User

Talk
link={{{3}}}
Dashboard

Articles

Scripts

Tools

Templates

Userboxes

Awards

Dashboard

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Immediate requests Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Wikipedians looking for help 0
Requests for unblock 164
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 29
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 27
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 8
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 0
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 129
Requested RD1 redactions 3
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Candidates for speedy deletion 1
Open sockpuppet investigations 134
Click here to locate other admin backlogs


News

Edit filters

Requested edit filters (WP:EF/R)

Vandalism to meme pages

bad_desc := "(cringe|worst|best)"; any_meme := "(skibd|skidibi|skibid|rizz|bozo|\(meme\))"; meme_cat := "(meme\}\}|fads\]\]|trends\]\]|slang\]\])"; !"confirmed" in user_groups & page_title irlike any_meme & ( rcount(meme, added_lines) / 3 > rcount("\.", added_lines) + 0.5 | /* prevent excessive use of the meme */ rcount(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | /* prevent defamation of the meme */ (removed_lines irlike meme_cat & !old_wikitext irlike meme_cat) /* prevent decategorization from meme categories */ )

  • Actions: Disallow

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 01:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the third filter log entry should be disallowed by filter 1233 (hist · log) but wasn't caught, the second log entry looks like your everyday run-of-the-mill disruption, and the first log entry is likely low-effort disruption that may want to be prevented by some filters. Maybe we could set 1163 (hist · log) to warn+tag or disallow.
By the way,  !( (removed_lines + page_title) irlike abuseStr) basically means that Skibidi Toilet additions are excluded from said article describing this meme itself. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Also, please note that before disallowing, we always test filters on log or tag before to minimize the possibility of a huge amount of false positives. If this is made into a seperate filter then, I highly doubt it will be set to disallow immediately. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I hereby retract saying to set 1163 to disallow after seeing your comment, but couldn’t we at least set this to warn with the tag? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but I believe that usually, filters are first set to log or tag just to see if they work well or not, as even warning could be problematic if the filter has too many FPs. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Can someone start this filter with no actions enabled first please? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Can you break down what each part of that filter is trying to do? It doesn't make sense to me. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Done. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 21:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright. So we have:
meme := "(?i)(" + str_replace(page_title," ","|") + ")";
and
length(meme) * 2 < rcount(meme,added_lines) | // prevent excessive use of the meme
First, you're generating meme by splitting apart the title. That's clever, but what about a title like "Bozo the Clown"? One of your words is going to be "the". Second, rcount() counts the total number of matches, not the total length of the matches put together. If you want to prevent excessive use of a word, say something more like:
rcount(meme, added_lines) - rcount(meme, removed_lines) > 2
But I don't that's a good idea. It's natural for the title of the article to be repeated many times throughout the page.
Now we have:
get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | // prevent defamation of the meme
But get_matches() returns a fixed-size array. I'm not sure what the "3" is supposed to mean.
And finally:
(removed_lines irlike meme_cat & !old_wikitext irlike meme_cat) // prevent decategorization from meme categories
This won't match anything, but could be fixed by using added_lines instead of old_wikitext. But we already have 132 (hist · log) for category removal.
Thanks for this, but I think it's just inevitable that "meme pages" are going to end up semi-protected, at least temporarily. There are just too many creative ways to vandalize. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the 3 in get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines) > 3 | // prevent defamation of the meme is supposed to be compared to the array length so maybe @Faster than Thunder really just meant length(get_matches(bad_desc,added_lines)) > 3. I also do sadly agree that vandalism to meme pages is bound to happen, and we'll probably need to protect them at some point. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Faster than Thunder: Also, if we have a bad_desc variable to prevent defamation, wouldn't another issue be to say that the meme is the "best"? So would it also be a good idea to create a separate variable to prevent additions like that? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I implemented your suggestions. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Could we also block "skibidi toilet", "skibidi", and such as per the thread below? I don't know how the filters work. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 19:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
They are already added because of "skibid." Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
See this, which an IP vandalized using "skibidi toilet" as the edit summary. This should be added @Faster than Thunder. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That is the wrong filter to request it in, because that was in another article, but this could be added to a new filter idea or something like 614 (hist · log). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Very funny. XD Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Now that some improvements have been made to the filter idea, what new changes need to be made to the filter before it can be created? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I share the same concerns as SoY. Vandals on meme pages are going to come up with new ways faster than a filter can catch them, and it's far more efficient to just protect the small number of "meme-type" pages than to try and craft a filter that has every single variation and type of petty vandalism out there. It's possible for general vandalism filters, because the terms in those are spread throughout the encyclopedia, but for specific pages, it's going to just end up with vandals getting around the filter on purpose. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@EggRoll97 That's very true. However, these vandals seem to vandalize with "meme words" on all the pages, so hmmmm. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 00:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I think the best thing to do is to just semi-protect the meme pages, instead of creating and constantly changing a filter that won't catch all the vandalism sadly. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Disallow changing result parameter on Infobox military conflict by IPs/new users

