Jump to content

User:MusikAnimal/Dashboard

This user helped get "32 Old Slip" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 4 September 2014.
This user helped get "Domino Park" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 29 June 2018.
This user helped get "MTA Arts & Design" listed at Did You Know on the main page on 4 May 2015.
This user helped "Nine Inch Nails" become a featured article.
This user helped "32 Old Slip" become a good article.
This user heavily contributed to "Amnesiac (album)" become a good article.
This user helped "Better Out Than In" become a good article.
This user heavily contributed to "Clarence Chesterfield Howerton" become a good article.
This user helped "Hasil Adkins" become a good article.
This user contributed to "Jessica Gomes" become a good article.
This user heavily contributed to "Kowloon Walled City" become a good article.
This user made modest contributions to "Second Generation (advertisement)" become a good article.
This user is a member of the Bot Approvals Group.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 13
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 48
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 64
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 10
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 1
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 98
Requested RD1 redactions 1
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 1
Candidates for speedy deletion 23
Open sockpuppet investigations 59
Click here to locate other admin backlogs


News

Administrators' Newsletter
February 2025
 
  • Administrators can now nuke pages created by a user or IP address from the last 90 days, up from the initial 30 days. T380846
  • A 'Recreated' tag will now be added to pages that were created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted and it can be used as a filter in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. T56145
The Signpost
15 January 2025

Edit filters

Requested edit filters (WP:EF/R)

Nobody (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What are the urls of these incompatible wikis? – 2804:F1...69:1A4C (::/32) (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Mirrors and forks lists some of them, I don't think its even possible to make a complete list. There's also Fandom, which has both, compatible and non-compatible licenses for their wikis.[1] Nobody (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the basic code for it. (With a few example urls of mirrors that aren't compatible.)

Code
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 2, 118) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
(
    url := "\d{5}\.us|99colors\.net|alchetron\.com|celebsagewiki\.com|en-us\.nina\.az|knowpia\.com|profilpelajar\.com|wikizero\.org";
    
    added_lines irlike url &
    !(removed_lines irlike url) &
    !(summary irlike "^(?:revert|rv|undid)")
)
Nobody (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
1AmNobody24, I've modified the code to also exclude removed_lines. Without it, the user would get flagged regardless if they edit a part of a section containing the website or not. Codename Noreste 🤔 Talk 23:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Filter for drive-by, unconstructive talk page junk related to student assignments

  • Task: This is related to the persistent issue with talk page junk, some of which is addressed by Special:AbuseFilter/1245. I am proposing a filter to catch a further subset of them, most likely generated by students, that follow a specific but extremely common pattern:
  • The page is not a user talk page, a sandbox page, or any subpage of Wikipedia:Reference desk
  • The editor is an IP
  • The subject line should be a school subject from a predetermined list. Some subjects that are common here: "English", "Math", "Mathematics", "Maths", "Geography", "History", "Social studies", "Chemistry", "Civics", "Physics", "Biology", "Life science", "Earth science".
  • One or more of the following should apply to the comment body:
  • Comment filter 1: Edits that are really short (fewer than 5 words or thereabouts)
  • Comment filter 2: Edits that start with certain phrases: "Definition of", "Write", "Information about", etc.
  • Comment filter 3: Edits that start with the phrases "what is" or "what are" (possibly others) and are somewhat short (fewer than 10-20 words? idk)
This specific subset is clearly related to student assignments -- WikiEd doesn't think it's related to their assignments specifically -- there is a correlation but it's probably just school, in general. For instance this diff seems to be associated with this assignment or a very similar one.
I suspect some of these are produced by LLMs, text-to-speech, search integrations, or other automated tools because of the time frame (the date they really started pouring in lines up almost exactly with the date GPT-3, ChatGPT, etc. came out); because of the formulaic predictability of the pattern; and because of certain tells in some of these suggesting they're overheard conversations, ChatGPT prompts, etc. (Here is a smoking gun for this.) These edits have almost no utility and usually go unanswered; if they are answered, it's usually to scold the user, who almost never responds.
There are literally thousands of these, cleaning them up is a huge task, and that task also has a deadline. If nobody cleans them up before the page is archived (which is likely to happen because school-curriculum talk pages are often long, and because archiving is often done by bots who don't check what they're doing) then they will be stuck there forever. (I cannot emphasize enough how arbitrary and asinine that is, but whatever.). While I'm willing to clean up as much of the existing stuff as I catch in time, it would be nice to stop the floods.
I'm happy to add to or refine this filter to reduce false positives and catch more false negatives, this is off the top of my head. The real solution is to either find a technological or UI-design cause, but this subset of edits is just so predictable that a filter might make sense.
If you want to find more -- or to help clean them up -- the relevant search pattern is insource:"UTC [subject]". A search pattern more prone to false positives is insource:"[subject or common one-word edit] Special".

Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this. I can provide more acronyms that are even less likely to be false positives. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Here is some regex I've made quickly so it might not be accurate completely:
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
!( (page_namespace == 3) || (page_namespace == 4 & contains_any(page_title, "sandbox", "reference desk")) ) & 
( 
    junkStr := "={1,6}\s*(?:(?:math(?:ematics)?)|(?:english))\s*={1,6}"; /* add other subjects */
    added_lines irlike junkStr &
    !(removed_lines irlike junkStr)
) &
(edit_delta < 50 || added_lines irlike "(?:(?:definition\s*of) || (?:write) || (?:info(?:rmation)?\s*about)) || (?:what\s*(?:(?:is)) )
This is fairly rudimentary and probably has a few errors but I hope it helps in creating a sketch of what the filter could look like. Thanks, – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC).
PharyngealImplosive7, your suggestion unfortunately does not work because the regex did not match some edits from those diffs, and because of the regex in the last line which was broken. Gnomingstuff, are there recent cases of these specific talk page junk edits? These diffs that you have provided are from 2022 and 2023, and because of that I believe that it's not worth creating a new filter just to check for these edits. Codename Noreste (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah the edit filter is not going to catch anywhere near 100% of this -- I'm mostly hoping to hit the major categories while avoiding false positives as much as possible.
That said, this is absolutely still ongoing. The list of diffs I linked is heavily skewed toward 2022/2023 because it only includes talk pages that have been archived. If the talk page wasn't archived, then I just reverted the edit and it isn't on that list.
I can put together a list of December 2024/January 2025 diffs but it'll take a while. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste OK, timeboxed to about ~1 hour or so of searching, here are some edits from the past 30 days that fall into this category. This is not a complete list -- a lot of what was out there has been reverted/caught, which is why the list is skewed toward the past few days -- nor a full list of subjects, nor representative of how much each subject gets relative to the others. It's just what I found in an hour.

Sample drive-by edits, 9 December 2024 - 10 January 2025
  • diff, 9 December 2024 (political science)
  • diff, 9 December 2024 (social studies, more elaborate subject line)
  • diff, 19 December 2024 (history)
  • diff, 20 December 2024 (social studies)
  • diff, 22 December 2024 (biology; a little over the wordcount)
  • diff, 23 December 2024 (English; subject line is longer and misspelled so outside current filter, but demonstrates the nature of these edits)
  • diff, 24 December 2024 (history; see above note)
  • diff, 26 December 2024 (English)
  • diff, 26 December 2024 (science)
  • diff, 26 December 2024 (physics)
  • diff, 30 December 2024 (social/social studies; a common pattern is for the body text to be the title of the article but not sure you can do that with regex except maybe with some capture group)
  • diff, 30 December 2024 (English)
  • diff, 2 January 2025 (math)
  • diff, 4 January 2025 (English)
  • diff, 6 January 2025 (biology)
  • diff, 6 January 2025 (maths)
  • diff, 6 January 2025 (mathematics)
  • diff, 7 January 2025 ("economic" - economics)
  • diff, 7 January 2025 (physics)
  • diff, 7 January 2025 (SST - social studies)
  • diff, 7 January 2025 (geography; has tells of text-to-speech query)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (biology)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (biology)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (social studies)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (science)
  • diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, 8 January 2025 (history; as above the subject line is too long for the proposed filter but it demonstrates the fact that this is drive-by homework queries)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (chemistry and English; two subjects in one)
  • diff, 8 January 2025 (SST - social studies)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (science)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (history)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (economics)
  • diff 1, diff 2, 9 January 2024 (social studies; has text-to-speech tell)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (history)
  • diff, 10 January 2025 (history; ending in just "ok" is another common pattern, also this edit was from, like, right now)

Let me know if you have any other questions. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Some more recent edits, this time with some of the more common abbreviations:

Sample drive-by edits, 11 December 2024 - 14 January 2025
  • diff, 11 December 2024 (algebra)
  • diff, 14 December 2024 (economics)
  • diff, 29 December 2024 (English; longer subject)
  • diff, 5 January 2025 ("Pak studies" - maybe "studies" in the end of headeris a potential fiter?)
  • diff, 7 January 2052 (GK - general knowledge)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (social - social studies)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (social - social studies)
  • diff, 9 January 2025 (biology)
  • diff, 10 January 2025 (science)
  • diff, 10 January 2025 (sociology)
  • diff, 11 January 2025 (SST => social studies)
  • diff, 11 January 2025 (history)
  • diff, 11 January 2025 (SST => social studies)
  • diff, 12 January 2025 (chemistry)
  • diff, 12 January 2025 (English)
  • diff, 12 January 2025 (geography)
  • diff, 12 January 2025 (SST => social studies)
  • diff, 12 January 2025 (MAPEH: some health related subject)
  • diff, 13 January 2025 (English)
  • diff, 13 January 2025 (English; amid other homework driveby edits)
  • diff, 13 January 2025 (math)
  • diff, 13 January 2025 (science)
  • diff, 14 January 2025 (science)
  • diff, 14 January 2025 (maths)

