Template:Admin dashboard/light
- Frequently, some pages transcluding {{Admin dashboard}} are going on overflow and appear at Category:Pages_where_post-expand_include_size_is_exceeded.
This Template:Admin dashboard/light has been rewritten by including directly all the parts that were dispersed in so many sub-templates. - The "leaks out boxes" error has been fixed.
- Pages RFPP and UNFAA are simply linked (i.e. not transcluded) when too busy
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]- Rashid1075 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Himanta Biswa Sarma was changed by Rashid1075 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884059 on 2024-11-11T07:33:50+00:00 (Automated) ClueBot NG (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- 125.99.86.10 (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) 08:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- 97.125.3.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Masha and the Bear (diff) and 178.91.99.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On List of Grizzy and the Lemmings episodes (diff): I was originally going to give this user one more chance before I reported them, despite my deep belief that they would do this again. However, I have since learned that they have used sockpuppets that are currently blocked including 2605:A601:A602:E00:415B:D6DE:B0CF:70D9 (talk · contribs) and 136.56.188.242 (talk · contribs) so I am not feeling merciful anymore. Habitual issues of changing titles and details to match other animated shows, putting in fake and often bizarre recaps that include wish fulfillment crossovers, does not seem to respond to talk page messages or otherwise acknowledge their behavior is disruptive. Thebirdlover (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- 2600:1700:12E1:A090:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) edit warring and persistent disruptive edits after warnings. Warned at User talk:2600:1700:12E1:A090:F4AD:FC69:D1F7:E938 and User talk:2600:1700:12E1:A090:A984:7056:CE8F:494F for the same kind of edits. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rocketscientisttakezeroegg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? (American game show) (diff): A case of WP:NOTHERE. Making a large series of "non-edits" in the article to use the edit summaries for nonsense (essentially trying to enact some dialog from this game show). MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Uncle Ramon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Possibly another MAB LTA who gamed ECP. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 07:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rashid1075 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Giriraj Singh (diff): vandalism after final warning; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- 73.105.56.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Keeps vandalizing Kundalini after multiple warnings.
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
---|---|
User requested | 0 |
Empty articles | 0 |
Nonsense pages | 0 |
Spam pages | 1 |
Importance or significance not asserted | 1 |
Other candidates | 2 |
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 – 13 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item
Requested RD1 redactions – 2 items
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
- DestroyerOfFalseInfo (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "destroy" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Professional Wiki Stalker (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Stephanus3342 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- ManagementLovers2025 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Fxespawn (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "Used x instead of cks attempting to skip filter: fu*c+k. Violating string: fcksespawn" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 18:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- FfxrqM0AJGHEGWTezFBMDgNuDwvwVRA8 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Balenshahofficial (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- AbbySmidtCentralizedSalesCreation (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Rocketscientisttakezeroegg (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- CommunityWatch (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
User-reported
[edit]- VlaDICKsosatelhuyov1488 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as an offensive username. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. I assume you're referring to the "DICK" part of their username? If so, let's wait as this could legitamely be their real name. If not, what am I missing? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1488 can be Nazi too. However they've not edited. Secretlondon (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- That I didn't know. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's (or rather, can be) some sort of neo-Nazi thing. The user is already blocked on ru.wiki for their name; not that it matters here, of course, but just mentioning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have for sure blocked before for use of fourteen words references. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's unlikely that anyone has 1488 in their username accidentally (unless it makes sense as an address or something). I think VlaDICK might be Vladimir and their first account was on ru, but they still haven't edited on en: and I doubt they will. I've no objection to anyone blocking them but it doesn't make much difference really. Secretlondon (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have for sure blocked before for use of fourteen words references. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1488 can be Nazi too. However they've not edited. Secretlondon (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. I assume you're referring to the "DICK" part of their username? If so, let's wait as this could legitamely be their real name. If not, what am I missing? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quintana Galleries (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 promotion by adding external links (https://quintanagalleries.com/collections/greg-a-robinson). See Special:AbuseLog/39194187 for details. Agent 007 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Being discussed with the user. Totally blockable though, feel free to re-report if they edit again. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- AHC-music (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional and disruptive username. Claims to be Alex Van Halen's wife, COI editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- ReaperBlitz (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 user page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Being discussed with the user.. It's just barely conceivable that "Blitz" is a person's name and their username falls wthin the UAA exception of "John from Foo." I've left them a UPE warning for their now-deleted userpage, which was promotional and likely paid/COI. Let's see what happens next. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW this is also the direction I was leaning. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Being discussed with the user.. It's just barely conceivable that "Blitz" is a person's name and their username falls wthin the UAA exception of "John from Foo." I've left them a UPE warning for their now-deleted userpage, which was promotional and likely paid/COI. Let's see what happens next. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Britishtalks.Isaacf (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 cites from https://britishtalks24.com. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- We allow these as it's Isaacf from British talks. It's just COI/linkspam. Secretlondon (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- To quote the username policy:
However, usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as Mark at WidgetFactory, Jack Smith at the XYZ Foundation, FacebookFanatic87, etc.
— rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Y.a.r.o TnB (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Aims to make a user page specifically for the music artist that the username represents, as shown in the contribs. TheNerdzilla (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a violation of the username policy. Stage names and pen names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]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.
- Palestinian Authority–West Bank militias conflict (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extended-confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement per WP:ECR. Left guide (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: @Left guide: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined until the AFD (which seems headed towards keep, but it's still got only two !votes) is resolved. There's no evidence of serious disruption, and the ECP that would probably apply might get in the way of any improvements that might need to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent, ongoing predominate disruptive editing by anonymous editors. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Not much reverting recently. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: High level of IP vandalism 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done The latest IP address has been blocked for 48 hours, but if there is a pick up in vandalism please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Disruptive editing and vandalism by IPs over the last few weeks. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Aoidh (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Repeatedly recreated by socks and IP users. Relevant convos: ANI, Previous deletions, COIN, Talkpage discussion and Sockpupetry IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Creation protected indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Daniel Case. Could I just ask a question? I was under the impression that the article had been salted back in August, so I'm puzzled as to how it was created again in September. Any clarification here would be appreciated. Also, is it the creation of the draft that has been prevented, or the movement of the draft into mainspace? Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- The mainspace page was salted. I just took care of the draftspace page. With both of them now protected the question of moving it is moot. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Daniel Case. Could I just ask a question? I was under the impression that the article had been salted back in August, so I'm puzzled as to how it was created again in September. Any clarification here would be appreciated. Also, is it the creation of the draft that has been prevented, or the movement of the draft into mainspace? Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Requesting white-lock protection due to vandalism caused by IP address-identified editors that attempt to violate the privacy of the subject of the article in question. 96.235.164.171 (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see much reverting in the history. Daniel Case (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: CTOP ECP Hoben7599 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Will log as well. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent socking to vandalize (possibly by more than one person?): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5](today). Other vandalism also happened. – 143.208.239.58 (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Fair bit of vandalism to this page recently by different accounts. OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – WP:A/I/PIA. Most edits appear to be by IPs, non-EC accounts and multiple blocked socks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]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.
- 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.
Move protection. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:40, 11 November 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.
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[1] 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 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)
- I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[2][3][4].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[5]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[6] 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."[7] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[5]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 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)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[10][11] and a form of Holocaust erasure[12], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[13][14][15][16]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 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)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[10][11] and a form of Holocaust erasure[12], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[13][14][15][16]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Stated Israeli tank losses in casualty and losses infobox are incorrect, attributed article from Business Insider states "The IDF again had problems with anti-tank missiles during the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah employed Russian-made Kornets. Though about 50 Merkavas were damaged, only five were destroyed, according to the IDF, which also struggled with poorly maintained vehicles and ill-trained crews." Casualties and losses box states this number as if it was from current conflict. Article does, however, state that "Israel has lost nearly two dozen tanks during fighting with Hamas since October 7." I believe losses of tanks in the infobox should be fixed to reflect this. 155.225.2.98 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 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)
Handled requests
[edit]
9 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Updated as needed. Last updated: 07:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
8 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Updated as needed. Last updated: 00:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
|
RFP= Requests for permissions
Autopatrolled
[edit]- Jannatulbaqi (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)
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)
Confirmed
[edit]- Anopisthograph (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. While I have met the necessary edit requirements, my account is not yet old enough to fulfill the account age criterion. I am a Recent Changes patroller, and I would love to be able to use Twinkle to speed up the process. It is my belief that access to Twinkle would significantly enhance my ability to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. However, Twinkle requires confirmed rights to use. Given Twinkle's requirement for confirmed rights, I am respectfully requesting this status. I know confirmed status is rarely given upon request, and I fully understand if my request is not approved. Thank you for considering it!