Per this discussion (pinging @GreenC):

  • Task – In the |result= parameter of {{Infobox military conflict}}, disallow edits between sides of "X victory", in addition to edits away from or between "X victory", "Inconclusive", and "See (article section)" by IP addresses or very new users.
  • Reason – Widespread tendentious editing by those unfamiliar with site guidelines, at a bare minimum with MOS:MILHIST. After parameter is in accordance with said guideline, it almost never needs to be changed.
  • Diffs:

Remsense 01:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a hard one, because there could be so many false positives, like if someone corrects a typo in the result parameter and gets a disallow message. I would suggest something like tag or warn at most unless someone can find a non FP-prone way of filtering these types of edits, but this should definitely be a log-only filter at first. The regex should also probably be similar to something like 391 (hist · log). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that initial caution is required, but unfortunately I don't see a warning saying "changes require reliable sources" being effective in the end? Remsense 02:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Totally agreed. But first we should make the filter ready to be disallowed by minimizing the amount of FPs as much as possible. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Remsense: As to the prospect of disallow, I'm going to say  Not done. The top of this page even states, Edit filters are used primarily to prevent abuse. Contributors are not expected to have read all 200+ policies, guidelines and style pages before editing, and I don't think it's a far stretch to assume that edits are all in bad faith. Even in the diffs provided, the edit to Fourth Crusade seems misguided and wrong, but not necessarily in bad faith. Any filter that catches this would end up with a non-zero amount of false positives. I'm not against a log or maybe a tag filter, though. I'll see if I can work one up, but if anyone wants to have a shot at trying the code in the meantime feel free. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Creating mainspace articles which begin with your username

  • Task: (This is my first post here, so please let me know how I borked it up.)

    I think a filter which logs (and eventually warns?) people who attempt to create an article which begins with your username would be beneficial. I have seen multiple people who create (e.g.) HouseBlaster/sandbox as opposed to User:HouseBlaster/sandbox (and I have personally done something similar).

    It also might catch people who try to write autobiographies and people whose usernames violate WP:CORPNAME, both of which seem like positive side-effects.

  • Reason: Self-explanatory
  • Diffs: They are all deleted fairly quickly as WP:G6 (if it is a benign mistake), and I don't have any evidence that the autobiography/CORPNAME thing is a problem (I just think that it is a something else which this filter would happen to catch).

Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)<diff>

Something like the following, maybe? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 13:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't we already have Special:AbuseFilter/148 or something similar? Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 00:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
My proposal is slightly different, in that it would catch people with more than 100 edits who make a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to create an autobiography. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
page_id == 0 &
(
 page_namespace == 0 &
 (
  page_title rlike user_name | user_name in page_title
 )
)
Such a filter might make life interesting for the likes of User:F, but generally there seem to be few false positives. Certes (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Would it make sense to additionally check that the title/username is longer than x? Not sure which is more efficient. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Possibly. We might also need to convert spaces to underscores in user_name before matching to page_title. This query may be of interest. Certes (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

"Skibidi" username filter

I've noticed that new usernames which contain "Skibidi" in them often are used only for disruption/vandalism/trolling. Is there any way we could add a filter which blocks all usernames with "Skibidi" and/or sends them to UAA? If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks — thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if creating a filter that prevents Skibidi (toilet) usernames is necessary (after all, it compares every account creation when set to action == "createaccount"); there is User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist in which you can propose adding s+k+[i1bdt]{4,}y*\b on the talk page. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the regex above would need to be continuosly updated as the filter changes. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Not really; there's no need to catch them all. I don't like disallowing usernames which scream "I am NOTHERE" but aren't so offensive as to require a revdel; those usernames just make the vandalism easier to spot. (Plus the first word to disallow should be "Truth".) And reporting to UAA on account creation isn't really helpful unless the username is block-on-sight. They might wait hours or days to edit, or never edit at all. Now, we could have filter which reports to UAA on the first edit, at which point it's usually clear what the user is up to. But as CN points out, DeltaQuadBot already does that, so why not just add to DQB's list? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Malformed requests at WP:AFC/R

