Wikipedia

User:MusikAnimal/Dashboard

< User:MusikAnimal


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 168
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 23
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 22
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 8
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 2
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 125
Requested RD1 redactions 17
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Candidates for speedy deletion 12
Open sockpuppet investigations 129
Click here to locate other admin backlogs


News

Administrators' Newsletter
June 2024
 
The Signpost
8 June 2024
 

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诉 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诉 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]]''' (talk • contribs) 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]]''' (talk • contribs) 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]]''' (talk • contribs) 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]]''' (talk • contribs) 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 "Marcelius Martirosianas" vandalism

  • Task: Prevent persistent "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS" and "Marcelius Martirosianas" vandalism
  • Reason: One or more editors have used multiple IP addresses to persistently vandalize articles and Talk pages with vandalism related to "MARCELIUS MARTIROSIANAS" and "Marcelius Martirosianas" for several years; blocks that last several years have been ineffective in preventing this disruption
  • Diffs: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

ElKevbo (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an LTA, so I would suggest adding this to a private filter with hidden regex so the vandal doesn’t try to work around the filter. The regex should fairly simple, but I won’t post it here so that the LTA doesn’t have any ideas on how to evade the filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
PharyngealImplosive7, I think you can email me the very basic regex (to see if I can make some modifications [provide me some diffs of their edits]), and I'll see if I can send this to the mailing list via email after the regex is completed. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 05:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Email sent. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:41, 11 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)
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)

Filter 1312 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles

Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV)

Reports

Bot-reported

Copy and paste moves by a noob editor. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

User-reported

At least one of the external links used by this editor loads a malware page. See changes to Roof pitch and Concrete, both linking to malware https://concrete-calculator.org/ Nick Levine (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP)

Backlog CLEAN!

Permissions

Account creator (WP:PERM/ACC)

Account creator

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
AutoWikiBrowser (WP:PERM/AWB)

AutoWikiBrowser

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


User:WiinterU

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)

User:Arrorro

I've been creating and expanding many articles based on foreign language wikipedia plus English sources. Lots of cleanup for most of the results. Arrorro (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Arrorro, are you doing cleanup on the page you are writing, or the pages that you are coming across? For what type of cleanup are you planning on using AWB? Primefac (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am doing sort of a mass China article creation by using Chinese sources and the Chinese, German, Japanese wikipedia articles. My translations are rough and I produce rather a lot of mistakes. If AWB is not appropriate for checking your own work, that's fine. It's just that copyediting can get pretty tough.
p.s. I would be willing to start editing more of the China articles I come across. Some are fairly unedited machine translations, as far as I can tell. Arrorro (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Arrorro: Not really sure how AWB would help with that? I'd suggest checking your articles a bit closer before publishing, or going through and editing them individually. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! Arrorro (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 Not done for lack of need. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:CGP05

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)
Mass message sender (WP:PERM/MMS)

Mass message sender

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
New page reviewer (WP:PERM/NPR)

