CAVEAT: all the |show= parameters have been set to 7 days.
AB = Administrative Backlogs
editAdministrative backlog
editAIV= Administrator intervention against vandalism
Reports
edit- Enriexr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Filter blocked attempt at adding a name to an article. Not vandalism. --Office7724 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Warned user. Added attempt2 because the filter stopped a potentially libelous addition to the article that would have had to be RevDel'ed if it had gotten through. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Filter blocked attempt at adding a name to an article. Not vandalism. --Office7724 (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- 2601:18c:8c80:5ed0::7d0f (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1122 (LTA 1122, details). Note: This filter has a large number of false positives. Use caution before blocking. Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. One edit, which may have been good faith anyway, blocked by the filter. Daniel Case (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Terminator3883 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A Sockpuppet account of previous users under the same account that were all blocked ScholarMate1, H3r3cookiecookie38, and ZipthatChop for vandalism at multiple articles including at Hausa people. The User Terminator3883 returned just 10 minutes ago after being blocked for vandalism at Ethiopians and Hausa people. They spammed the same edit summary at my talk page [1] to justify their unsourced edits at the Hausa people article. They also returned to the Sudanese Arabs article to add the same unsourced edit. Cookiemonster1618 (talk 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
edit- 2601:182:501:72C0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) – longterm disruption. FMSky (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Duijata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Stewart Bale: account is being used only for promotional purposes. Sorry if this is too early for reporting. My ad blocker is saying the link they posted is harmful. Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- PacificArtLeague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Pacific Art League (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes. C F A 💬 22:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: User is in the category: User talk pages with conflict of interest notices. HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- 103.63.100.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Stem (audio) (diff): vandalism after final warning. Most vandalism on a BLP. Apollogetticax|talk 23:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Terminator3883 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – block evasion of User:H3r3cookiecookie38. Untamed1910 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- CHIESA DI SANTA MESIA ELIA NARDELLI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Gallinaro: account is being used only for promotional purposes. Spam links. Seems to be LTA. Knitsey (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- CHIESA DI SANTA MESIA NARDELLI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Gallinaro: account is being used only for promotional purposes. Spam linked to above account. Knitsey (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
| Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
|---|---|
| User requested | 0 |
| Empty articles | 0 |
| Nonsense pages | 0 |
| Spam pages | 11 |
| Importance or significance not asserted | 2 |
| Other candidates | 4 |
The following articles have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
( source / chronological order / expired )
{{CSD backlogs}} 7 backlognav + 2 + 5 single cat
| BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Wikipedia files with unknown source – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Wikipedia files missing permission – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Disputed non-free Wikipedia files – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently |
|---|
| Proposed deletion – No backlog currently |
|---|
Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 2 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item
Requested RD1 redactions – 16 items
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
- Wikiped!a V2 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 03:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Used ! instead of i attempting to skip filter: Wikipedia. Violating string: wikipedia v2" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 03:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mental abuse (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "abuse" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 17:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Збуда (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- This username matched "Attempting to skip filters using multiple similar characters" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Multiple special characters can be contained in the same phrase, this rule detects when one or more occurs. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: No problem with this username. — kashmīrī TALK 21:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
edit
Current requests for increase in protection level
editPlace requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Re-request due to persistent addition of unsourced and/or poorly sourced materials for concert's figures by IP range (2A01:E0A:AB0:4820:0:0:0:0/64). Warning is impossible as they're using dynamic IP which changes every day hence reaching level 4 warning is impossible. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 2A01:E0A:AB0:4820:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. from the article and Born Pink World Tour for a week. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Content dispute. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Most of the disruptive edits are coming from IPs; ECP doesn't seem necessary yet. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- To resolve the apparent contradiction above: the article's history shows that edit warring and disruption are not just recent phenomena; they have continued since the last (very short) protection on the article expired last December. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Reviewing the history, which I did, the content dispute includes multiple extended confirmed editors on both sides. I don't think semi-protection or ECP is appropriate here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you think it isn't warranted, go ahead and lift it. I was looking beyond the content dispute ... there has been persistent IP disruption on this page since that last protection expired. Certainly it would be easier for the EC editors if they didn't have to worry about putting out those fires while trying to work things out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Reviewing the history, which I did, the content dispute includes multiple extended confirmed editors on both sides. I don't think semi-protection or ECP is appropriate here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- To resolve the apparent contradiction above: the article's history shows that edit warring and disruption are not just recent phenomena; they have continued since the last (very short) protection on the article expired last December. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @Daniel Case: Using semi-protection seems contradictory to
Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred or to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes.
