User:Relyimah/Dashboard
Menu: User Page | Talk Page (+) | Sandbox | Reference | Subpages | Contributions (alt) | Dashboard
This page is optimised for Mozilla Firefox and a screen resolution of 1280x1024 (minimum: 1024x768)
CAVEAT: all the |show= parameters have been set to 7 days.
AB = Administrative Backlogs
[edit]Administrative backlog
[edit]AIV= Administrator intervention against vandalism
Reports
[edit]- 93.26.236.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Shovel Shenanigans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1319 (LTA 1319, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
False positive. Edits are not vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- LSE Wendland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · 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) 16:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- False positive. Edits are not vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- 2601:444:281:EEA0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Range-wide vandalism. Edits include TPV. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Giorgi Akhlouri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Input unreferenced image and text and try to create self-advertisement article in Georgian language. HAs been warned but continues in multiples Wikis. Pierre cb (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Mrpotatohead1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continually vandalising articles evidently a vandalism only account, has been warned on the user's talk page. Lemonademan22 (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Avnish Kumar kamat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – account is being used only for promotional purposes. As per contents of User:Avnish Kumar kamat. Agent 007 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
| Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
|---|---|
| User requested | 1 |
| Empty articles | 0 |
| Nonsense pages | 0 |
| Spam pages | 3 |
| Importance or significance not asserted | 0 |
| Other candidates | 7 |
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 – 7 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item
Requested RD1 redactions – 1 item
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
- NeelProductions (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
User-reported
[edit]- Kadumi Entertainment (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. See edit summary of [1]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Given a welcome-coi and the edit summary deleted as it contained an email address. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Planthelp (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Engaged in promoting (https://planthelp.me/wiki/calathea-medallion-care-guide/). See Special:AbuseLog/39551694. Agent 007 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- NeelProductions (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Adding topics like Draft:Detective Hanuman that is promoted by themselves. Agent 007 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create 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.
Reason: People have re-ordered the ranking of Barbie versus The Super Mario Bros. Movie, adjusted the gross numbers for various movies so that they're inconsistent with all of:
- The Numbers
- Box Office Mojo
- the mean of the two figures reported by those sources, and/or
- the Wikipedia pages
and removed the Chinese movies from the list entirely.
Clearly this is vandalism. Vonvorx (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Vbbanaz05 (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Edit war initiated by IP user BlameRuiner (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: WP:ARBPIA Isi96 (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. No edits this month. El_C 14:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: IPs repeatedly putting large test edits on the talkpage. The Banner talk 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism: Edit war initiated by IP user. Astro Alpha Plus (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This pagen needs protection. It's PP only expired recently, and it's the target of intermittent disruptive editing. Noorullah (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The only talk page activity in the past year has been an IP range posting nonsense, continuing from a different IP when blocked for it. Belbury (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 17:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – The only talk page activity in the past year has been an IP range posting nonsense, continuing from a different IP when blocked for it. Belbury (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP users vandalizing page despite two temporary semi-protections. this has gone too far, and as a result, must be protected indef this time. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 17:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 17:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary Semi-Protection: Persistent in Additional of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Mas Menos 28 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Protection is too high and it was for sockpuppetry in 2018. It's nearly 2025 now so if it needs protecting just do pending changes or semi-protection but unprotection would be better I think. 147.10.234.99 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging protecting admin User:Ponyo, who might or might not wish to have input. I looked at the history of disruption and it looks pretty bad. I'm inclined to give semi protection a shot (this would eliminate 95% of the disruption in page history), but I'd rather hear from the sysop who made the call first. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
[edit]Please 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.