New page reviewer

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

User:IgnatiusofLondon

I was a new page reviewer until earlier this month. As my curation log suggests, while this wasn't the focus of my wikiediting, I occasionally dipped into the backlog to review new articles, a fair few of which I draftified or sent to AfD (so they weren't all easy!). I think my reviews were adequately accurate to demonstrate my suitability for the permission, and I'd like to continue helping to reduce the backlog as my wikiediting time allows. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Red-tailed hawk, who first offered me trial permissions. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@IgnatiusofLondon: I'm afraid your draftify log raises several questions:
  1. User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold was technically outside of WP:NPPHOUR, but from the edit summary and placeholder sections it should have been pretty clear that the creator was still working on it (see WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#5). Wouldn't an {{unsourced}} tag have been sufficient?
  2. Draft:Belarus–Maldives relations has 21 inline citations for less than 50 characters of prose and two tables, yet you draftified it as "needing more sources". On the creator's talk page you specified that what was missing sources discussing and explaining the international relations between Belarus and the Maldives, not simply side-by-side fact profiles about the countries' basic information. What is the policy basis for excluding an article lacking such sources from mainspace?
  3. Draft:Battle of Orurillo was also draftified for lacking sources. Why was the {{unreferenced}} tag, already added by another reviewer, not sufficient? Did you note that there is a Spanish article on the same battle that does cite sources?
  4. Also on Draft:Battle of Orurillo, this is a clear attempt to revert your draftification. Why did you move it back to draftspace, instead of mainspace?
  5. Did you not notice that Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux had previously been moved to mainspace by the creator, and was thus ineligible for draftification per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#6?
  6. Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux is a lengthy article, apparently translated or adapted from fr:Reprise du fort de Vaux, with 121 inline citations. The reasons you gave for draftifying it include an essay-like tone, overuse of primary sources, and possibility of a merge. Why could these issues not be addressed in mainspace?
I do appreciate that you took the time to leave specific feedback for the creators of each of these articles, rather than only relying on the script's canned reasons, but I'm worried that you are applying a significantly higher standard to new articles in mainspace than the community expects from new page patrol, and would appreciate it if you could reflect on your approach before any extension of the NPR right. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Joe, thanks for taking the time to offer such detailed and thorough feedback. I really appreciate the time and care you took to compile this report.
  1. At the time of my review, User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold provided little prose not already sufficiently covered in Gold, and as a recent AfC review suggested, it seems implausible that the topic will be better addressed as a standalone article. In my view, the appropriate action for this article would have been not to draftify, but to redirect to Gold. The editor, however, was part of a wikied course, which left me to believe that draftification was the best option so that the editor could continue to work on it for their assignment. Keeping the article in mainspace with an unsourced tag seemed an unsuitable outcome given that the topic is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.
  2. The policy basis for draftifying Belarus–Maldives relations is that the article did not present sources demonstrating the topic's notability. Moreover, the article fundamentally did not address the topic suggested by its title, and a direct side-by-side comparison of two arbitrarily-chosen countries seems outside Wikipedia's scope, making a page move unsatisfactory. The best option, in my judgment, was draftification to allow editors time to provide sources demonstrating the topic's notability, which I could not uncover from an online search.
  3. Looking back, this draftification was a mistake. I am sceptical of other-language Wikipedias, and I have previous experience specific to the Spanish-language Wikipedia's much less stringent standards of sourcing. This scepticism probably clouded my judgment, and I admit that an unsourced tag would have been the correct course of action for this article.
  4. You're quite right that this revert was a mistake, and I should have let another reviewer deal with it.
  5. I didn't notice this, and likely assumed that the script would have notified me. The article was indeed ineligible for draftification.
  6. The citations are primary: the article was quite evidently the result of a very bright editor's diligent research into an encounter in the Battle of Verdun. The article made clear that its intention was to promote knowledge and interest in this encounter. While my advice to the editor mostly concerned the tone of the article, I should have emphasised more greatly the final point in my comments, which was that by relying on primary sources, the article did not establish the topic's notability [separate to the battle], which led me to conclude that draftification was the appropriate outcome.
I agree that I have been hasty to draftify articles, and, as you say, hold articles in the new page feed to a higher standard than the process expects. With this in mind, I'd like to withdraw my request until I have matured a little more in my Wikipedia journey. Once again, Joe, I'm very grateful for your feedback, and if you have any further comments on the above, I would be delighted to continue this opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Marking  Request withdrawn for the bot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:ToadetteEdit

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)

User:PK-WIKI

Experienced editor wanting to contribute to the new page backlog. I was recently granted a trial and did review some pages during that time, but I believe the trial has now expired. Requesting permanent New Page Reviewer permission based on those reviews and my experience in page creations and deletion discussions. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@PK-WIKI: As far as I can tell you only reviewed two articles during your last trial. I don't mean to be rude—every review helps—but how do you expect us to make a judgement based on that? I can grant you a third trial, but are you honestly going to use it? – Joe (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A third trial would be appreciated. Part of the problem is that I apply for the permission, wait X days for it to be approved, don't notice it's approved as I'm busy doing other things. Then the moment I wanted to review has now passed and the trial eventually expires. I will hopefully do enough to have it set permanently this time... PK-WIKI (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done for a further three month trial. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Flemmish Nietzsche

I've been going through the new pages feed for a while now without the right, to clean up new pages and nominate for CSD those pages that fall under the criteria, (at least 50 by now, weird how the log is a red link) and I've also participated in AfD and other deletion venues as well. The reviewer right should help when going through the new pages feed as I have been doing to better help misguided editors and to more efficiently go through new articles, and of course reduce the almost 10000-tall backlog that still wasn't gotten rid of in the May backlog drive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Your CSD and PROD logs are red because you have to opt-in to them in your Twinkle preferences. It'd be helpful if you did this because then we can see what proportion of your nominations are acted on. However, I can see from your deleted contributions log that you are an active CSD nominator, so no problems there.
On the other hand, you don't have a lot of experience with AfD, AfC, or page creation. Part of the reason we look for experience in those areas is to see how you interact with other editors, which is a very important part of NPP given that it is often the first or only time new editors interact with the wider community. CSD patrolling is not a good substitute there because it is quite mechanical in nature and doesn't require a lot of communication. And looking at your draftify log I'm afraid I do have some concerns on that score. In particular, I cannot imagine a scenario where it is appropriate to mass draftify four articles by one editor and not leave more than a templated message explaining why. One of these was also not eligible for draftification because it had already been moved into mainspace from a sandbox (plus technically already draftified once, under a different title).
Considered together, thank you for volunteering, but I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting new page patrolling right now. If you're still interested, I would recommend spending some time at AfC, where you will have the opportunity to show that you can interact positively with new editors and review their work in a encouraging way, then perhaps re-requesting in a few months. You should also make sure you're familiar with the guidance on draftspace in WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY. Marking  Not done for the bot. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. About the JCO Global Oncology article, does WP:DRAFTNO#6 really apply if the creator of the article moved into mainspace? If a recently autoconfirmed user creates an obviously needing-draftifying article (in this case it had grammar problems, only referenced itself properly, and had ref numberings [1] without any actual refs for them) but simply moves if from their sandbox to mainspace, does justifiably moving it back out of mainspace constitute "edit warring" as said in DRAFTNO#6? It's not a problem now specifically with that article though as Randykitty significantly cleaned it up, but I feel this should be an IAR excuse.
I also have had a lot of experience with newer editors when CSD patrolling (through deletion contestions and various other discussions) but those of course have been deleted. I'll try to do some AfC work soon. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes it does. Your opinion that an article does not belong in mainspace does not trump the creator's clearly-expressed opinion that it does. Regardless of the state of the article, when two people disagree the next step is to seek a consensus. This isn't just a procedural rule but an important principle across the project and especially at NPP; see WP:NPPCON.
Also note that neither problems of grammar or reference formatting are good reasons to move a page to draftspace, because they are easily fixed in mainspace (as Randy has just demonstrated). – Joe (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I know what a consensus is by now, but I'll those things in mind, thanks. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

