User
Talk
Dashboard
Articles
Scripts
Tools
Templates
Userboxes
Awards
News
![]() |
---|
4 July 2024 |
|
Edit filters
Modify filter 1076
I propose that 1076 (hist · log), with a filter's description of "Draftified article more than 180 days old", be modified from a threshold of 180 days to 90 days. The notes in the filter say the following:
- 2020/09/20 - changed from 90 to 120 days - NPP often takes longer than 90 days (bv)
- 2021/12/10 - change to 180 days (bv)
Since these changes where the filter moved from 90 to 180 days, there has been a RfC on the matter of draftifications and how long after creation is appropriate. It was closed March 24, 2022, and the result was that pages over 90 days should not generally be draftified. As such, it makes sense for the filter to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I second this as well. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Drmies wants a filter
- Task: Drmies left a note at WP:AN linking to Special:Contributions/Learoy4, all of whose edits had the same summary, all of which have been revdelled as Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. Example, if you're an admin and able to see the revdelled content
- Reason: Based on the AN request, I suspect that this summary is being used by other accounts or IPs. Drmies blocked Learoy4 for vandalism, so we won't see further problems from this account.
- Diffs: Every edit by Learoy4 has the same summary, so preventing further edits by other accounts or IPs should be trivial. If the wording is changed a little, well, you're the filter maintainers and I'm not; maybe you could find a way to make things better.
Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Nyttend, @Drmies: see the comments for Special:AbuseFilter/1314. —Ingenuity (t • c) 14:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nyttend, you can check Smalljim's log--I blocked a few but they blocked more. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. Dozens of them. It's some known LTA case, but I don't care which. I'll keep playing whack-a-vandal while I can. Keep an eye on 1314. —Smalljim 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, just maybe, there's a tiny chance if we can set to disallow or add the summary regex to 52 and disable 1314, but further discussions should not happen here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 04:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just curious, is there any page where discussion can happen securely (something requiring admin or filter-editor rights just to view) without relying on the email address provided in the edit notice? I've looked at filter 1314's notes, and I can see people saying "To explain why..." and "Is this so-and-so" (as Ingenuity recommends), but nowhere that's being used for discussion. Nyttend (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nope. I've proposed a private wiki for facilitating this kind of discussion before but it did not get much traction. The current canonical venue is always the mailing list. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just curious, is there any page where discussion can happen securely (something requiring admin or filter-editor rights just to view) without relying on the email address provided in the edit notice? I've looked at filter 1314's notes, and I can see people saying "To explain why..." and "Is this so-and-so" (as Ingenuity recommends), but nowhere that's being used for discussion. Nyttend (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, just maybe, there's a tiny chance if we can set to disallow or add the summary regex to 52 and disable 1314, but further discussions should not happen here. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 04:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yup. Dozens of them. It's some known LTA case, but I don't care which. I'll keep playing whack-a-vandal while I can. Keep an eye on 1314. —Smalljim 16:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nyttend, you can check Smalljim's log--I blocked a few but they blocked more. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
{{AfC submission}}
- Task: Prevent the removal of past AfC decline and rejections.
- Reason: They're not supposed to be removed by non-reviewers. (There's a invisible comment that says
<!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -->
beside the templates) - Diffs: A lot.
