). Just so we're clear, I assume when you say haven't been logging CTOPS protections on the AELOG pages, you mean protections in contentious topics rather than actual CT™ protections? If so, that makes sense, though I haven't heard of that approach before. Personally – people may find this unusual – I don't bother marking my protections in CTs as actual CT protections because the added benefit of marking them as such is not significant for me.

As for the template, while confirmed can be revoked, autoconfirmed cannot, unless some edit filter magic is done (which is not extant on the English Wikipedia, but is in use on Meta, I believe). Changes to template wording should be proposed at Template talk:Contentious topics, I think – the clerks are the professionals here . Sdrqaz (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to this below:

Gene Hackman was a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certificated pilot and owned 2 Pitts Special airplanes in the 1980's. His enthusiasm for aviation included work with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

https://www.wbay.com/2025/02/27/eaa-recalls-actor-gene-hackmans-visit/

Thank you, Shamons (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shamons. You should be able to edit the article; if you want to add the information, maybe Gene Hackman § Views and interests is the best place to add it. If you need help adding the source, Help:Referencing for beginners may be helpful. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, while I accept the declined CSD on Elena Marquez I will drafitify it if no improvements are made. Based on the talk page, the person who made the article has been creating a lot of copy-paste pages like this an I have reported them at ANI. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My declination was just regarding CSD, so that decision seems reasonable to me . Sdrqaz (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This article unfortunately needs again temporary semi-protection per persistent disruptive editing/POV pushing. — 185.37.26.238 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected it again (with a talk page note) as it looks like edit-warring to me. You may want to join that discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This article needs again temporary semi-protection per persistent disruptive editing/POV pushing. I don't know why is this problem repeating. Also thanks for trying to let these users diccuss on the talk page. Unfortunately they did not respod. — 77.243.31.59 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now semi-protected by Bbb23; sorry for the late reply. It's worth noting that SatelliteChange was extended-confirmed, so only full protection would have prevented him from editing the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can You put back the stable version of this article? Current version is made by user Updating Edits which is sockpuppet of user SatelliteChange. 95.86.51.136 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. It seems like another user has taken "ownership of any potential sockpuppet edits" and there is ongoing discussion on this topic. I would prefer that such content discussions be kept there. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure how that happened. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 03:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Technology can be weird sometimes. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the revision prior to my reversion deadnames and adds an unsourced death date to a (to my knowledge) living person. Please delete that revision if possible, since WP:RVDEADNAME seems to apply. Thank you! LinkTiger (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LinkTiger, thank you for the message. While I think that removal was the right thing to do under the Manual of Style, I've consulted with a couple of administrators and think that it is difficult to justify a privacy concern deletion when Schneider has the name pinned on her Twitter account and has written about it in her autobiography. You may also be interested to read a similar conversation from February above. Deletion shouldn't be needed for the death date either, as it's regular vandalism. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew her deadname was publicly known, but didn't realize she was sharing it herself. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. LinkTiger (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism on this article has immediately restarted with the removal of page protection. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I see that Daniel Case has now re-protected the article. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! May I suggest that you block 2409:4000::/24 not only from Talk:Grok (chatbot) but also from Grok (chatbot) and Talk:Origin of the Rashtrakuta Empire since the range has been vandalising thos pages. Sjö (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done! Sdrqaz (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey could you protect White Lotus as well? The same IP vandalism is happening there and the RPP page is backlogged Snokalok (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little more reluctant to protect because there's been two IPs at The White Lotus compared to HBO's three. I've left a warning. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now protected, after they went to a different IP address. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]