I'm not good at this, but something like this might work:

format := "
^== .* ==\n
*Target of redirect:\[\[.+\]\]\n
*Reason:.*\n
*Source (if applicable):.*\n
<references />\n
~~~~$
"

!( "confirmed" in user_groups ) &
page_title == "Articles for creation/Redirects" &
!(added_lines_pst rlike format)

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 07:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@CanonNi: This seems like a single-page issue, which is more of an WP:RFPP thing. Maybe pending changes protection to that page could help? EggRoll97 (talk) 18:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. That is a fair point, but we do have similar filters for WP:RFPP (filter 1291 (hist · log)) so this is not unheard of. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Good point. I've requested protection at RFPP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 23:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Prevent self-promotion on Talk:Instagram

  • Task: A new filter could prevent the non-autoconfirmed from adding links to instagram[.]com to Talk:Instagram.
  • Reason: There has been a persistent problem with self-promotion on Talk:Instagram where users link their Instagram profiles or posts in an attempt to gain followers. This advertising is quickly reverted. Semi-protection has been applied as a countermeasure, though the protecting admin has admitted that this isn't ideal (see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2024/06). I believe that this filter would be a better alternative than protecting a talk page.
  • Diffs: Examples of such promotion: [5] [6]

Air on White (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Support such a filter, with the result being Disallow. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Wait... isn't the talk page already semi-protected? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection recently expired; immediately after, the page started being bombarded with promotion. It was soon semi-protected again. I am requesting a filter because it is better than semi-protecting. Air on White (talk) 02:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Which is why I agree. Just saying. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I took a superficial look of the last 50+ edits and I'm not convinced that self-promotion (adding links) is even 1/4th of the disruption, so I don't foresee the protection being removed even if this filter is made. – 2804:F14:80BE:B501:BC28:2F:9049:1F4D (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Also, in general, I would say that this is a too temporary (probably) and localized issue to warrant a whole new filter. Page protection (semi or pending changes) should be the way to work. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah...I can't see a filter being much better at this than semi-protection. Probably going to be more of a  Not done for now. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Prevent addition of word "incel"

  • Task: Prevent non-autoconfirmed from adding the word "incel" to article space.
  • Reason: This word is mostly used for vandalism and particularly affects BLPs. It should be prohibited like the rest of zoomer/moomer slang used in vandalism.
  • Diffs: example

Air on White (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see legitimate use for the word as something someone has called themselves, or for talking about such people. So this shouldn't be done without a whitelist. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. There are literally hundreds of articles that use the word correctly, most of which are not BLPs. There's also a company and a drug called "Incel". Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At least add it. Filter 614 allows individual use of terms like "gyatt" and "rizz" but bans them in combination. Air on White (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What about that at least add this to tag-only 189 (hist · log) for BLP articles? Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 18:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
How many times does a person add "incel" to a BLP to vandalize it? How many times in contrast does a living person actually describe themselves as an incel with RS to back it up? The ratio is too high for non-autoconfirmed to keep adding the term. We ban Blogspot, the Daily Mail and Breitbart for the same reason even though they have conceivable legitimate uses. Air on White (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's another catch: pages where the use of "incel" is legitimate are likely already semi-protected due to incel-related vandalism. Air on White (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest that we test it out and refine the regex at 189 (hist · log) as Codename Noreste suggested, where we can see the FP rate and if this addition is really needed first. If it seems to be effective and useful, we can move it to a disallow filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit filter 803

Hi. Could the line !('/' in page_title) & be removed from 803 (hist · log)? I can't think of a scenario where a new user would need to edit someone else's subpage, and I've seen users vandalizing guestbooks and other subpages before. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 10:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If you only remove that line then new users editing their own subpage will be hit. Nobody (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Adding page_first_contributor != user_name could work for already created subpages. Nobody (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I think that will work too. (sorry I'm not that familiar with edit filters) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 11:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a solution for hitting subpage creations on other users yet. Can non-confirmed editors even do that? Nobody (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so... I tried creating a subpage of my userpage logged out and it won't let me. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 11:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Then this change could be worthwile. Nobody (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Unregistered users can't create any pages in userspace, including their "own". Registered but not confirmed editors can create pages anywhere in userspace. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Suffusion of Yellow Do you think it would need a RfC if we wanted to block non-confirmed users from creating subpages for other users? Nobody (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm asking since the edits tagged by Filter 733 (log) don't look that good. Nobody (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This is simple enough technically, but 803 was only enabled after an RFC which specifically excluded supages. An obvious use-case is collaborating on a draft. If you want to start a second RFC, let me know, and I'll create a log-only filter tracking subpage edits so people don't have to speculate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Prevent non-autoconfirmed creating IP userpages