I've tested possible code for this filter on Test Wiki (see here), and it seems to work well. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good, except you forgot exempting new page reviewers in the test wiki code, so maybe make it something like
!contains_any(user_groups, 'extendedconfirmed', 'sysop', 'bot', 'patrol')
? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)- Ultimately it doesn't particularly have much effect, since I can't really think of any patroller who isn't extendedconfirmed already. The only ones who would be are bots, who already operate with a bot flag. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- True. I didn't think of that, but one might keep it there just to be safe? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ultimately it doesn't particularly have much effect, since I can't really think of any patroller who isn't extendedconfirmed already. The only ones who would be are bots, who already operate with a bot flag. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- This probably needs wider discussion. I'd support it, but I suspect the anti-draftspace people would object. At a minimum, should probably make a post at WT:AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've posted a {{please see}} there. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- meh. There are two situations where the AFC submission tags are being removed. In the first case, the draft-writer is attempting to hide past declines and/or unaware that they shouldn't replace declines with a new submit tag. In the second case, someone (and it could even be the draft creator) is moving the draft to the article space, which meets the
before article has been created
clause of the hidden comment. Can the filter tell the difference between these two cases? If not, then I do not think it will be a helpful filter (unless it is log-only). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)- I think it can. The
!added_lines irlike '#redirect'
line is used to not catch drafts that were turned into redirects (likely from a page move). '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)- I suppose my concern is if someone wants to clean up the draft before they move it to the article space, it will flag it as a violation, no? Primefac (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... that's a good point. Maybe the template can say something like "Only remove this template if the draft has been moved into mainspace."? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Setting the filter to warn rather than disallow as you propose sounds like a good compromise. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm... that's a good point. Maybe the template can say something like "Only remove this template if the draft has been moved into mainspace."? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose my concern is if someone wants to clean up the draft before they move it to the article space, it will flag it as a violation, no? Primefac (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it can. The
- I can see that a draft is OVERWRITTEN by a different draft. That could cause an issue here. There is no collision detection at Article Wizard, so if you select an existing draft article name, and create a new draft, that will delete any rejection notices with a fresh draft. I've seen different users create new drafts overwriting one another. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that trapping conversion to redirect would help with if someone merges a nonnotable-rejection into a broader topic draft that could be notable. the Merge-and-Redirect activity would capture the edit history as a redirect's contribution history. ? -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support Apart from the correct housekeeping removal on acceptance, ideally but not always done by the AFCH script, I see only two reasons an editor, not necessarily the creating editor, will remove the material:
- With goodwill, thinking this is correct despite the hidden comment
- To conceal prior review history.
- I see this proposal as a benefit provided the exception cases are sorted out. I have no objection to offering a warning, though would prefer outright prohibition. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
COI filter
- Task: Prevent edits common COI edit summaries
- Reason: Reduce the workload of patrollers, help out new users who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies.
- Diffs: Don't have any on hand right now, but generally use phrases like "I am/We are ______ and am/are updating the article...", etc.
Rusty talk contribs 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be in keeping with policy. COI edits are discouraged, but not outright forbidden. We certainly should not be preventing COI editors from removing obvious BLP violations, vandalism, etc. Spicy (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Would you also object to a warn-only filter? This would certainly be in line with "discouraged, but not outright forbidden". Animal lover |666| 12:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Warn about a Wikipedia mirror
Ed-Tech Press, also known as "Scientific E-Resources, is a Wikipedia mirror. They print copies of books that are just Wikipedia articles. Per WP:CIRCULAR, we should never cite them in articles. Unfortunately, these books are listed in Google Books, and there's no obvious warning on them. I've inadvertently cited them twice recently. While I really appreciate reversions like this one, it seems like this is an area where an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Could we please have an abuse filter set up for this string:
|publisher=Scientific e-Resources
which should catch most {{cite book}} uses? If it would be great if it could produce a warning message like "Ed-Tech Press and Scientific E-Resources are Wikipedia mirrors. They are not reliable sources and should not be cited in articles per WP:CIRCULAR." I think that the 'warn' setting should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you making this request - this publisher is just the worst. There is deliberately no attempt to identify the nature of the copied materials; it's just a straight up scam. There are three things I usually search for: "Ed-Tech Press", "Scientific e-Resources" (which is typically displayed when a google books link is resolved in a template), and the URL of "edtechpress.co.uk". I do agree with the warning being sufficient as I don't recall this ever being used on-wiki by a bad-faith actor. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. Possible filter code for catching this could be:
page_namespace == 0 & !contains_any(user_groups "bot", "sysop", "extendedconfirmed") & ( mirrors := "(?:\|publisher\s*\=\s*(?:(?:[Ss]cientific [Ee]\s?-\s?[Rr]esources)|(?:Ed\s?-\s?[Tt]ech [Pp]ress)))|(?:\|url\s*\=\s*edtechpress\.co\.uk)" added_lines irlike mirrors & !(removed_lines irlike mirrors) )
