User:Liz/Admin dashboard
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]- Mboiceauto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1160 (LTA 1160, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- False positive for the filter but probably needs a MOS note. Izno (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Warned user. on that issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- False positive for the filter but probably needs a MOS note. Izno (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 45.247.233.42 (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) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
False positive. Edits are not vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 2600:4040:b272:f300:b11d:365b:491:672 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Warned user. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thereal140237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 809 twice in the last 5 minutes (Possible SPI/Project space disruption, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 78.150.126.123 (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) 21:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- Revival108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – User appears to be WP:NOTHERE. 24 of 32 edits have been reverted because they are changes unsupported by sources, and the user continues despite warnings. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Warned user. Last one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Inlandempirelife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Fontana, California (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes. Magazine, newspaper, travel agency. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @FlightTime Huh? You restored the advertising copy after they removed it. All three of their edits have been to remove promotional content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell My removal was for COI due to the username, which needs to be changed. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @FlightTime then maybe talk to them about that? The edits aren't vandalism and they're not promoting anything by that name so you won't get a block here or at UAA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Usernames for administrator attention. Their edits do not appear problematic, but we do need to find out if they're representing some concern. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I did. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- HJ Mitchell My removal was for COI due to the username, which needs to be changed. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 173.95.213.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Re-added old vandalism on Loserfruit, and has been warned. (see old and new). Also, the old vandalism was added by a sock, so this editor might be one too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Somalizoro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continued edit warring and disruptive edits at Somali people. Cookiemonster1618 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Tiddyskittles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Vandalism on Cody Rhodes. [1] Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Warned user. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
| Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
|---|---|
| User requested | 2 |
| Empty articles | 0 |
| Nonsense pages | 0 |
| Spam pages | 3 |
| Importance or significance not asserted | 0 |
| Other candidates | 8 |
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 – 1 item
Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 52 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item
Requested RD1 redactions – 23 items
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
User-reported
[edit]- Inlandempirelife (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Or shared use, probably a Magazine, newspaper or travel agency. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- They haven't made any edits promoting an entity by that name (or anything else) so for now it's Not a violation of the username policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- They haven't made any edits promoting an entity by that name (or anything else) so for now it's
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Last edit was over three months ago; and while I wouldn't argue this doesn't come under ARBPIA I similarly wouldn't argue this is a primary topic within it (as while it was the first international Zionist program, as the article notes it was replaced in the early 1950s with the Jerusalem Program), nor does it appear to have any nexus with the current conflict. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: User request within own user space. Per BusterD's comment in Special:Diff/1285477831, it was protected because of WP:DE, but there appears to be no good reason for non-extended-confirmed users to edit my user page. That user also said I can request any administrator to change the protection level if I choose to do so. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just linking to WP:UPROT here...I for one do not see the need for protection at the moment. Lectonar (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined per above. The absence of a reason for non-EC editors to edit a user page does not, to me, by itself constitute a reason to so protect that page. We seem to have established a high bar for that level of protection to a user page; I would consider it only in cases of demonstrated long-term abuse by AC accounts. This is not being argued here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Lots of disruptive editing from IP accounts and may continue. Unilandofma(Talk to me!) 06:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 2404:AB80:B:1CC:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) blocked by PhilKnight. for 48 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Mike Allen 16:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not disruptive. The version you restored is a bloated, repetitive mess, which is a real disservice to those seeking guidance. 41.32.39.128 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: 41.32.39.0/24 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for 72 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: IP vandalism and disruptive editing for the past month PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes protection: Edit warring / content dispute. Valorrr (lets chat) 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I requested protection for this article on 9 April. It was declined on 11 April. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 18:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Adolescent IP editors from a similar location vandalizing on the same article issues. Zefr (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting 6 months of ECP for Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2. All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID), and both of these article main pages are already protected by ECP.
The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. In the last two weeks alone, 11,000 words have been written at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (33 single-spaced pages in word), with IP addresses and SPAs all asking editors to change the article.
The pattern of discussion in each new talk page topic is the same: an editor with relatively few edits proposes a change to the article emphasizing a potential laboratory leak [2], discussion quickly descends into accusations and fruitless argument [3], and thousands of words are written before the discussion is closed [4]. Then, hours later, another and similarly pointless topic is opened with the same agenda [5].
Editors are complaining of burnout, and you can see why. ECP on the talk pages would not impede article improvement, but would significantly reduce the strain and stress on editors working in this publicly contentious area. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm not sure if this is the right location to post but Tryptofish suggested that any competent administrator can decide to apply ECP to these talk pages given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID). Tryptofish your input also welcome. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Anyway, my advice came out of the discussion at User talk:Bon courage#These covid pages are exhausting, where it sure sounds to me like those talk pages are, indeed, needlessly exhausting. This is a matter of CTOP, and I hope no one minds that the request ended up here rather than at WP:AE, but it does very much seem to me that it would be a good idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC) - I'm not sure if protection is the answer as much as not feeding the trolls. The regular editors are under no obligation to answer or engage in these discussions to the extent they seem to be doing. I would also suggest following the lead of many other talk pages of contentious articles and putting a FAQ up top basically saying, we are not discussing this issue here anymore without some change in the facts underlying consensus. Because I think protection here goes beyond the scope of what CTOPS authorizes, and when we have applied ECP to other talk pages (something we do not do lightly).
