An example of one of the fabulous free images available at Wikimedia Commons.
I first registered this account - my first - April 20, 2007. Since then, I've gotten involved pretty deeply in AfD work. I see it as a chance to triage articles that are flawed, but may yet have potential.
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected biographies of living persons violation, I will userfy the article for you.
I maintain a sock account AVPW primarily for use on public networks. In the event of a compromised account, I specifically request any administrator to honor a request from AVPW to block this account, and absolve you in advance of any repercussions.
Declined. There's no evidence that this is a sock of an account that's been blocked for two years. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Johnny Au, I'm not going to block someone for one edit, and whatever other edits are problematic, you didn't revert them or warn the editor. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Will actively monitor user. They requested that the article they created be moved into draftspace. I believe this indicates that they are starting to pay attention to the warnings they've been given. I've moved the article to a userspace draft for now. Hopefully no further action will be necessary. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards referring to WP:ANI. Their draft activity is bizarre. Some of their past edits have been somewhat helpful. There's definitely WP:DE here, I think, but I'm borderline on calling it vandalism. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Promotional? 2" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 06:10, 13 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: Long term disruption and vandalism by IPs, the election results they are trying to change involve living people, a blpvio. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Appears to be repeatedly targeted for vandalism by Australia-based IP user. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP and new user vandalism. Almost every edit is some form of vandalism or a revert reverting the vandalism. Make it at least semi-protected. SVcode(Talk) 00:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Bizarre vandalism by range-hopping IP who keeps insisting on edit warring to include the word "awesome" in the article, which has been going on for many months. I think some kind of year+ semi-protection is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes(Talk) 02:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
They've been doing this for over a year [1], so I doubt two weeks will cut it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I'm still kind of new so I'm trying to be careful while I get my footing. If this happens after it expires please request it again and ping me. I'll ask some other admins what they think is a good time frame to protect the page. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Continued vandalism. Page was protected for a short period, which stemmed the tide of disruptive IPs, but as this topic is still in the news and attracting attention on social media I don't expect the disruptive editing to die down any time soon. Thank you, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 01:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. things have seemed to calm down, but if they pick back up please feel free to come back and request protection again. Ping me and if I've around I'll handle it asap. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – People have been changing his birthplace for ages, claiming he's from Italy. Nswix (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs trying to persistently add uncited information. First IP blocked but another appears. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of two days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The majority of edits to this project page within the last year have been vandalism (or reverting it). I don't think there's a reason why new editors should be editing it. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I was a bit hesitant but seeing that it's not in mainspace I felt that two weeks was acceptable. Dr vulpes(Talk) 06:04, 13 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: Looking through the history indicates the main edit wars are IP vs EC editors, not EC vs EC. Can this article please be downgraded from full administrative protection to EC protection? I believe protection skipped EC protection and was set straight to administration protection, despite it being edit wars from IP vs EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't like to essentially grant AC or EC editors the edit war through protection if there seem to be legitimate differences that require true consensus to resolve. It was (and is) hard to tell since the talk page has been sort of underutilized for this purpose and what discussion has taken place there seems to have centered around other users' misconduct, bad faith or allegations of same.
There is no requirement that protection go through levels before being imposed. Often it is, yes, but if I think full protection for a very limited time (which I think the requesting editor may have asked for in this case) would work better, I'm going to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
There was two disagreements ongoing. One on if the damage total was unofficial/5th costliest. This has a consensus on the talk page, which bluntly was IP additions with EC removals. The item was actually admin edit request done (the way the EC editors were doing it) following this full protection. The other item of discussion was adding conspiracy theories or not. That discussion involved 2 EC editors, plus 2 IP editors. So, respectfully, full protection was unwarranted in my opinion. EC protection along with maybe a TP message and/or edit-warring notice to the 2 EC editors would have been sufficient. Basically, I am saying you jumped the gun on the full protection, which is why I am requesting it be dropped down to EC (since every EC editor involved is on the TP). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
EC former Helene editor here, so a bit biased but I feel like it should be open to EC per above. In addition, if needed, I would tell them Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season exists and that only the most notable conspiracy theories by notable figures(1-3 of them IMO) should be added to this article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I hereby guarantee to take the responsibility of rewriting the content without deviating from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia policy guidelines. I can guarantee that the subject in consideration passes WP:GNG. I have created a draft article Draft:Wimal Sockanathan for you all to take a closer look at it. In the past, the article had been repeatedly recreated maybe due to unambiguous advertising purposes. I have published a draft article where I have not exaggerated the subject matter and I have precisely written the content with the use of reliable sources.
Morning LK is one of the prime references that I have used throughout the process when I structured the article content. Please seek your approval to move this draft to mainspace. I have written a plethora of articles of around 2000+ in my seven year stint with Wikipedia platform and hence I hope I can continue to deliver the goods and fulfill the weight of expectations as a standout editor. Abishe (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
@Abishe: Let a reviewer request unprotection for this; you've submitted the draft for review already and admins are unlikely to unprotect it unless they are willing to review and accept it. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 06:05, 13 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[2] 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.[3][4][5].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[6]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[7] 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."[8]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.[[9]][[10]] 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]
I would like to request that... (1. According to 2023 estimates the USA has 453,191 speakers.[1]
2. According to 2021 census, Canadas has 120,600 speakers[2].
3. According to 2021 census, Nepal has 23,774 speakers.) . 106.221.114.2 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I would like to put my hat in the ring again for this tool. I am aware of vandalism is and have familiarity with BLP policies. I try to avoid being trigger-happy, and usually err on the good side of AGF, so I tend to just leave things I'm not too familiar with alone for other editors to review.
Note: I made my previous request at the same time as requesting rollback. The rollback was declined by User:Fastily due to my recent return from a Wikibreak and failing to leave warnings for my first few edits. I disagree that reasoning carries across to reviewing pending changes, where the bar is to "filter out obvious inappropriate edits and vandalism" in "clear-cut cases". I ask that a new administrator considers this request on its own merits. If declined, I shall not submit another PC request for at least 90 days. Thank you in advance. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([18]). — MusikBottalk 09:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - Clearly this isn't going to happen. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Understandable. Due to my forgetfulness I keep forgetting my wikipedia password so I tend to be gone for long periods of time. Although, when should I reapply. Should it be in around a month of activity? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 08:27, 11 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)
There are no outstanding requests for template editor.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet
It is generally difficult to judge the worthiness of a particular topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia considering that there is no certain way to know what interests people, but some topics nevertheless are not fit for an encyclopedia.
This motto reflects the desire of these Wikipedians to be reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Wikipedia.
Committed identity: 5e0a9af339f30221a08fa86264cf1a81e3637ef17bd7ba87260c63b0fea3cdb0b55f545f061dd97184aa4061626c8c41b7237f4b18ccfdd096bff83e92ce9fc5 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Wikipedia editor
This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xymmax.
I copied this source code from someone's user page I liked. I did not save the name. Thank you, whomever you are.