Change 16,000 civilians (May 2024)[43] to 16,000 civilians (May 2024)[42]
Source 42 has these numbers and source 43 doesn't Alderman pained dios finnish (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Hayden Panettiere artricle: Joe Somebody (2001) with Tim Allen
Why have you unreverted my revision on the Hayden Panettiere artricle by removing Joe Somebody (2001) with Tim Allen? 86.130.33.243 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Soetermans:. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Handled requests
[edit]
| 6 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 13:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
| 24 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 13:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
|
RFP= Requests for permissions
Autopatrolled
[edit]- Royalesignature (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 respectfully request autopatrol and patrol rights, based on my extensive experience and contributions to Wikipedia. With over 12 months of experience, I've created 60+ articles and improved 100+ others. Granting my request will streamline the New Page Patrol process. I previously requested these rights last month, which was denied. Since then, I've improved my contributions. I believe my dedication and improvement warrant reconsideration. Thank you for considering my request. Royalesignature (talk). 03:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)- (Non-administrator comment) I recently raised issues of close paraphrasing in one of your drafts Special:Permalink/1263547974, I am sure if I check more of your creations now, I will find similar issues. Your creations need a second eye and that is what NPP is for. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- 2003 LN6 (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 requesting autopatrolled rights mainly to streamline article creation so that my new articles would be reviewed faster. I have written around 40 articles, mostly about ants, and I would like to get this right to get the articles reviewed faster and reduce workload for new page patrollers. I have been an editor for four years, and my recent new articles have had no issues whatsoever from the reviewers. I will use this right responsibly, and it will be my pleasure to continue assisting my community in updating old articles and creating new content. 2003 LN6 06:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- @2003 LN6 Just to clarify, having autopatrolled means your articles wouldn't be reviewed, not that they would get reviewed faster. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done Based on private concerns + too little content-creation. I see a bunch of auto-notable stubs and a few redirects (which are extremely easy for NPP to review and generally does not require reduction). Nothing that demonstrates long-term engagement with our notability policies or other areas of content guidelines that we look for among folks who are AP. Sohom (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aderiqueza (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 writing to request for Autopatrolled right so as to ensure there is reduction in the workload of NPP process. Having created articles that conform to the content policies of Wikipedia and also learning from other experienced editors' suggestions to improve articles over the years, I believe this request is deserving, supported and this user right will be granted. Thanks Aderiqueza (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done, your last article according to XTools was in two months ago in October, that does not indicate a requirement for this right. Additionally, your last article has editor removing unreliable sources, and making other fixes to it, indicating that your articles would still benefit for a second-look-over (which is what NPP is for). Sohom (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Crafterstar (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 made a few articles that seem to be fine, and probably worth a consideration for this permission. Crafterstar (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done Something like Marlo Kelly is the exact opposite of what we want to see from candidates for autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Crafterstar didn't create that. They created a redirect that was later turned into the article by someone else. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I shall take another look. Schwede66 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Crafterstar, sorry for my sloppy assessment. I'm unsure, though, whether you come to anywhere near 25 articles created, which is a condition for autopatrolled. Do you maintain a list somewhere? What shows up as articles created by you is often a redirect, or something extremely basic like this that was expanded by others before it left draft space. Cast lists do need to be referenced (e.g. The Venery of Samantha Bird) and the prose of The Strangers: Chapter 3 is almost half made up of a long quotation. What I've seen thus far isn't convincing, but I'm happy to take a closer look if you can provide a list of 25 articles created by you. Schwede66 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Crafterstar didn't create that. They created a redirect that was later turned into the article by someone else. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
apologies for wasting your time. Crafterstar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Saratoga Sam (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)
Nominating this editor for Autopatrolled based on a long history of high-quality page creation (80 new articles created in mainspace, with just one deleted a few years ago). Good encyclopedic style, excellent use of sources, images, formatting etc.; also creates talk pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- B.Korlah (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)
Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights
Hi, I am requesting for this rights, because I have about 5 new articles that are yet to be reviewed and surely meets the notability criteria, I have been creating and improving articles especially on African Cinema and with this right, I hope to reduce the backlog on the new page reviewers log.
Confirmed
[edit]- Yuanmongolempiredynasty (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)
Reason for requesting confirmed rights I have been on Wikipedia for almost 30 days and have over 500 edits, I don’t believe I have gotten a notification that I am confirmed. If I have, please notify me. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBot talk 19:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Your account is already autoconfirmed, but you may be confusing this with "extended confirmed" that you have not yet reached as your account is only about 25 days old. stwalkerster (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Page mover
[edit]- Neveselbert (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)
As an editor with over 80,000 edits since joining in 2015, I'm also a pending changes reviewer. I've moved over 2,000 pages during my time, made over 200 edits at WP:RM/TR to request uncontroversial page moves and participated almost 400 times in requested moves.
