User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. EvergreenFir(talk) 05:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Warned user. First level warning. Peaceray (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "role account?" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 06:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often role accounts - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 06:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
JP19692006 (talk·contribs·deleted·filter log·SUL·Google)• (block · soft·promo · cause ·bot·hard·spam·vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. A new user named Marketing.jerseypost was soft blocked today after editing the Jersey Post article. This new account has since been created, where JP means Jersey Post and 1969-2006 is the period between the Jersey government establishing the post office (1969) and it becoming a wholly owned limited company (2006). They've edited Jersey Post in ways that should require an edit request. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like the issue is that they are socking and COI. Secretlondon (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
It isn't socking if they were soft-blocked. They are explicitly told they can create a new account. Agree this appears to be a COI issue though. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 20:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay I missed the soft blocking part. Secretlondon (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
If the consensus is that their new username isn't against policy, I'll move the report to the COI noticeboard instead. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think the original should have been spam-blocked rather than soft blocked. It is now just a COI issue. Secretlondon (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I would've hard blocked, if there's a spam username and they've edited article content related to the name, that's enough for me, having "marketing" in the name lets you know what they are about, but it is within admin discretion to chose the soft block. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 02:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
SS NGS (talk·contribs·deleted·filter log·SUL·Google)• (block · soft·promo · cause ·bot·hard·spam·vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Also given their promotional edits/whitewashing such as this and moving the page now twice to Nifty Gateway Studio after being reverted, it is clear they are only here to promote the company. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I think this may be SS from Nifty Gateway Studio. This would not be a username issue just COI. Secretlondon (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Kuchisolutions (talk·contribs·deleted·filter log·SUL·Google)• (block · soft·promo · cause ·bot·hard·spam·vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Appears to be WP:UPE with a promotional name. kuchi solutions is a "web design, development and digital media / marketing agency based in Chichester" See https://www.kuchi.solutions/ Only edit has been to spam a web page for a commercial Chichester site, with a blatantly promotional (and possibly copyvio) edit summary: [1]. Meters (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Place 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.
Reason: I've previously asked for protection for this page here and was told to come back if more issues occured. Even though it's semi-protected it is still being contantly disruptied. I'm asking for extended confirmed protection not indefinite but at least for a month, maybe a bit after just in case they disrupt the article after the event has concluded. [2][3][4][5]] [6][7] If you need any more evidence to confirm anything please let me know in the reply. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Some of the other users you've reverted recently are also extended-confirmed; they wouldn't be affected. Are their edits the ones that you are referring to? Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: High level of edit warring on semi-protected article. In addition, there seems to be a high level of COI edits from users who previously engaged in a pattern of disruptive edits. Despite previous discussions about notability, the same issues continue to resurface, creating an unproductive cycle of content removal and restoration. The editors' actions appear to be WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing. (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1).
I plan to clean up the article after it has been protected, as per WP:BOLD. HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Question: So you want extended-confirmed protection? Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good, especially if the protection can be added indefinitely (since this article has been extended-confirmed protected multiple times and it still sees a large amount of vandalism and edit warring to this day). Out of curiosity, is it also possible to add a protection against specific users that have been participating in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior rather than constructive editing? HackerKnownAs (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Specifically, I've noticed a disproportionately large amount of nonconstructive edits (some blatantly violating WP:YESPOV and accusing editors of violating WP:COI with no evidence) from User:BrocadeRiverPoems, a relatively new Wikipedia editor who seems to be more concerned with arguing the legitimacy of previous editors than constructively editing the article (see: the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1). I suggest a partial block over the participants of this edit war on this article, but an extended-confirmed protection should do the trick as well. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't like issuing partial blocks without any warning, though, especially to a user who seems in general to be contributing constructively. If we're going to discuss that, perhaps AN/I is a better forum than this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
That is a rather curious characterization of my activity. I pointed out numerous flaws with the article, and corrected many of them. I noted extensive WP:SPA activity from yourself and others centered on 15.ai, including several accounts that appeared at the AfD for the purpose of voting to keep the page and nothing else while also noting the unusual circumstances in which the article was elevated to "Good" status. As for "evidence" of COI editing, as I pointed out in my post on the talkpage, there are clear edits that can be linked to the so-called Pony Preservation Project which engaged in considerable off-site coordination to edit the article and which is itself linked to 15.ai and listed as "invaluable" on an archived version of 15.ai. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because edits like [8] that blatantly violate WP:YESPOV are totally constructive, yes? And again, I am not involved with the PPP, and you have neither pointed out who you suspect are involved in COI nor have you given any evidence of said editing. You say there are "clear edits" and yet you have not given examples of any of them - you are making baseless accusations and grasping at straws, and are actively discouraging Wikipedeans who only want to help.