- I would create a log-only filter at first, and if it does well, ramp it up to warn. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. I understand that starting as a long-only filter is common, and I've no objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would create a log-only filter at first, and if it does well, ramp it up to warn. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Possible spambots or promotional usernames
New users creating pages in someone else's userspace
- Last changed at 00:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1313 (deleted) — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 18:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1282 — Flags: disabled
- Last changed at 23:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1164 — Actions: disallow
- Last changed at 18:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1242 — Actions: disallow
- Last changed at 18:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Articles
Reports
Bot-reported
- Filo123456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 249 five times in the last 5 minutes (New user conducting large scale reverts, details). . DatBot (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
False positive. Edits are not vandalism. Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ramesh Podar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1241 (User talk page disruption, details). . DatBot (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Declined. Because I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is disruptive or not. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- 66.188.56.91 (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). . DatBot (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Warned user. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- North Dakota28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). . DatBot (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
- 171.60.227.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Mass vandalism, possilikely to be sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/171.60.227.37). — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. Being handled there. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- 27.56.78.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Mass-vandalism. User is possilikely to be sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/171.60.227.37). — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Sockpuppet investigations. Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sexyman9987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – for this disgusting edit. 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:9A:4988:CCFA:8B55 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Page deleted. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Jensonhoward146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. FMSky (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- 173.170.38.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. User keeps adding multiple nationalities in the lead sentence. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Backlog CLEAN!
Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
---|---|
User requested | 0 |
Empty articles | 0 |
Nonsense pages | 0 |
Spam pages | 1 |
Importance or significance not asserted | 4 |
Possibly contested candidates | 5 |
Other candidates | 6 |
Permissions
Account creator
User:S-Aura
- S-Aura (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! Wikipedians, I'm S-Aura with over three years of experience and extended confirmed user rights. I'd like to request an account creation on Wikipedia. Thank you! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
User:Zhing'za zï Ïnin
- Zhing'za zï Ïnin (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 wish to use AutoWikiBrowser for making otherwise-tedious edits to replace widely-used raster images with vectorized equivalents. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- For the record I previously declined a request with a similar reason. I will leave this one for another admin to evaluate. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was unaware that it was denied. I will do this manually instead. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 05:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
User:SerChevalerie
- SerChevalerie (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)
Previously had AWB rights, back to editing now. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had their access to AutoWikiBrowser automatically revoked ([1]). — MusikBot talk 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Bugnawfang
- Bugnawfang (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights Hi. I'm Bugnawfang. Lately, I have been editing on articles about some places in the Philippines. Recently, however, the Negros Island Region was created again after a law was signed by the president of the Philippines. Hence, there are 19 cities and 44 municipalities' pages that still have the old "Central Visayas (Region VII)" and "Western Visayas (Region VI)" region template tags. I am aware that my edits do not meet the threshold, but I do want to update these pages, and making edits one-by-one on these pages is tedious on its own. With this, I may request for the permission to use AWB to add the "Negros Island Region" template on these pages. Bugnawfang (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
User:AirshipJungleman29
- AirshipJungleman29 (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)
Would be useful to make tedious edits. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
User:John
- John (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)
Been on hiatus for a couple of years and my access was revoked. I used to enjoy using the typo fixing facility and might like to try it again. John (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
New page reviewer
User:Extorc
- Extorc (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 more than 6000 edits as an editor over a time period of around 3 years. I have created several pages which I continue to maintain and have participated in processes like Request for moves and closures as well. Iv taken initiative in Anti-Vandalism work. I can help reduce the backlog. >>> Extorc.talk 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
User:HRShami
- HRShami (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 reduce the massive backlog. I have been looking at the new pages patrol feed sporadically for the past two months and the backlog keeps increasing. I want to play a part in reviewing the articles. HRShami (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Evilfreethinker
- Evilfreethinker (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'd like to help reduce NPP and AFC backlogs. I've read the terms and rules. Evilfreethinker (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Suntooooth
