User talk:Sdrqaz

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.

Filing cabinet

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

Thank you.

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]

Revision Delete February 2025

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]

Protection request

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]

Talk:Department of Government Efficiency

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]