My immediate need for this permission stems from my efforts to retitle redirects in line with policies such as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I'm currently unable to move dozens of redirects I've created to more appropriate titles because the desired titles already exist with different tags. This process would be far more efficient with the page mover tool, allowing me to address these titles without requiring frequent requests at WP:RM/TR. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neveselbert, can you give me a few examples of the redirects you're talking about? Why is it necessary to move them instead of just copying over the tags? I'll also say I'm concerned about all of this: while page mover is a somewhat less sensitive permission than template editor, it's still one that requires a lot of care, especially if you're planning on moving large numbers of pages at once. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Extraordinary Writ, I'm referring to the redirects in Category:Premierships of Great Britain and Category:Premierships of the United Kingdom, the majority of which I created years ago. As for why it's necessary, WP:CUTPASTE is one reason, as I'd like to maintain the page history, and another is that it's extremely tedious to have to copy over tags and categories over dozens of pages. As for the template editor issue, I made a mistake under pressure at a time when I wasn't in a good place. I apologised and accepted that my conduct fell short of what was required, although I would point out that I managed to remain in relatively good stead as a TE for about six years. I'm proposing to use the PM right sparingly, and the only number of pages I would move at once would be these redirects and those requested at WP:RM/T. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- So the idea is to move redirects like Premiership of Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton to titles like Premiership of the Duke of Grafton? I don't really understand why that'd be worth doing: both redirects are valid, and it's not worth worrying about which title is best when there isn't an article yet. (I realize only one redirect can be in the category, but still...) I suspect if you requested one of these at RM/TR, it'd be declined as not a useful move. Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I find the page history argument to be lacking; I suspect there is little to no substantial history on a majority of these sorts of redirects (especially, as you say, if they were all created by yourself). Moving a redirect to another redirect and then editing the original redirect to point to the original target just to save a copy/paste seems like more effort than just editing the second redirect. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ: Yes, that's the general idea. I think it's worth doing on a personal level since I created the vast majority of these redirects in the first place. Both are valid, of course, but I feel the more concise titles would be more in line with WP:TITLECON. For example, both First premiership of the Duke of Wellington and Death and state funeral of the Duke of Wellington will be in the same category, Category:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. In any case, it's far more likely that such a premiership(s) article will follow the same pattern as the "Death and state funeral" title, so this would save having to swap categories and the like from First premiership of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to First premiership of the Duke of Wellington. It's a tedious task but one I'd appreciate the ability to undertake. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not comfortable handing out page-mover when your main use case is unusual and difficult-to-justify moves; I think they deserve more scrutiny than they'd get if you were making them unilaterally. I'm also not sure why you think page mover would save you time: these would have to be individual round-robin swaps, which take at least as long as copying and pasting. Not done. I continue to think you'd be better off leaving well enough alone here, but if this particular set of moves is really important to you, leave me a note and we can try to find a way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I am not comfortable handing out page-mover when your main use case is unusual and difficult-to-justify moves; I think they deserve more scrutiny than they'd get if you were making them unilaterally. I'm also not sure why you think page mover would save you time: these would have to be individual round-robin swaps, which take at least as long as copying and pasting.
- So the idea is to move redirects like Premiership of Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton to titles like Premiership of the Duke of Grafton? I don't really understand why that'd be worth doing: both redirects are valid, and it's not worth worrying about which title is best when there isn't an article yet. (I realize only one redirect can be in the category, but still...) I suspect if you requested one of these at RM/TR, it'd be declined as not a useful move. Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Extraordinary Writ, I'm referring to the redirects in Category:Premierships of Great Britain and Category:Premierships of the United Kingdom, the majority of which I created years ago. As for why it's necessary, WP:CUTPASTE is one reason, as I'd like to maintain the page history, and another is that it's extremely tedious to have to copy over tags and categories over dozens of pages. As for the template editor issue, I made a mistake under pressure at a time when I wasn't in a good place. I apologised and accepted that my conduct fell short of what was required, although I would point out that I managed to remain in relatively good stead as a TE for about six years. I'm proposing to use the PM right sparingly, and the only number of pages I would move at once would be these redirects and those requested at WP:RM/T. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- ToadetteEdit (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)
Good evening! I have had this permission on a temporary basis on May 20th of this year. I had then requested an extension of said right but was declined on the basis of weak communication capabilities and questionable RM closures being made during my trial. Four months passed, and I therefore request to receive the right (okay for another temporary basis to prove my competency).
A month ago, I returned to wp:RM/TR clerking, contesting certain requests and processing them. I could only process (fulfill) the simplest requests, that is, requests that don't require use of the suppressredirect, tboverride or delete-redirect rights bundled with the requesting user group in question. Having page mover rights will enable me to process more pending requests rather than wait for another user to fulfill them.
I am also planning to return back to NPP and AFC activity, due to the fact that I will be on holiday (and therefore, increased online activity) and due to the upcoming backlog drive for the former. suppressredirect would be helpful to carry out draftifications, and also to allow moving drafts to titles which have history that would've been eligible for G6 deletion.
For obvious reasons, I will not (and must not) work in the requested moves venue outside RM/TR (disclaimer:I have been topic banned from closing/relisting discussions four months ago). I have also improved my communication skills and will try to be as clear as possible. I am open to any questions regarding this request or my competency.
