User talk:~2025-35304-53

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

You are welcome to edit without logging in; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages and upload media). An account also has more protection against revealing your IP address.

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

• Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 23:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Fact Check

Hello. As you are not a registered user, please note that your recent edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement violated the extended confirmed restriction in the following topic area: the Arab–Israeli conflict. This restriction prohibits any edit that overlaps with the topic on any Wikipedia page, including non-article pages and pages that are not primarily related to the topic. However, you may post constructive edit requests concerning the topic on article talk pages as an exception. You are only allowed to fully participate in this topic area once you become a registered user for at least 30 days and make more than 500 constructive edits with your account. Until then, please ensure that your edits conform with the restriction. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you have been following the discussion at WP:AE § Iljhgtn, only registered users who are extended confirmed may participate in the discussion, per an Arbitration Committee decision. Thanks for your understanding. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, I had to remove your 25 November comment from my user talk page because you referred to a noticeboard discussion that had been designated by an arbitrator as being in the scope of WP:CT/A-I, which is under WP:ECR. My prior advice still applies if you wish to edit in this topic area. The consistent enforcement of ECR is important because the Arbitration Committee has found the restriction necessary to help prevent conduct issues in the contentious topic. As a general note, editors may request the closure of any discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests (WP:CR), although requests and comments there are also subject to any applicable ECR prohibitions. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh well, this gives me some insight about the frustrations of new editors, something I've not experienced in a very long time. Thanks. ~2025-35304-53 (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

So this was an interesting experience that I had the opportunity to test. So far, there are various annoyances, but few beyond legacy IP editing. There is a difference where having edited as a static IP for many years before creating my WP account (not the IP address I am currently using though), patrollers were familiar with it. Of course, it's even easier to recognize an account name for patrollers.

I've used another IP a bit before TAs were activated on en-wiki and it experienced more suspicion/scrutiny and hasty good faith, but mistaken reverts by patrollers: neither an old time regular static address nor a familiar account name.

TAs introduce various annoyances for patrollers as well as administrators, not only in the form of alien-looking numbers that are even more difficult to read and remember than IP addresses. There are new rules about what can be disclosed, a new user right for patrollers, a new switch for administrators with new rules attached, more levels do deal with for administrators, some logs related artifacts to deal with. Some extra features will attempt to mitigate some issues, like colors to more easily distinguish them.

For users, from my experience, unlike for legacy IP editing, they require cookies (also needed for normal account sessions, of course). They also come with a different "skin" which is suboptimal without browser-side customizations if not allowing scripts and without preferences, so unlike with a normal account, there's no way to use another skin, without explicitly using useskin in the URL. There is no equivalent cookie that one can create to replace useskin. Then although TAs are advertized as lasting 90 days (apparently also the time of IP data retention), unless cookies are deleted or the session reset, from experience they tend to be reset server-side: this TA is my 4th since the 4th, despite making sure that my cookies persisted and keeping the session open, avoiding to create another from the same IP, etc.

While an old time static IP address can accumulate a large history and gain a certain reputation, TAs are fake temporary accounts without privileges, that will continue to change often. This may be more useful to trolls than to regular editors, despite the frequency imposed on TA creation. They will change faster than IP addresses generally do, are opaque to most users except for patrollers with the temporary right and administrators who accept to deal with it and enable the features. TA editors must remember their past TAs themselves if they want to track their past activity. Technically, trolls can also create many true accounts and already could, then a higher right, checkuser is required to associate them with the 90 days IP retention log, so it's not identical on all points.

Finally, as an old time editor who wanted to try the feature: it was imposed as replacement to IP editing on November 4th 2025 and I hadn't recovered access to my account, it seemed like a good opportunity. On the other hand I feel like this is a burden to administrators, as can be seen above by two warnings for participating in areas with DS sanctions with fake accounts that cannot achieve extended confirmed status. Even if the accumulated TAs on this IP could, it would not be considered as such.

I have several options. I can accept the limits of TA editing while making sure to not participate in problematic areas. In practice that is difficult. Another issue is that I feel like I would have to link each new TA to a common account to observe the common practice of identifying alternate accounts. Using TAs may easily be misconstrued as using sockpuppet accounts and since they change anytime, for me this is troublesome.

I can create a new real account and either specify that it's an alternate account of my old account or not (unless I ever edit with the old account again). This would allow me to have an automatic watchlist, user preferences like for the skin, to have a familiar name in the history, accumulate edits and user rights (or inherit those of my previous account, alternatively).

I can try to gain access to my old original account using the recovery feature, which I may soon try, it would still not be completely satisfactory if I don't also have my old data and notes that were (hopefully temporarily) lost. Having no time for Wikipedia, the PC I used for it was unused, not a main desktop. It had redundant storage for backup, but internal. When turning it back on, its PSU burnt, at the same time incredibly blowing up the two HDs and it's been in a closet since. This means that to service it, I have to change the controller board of one drive for another functional one of the same model, exchange a calibration data IC from the orignal to the new board and pray; if failing, to try that again with the backup drive.

So that was it, the tribulations of a temporary temporary account editor. :) I'll minimize or avoid TA editing to avoid being a burden. See you all around somewhere, someday... ~2025-35304-53 (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a very thoughtful reflection on your experience with using a temporary account. Would you mind reposting a version of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § Temporary accounts: Post deployment, where more editors would see it? — Newslinger talk 18:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)