User:75DD

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)

User:Raintheone

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)

User:Madeforall1

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 ([14]). — 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)

User:BrigadierG

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)

User:Rydex64

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 ([15]). — MusikBot talk 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer (WP:PERM/PCR)

Pending changes reviewer

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

User:RowanJ LP

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)

User:RITWIK MAHATA

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)

User:Imsaneikigai

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)

User:750h+

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)

User:Boneless Pizza!

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)

User:GoldRomean

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)

User:Whisky and more

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)

User:Air on White

I am already a rollbacker. I am interested in PCR permissions because I am interested in working at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, which is pending-changes protected. I want to approve and deny pending edits as necessary so that they can then be posted on the page. Air on White (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 03:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:TheNuggeteer

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)

User:M S Hassan

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)

User:Myrealnamm

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)

Rollback (WP:PERM/R)

Rollback

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

User:GoodHue291

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)

User:CGP05

I frequently revert vandalism using twinkle and I would like to have rollback permissions so that I can use antivandal to revert vandalism faster. CGP05 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([16]). — MusikBot talk 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:OnlyNano

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)

User:M S Hassan

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)

BRFAs

Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
Mdann52 bot 15 (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-06-12, 09:24:31 Mdann52 2024-06-12, 09:24:31 Never edited by BAG n/a
RustyBot (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-06-10, 20:06:58 Rusty4321 2024-06-10, 22:47:18 Never edited by BAG n/a
Mdann52 bot 14 (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-06-10, 17:46:58 Mdann52 2024-06-10, 17:46:58 Never edited by BAG n/a
BaranBOT 2 (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-05-27, 14:01:46 GreenC 2024-06-08, 15:51:58 Primefac 2024-06-06, 15:00:25
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VIII (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-04-07, 05:50:30 Dušan Kreheľ 2024-04-07, 05:56:34 Never edited by BAG n/a
Dušan Kreheľ (bot) VII (T|C|B|F) Open 2024-02-16, 09:24:40 EggRoll97 2024-06-02, 04:21:37 ProcrastinatingReader 2024-02-20, 13:13:05
BattyBot 81 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2024-02-07, 14:12:49 ProcrastinatingReader 2024-02-15, 12:09:35 ProcrastinatingReader 2024-02-15, 12:09:35
DannyS712 bot III 74 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-05-09, 00:02:12 DannyS712 2024-05-09, 16:13:34 ProcrastinatingReader 2024-05-09, 10:58:36
StradBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-02-17, 03:20:39 SD0001 2024-02-17, 05:58:51 SD0001 2024-02-17, 05:58:51
PearBOT 14 (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2023-12-28, 20:06:39 Primefac 2024-02-18, 20:11:21 Primefac 2024-02-18, 20:11:21
CapsuleBot 2 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial 2023-06-14, 00:14:29 Capsulecap 2024-01-20, 02:36:30 Primefac 2024-01-15, 07:40:39
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial: User response needed! 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 Hawkeye7 2024-02-18, 23:33:13 Primefac 2024-02-18, 20:10:45
DoggoBot 10 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2023-03-02, 02:55:00 Frostly 2024-02-21, 22:41:18 Primefac 2024-01-15, 07:40:49
Qwerfjkl (bot) 30 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2024-06-05, 20:51:40 Qwerfjkl 2024-06-09, 17:26:10 SD0001 2024-06-06, 04:07:27
PrimeBOT 39 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2023-05-11, 12:48:50 Primefac 2023-09-22, 10:51:59 Headbomb 2023-07-02, 17:38:58
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MusikAnimal/Dashboard&oldid=1013833114"