To accuse me of others of COI and SPA activity (which, by the way, is blatantly untrue, if you'd seen my history of helping out with articles relevant to 4chan) because of your extremely strange obsession over the article along with this kind of dishonest conduct and projection is appalling. HackerKnownAs (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
If this article is granted extended-confirmed protection, I am requesting extended confirmed access to help with cleanup. I previously held this right and used it for similar maintenance work on this article when I asked for the article to be extended-confirmed protected a year ago. HackerKnownAs (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Should that happen, you are referred to WP:REQPERM. That request is outside the scope of this noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. If the extended-confirmed protection is granted, I'll make a request there. HackerKnownAs (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. This can't be solved via protection; it is a mix of content dispute with behavioural problems, and has found its way to AN in the meantime. Lectonar (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Changing the budget and box office without providing reliable sources. Charliehdb (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
If we upgrade to ECP, either that stays till May or we shorten the protection term, due to the limitations of MediaWiki which don't allow us to layer protection beyond PC, so once protection expires we'd have to reprotect it. Which are you comfortable with? Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Looking at the article's history shows that IPs have been been removing the same content for a while. Semi-protecting it like all the article about countries will prevent the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: IPs and new users scrambling to update the page for Connor McDavid's 1,000th, despite clear directives on the page to wait until the end of the season to comprehensively update. TheKip(contribs) 03:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – There is currently an edit war being engaged at this article with one editor refusing to discuss on the talk page and repeatedly reverting while focusing on false accusations. Protection is clearly in order for a civil discussion to be had. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Before 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.
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: Not such a popular page to require indefinite semi-protection. 62.74.24.175 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps; it has nevertheless been the subject of regular edit warring for well over the past year, and is within a contentious topic area (WP:CT/EE) to boot. If it's popular with edit warriors, we protect it when asked, as I did. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case Most edit warring happened by registered users though; Anyways, I suggest an unprotection and it can be protected anytime if edit warring occurs anew. 62.74.24.154 (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
It always takes at least 2 to edit war, and it doesn't matter if they're IPs or registered users. I think protection works as intended. If you see a dire need to edit, use edit requests. I would not unprotect. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Protected over 6 years ago. Vandals would have long gone by now. Protecting admin is not active hence this request. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Courcelles:, in case you're active at the moment. But ... this is one of those articles that I can easily see attracting disruption if it were unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
@Daniel Case I had been thinking about this as well and came to the same conclusion. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: This is a bit of a funny one. I need to ask a question about the username policy to make sure the name I'm going to use is allowed before I make an account, but I can't use the talk page until I've made an account! 153.90.20.14 (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
If you would like you can ask your question on my talk page and I'll try my best to help you. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
WT:Username policy is for discussion about the policy itself, not specific usernames. If you don't want to take Dr vulpes up on his offer, you can also ask at WP:Teahouse. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I’m reaching out to request a review of the current protection status on the Wikipedia page for John Rustad, the current Leader of the Opposition in British Columbia. Given that Rustad’s notability is mostly regional and that the 2024 B.C. Provincial Election is now over, I believe reducing the protection level to "semi-protection" or completely would be appropriate.
While he was indeed a controversial candidate during the recent election, it seems disproportionate to maintain "extended lock" status, especially compared to other high-profile Canadian politicians such as federal leaders Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre, and Jagmeet Singh, who only have "semi-protection" or, in some cases, no protection at all. Notably, B.C. Premier David Eby’s page also lacks any protection lock despite his prominent role.
Allowing "semi-protected" access would enable more editors with relevant knowledge of B.C. politics to improve the page. If any vandalism were to occur after this reduction, it could certainly be grounds to re-evaluate and re-implement "extended lock" protection.
Thank you for considering this request. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Unprotection: Talk page was move protected, main page was not, protection needs removal or page swapped to Talk: Lost (TV series) by an admin, request left at WP:RM/TR - sorry, I wouldn’t have closed the RM if I’d noticed, a talk page being move protected independently of the main article is unusual. ASUKITE 20:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to have already been unprotected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:
"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"
1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.
Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[9] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.