- Suntooooth (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'd like to help out with NPP considering the backlog, and now that I've created a few articles I feel like I'm ready. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)\
User:SparrowQ
- SparrowQ (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights
As an experienced Wiki editor, I am requesting new page reviewer rights to help maintain the quality and accuracy of new pages. Your approval would allow me to contribute more effectively to wiki community. SparrowQ (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBot talk 18:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
User:KingSkyLord
- KingSkyLord (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 a long-time editor on this site for 7 years with lots of experience creating articles and participating in AfD discussions. I plan to use this permission to help clear the backlog and provide feedback to editors for their new articles, regardless of whether their article is notable or not. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Noorullah21
- Noorullah21 (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 had previous experience, had it on trial period for a month during the back-drive, and I feel like I can especially do more. Noorullah (talk) 11:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Xegma
- Xegma (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 there, I am interested tn helping out in new page reviewing as there are very large articles backlog and love to do so. Xegma(talk) 07:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question, though I am not an administrator, I see that you have published accepted AFC submissions, even if they lack citations or are in need of some fixing. And some have orange banners on them. Why is this? — 48JCL 01:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Iwaqarhashmi
- Iwaqarhashmi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I would like to request new page reviewer rights to help review newly-created articles and lower the backlog. I have accepted lots of drafts at AFC and participated in many AfDs with deep discussions to exhibit my knowledge of notability, as I was advised previously. Thanks! Waqar💬 19:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([3]). — MusikBot talk 20:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Garsh2
- Garsh2 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Good day. I am requesting to be granted the New Page Reviewer permission to assist with the growing new page backlog. I have created 8 new articles (although one was a complete rewrite that I then pushed through AfC) and meet the edit and age requirements for this permission. I also have demonstrated experience in the AfC process in both articles and redirects and have some experience in deletion related areas. I maintain rollback and pending change permissions, both of which I use regularly. I believe I can (and will) be of assistance in reducing the NPP backlog, if given the opportunity. Thank you. Garsh (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
User:RodRabelo7
- RodRabelo7 (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 a rollbacker for some time now, and when I patrol the recent changes, it's not at all uncommon to come across pending revisions. Thus, I imagine that having the permission of a pending changes reviewer would help me in anti-vandalism activities and, even more, reduce the backlog and the work of other volunteers. Helping directly on Special:PendingChanges is also a possibility, of course. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Madeforall1
- Madeforall1 (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)
Im requesting pending changes reviewer rights because I wish to review some changes made by inexperienced users, I’ll be fully active and really want to get this right. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per your discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funnybros. It shows any editor with the motive to promote a subject either by Youtube link or any other link that are not necessary or accepted by wikipedia. You are likely to accept them. So I will be afraid if this right is being granted to you for the betterment of wikipedia. Administrators should be aware. Gabriel (talk to me ) 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, Gabriel101, I've looked at this user's contributions, and they look more than ready to be a reviewer. On top of that, you are requesting the same rights of this user? And though I am saying the same thing as this user did on your request, did you have to say what you said here and not on the user's talk page? Apollogetticax|talk 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Point of correction, I am not Gabriel101. And to address your concern. If I had gone to user talk page it could have been useless or a waste of time as the same user has removed everything that was notified against him recently by other editors. I don’t know what you have looked but I see no sense in what you are saying if you have really looked as you said and not noticing an edit was stroked here. Regarding same permission kindly read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Achievers Award. I will advice you focus on your Sockpuppet account case User:User:HTML5, CSS3! and here User_talk:Ferret#Thank_you. Cheers. Gabriel (weytin dey sup) 12:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, Gabriel101, I've looked at this user's contributions, and they look more than ready to be a reviewer. On top of that, you are requesting the same rights of this user? And though I am saying the same thing as this user did on your request, did you have to say what you said here and not on the user's talk page? Apollogetticax|talk 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Randomstaplers
- Randomstaplers (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'm starting to review pages for copyvios, and, as a result, I'm starting to encounter reviewer-protected pages. (If the article on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a backwards-copy, I might have been hosed.) In any case, I hope my experience across multiple Wikimedia projects demonstrates the competence needed for this permission. ⸺RandomStaplers 00:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Gabriel601
- Gabriel601 (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 well familiar with the Wikipedia Copyright violations, Wikipedia Biographies of living persons and much more of Verifiability to other subject aside humans. My main focus are on the WikiProject Nigeria and little works from other Wikiproject. Reason being so I don't get occupied with other subject am not 100% familiar with their source such as Indian and the rest. Gabriel (talk to me ) 12:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- You commented ill about me based on the permission I’m trying to get, the best place was to be my talk page but you came here to say such why? And now you want same permission I’m requesting for? Not cool @Gabriel601Madeforall1 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Apollogetticax
