Jump to content

User:Newsaholic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user page has been vandalized 9 times.
Wikipedia:TwinkleThis user reverts vandalism in the blink of an eye with Twinkle!
This user enjoys reading the newspaper.
This user is a certified scuba diver.
newsThe only reality show this user watches is the news.
New pages

12 November 2024

WP:Recent changes

List of abbreviations (help):
D
Edit made at Wikidata
r
Edit flagged by ORES
N
New page
m
Minor edit
b
Bot edit
(±123)
Page byte size change

12 November 2024

Dashboard


CAVEAT: all the |show= parameters have been set to 7 days.


Update this page
Immediate requests Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Wikipedians looking for help 0
Requests for unblock 78
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 85
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 8
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 3
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 36
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 1
Candidates for speedy deletion 4
Open sockpuppet investigations 80
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

AB = Administrative Backlogs

[edit]

Administrative backlog

[edit]
Requests for unblock
SPI cases awaiting administration
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests
Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems
Wikipedia:Closure requests
Wikipedia:Copyright problems
Template:Did you know/Queue
Template:DYK queue/backlog
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Wikipedia:Requested moves
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests

WP:AIV

[edit]

AIV= Administrator intervention against vandalism

Administrator intervention against vandalism

Reports

[edit]

Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]


CSD / PRODs

[edit]

CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions

Candidates for speedy deletion Entries
User requested 1
Empty articles 0
Nonsense pages 0
Spam pages 1
Importance or significance not asserted 0
Other candidates 4

The following articles have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
( source / chronological order / expired )

Deletion backlog

{{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 – 2 items

Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 15 items

Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item

Requested RD1 redactions – 1 item

Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

[edit]

UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection

Usernames for administrator attention

Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]
You only draw attention to it by posting it here, and templating them 18 months after they edited. It's very stale. Secretlondon (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Requests for page protection


Current requests for increase in protection level

[edit]
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Shortcuts

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.


Ridley Scott

[edit]

Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Annie Award for Outstanding Achievement for Voice Acting in a Feature Production

[edit]

Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Ongoing socking by User:Bigboss19923, five sock accounts and an IP over the last month. Belbury (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Pending-changes protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. BusterD (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ice Age 6

[edit]

Reason: Being a new article on an upcoming subject, IP users have been adding large numbers of speculative and unsourced false information. SleepDeprivedGinger (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Donal Bisht

[edit]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Allison Langdon

[edit]

Reason: IP editor keeps adding unsourced material, breach of 3RR WWGB (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

[edit]
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Shortcuts

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.

Shortcuts

Current requests for edits to a protected page

[edit]
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Shortcut

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.
Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


Gaza genocide

[edit]

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'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)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[8]][[9]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Gaza genocide 2

[edit]

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)

Gaza genocide

[edit]

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)

List of highest-grossing Indian films

[edit]

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)

Two-state solution

[edit]

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]

EsenL (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Reply to Parliamentary Question on Palestine". Retrieved 2024-11-12.
Source? Providing a source to back up your edit drastically improves the chance it'll be done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
have added! thanks! EsenL (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Bengalis

[edit]

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)

References

  1. ^ https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2023.B16001?q=bengali&hidePreview=false&vintage=2018
  2. ^ https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=9810021701

Handled requests

[edit]
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.
Protected edit requests

10 protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 MediaWiki page (log)
MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 MediaWiki page (log)
MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 MediaWiki page (log)
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-editnotice (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 MediaWiki page (log)
Template:Editnotice load (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 Cascade-protected from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content (log) From Wikipedia/Protected templates: Protected by Rich Farmbrough on 2009-10-14: "Purpose of page - belt and braces."
Template:Editnotice load/notext (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 Cascade-protected from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content (log) From Wikipedia/Protected templates: Protected by Rich Farmbrough on 2009-10-14: "Purpose of page - belt and braces."
Template:Editnotice/notice (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 Template-protected (log) Modified by Callanecc on 2014-02-14: "Highly visible template: and included in a high-risk template"
Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Editnotices (request) 2024-10-08 20:04 Title blacklist (log) Matching line: Template:Editnotices\/.* <noedit|errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-editnotice>
Hurricane Helene (request) 2024-11-11 12:45 Fully protected, expires 2024-11-14 at 06:41:55 UTC (log) Protected by Daniel Case on 2024-11-11: "Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP"
Cybergrind (request) 2024-11-11 16:14 Fully protected (log) Protected by Deiz on 2006-12-31: "recreated several times"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 16:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
8 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Module:Lang-zh (request) 2024-10-10 09:41 Template-protected (log) From Module:Zh: Protected by HJ Mitchell on 2014-05-03: "High-risk Lua module"
Template:Coat of arms (request) 2024-10-30 09:36 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2020-08-29: "High-risk template"
Template:WikiProject Cricket (request) 2024-11-08 09:21 Template-protected (log) Modified by Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 on 2016-10-15: "Highly visible template"
Template:Country data United Kingdom (request) 2024-11-09 00:05 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Country data United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (request) 2024-11-09 00:10 Template-protected (log) Modified by MelanieN on 2019-02-16: "Highly visible template"
Module:College color/data (request) 2024-11-10 03:37 Template-protected (log) Modified by Galobtter on 2019-01-24: "High-risk Lua module"
Module:Political party (request) 2024-11-11 00:06 Template-protected (log) Protected by MusikBot II on 2021-11-18: "High-risk template or module: 13487 transclusions (more info)"
Template:Infobox language (request) 2024-11-11 23:47 Template-protected (log) Modified by MusikAnimal on 2021-08-16: "Highly visible template: transclusion count now over 9,000; most recent editors are still able to edit"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 04:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