- Now, if ArbCom itself were to specifically authorize this here, that would be different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Reason: Privacy Sir Barron Giraffe (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined, I do not see anything which would require protection. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Risk of vandalism, since it is about Zionism. Edward Mike005 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs. LightlySeared (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.
Reason: Several new sources found for subject including an award from Forbes 30 Under 30. Also, a fellow of the FRSA[1]. KingMud (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (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.
Handled requests
[edit]
| 1 protected edit request | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 03:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC) |
| 15 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 21:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
|
RFP= Requests for permissions
Autopatrolled
[edit]- CherryPie94 (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)
New page reviewer who has made over 90 articles including 1 good article and quite familiar with content guidelines, I may also as well not clutter the backlog for other reviewers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- One thing that immediately jumped out at me is some biographical articles created (e.g. Kim Na and Son Se-bin) have unsourced biographical information, such as the date of birth. This information should be sourced to ensure compliance with WP:DOB. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've considered adding references directly next to DOB, which I did at my two most recent BLPs: Mike Kim and Lee Joon-ho. If birth information is not 100% verifiable, I play it safe (eg. Lee Seung-yoon). Per WP:DOB, links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted so I included Kim Na's personal website which states birth year as 1986 in the external links section. I created Son Se-bin over 5 years ago when I was much less experienced, so I don't quite recall which exact source I used for DOB (birth year seems to have been present in Star Today), so I've just amended that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ah I've misinterpreted that personal website policy, though it does fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've now also directly sourced it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've considered adding references directly next to DOB, which I did at my two most recent BLPs: Mike Kim and Lee Joon-ho. If birth information is not 100% verifiable, I play it safe (eg. Lee Seung-yoon). Per WP:DOB, links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted so I included Kim Na's personal website which states birth year as 1986 in the external links section. I created Son Se-bin over 5 years ago when I was much less experienced, so I don't quite recall which exact source I used for DOB (birth year seems to have been present in Star Today), so I've just amended that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- JesusisGreat7 (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 had created around 50+ articles on the English wikipedia, I handle and edit topics mostly on colonial architectures, there are many articles needed to be created on that feild so I would like to request Autopatrolled rights for my account and also to help page reviewers for decreasing workload. Thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 14:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([6]). — MusikBot talk 14:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Took a gander at the most recently created articles. On BQM-106 Teleplane, three of four sources are WP:USERGENERATED ([7]), self-published ([8]), or unreliable per RSN. All three sources on LIM-99 are unreliable for the same reasons. Kasmanda Palace relies entirely on primary sources, travel blogs and SPS, plus has a problem with WP:CLOP: [9]. Same sourcing problems with Kellogg Memorial Church. I think your work will continue to benefit from being patrolled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Not done as per the analysis by Dclemens1971. Schwede66 22:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Took a gander at the most recently created articles. On BQM-106 Teleplane, three of four sources are WP:USERGENERATED ([7]), self-published ([8]), or unreliable per RSN. All three sources on LIM-99 are unreliable for the same reasons. Kasmanda Palace relies entirely on primary sources, travel blogs and SPS, plus has a problem with WP:CLOP: [9]. Same sourcing problems with Kellogg Memorial Church. I think your work will continue to benefit from being patrolled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Page mover
[edit]- GMH Melbourne (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 assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I also close WP:RM discussions from time to time and this tool will save me from having to do a technical request every time. I meet the WP:PMCRITERIA. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
[edit]- Srimant ROSHAN (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 active on Wikipedia, I'd like to request PCR to monitor recent changes. I'm aware of WP:NOTVANDAL & WP:AGF, so there won't be any "biting newcomers" reverts. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
- WormEater13 (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! My name is WormEater13. I would like to request PCR rights. Having created multiple articles before and having made over 100 manual mainspace edits, especially for WP:BLP, I believe that I am knowledgable about Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([10]). — MusikBot talk 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Somajyoti (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 permission to be a Pending Changes Reviewer. I spend most of my day editing Wikipedia. I have gone through almost all the pages under Category:Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia's policies on vandalism detection, BLP policy, NPOV, Verifiability, and copyright. I have read the Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes guideline. Please consider my request. Somajyoti ✉ 07:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had an account for 25 days. — MusikBot talk 07:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- VortexPhantom (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 would like to request pending changes reviewer rights on English Wikipedia to tackle with the edits protected with pending changes while patrolling in the RC, since I have rollback rights. I think I fulfill the criteria to get this right. Also, I understand the related policies to manage these edits. This would give me a better chance to work to improve Wikipedia.