in WP:SEMI and there's also similar language in WP:ECP. Let's try full protection as an alternative approach as suggested in Wikipedia:Protection policy § Content disputes. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Strongly suspect WP:COI, keeps adding a store directory, indiscriminate info, and images clearly not belonging to them. See [2]. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. It's a single IP address editor and there's an active discussion on ANI. If anything, a block would be the first step here, but I'm going to leave that to the administrators looking into this on ANI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: IP vandalism, particularly today. Bremps... 21:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. @Bremps: Did you request protection for the correct article? Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- D'oh! List of living centenarians Bremps... 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. List of living centenarians is semi-protected protected for 1 year due to repeated and long-term disruptive editing and vandalism. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- D'oh! List of living centenarians Bremps... 21:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 23:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
editBefore posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Protected in accordance with WP:BLP over a decade ago. However, this person is deceased. Does BLP policy still has to apply to this page?197.2.30.146 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Depends on if there are any lingering controversies, per WP:BDP. BLP protections extend to anywhere from six months to two years postmortem. I'd argue that this may be a case where unprotection could be tried. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Courcelles: as the protecting admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure he would respond given his last activity was 3 months ago.197.2.30.146 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: In this case, it seems like Casliber should probably be considered the protecting administrator. It looks like Courcelles was restoring Casliber's semi-protection after the pending changes trial ended. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- And he hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, either. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm uncomfortable declaring them to be "inactive" at this point since some people go on vacations that are several weeks long. Could we give them several days to respond to the ping here? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- And he hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, either. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The protection template has changed several times over the course of the article's history, but it was protected due to vandalism, not under WP:BLP. Also, we don't lift protections made due to WP:BLP or under WP:CT/BLP automatically some period of time after a person dies. Protections are lifted following WP:UNPROTPOL. As Casliber who originally applied the protection is still active, they should be asked first. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Courcelles: as the protecting admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The protection log on that page doesn't say anything about BLP, it is protected due to excessive vandalism. — xaosflux Talk 20:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- That was before CTOPS existed. Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case:
Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now.
Could you please clarify what policy or guideline says that? WP:PP independently allows indefinite protection of articles experiencingheavy and persistent
WP:BLP violations. We should try to stick to established interpretations of policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)- It's true that we don't have to choose CTOPS protection for a BLP, even when we make it indefinite. But the longer the term, the previous terms, and the more times it's previously been protected, the more admins aware of CTOPS are choosing to invoke that even if the main issue is persistent vandalism.
- Of course, since we're now in BRDP territory with this article, as noted above, this discussion is really beside the point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't follow the point you are trying to make, but I'm inclined to unprotect the article given the lack of disruption and WP:PP allows that once we've given Casliber the chance to respond. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- On second thought, Daniel Case and Daniel Quinlan, following your dialogue and following the fact that the page was once PC configured for a year, which also occurred over a decade ago, any opinions on whether temporary pending protection could be implemented instead of complete unprotection from the get-go?197.2.30.146 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue that it's been protected for so long that we can/should start with unprotection first and then ramp up as necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- +1 as well. I really don't see any lingering controversies—"Fight the real enemy!" was years ago, and she didn't start any more of those this century. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue that it's been protected for so long that we can/should start with unprotection first and then ramp up as necessary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- On second thought, Daniel Case and Daniel Quinlan, following your dialogue and following the fact that the page was once PC configured for a year, which also occurred over a decade ago, any opinions on whether temporary pending protection could be implemented instead of complete unprotection from the get-go?197.2.30.146 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- +1, opting for at least trying unprotection; re-protection at need is just a click away. Lectonar (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't follow the point you are trying to make, but I'm inclined to unprotect the article given the lack of disruption and WP:PP allows that once we've given Casliber the chance to respond. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case:
- That was before CTOPS existed. Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Unprotected. It's been over a day since pinging Casliber who hasn't edited since 25 June 2024, and there seems to be strong consensus to try unprotection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
editPlease request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Handled requests
edit
| 0 protected edit requests | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
| 15 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 11:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
RFP= Requests for permissions
Account creator
edit- S-Aura (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello! Wikipedians, I'm S-Aura with over three years of experience and extended confirmed user rights. I'd like to request an account creation on Wikipedia. Thank you! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
edit- C1K98V (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello, I have created 100+ articles, primarily focused on television series. And I plan to keep doing the same. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to previous request. (I have no opinion at this time.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Page mover
edit
