Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

Archives

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

Moot?

Apparently, user:Abd has died; as such, is there any point to keeping the Abd/William M. Connolley interaction ban on here? DS (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a two-way ban, meaning that neither one can discuss the other (barring the usual exceptions), even if one is dead. Connolley is welcome to make a request at WP:AN to have it lifted should he so choose. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iimitlessyou restriction

I reverted this edit as I broke the table (Thanks @Bugghost for flagging!) and I have no idea how to fix it. Their topic ban remains in place and I'd very much appreciate any help in logging it properly. Thank you! Star Mississippi 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you didn't break the table? You just had an extra --> in there. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh good. @Bugghost was reporting that second half of the page has been moved into a cell on iimitlessyou's table row. which I assumed was my error. Thanks for restoring it for me @Primefac Star Mississippi 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... I guess there could have been something that got weird when it was transcluded (and I'm not saying that Bugghost didn't see anything) I just didn't find anything immediately obvious. Odd. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem was that in SM's edit the final |} of the table was removed (the edit just ended the table with } instead) which meant the table wasn't "closed", so when the table was transcluded into WP:ER the rest of the article was visually placed in the table, rather than after it. Either way, looks like it's all fixed now! Bug Ghost 🦗👻 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that would do it. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal granted 3 years ago

I'm just now learning that this page exists. I was surprised to see my name on it, but I guess it makes sense. However, I notice that other users have comments like "Appeal granted" next to their names in the Final warnings / Unblock conditions section. My name doesn't say "appeal granted" even though I was unblocked by User talk:Fences and windows as a result of this appeal 3 years ago. I thought about adding it myself, but perhaps it's best to seek consensus about it here first? Kire1975 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the discussion was never formally closed, which is likely why you name wasn't removed. Unless someone reads the consensus at that discussion differently, it can probably be removed. Primefac (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Primefac. What else can be done to establish this consensus? The action was taken by User:Fences and windows on my profile more than three years ago and no one on the talk page objected and let it slide into the archive.

Quick question: When you say "it can probably be removed" by what do you mean? My name from this list? I assumed it would just add "appeal granted" to my section. It would be great if I could get my name off of this list after all this time. Kire1975 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops. Sorry Kire1975, I didn't realise nobody formally closed the discussion. I've edited the list. Fences&Windows 21:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a relief. I no longer see my name on the list. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, yes, I meant that the restriction is clearly not in effect any more and the listing could be removed. We don't keep records of "appeal granted"; the account that has that listed is listing the various infringements indicating that the restriction had been placed, removed, and re-placed multiple times. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]