2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[10][11][12].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[13]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[14] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[15]VR(Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[16]][[17]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.
Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:
International Positions on the Two-State Solution
Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]
In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":
Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]
I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.
I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".
In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.
Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".
Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest changing the map on the states agreeing with with the Genocide charge (green coloured) to include Spain and Ireland, as these declared to join South Africa's case in the ICJ and generally agree with the allegations in public statements. Ireland also passed a motion in the parliament declaring it a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:9a4:6900:50f:51e:c5cd:b7cf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Modified by Galobtter on 2019-03-07: "Highly visible template: 30000+ transclusions; while subpages are regularly edited by non-template editors, this does not appear to need so"
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hey, I am here again with another editor who has created 86 articles, including BLPs. One of their creations was taken to AfD but resulted in a keep. I reviewed some of their articles and found that adding them to the AP could be beneficial. Basic checks were done, and no major issues were found. It’s up to you, and thanks! GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I've been editing on-and-off for years now and already have a number of permissions useful in the sort of wikignome work I tend to do, such as pending changes permission, rollback, and NPR rights; it is specifically new pages patrol I would be using this permission for. Primarily, I would like the permission in order to simplify the process when draftifying new articles so I would no longer need to leave a redirect for an admin to have to delete, but also for moving articles from misspellings or mis-titles. I've obviously got a fairly good understanding of the policies and wouldn't use the permission in a case that I thought might even be a little bit controversal. CoconutOctopustalk 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor. I occasionally need to move pages from one title to another. I'll post a discussion about it if I think there's going to be any controversy about it, but very often I'm dealing with low-interest pages that other editors simply aren't working on. If there's no existing page, I can go ahead and do the move, but if there's an existing redirect page, there's no way that I can do the swap and move the page history along with it. I recently got frustrated with this and moved a plant species page (who's name in the title did not match current taxonomy) from Micromeria douglasii to Clinopodium douglasii by simply cutting and pasting between the two. I'm informed that's really not the right way to do it - I'd like to get swap page right and backtrack and do it the right way. (Revert to pre-move versions of each page, swap, and re-enter later edits.) Peter G Werner (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I've been patrolling recent changes for a quiet while about Sri Lankan Articles, and I strongly believe this permission might be helpful. IDB.S (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. With limited countervandalism experience, a number of declined WP:AIV and WP:RFPP reports, and many warnings in your talk page archives about copyright, promotion, sourcing, etc., I don't think you're ready for this right at this time.Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
As an active recent changes patroller, I have dealt with and reverted/warned many instances of vandalism, BLP, and unsourced content. Lately, I saw that the pending changes backlog was quite high and would like to expand my contributions to that area. Thank you for your time. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I was granted temporary PCR privileges about four years ago, but did not request an extension due to genuine concerns regarding competence that were raised ahead of my successful rollback request about a month later. However, I believe that I have, at least for the most part, rectified these concerns over the past few months, where I have gotten much more active at AfC, NPP, and counter-vandalism (mainly using AntiVandal and, more recently, Huggle). Additionally, the reason for the competence concerns is now moot, since they arose due to my tendency to ask seemingly frivolous questions on AN and the help desk, while I now exercise great caution before bringing anything to the former, and rarely use the latter, as I am now much more familiar with our policies and guidelines, and no longer need as much clarification on them as then (see User talk:JJPMaster/Archive 2#WP:AN). If any concerns are still present, please let me know. Otherwise, I at least request that my temporary rights be restored, if it is not possible for me to be granted full rights at this time.
I have been patrolling RC since 8 August 2024 and would ask to have Pending changes reviewer rights. I've initially had a request for this permission here on 30 September 2024 but was denied. Anyways, I have stumbled upon across lots of Pending edits on RC and some of them appear to be constructive. I have a good understanding in basic and some advanced Wikipedia policies and have been editing Wikipedia since April 2024 and have nearly 9,000 edits in my contributions. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([25]). — MusikBottalk 06:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.
I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteemTalk 20:32, 2 November 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 (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteemTalk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteemTalk®asteemTalk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteemTalk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Normally one would discuss problems with tool use with the editor, on their talk page, and go to a noticeboard which this page is not if they were still unsatisfied. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Just Step Sideways:@Fastily: Looking at BilledMammal's use of the rollback (31 edits) so far, they have involved removing sourced content from articles, and are seemingly in violation of "Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Edits by sockpuppets are by definition in bad faith. Further, given the frequent source misrepresentation issues by that sockpuppet, we can’t trust that the presence of a source means the content is supported - and thus it is better to remove them all. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
That is factually incorrect as WP:GF says: “Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith.”