  • Task: Non-autoconfirmed users and IPs should not be able to create userpages that are not of their own IP.
  • Reason: I discover and nominate at least one such page every week. Most seem to be created in error, and users should be warned to create pages at the right title. A disproportionate number of such pages, however, are spam or vandalism. There is also an LTA who persistently creates userpages for IPv4s starting with "85."
  • Diffs: User:154.115.222.191/sandbox created by a registered user to post a biography. User:154.115.231.75/Sample page, User:177.223.175.103, etc. are similar.

Air on White (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you ask about this anywhere else? This suggestion seems very familiar. – 2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I asked in WP:VPT, but the discussion never picked up. Air on White (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I was remembering this Teahouse question, actually. Anyways, I have no other comment, but the edit notice may be relevant for your suggestion. – 2804:F1...E3:855B (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I misremembered then. There were three types of arguments against such a filter: The first fundamentally misunderstands either the problem or the proposal. The second straw mans or slippery slopes my argument as a ban on IP editing. The third is a fallacious sentiment that too much effort would be needed for this. It would only save editor time if I didn't have to deal with these bullshit userpages in the first place - how hard is it to just add the filter and the necessary warning to not create sandboxes for random IPs that aren't your own? Air on White (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Mind you, IPs already can't create pages except in various talk namespaces, so IP's can't create their own user pages, would make a filter even simpler.
Also I wasn't making any sort of point, I just remembered it - do read the edit notice before discussing the LTA part of this suggestion in any detail though (if it's even significant enough to be relevant).
2804:F14:8086:B701:80CC:FCD6:43E3:855B (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Filter 1297 — Pattern modified
Last changed at 20:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1313 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 04:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1291 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1157 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 08:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Filter 1170 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 05:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Filter 856 — Pattern modified

Last changed at 12:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles

Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV)

Reports

User-reported

Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP)

Backlog CLEAN!

Permissions

Account creator (WP:PERM/ACC)

Account creator

AutoWikiBrowser (WP:PERM/AWB)

AutoWikiBrowser


I would like to have autowikibrowser rights to speed up edits that are too slow when done manually. I work with {{infobox company}} articles and would like to use AWB for speeding up edits that would take way too long to edit manually. WiinterU 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't intend to process this request, but I thought I'd help speed it along by asking you to elaborate a bit on what you intend to use it for @WiinterU. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@WiinterU: Any thoughts on what you'd be using AWB for? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to have autowikibrowser permissions to make editing faster to make Wikipedia better. CGP05 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

and I also want to try to use javascript wikibrowser CGP05 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
@CGP05: is there any particular type of edit you'd like to make with AWB/JWB? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to fix spelling mistakes, among other similar miscellaneous edits CGP05 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Patrolling certain deprecated/GUNREL sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I became aware of AWB on WikiProject Check Wikipedia while helping on fixing errors via Toolforge. I do have over 400 non-automated edits. I want to use AWB to continue my error fixing work more fast.

Mass message sender (WP:PERM/MMS)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer (WP:PERM/NPR)

New page reviewer

Trial ends June 16, and backlog drive is nearly over. I am reapplying early since some requests may not be answered after two weeks from now. I would like to review more pages and hopefully clear down the backlog. I have reviewed more than 100 articles so far and only very few were unreviewed. Please consider my reviews and AfDs before processing my application. ToadetteEdit! 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)). MusikBot talk 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been active in the NPP BACKLOG and the NEW PAGE FEED and I noticed that the Backlog keep increasing every single day, I really wish to help reduce it even though I can't do it all, and each time I'm here I promise to dedicate my time to the New page feeds and also stick to the policies. Thanks in advance. 75DD (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. You do not meet the minimum edit requirements specified in WP:NPPCRITERIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'll request when I meet it. 75DD (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Good day admin, I've surpassed the minimum edit and I'm ready to prove me self, I hope to get my first trial. 75DD (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