Thank you for reading my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. I'm glad that there have been fewer issues in the last couple of months, but when the previous problems were so extensive they led to a topic ban, four months isn't long enough for me to be comfortable re-granting the right. For now, maybe consider participating in RM discussions: not only is it recommended for would-be page movers, it's a great way to show both knowledge of policy and improved communication skills. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- So... I will attempt to participate in RMs more. Thank yoi for responding to my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
[edit]- Gwanki (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 request Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in reviewing edits. I have experience with editing and want to help maintain the quality of articles. Gwanki (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Beachweak (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)
Have close to 1,100 edits as of making this request. I enjoy improving articles, I review recent changes daily by this point and am familiar with reverting vandalism (and distinguishing it from good faith edits). Having this right would mean I can instantly decline bad faith pending edits as soon as I see them. I have read and understood the relevant policies and guidelines relating to pending changes, vandalism and copyright. Beachweak (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Freedoxm (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. Recently, i've been reverting vandalism and disruptive edits on Wikipedia with Twinkle and Ultraviolet, and as an extended-confirmed user, I have over 850 edits. I also revert good faith edits, and if I get this request accepted I will be able to reject vandalism put on pending changes (on pending changes). 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lewisguile (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 an active editor with page creation review rights and over 5,000 edits to date. I try to keep my edits neutral and have a history of working with others on some contentious topics. If I make a mistake, I try to fix it and apologise as soon as possible. I have a good grasp of WP policy and MOS, and understand the difference between vandalism, tendentious editing and unconstructive editing. I've also got a very good grasp of copyright law (UK and US) and plagiarism due to my academic and professional background. Lewisguile (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Plasticwonder (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 request the pending changes reviewer right for the following reasons:
1. I am highly active in anti vandalism areas of the enwiki (AIV, RPP, etc, I even contributed to SPI) so I know what vandalism looks like when I see it.
2. I see a lot of constructive edits when I am on the "recent changes" section, that go unnoticed for quite a while. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]- PersonAccount (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 reverting vandalism since I created my account. Although it appears I am a new user, I also have experience editing Wikipedia and reverting vandalism as an IP for many years (which I will not be disclosing due to security concerns). The rollback right will help me revert vandalism faster, which is why I am requesting it. PersonAccount 🐉 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- PersonAccount, to be honest, no, it doesn't appear you are a new user. Which is okay if all previous activity was without having an account and without disruption. It will take longer than for other users until the trust for manually granting permissions is there in your case. It isn't yet, to me. Unless someone else grants rollback in the next week or so, I'll decline this with a recommendation not to ask for permissions until your account is a year old. Regarding rollback in particular, Twinkle and Ultraviolet will do just fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- NXcrypto (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 request rollback rights to combat vandalism more efficiently. I am an experienced recent changes patroller and I understand that the rollback should be used mainly for clear cases of vandalism. I am committed to using this tool responsibly. Nxcrypto Message 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cmrc23 (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've been patrolling Recent Changes for a few months now. Rollback will help my work, especially when I'm out and about and can only access the app. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I want to note that I am currently recieving CVU training on this page and am willing to apply again later if it is felt that I am not yet ready for this permission. I would also greatly appreciate any guidence (especially on that page). Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Grumpylawnchair (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 rollback to help me combat vandalism more effectively. I currently use recent changes and RedWarn. I feel that I have the experience necessary to handle vandalism in a constructive manner. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Randomdude121 (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! Though I started out doing grammar fixes, over the past 2 weeks, I've been using Twinkle and RedWarn to revert any vandalism seen on Special:RecentChanges. It's understandable if you'd like to impose the hard and fast rule of 1-month experience, but I've made almost 300 edits related to vandalism. I always leave a message for the editor and undo my revert in cases where I question my decision in hindsight and would rather have another pair of eyes look at the edit(s).
Having the rollback permission would make RedWarn reverting faster for me and would also allow me to try out other anti-vandalism tools like Huggle. Could I have the right please? randomdude121 (leave a message!) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Plasticwonder (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 view that having this user right would help in fighting vandalism a lot faster. I know I would be far more efficient with fighting vandalism if I were to be granted Rollback. I have been editing for over 7 months, and I have well over 5140 edits, with a focus on mitigating abuse on the wiki. I am a frequent contributor to AIV and RPP. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Obversa (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 requesting rollback rights to revert an edit by another user that merged Baroque Pinto with Friesian Sporthorse, without prior authorization or agreement, on 15 November 2024 - a higher-up editor or administrator previously denied a merge request due to "no consensus" in January 2024 - or allowing other users to discuss or dispute the page merge, as indicated for the procedure on Wikipedia: Merging. I have been trying to recover the Baroque Pinto page that was merged into Friesian Sporthorse without success, and need administrator assistance or intervention in order to revert or roll back the merge. Obversa (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Policies and links