- Apollogetticax (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello, I am a Wikipedia editor who has an entire month of experience with counter-vandalism, and I also make many copyedits. I would like to stop vandalism in its crib by being a pending changes reviewer and stopping vandalism on pending changes-protected pages. I know what is vandalism and what isn't, and I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies, including Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not. I have read WP:Copyrights and I have read the guideline on reviewing. I am also in process of receiving rollback permissions, and you can see the discussion there too. Thanks, Apollogetticax|talk 04:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had an account for 28 days. — MusikBot talk 04:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, 28 days is enough because on my first few days after I got Twinkle I spent over five hours (per day) RC patrolling. Apollogetticax|talk 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Blocked as a sock. DanCherek (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
User:ThatOneWolf
- ThatOneWolf (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 there! I'm ThatOneWolf, and, I know I've been here twice before, but those times I admit I didn't really get the whole idea of experience and stuff. Plus, my last request was months ago. I took a little break recently when I just was checking my talk page and watchlist, but now I've come back to editing.
Anyway, the reason I'm requesting Reviewer rights now is because I feel like I could help in that area, with most of my edits being vandalism reversions. I also feel I suitably warn editors when I think they are intending to vandalize, or just let them know if it seems they could be trying to help. I've read all the policies listed in Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, and am very familiar with the copyright laws. This is why I feel I would be more fit now to receive this right. Thanks for reading! -- ThatOneWolf (ChatEdits 12:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Rollback
User:Rkieferbaum
- Rkieferbaum (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 there! Requesting rollback rights to be able to use different tools for reverting vandalism. I'm open to any questions or feedback on my editing and counter-vandalism actions. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:34, 10 July 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. Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 06:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: hi there. It's true that I seldom warn IP users that don't edit on a regular basis. I just feel like no one is going to see that warning and it might be confusing for other users from that IP. This might be a mistake on my part and I'll gladly fix it. You'll see that, with registered users, I've warned them 100% of the time or very close to that. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please ensure that you are always leaving warnings. I can't stress enough the importance of not biting the newcomers; if you find yourself reverting good faith edits, then it's especially important to notify the editor. If you don't want to leave a template warning, that's completely fine, but you do need to leave a talk page message explaining why you reverted the edit. Moving forward, could you please make a promise to leave warnings/notifications for every revert? -Fastily 10:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: of course, it's a promise. I do agree that welcoming newcomers is among the most important things we do here. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. Could you please now go some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will be notifying all users? -Fastily 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: sure! I've been at it for a few minutes. I'll leave a warning each and every time from now on, IP or otherwise. Cheers and thanks for your input. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Done -Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: sure! I've been at it for a few minutes. I'll leave a warning each and every time from now on, IP or otherwise. Cheers and thanks for your input. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for confirming. Could you please now go some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will be notifying all users? -Fastily 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: of course, it's a promise. I do agree that welcoming newcomers is among the most important things we do here. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please ensure that you are always leaving warnings. I can't stress enough the importance of not biting the newcomers; if you find yourself reverting good faith edits, then it's especially important to notify the editor. If you don't want to leave a template warning, that's completely fine, but you do need to leave a talk page message explaining why you reverted the edit. Moving forward, could you please make a promise to leave warnings/notifications for every revert? -Fastily 10:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: hi there. It's true that I seldom warn IP users that don't edit on a regular basis. I just feel like no one is going to see that warning and it might be confusing for other users from that IP. This might be a mistake on my part and I'll gladly fix it. You'll see that, with registered users, I've warned them 100% of the time or very close to that. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
User:245CMR
- 245CMR (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 used to be highly active before 2022, and had rollback rights back then (was inactive for quite a while)
- I have a history of defending WP: Hinduism related articles, and further need to do it, especially after few recurring cases of vandalism by a series of sockpuppets
- It may seem that i am constantly reverting a particular user's edits but that user is a sockpuppet of Kairakairav, [see their huge list of sockpuppets] who removes well sourced info, blanks them and add original research stuff, most of which are also factually incorrect. The sockpuppets get blocked, but somehow returns with a new account (Not only me, but other users have also reported this issue in the user's earlier sockpuppet investigations). It is alo worthless to tell them to stop on talk page, as they never reply and keep doing the same stuff; recent example of Madri which was blanked by them!