- KingSkyLord (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I have been editing for over 7 years and I plan on using this permission in order to help with discussions on WP:RM and deal with cross-redirects for articles that should have more disambiguated titles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikishovel (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello, my page mover privilege has just expired, after 90 days of what I believe to have been productive use in NPP and AFC. Could it be extended please? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
edit- Cwater1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I would like to help out reviewing edits before it is published as an live article. I do have good experience. I am aware that statements must be sourced, and I know what is considered nonsense.Cwater1 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) Cwater1 (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Request withdrawn per request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- DandelionAndBurdock (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I'd just like an extra tool in my vandal fighting utility belt. Plus signing off on good edits would make me feel helpful. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Withdrawn}}(see request). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)- Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- RodRabelo7 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I've been a rollbacker for some time now, and when I patrol the recent changes, it's not at all uncommon to come across pending revisions. Thus, I imagine that having the permission of a pending changes reviewer would help me in anti-vandalism activities and, even more, reduce the backlog and the work of other volunteers. Helping directly on Special:PendingChanges is also a possibility, of course. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Madeforall1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Im requesting pending changes reviewer rights because I wish to review some changes made by inexperienced users, I’ll be fully active and really want to get this right. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per your discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funnybros. It shows any editor with the motive to promote a subject either by Youtube link or any other link that are not necessary or accepted by wikipedia. You are likely to accept them. So I will be afraid if this right is being granted to you for the betterment of wikipedia. Administrators should be aware. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Randomstaplers (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I'm starting to review pages for copyvios, and, as a result, I'm starting to encounter reviewer-protected pages. (If the article on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a backwards-copy, I might have been hosed.) In any case, I hope my experience across multiple Wikimedia projects demonstrates the competence needed for this permission. ⸺RandomStaplers 00:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gabriel601 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I am well familiar with the Wikipedia Copyright violations, Wikipedia Biographies of living persons and much more of Verifiability to other subject aside humans. My main focus are on the WikiProject Nigeria and little works from other Wikiproject. Reason being so I don't get occupied with other subject am not 100% familiar with their source such as Indian and the rest. Gabriel (talk to me ) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Rollback
edit- Rkieferbaum (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hi there! Requesting rollback rights to be able to use different tools for reverting vandalism. I'm open to any questions or feedback on my editing and counter-vandalism actions. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make. Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 06:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: hi there. It's true that I seldom warn IP users that don't edit on a regular basis. I just feel like no one is going to see that warning and it might be confusing for other users from that IP. This might be a mistake on my part and I'll gladly fix it. You'll see that, with registered users, I've warned them 100% of the time or very close to that. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please ensure that you are always leaving warnings. I can't stress enough the importance of not biting the newcomers; if you find yourself reverting good faith edits, then it's especially important to notify the editor. If you don't want to leave a template warning, that's completely fine, but you do need to leave a talk page message explaining why you reverted the edit. Moving forward, could you please make a promise to leave warnings/notifications for every revert? -Fastily 10:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: of course, it's a promise. I do agree that welcoming newcomers is among the most important things we do here. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. Could you please now go some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will be notifying all users? -Fastily 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: sure! I've been at it for a few minutes. I'll leave a warning each and every time from now on, IP or otherwise. Cheers and thanks for your input. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done -Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: sure! I've been at it for a few minutes. I'll leave a warning each and every time from now on, IP or otherwise. Cheers and thanks for your input. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. Could you please now go some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will be notifying all users? -Fastily 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: of course, it's a promise. I do agree that welcoming newcomers is among the most important things we do here. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please ensure that you are always leaving warnings. I can't stress enough the importance of not biting the newcomers; if you find yourself reverting good faith edits, then it's especially important to notify the editor. If you don't want to leave a template warning, that's completely fine, but you do need to leave a talk page message explaining why you reverted the edit. Moving forward, could you please make a promise to leave warnings/notifications for every revert? -Fastily 10:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: hi there. It's true that I seldom warn IP users that don't edit on a regular basis. I just feel like no one is going to see that warning and it might be confusing for other users from that IP. This might be a mistake on my part and I'll gladly fix it. You'll see that, with registered users, I've warned them 100% of the time or very close to that. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- 245CMR (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I used to be highly active before 2022, and had rollback rights back then (was inactive for quite a while)
- I have a history of defending WP: Hinduism related articles, and further need to do it, especially after few recurring cases of vandalism by a series of sockpuppets
- It may seem that i am constantly reverting a particular user's edits but that user is a sockpuppet of Kairakairav, [see their huge list of sockpuppets] who removes well sourced info, blanks them and add original research stuff, most of which are also factually incorrect. The sockpuppets get blocked, but somehow returns with a new account (Not only me, but other users have also reported this issue in the user's earlier sockpuppet investigations). It is alo worthless to tell them to stop on talk page, as they never reply and keep doing the same stuff; recent example of Madri which was blanked by them!