WP:RFA

[edit]

RFA= Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 2 175 1 2 99 09:47, 18 November 2024 5 days, 20 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 13:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFP

[edit]

RFP= Requests for permissions

Requests for autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Jannatulbaqi

[edit]

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)

Requests for confirmation


Confirmed

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Anopisthograph

[edit]

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)

There are no outstanding requests for the page mover flag.

Page mover

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


Requests for pending changes reviewer


Pending changes reviewer

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:OXYLYPSE

[edit]

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)
 Request withdrawn - Clearly this isn't going to happen. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Anonymous1261

[edit]

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)

User:IDB.S

[edit]

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)

User:VolatileAnomaly

[edit]

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)

Requests for rollback


Rollback

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Rasteem

[edit]

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)
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. ®asteem Talk 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)

User:Sangsangaplaz

[edit]

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)

User:BilledMammal

[edit]

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)
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)

User:CFA

[edit]

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)
There are no outstanding requests for template editor.

Template editor

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

Footer

[edit]

Policies and links

    Category tracker

    Immediate requests

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Wikipedians looking for help 0
    Requests for unblock 82
    Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
    Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 1
    Candidates for speedy deletion 6
    Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 3

    Deletion

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Articles for deletion 523
    Templates for deletion 98
    Categories for deletion 123
    Wikipedia files for discussion 41
    All redirects for discussion 339
    Miscellaneous pages for deletion 16
    Possible copyright violations 9
    All articles proposed for deletion 234
    All files proposed for deletion 38
    Unsorted AfD debates 0
    All files with the same name on Commons 15
    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Orphaned non-free use 412
    Unknown copyright status 23
    Unknown source 21
    No non-free use rationale 5
    Replaceable non-free use images 15
    Disputed non-free use images 21

    Page protection

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Protected 10
    Semi-protected user and user talk pages 1,244
    Fully protected user and user talk pages 443
    Protected against vandalism 4
    Protected talk pages of blocked users 34
    Semi-protected 2,311
    Arbitration 500/30 restricted 0

    Cleanup

    [edit]

    General cleanup

    Category Entries Percentage
    All pages needing cleanup 34,183 0.49
    All articles needing rewrite 5,961 0.09
    All articles needing expert attention 1,325 0.02
    All Wikipedia articles in need of updating 39,611 0.57

    Reference problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    All pages needing factual verification 11,110 0.16
    All articles with unsourced statements 532,623 7.71
    All articles lacking sources 76,866 1.11
    All unreferenced BLPs 272 0.02
    All articles needing additional references 470,379 6.81
    All articles needing references cleanup 4,629 0.07
    All articles lacking in-text citations 105,477 1.53
    All articles with dead external links 311,871 4.51

    Image cleanup problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    Image files for cleanup 17 -
    Wikipedia files lacking a description 140 -
    Wikipedia files with unknown source 18 -

    Other problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    All articles to be merged 1,384 0.02
    All articles to be split 809 0.01
    Unsorted Stubs 0 -
    Stub categories 19,250 -
    All uncategorized pages 819 0.01
    All orphaned articles 53,262 0.77
    All articles needing copy edit 2,503 0.04
    All articles with style issues 19,473 0.28
    All Wikipedia articles needing context 2,756 0.04
    All articles that may contain original research 16,550 0.24


    Miscellaneous

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Requested moves 284
    All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes 7,530
    All accuracy disputes 15,755
    Articles with invalid ISBNs 0
    Articles with invalid ISSNs 4
    All articles to be expanded 66,186

    Special pages

    [edit]
    Maintenance reports Information
    Broken redirects
    Dead-end pages Dead-end pages
    Dormant pages Dusty articles
    DoubleRedirects Double redirects
    Lonely pages Orphaned articles
    Long pages
    New pages New page patrol
    New pages feed Page curation
    Protected pages Protection policy
    Short pages
    Uncategorized Categorization
    Uncategorized cats
    Uncategorized templates
    Unused categories
    Unused files (images)
    Unused templates
    Without interwiki links
    Most interwiki links
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Newsaholic&oldid=767574737"