Thanks for considering my request. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]- Tenshi Hinanawi (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 try some other counter-vandalism tools, such as AntiVandal, Huggle, and SWViewer, which require the rollback right to use. I've actively been patrolling recent changes for roughly 3-4 months and have consistently warned editors when reverting them. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Chippla360 (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 am requesting for the rollback rights to assist my passion in fighting against vandalism and roll off disruptive edits on Wikipedia, I actively scroll on recent changes feed and also new page feeds, I am familiar with WP:VANDALISM, I wish to use the AntiVandal tool which will help me revert more edits that goes against Wikipedia policies, I will love to help the community, Thanks to any admin willing at his or her discretion to grant me this permission. Best Regards (CP) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not done. You've been inconsistently warning editors (or otherwise not explaining the reason) when reverting them. I'm also concerned about this edit, since being a new editor is never a reason to revert them, especially when the COI tag alluded to was recently added by a block-evading sockpuppet who had already been blocked when that revert was made, who had a problematic history of accusing others of having a COI even before the sockpuppetry block. Alluding that this new editor had a conflict of interest was inappropriate, as was reverting them on that basis. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notice @Aoidh, tho I wasn’t comfortable with the edit from the new user but still I have reverted many misleading edits in good faith, and Atimes I use the vandalism botton to revert which doesn’t give me an option to explain reasons, but most of my revert I give reasons, you can check it there. Also see this Warning, Atimes I will warn on user talk or the IP talk, please I will love to have a trial of this permission so I can use the "AntiVandalism" tool. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're responsible for your edits, which includes using edit summaries and explanations when needed. If tools you're using (including Rollback) or a script prevents you from using an edit summary when one would be needed, then that tool or script should not be used to make that edit. A track record of doing this should be shown before reapplying, since using rollback and failing to provide an explanation when needed is cause for removal of that tool, as Wikipedia:Rollback notes. As mentioned in the criteria at the top of WP:PERM/R, there should also be
[a] track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits.
- Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- @Aoidh Most of my revert have summary but if I won’t get the permission on either trials or indefinitely that’s fine, when should I reapply? Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would personally suggest at least a month or two of solid anti-vandalism work, using edit summaries when needed and consistently notifying editors during that time period, before reapplying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly, other revert with summary didn’t count. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I would personally suggest at least a month or two of solid anti-vandalism work, using edit summaries when needed and consistently notifying editors during that time period, before reapplying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Aoidh Most of my revert have summary but if I won’t get the permission on either trials or indefinitely that’s fine, when should I reapply? Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're responsible for your edits, which includes using edit summaries and explanations when needed. If tools you're using (including Rollback) or a script prevents you from using an edit summary when one would be needed, then that tool or script should not be used to make that edit. A track record of doing this should be shown before reapplying, since using rollback and failing to provide an explanation when needed is cause for removal of that tool, as Wikipedia:Rollback notes. As mentioned in the criteria at the top of WP:PERM/R, there should also be
- Thank you for the notice @Aoidh, tho I wasn’t comfortable with the edit from the new user but still I have reverted many misleading edits in good faith, and Atimes I use the vandalism botton to revert which doesn’t give me an option to explain reasons, but most of my revert I give reasons, you can check it there. Also see this Warning, Atimes I will warn on user talk or the IP talk, please I will love to have a trial of this permission so I can use the "AntiVandalism" tool. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- SilviaASH (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 editing constructively on the project for a few years now and would like to more effectively revert disruptive edits when I encounter them. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and understand the distinction between purely disruptive edits and edits that may be unhelpful but are made in good-faith. When reverting a new user's edits, I make sure to properly explain myself in an edit summary and leave a message on the relevant article's or user's talk page as appropriate, unless the user is obviously acting in bad faith and WP:DENY applies, in which case I report them to a relevant noticeboard. I have thoroughly read the WP:ROLLBACK instructions and will make sure to familiarize myself with the tools before using them, and avoid using the rollback tools when they are not appropriate and another reversion tool would be more suitable. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Imwin567 (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 rollback permissions to help combat vandalism more effectively on Wikipedia, I have been reverting vandalism for a good amount of time from recent changes using twinkle and undo. Therefore I think rollback tool can help me to assist in identifying and reverting unconstructive edits efficiently. Imwin567 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- The Seal F1 (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 get a rollback. I often search for vandalism on Wikipedia, and it will obviously be easier for me to fight it with a rollback. I warn users when necessary, and i know the most important WP policies. The Seal F1 (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- WhoIsCentreLeft (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! Im requesting rollback rights because i am an extended confirmed user that has made hundreds of high-quality edits in mainspace. I need rollback tool to revert vandalism and other non-constructive edits more easier. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not done. You do not need rollback to revert vandalism, and as the criteria at the top of WP:PERM/R notes, editors requesting rollback should have
[a]t least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges
and[a] track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits
. - Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- VeritasVanguard (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 request rollback rights to quickly revert clear vandalism and disruptive edits. This would help maintain article integrity and ease the workload for admins, especially during active vandalism periods. Thank you for considering my request. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 16:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Policies and links