- Its quite irritating for me to constantly go to history and copy paste entire full page, so the rollback right will be quite helpful, Thanks .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC) .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Really!? I just explained how the sockpuppet User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya basically removed cited information from articles like Kunti, Madri, Sahadeva, Eklavya, etc. It's been reported by other users, see that user's earlier sockpuppets (linked in the request). Also its pointless to try to guide them as i seriously tried to do so many time on their earlier (now blocked) accounts. Recently while doing manual copy paste, I accidentally deleted chunks of articles by mistake. I really require this right as I am free to waste my entire half an hour doing this. Sorry if I sounded rude, but I am really irritated after recently doing the manual copy paste for 100th time! .245CMR.•👥📜 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, really. You shouldn't be copy/pasting anyways. The use case you've described doesn't require rollback; we have tools such as Twinkle & Ultraviolet that already do what you're asking for. Like I said, if you're still interested in rollback, then please spend a month actively patrolling RecentChanges before creating a new request -Fastily 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Really!? I just explained how the sockpuppet User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya basically removed cited information from articles like Kunti, Madri, Sahadeva, Eklavya, etc. It's been reported by other users, see that user's earlier sockpuppets (linked in the request). Also its pointless to try to guide them as i seriously tried to do so many time on their earlier (now blocked) accounts. Recently while doing manual copy paste, I accidentally deleted chunks of articles by mistake. I really require this right as I am free to waste my entire half an hour doing this. Sorry if I sounded rude, but I am really irritated after recently doing the manual copy paste for 100th time! .245CMR.•👥📜 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Madeforall1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Greetings, I wish to get the Rollback right because I want to fight vandalism and revert edits that goes Wikipedia’s guidelines, also I want to be able to revert edits frm users who aren’t sure of what they are doing most especially IP user. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apollogetticax (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello! I have nearly a month of experience recent-changes patrolling. While on some days you may not see any, on other days (especially my first two weeks), I spend over 6 hours patrolling. I also have around (or over) 250 mainspace edits.
I would like to have rollback to help me revert vandalism faster, and with the RC script, as it catches vandalism very quickly, but it requires rollback to revert the vandalism. So far I have to navigate diffs to reach the vandalism, and that takes too much time. Otherwise I use the old-school recent changes and use diffs, but it just as slow as the script.
In both cases I use Twinkle, if you were wondering.
I have experience with what is vandalism and what isn't, and I can tell what type of vandalism the edit is (if it is), and which warning to use and at which level.
If you deny my request due to inexperience, I will understand. Apollogetticax|talk 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Template editor
edit- Jackdude101 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I am heavily involved with editing route diagram templates and adding new items to template:rail-interchange, with a special focus on rail lines in France for the upcoming 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris starting later this month. I have made multiple edit requests there in the past, and very recently after refamiliarizing myself with the process, I've started to do it again. I would like the ability to edit that template directly so I don't have to rely on others to do it for me. Jackdude101 talk cont 07:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Footer
editPolicies and links