You don't meet the minimum account age requirement either. Further, having reviewed your edits to date, I'm seeing some recent article creations with {{notability}} tags and no relevant experience at WP:AfD, so I don't think you're ready for this permission. signed, Rosguill talk 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, fine. 75DD (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I am a long standing user with a good handle on guidelines and policy. I have taken part in AFDs, more recently improving articles to standards which resulted in them being kept. Elsewhere I have improved new articles that on first glance do not meet GNG but looking BEFORE I have found sources for improvement. So I think I am fair with new content. I also create many new articles, which are now automatically accepted but not everyone has this luxury. I recently became aware of this backlog and I would like to help. Rain the 1 21:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done for two months as a trial run, after which you may reapply. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve been an editor for 2 years and I’ve worked on different articles and have also been able to review some articles, I will love to be granted this right so I can reduce back logs and make things easier for other reviewers, can I be granted one month trial? Madeforall1 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([7]). MusikBot talk 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 Not done. @Madeforall1: Your previous request was declined 7 days ago. You have not improved based on the recommendations that were given at your last request and you've quickly resubmitted a request. I also was not improved with this interaction either. I appreciate your ambition, but there's work to be done and improvements to be made being re-applying. Please try to wait at least 3 months before re-submitting a request. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much Madeforall1 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Was granted a 2 month trial which expires on the 26th of June, hope I'm not jumping the gun by submitting this now (but I'm liable to forget and be surprised later). Submitted 78 reviews during the recent backlog drive and am enjoying the methodical rhythm of AFD + NPP. Would like permanent access. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)). MusikBot talk 00:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in participating in reviewing articles related to music, people, films, and companies pending in the New pages feed backlog. I have been active in NPP and New pages feed, carefully reviewing notability and WP:BEFORE. Has good knowledge of notability guidelines. I would love to request a 3-month trial run. Thanks!

Additionally; Recently identified a suspected case of WP:UPE. After thoroughly analyzing the user's activities, I reported the issue, resulting in their indefinite ban. Here; User Page 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([8]). MusikBot talk 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer (WP:PERM/PCR)

Pending changes reviewer

I've created many biographies and have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. I've fixed vandalism many times and fixed many biography of living persons violations. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting for pending changes reviewer rights so that I can review pending changes. Ritwik Mahatat@lk 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done This user right has a specific purpose and neither this request nor your editng history suggest that you understand what that purpose is and need this user right. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have been editing for around 2.5 years now, with specialised focus on field of entertainment. I also often correct typos or do general fixes on articles of various subjects. I have a good knowledge of wikipedia policies and would like to get this pending changes reviewer rights to broaden by experience and get more expertise of Wikipedia. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have made some very high quality articles (Aston Martin DB9 FA and Aston Martin Rapide at FAC) so I am very familiar with what content is reliable and what is not. I have reverted vandalism (in fact, reverting vandalism was the first edit I made) and whenever i seen vandalism, I take extreme pride in reverting it. Best 750h+ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:750h+ . Nice seeing you here! From a quick look at your contributions, it seems like you usually don't leave a warning when reverting vandalism nor an semi-automated edit summary. It's very easy to do with tools like WP:Twinkle. Could you start warning editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, nice to see you here to. :) Noted. 750h+ 12:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have watched listed several article that have been protected as "pending changes" such as Charizard and Woody (Toy Story) and I would love to have an option to accept their edits if its constructive. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I have a decent understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've monitored recent changes and have mostly reverted vandalism whenever I see it, trying my best to always warn them. I think that being a pending changes reviewer will help me continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. GoldRomean (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have been registered for some time now and have recently gotten into more regular editing and monitoring of recent changes and pages that come up in publicity or news to check for currency and any wayward or malicious edits or mistakes. I have a good understanding (and am always learning and improving) of the basic and relevant policies for pending changes reviewer permission. I'd love to help make Wikipedia a better place for everyone by supporting pending reviews! Whisky and more (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It looks like you've undone 9 edits based on your edit history. That's a good start, but I think you should get more experience before re-applying for pending changes reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I participate routinely on both AFD and AFC, I edit routinely, and I have over 1,300 edits. I reverted some edits in my user history. TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles. I have been an active editor for almost 3 years, with over 16,000 edits. My contributions reflect a solid understanding of Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. I regularly engage in discussions to improve articles. I am committed to ensuring that pending changes are reviewed promptly and accurately. M S Hassan (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm requesting Pending changes reviewer so I can review changes. I have read Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes and the other pages to read (such as WP:VANDALISM and WP:COPYRIGHT), and I have been fighting vandalism for about 2 months now. Having this user right will help me reduce the number of articles listed at Special:PendingChanges. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good day! I am requesting reviewer rights to extend my ability to patrol recent changes to include recent change protected articles. I have done extensive, recent work fighting vandalism (RCP) and following related policies in doing so (warning users, improving good faith edits with problems, etc). Through this work (and editing), I have gained an extensive understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and more. I do not boast a large quantity of edits (most of my older edits were not logged in), but I am convinced that the quality of my edits meets the criteria for this permission. I have created a handful of pages, during which I have come to understand reliable source requirements, original research guidelines, and what is constructive (and what is not). I believe my discussions with other Wikipedians and detailed comments related to unconstructive good faith edits will demonstrate that I am not here to bite the newcomers. I hope I will be permitted to expand my improvements to the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Garsh (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Rollback (WP:PERM/R)

Rollback

Hello! I'd like to have rollback rights to revert vandalism quickly. I usually use Twinkle to revert vandalism, but with rollback rights, it will be much faster in the blink of an eye. I've been seeing vandalism occur more frequently for some reason when I look at the "recent changes" logs. I want to help fight off vandalism. It's okay if I don't get it, but I want to have an opportunity to help out. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 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 00:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Fastily, they are blocked as a sock anyways. 48JCL TALK 22:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have met the criteria for requesting access to this tool, and most of my edits to Wikipedia have been reverting and warning. I am very familiar with what constitutes a rollback, and have been using other tools, such as Twinkle and Ultraviolet for a couple months. Looking to get back into Wikipedia, and would love to gain access to this tool. Edit: I should have included that I am interested in switching to AntiVandal, and that is why I am interested in this tool. OnlyNano 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am requesting rollback rights to assist in combating vandalism more efficiently. Over the past several months, I have actively reverted vandalism, I would like to have rollback permissions so that I can revert vandalism faster. I have taken feedback from my previous request seriously and have since ensured to warn users after reverting their edits, including good faith edits. Granting me rollback rights will enable me to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia more effectively. M S Hassan (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). 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 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for not consistently warning editors when reverting their edits. While I was aware of tools like Twinkle and Ultraviolet, I sometimes forgot to use them. I understand the importance of leaving notifications and will ensure to consistently use these tools moving forward. I am committed to improving my communication and adhering to guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. M S Hassan (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Great, please do that going forward. However, I do see that you were recently blocked for edit warring. Please see the notice at the top of this page; successful applicants are expected to have no recent history of edit warring. That said, please spend a few months establishing a track record of positive contributions before reapplying. As such, closing as  Not done. -Fastily 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback and for considering my request. I understand the importance of having a clean record and will focus on making positive contributions to the community. I appreciate the guidance and will work diligently to avoiding edit warring and ensuring I warn editors after reverting their edits. I will reapply in a few months with a stronger track record. Thank you for your time and consideration. M S Hassan (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I have been reverting vandalism using UltraViolet for a while (quite a bit last year and getting back into it now), and I meet the criteria for rollback permissions. I would like to have rollback permissions to use Huggle or AntiVandal to revert vandalism faster. Totalirus (talk) 23:23, 12 June 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 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will be sure to take into consideration the tips you have given me. However, would you mind providing a couple examples of when I forgot to warn people? I don't remember forgetting to do so, but I'll be sure to pay more attention to warning in the future. Totalirus (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure: 1, 2, 3 -Fastily 00:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm active mostly on WP:BLPN and sometimes have to revert problem editors' deeper edits or find the pre-problem version of a BLP manually. I use Twinkle, which has the rollback feature built-in. I've edited responsibly enough over almost 19 years to have never had a sanction or block. Thank you for your consideration. JFHJr () 01:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Addendum: my track record of warning editors appears in BLPN archives, though I rarely template user pages especially when there's an active BLPN discussion that would make doing so unhelpful, antagonistic, and redundant. Thanks again! JFHJr () 01:23, 13 June 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 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

BRFAs