- Its quite irritating for me to constantly go to history and copy paste entire full page, so the rollback right will be quite helpful, Thanks .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC) .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Really!? I just explained how the sockpuppet User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya basically removed cited information from articles like Kunti, Madri, Sahadeva, Eklavya, etc. It's been reported by other users, see that user's earlier sockpuppets (linked in the request). Also its pointless to try to guide them as i seriously tried to do so many time on their earlier (now blocked) accounts. Recently while doing manual copy paste, I accidentally deleted chunks of articles by mistake. I really require this right as I am free to waste my entire half an hour doing this. Sorry if I sounded rude, but I am really irritated after recently doing the manual copy paste for 100th time! .245CMR.•👥📜 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, really. You shouldn't be copy/pasting anyways. The use case you've described doesn't require rollback; we have tools such as Twinkle & Ultraviolet that already do what you're asking for. Like I said, if you're still interested in rollback, then please spend a month actively patrolling RecentChanges before creating a new request -Fastily 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a third party, I just want to comment on why you were copy pasting? Apollogetticax|talk 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, really. You shouldn't be copy/pasting anyways. The use case you've described doesn't require rollback; we have tools such as Twinkle & Ultraviolet that already do what you're asking for. Like I said, if you're still interested in rollback, then please spend a month actively patrolling RecentChanges before creating a new request -Fastily 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Really!? I just explained how the sockpuppet User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya basically removed cited information from articles like Kunti, Madri, Sahadeva, Eklavya, etc. It's been reported by other users, see that user's earlier sockpuppets (linked in the request). Also its pointless to try to guide them as i seriously tried to do so many time on their earlier (now blocked) accounts. Recently while doing manual copy paste, I accidentally deleted chunks of articles by mistake. I really require this right as I am free to waste my entire half an hour doing this. Sorry if I sounded rude, but I am really irritated after recently doing the manual copy paste for 100th time! .245CMR.•👥📜 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Madeforall1
- Madeforall1 (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)
Greetings, I wish to get the Rollback right because I want to fight vandalism and revert edits that goes Wikipedia’s guidelines, also I want to be able to revert edits frm users who aren’t sure of what they are doing most especially IP user. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Apollogetticax
- Apollogetticax (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
Hello! I would like to have the rollback permission to revert vandalism quicker and to use tools like Huggle. Also, with Awesome Aasim's RC patrol tool, reverting is very slow, but with rollback it will be much faster. I use Twinkle already.
I am keen in the field of anti-vandalism. While my track record isn't exactly the best, I acknowledge my mistakes, and improve on them. I can tell what is and what isn't vandalism, and I know to always warn users, no exception. While edit counts don't matter, I have over 250 mainspace edits (just for the record). This also brings light to my experience. I have been doing counter-vandalism since the day I created my account.
If you think I am doing anything wrong, you are free to tell me my mistakes, and I can fix myself. | Apollogetticaxtalk 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lots of anti-vandalism in contribs including edit summaries, so that's great. Good attitude on talk pages. I was going to grant this but then I found they admitted to being the sockpuppet User:HTML5, CSS3! over at User talk:Ferret#Thank you. Honestly I am still inclined to grant, they seem to be reformed. But this probably needs a little discussion first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gonna go ahead and mark this one as
Not done, with the requester now sock-blocked and fresh block evasion noted at User talk:Apollogetticax#July 2024. DanCherek (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)