Also that’s the second half of what I quoted. The first half explicitly says “vandalism only.” Sockpuppetry although disruptive is not vandalism. You should revert what you disagree with, not mass remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced content.
If you have concerns, which is legitimate given the socking, you can check each of these sources yourself. Otherwise, mass removing everything is doing more harm than good. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, would you also argue against reverting edits by Icewhiz’s sockpuppets?
Regardless, this is common practice, and if you are willing to take full responsibility for CAE’s edits you are welcome to restore them. Personally, given the frequent issues with these edits, I would not be willing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I would also argue against that. There were many articles even created from scratch by Icewhiz’s several socks including Cuisine of Jerusalem, and the Jordanian Option which I find to be incredibly biased and have not touched. I reverted what I disagreed with, I did not mass revert everything. When linking to my reverts of that sock to make an argument, please maintain honesty by presenting the full picture, and not by presenting a misleading one. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I didn’t see your self-revert - I was looking at just your edits with a relevant edit summary - and regardless, there were many more examples I could have chosen, unless you are saying you’ve self-reverted all of them?
In any case, this is standard practice, and given the widespread issues with this editors contributions I think it was necessary. Of course, as I said before, if you are willing to assume responsibility for the edits you may restore them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I am clearly saying that I selectively reverted some of the socks edits, and not that I mass reverted all of their edits. The link you chose appeared to suggest a mass reversion, which was a technical mistake as evidenced by the immediate following self-revert. Again, back to the real issue here: your use of the rollback was given on explicit conditions that were violated, and this should be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
This isn't the right place for this conversation, but reverting block evasion is explicitly a valid use case for rollback: see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: #5 mentions "by misguided editors" and "unhelpful to WP," which is not necessarily the case here. I think you meant #4? If so, #4 ends with "(but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)." This means that there should be explanations for the removals, i.e. selective removals and not wholesale ones. (Does #4 include socks anyway?) And also to quote #6: "With a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, #4. The "explain" part is about explaining that the user is a sock, which isn't always obvious. And #6 is a separate criterion, not a requirement for all rollbacks, as the rest of the guideline makes clear. But again, this isn't the place—feel free to stop by my talk page if you'd like to talk about it more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ:@Just Step Sideways: This privilege should be removed. The capability has its proper uses, but one of them isn't so that someone with a strong POV in a contentious topic can mass-revert the edits of someone with the opposite strong POV. Even if the latter has been blocked as a sock. Yes, it is legal to remove sock edits, but a good editor would review them first and keep what improves the article. Now someone has to go through all the reverts and restore what is salvageable. Many of the reverted edits included good content that someone else would have added if the sock hadn't. As examples of how blindly BilledMammal has been wielding this tool, I mention removal of an academic source, reintroduction of an error and deletion of an infobox. Per full disclosure, I am also involved in this topic, which is why I don't remove the permission myself. Zerotalk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:BANREVERT notes that anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason, and WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4 expressly permits rollback to be used to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban. So, [e]ven if the latter has been blocked as a sock does matter a great bit, since rollback is explicitly permitted to be used when encountering edits made by ban-evading sockpuppets.
That being said, WP:BANREVERT also notes that when reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. For this reason, mass rollbacks tend to most prudent for dealing with a VOA or when the edits being rolled back are manually checked before the button is clicked. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
To quote WP:BANREVERT fully, not partially: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Uhm hello I've been wondering if I could get rollback perms I want to help prevent vandalism on Wikipedia and if I'm not able to get rollback perms at the moment how do I sign up for the anti-vandilsim class please feel free to give your honest response as I beleave honesty is key and if you think I'm not prepared yet please tell me I like getting feedback it helps me grow and learn on Wikipedia best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done Normally what we are looking for is evidence that a user is already reverting and warning vandals, and I wasn't able to find that. WP:CVU is where to learn more, but I would also note that you could go in your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE if you want to make anti-vandalism work very easy to do. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
thank you for the advice i appreciate that and yes i will use twinkle and i will start patrolling for vandilisim best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I think I am ready for Rollback user rights, after being declined twice before. I have 1835 mainspace edits, several months finding and reverting vandalism, and almost always notifying editors about their edits. I understand that Rollback is only used for obvious vandalism, and it should not be used for good-faith edits. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