All the best, Anopisthograph (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done I think you need to take a close read of WP:VANDAL and make sure you understand what is and is not vandalism before continuing to engage in anti-vandal activities. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
[edit]- OXYLYPSE (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 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 ([17]). — MusikBot talk 09:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- WikiEditor5678910 (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 to be a pending changes reveiwer because I want to help make Wikipedia a better place and be a part of something bigger than myself. If you give me this great honor I promise to only use my powers for good. WikiEditor5678910 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has 23 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 16:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @WikiEditor5678910: Not done; thirty edits is unfortunately not enough to know if we should trust you. Please read over WP:PCCRITERIA, make a few hundred constructive edits to mainspace, and wait a few months before requesting again. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hajpo (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 engaging in constructive talk discussions to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to contribute more Hajpo (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had an account for 7 days and has 28 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done You don't seem like you're experienced enough on Wikipedia yet since you've made only 28 edits in the mainspace and have been around for only seven days. I suggest waiting a month and making a couple hundred edits in the mainspace that demonstrate your understanding of our policies and guidelines mentioned at WP:PCCRITERIA before requesting this right again. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Anonymous1261 (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 want to review pending changes. I have reverted vandalism, and I have self-reverted my mistakes (see [18] and [19]). I would like to help review pending changes as a voluntary task. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 10:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done @Anonymous1261 while you have a good track record of edits so far and an article published in the mainspace, I see that you have only done a handful of reverts and are not always warning editors after you revert them [20] [21], [22], [23]. When you revert a clearly nonconstructive edit, please make sure to properly warn the user if you can. Some tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet can help with that. I think you can re-apply after maybe a month or two of reverting more nonconstructive edits and gaining a longer track record. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand and will I do so.
- Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 03:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand and will I do so.
- IDB.S (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I've been 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)
- VolatileAnomaly (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 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)
Rollback
[edit]- Rasteem (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 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. ®asteem Talk 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. ®asteem Talk 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. ®asteem Talk ®asteem Talk 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)
- 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
- 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)
- 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. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sangsangaplaz (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 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 Sideways from 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)
- 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)
- 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 Sideways from this world ..... today 21:20, 9 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)
- BilledMammal (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)
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)
- Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:19, 9 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)
- In fact, a couple of days ago you were reverting sockpuppet edits with the same justification - what’s different here? BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- CFA (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, I'd like to request rollback to use Huggle. I was granted it on trial in April 2023 but went on a year-long Wikibreak almost immediately afterwards. A request I made in June was denied because I hadn't been active for very long. I've been much more active since then. Thanks. C F A 💬 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm initially inclined to grant the right, seeing as you have both New Page Reviewer and Page Mover (which generally require higher levels of trust). However, after reading this archived talk comment from August, where you appear to agree that you were edit warring, I do have a few questions:
- If you are granted this right, under what circumstances do you plan to use the vanilla (i.e. out-of-the box, in-browser) rollback functions? Will you use vanilla rollback while reverting vandalism through Special:RecentChanges, while disputing content edits made by other editors in lieu of using the undo tool, or will you simply use this right for Huggle?
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I might use it to revert sockpuppet edits or blatant vandalism, though Twinkle rollback works just fine for that. I'm mainly looking to use it for Huggle. I wouldn't use it to dispute content edits because it's easier to add an edit summary with Twinkle rollback or Undo. C F A 💬 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done. The reason I asked is because it is prohibited to use the vanilla rollback tool while disputing good-faith/non-vandal content edits. Keep this in mind, and all should be fine. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose I might use it to revert sockpuppet edits or blatant vandalism, though Twinkle rollback works just fine for that. I'm mainly looking to use it for Huggle. I wouldn't use it to dispute content edits because it's easier to add an edit summary with Twinkle rollback or Undo. C F A 💬 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Policies and links