I think this should demonstrate how ongoing an issue this is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Adition to filter 707

Given that the average report has a edit size between 600 and 1100, I think that edits by non-confirmed users that have an edit delta much bigger than that (2500 or 5000?) be disallowed, since they're likely non-constructive edits. Nobody (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs related to this? I can modify the old and new size OR the edit delta conditions together, perhaps. Codename Noreste (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Diff 1 (+14,121), Diff 2 (+2,981), Diff 3 (+402,411), Diff 4 (+19,845), all in the last two weeks. Edit: Another one (17,279) Nobody (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1269760874 (2,433 bytes added) in which an anonymous user added an article lead of a district in Thailand (probably disruptive), so I think we can lower the edit_delta limit to more than 1800 bytes. Codename Noreste (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
The biggest constructive edits I've seen this year by new or unregistered users were between +2,000 and +2,100 bytes, so I wouldn't lower it below that. Nobody (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Never mind. Codename Noreste (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe my suggested change to filter 707 below could work, along with your suggestion about blocking reports with more than 2500 bytes. Note that I removed the old and new_size condition logic because only the edit_delta works for some reason. 
page_id == 26204397 & /* False positives reports page */
!("confirmed" in user_groups) &
(
    (
        /* Removal or modification of the page's headers */
        contains_any(
            removed_lines,
            "__NONEWSECTIONLINK__",
            "__NOINDEX__",
            "<noinclude>",
            "{{Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Header}}",
            "{{shortcut|WP:EF/FP/R|WP:EFFPR}}",
            "</noinclude>"
        )
    ) | (
        /* New or anonymous users blanking or modifying reports */
        edit_delta <= -250 |
        /* False positive reports containing more than 2500 bytes */
        edit_delta >= 2500
    )
)

Codename Noreste (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Surely this will also disallow good faith edits where the person pasted their edit into the description? – 2804:F1...70:9D36 (::/32) (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I probably assume that you meant when people remove duplicate reports, or withdraw their own reports? On the other hand, see here. Codename Noreste (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No, I mean the thing the page notice warns users against doing but people do anyways:
Please also note that there is no reason for you to paste the content of your edit here. The edit you tried to do is visible to others, and sometimes the same filter which stopped you earlier may stop you again. This is especially the case when including external links.
If this filter will also disallow that, as those cases are usually large edits, and there's consensus to do so, a different disallow message than the current MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-EFFPR might be more appropriate. – 2804:F1...70:9D36 (::/32) (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
All users (and those who can see private filter log entries) can see the attempted edit, so I'm not sure about the case regarding on disallowing good edits to EFFPR. I haven't seen any recent good edits to that page that have more than 2500 bytes, yet. Codename Noreste (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
and also, it seems that some people are removing or disrupting headers from edit filter related pages (not just EFFPR), see Special:Diff/1270484744 and Special:Diff/1270358969 (both EFN), and Special:Diff/1270356788 (EFR). For these three, I believe we can create a new filter by sending a request to the mailing list, or somewhere?
Cc to 1AmNobody24 who started the thread. Codename Noreste (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
That gets picked up by filter 1151 sometimes, but it could be added to 707. Though I wonder if filter 809 (private) isn't the better place for it. Nobody (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure of adding to 809 without commenting on other specifics, but perhaps a new filter could do because 707 uses a custom message, while for the new filter, we could use the default disallow message. Codename Noreste (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, @Codename Noreste: I'm not sure why any filter preventing the disruption of edit filter-related page headings would need to be private (707 after all is public) since this is just regular vandalism. So I think a request to EFR or EFN would be fine. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
This and this are also examples of edits that are clearly not constructive and should be stopped. Nobody (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keyboard mashing filter?

  • Task: What is the filter supposed to do? To what pages and editors does it apply?

The filter is intended to catch "keyboard spam" edits (things along the line of "ajksljhgfhlasjaewzxcvo"). The way I believe this could be implemented is with a filter that catches strings of length 5 that contain only lowercase consonants (y is a vowel in this case). For example, in the example given above, the substring "jklsj" would be caught and flagged. Should only apply for main space edits and only for IPs to avoid usernames triggering the filter. Exception needed for links. I don't know what regex has in its capabilities so I don't know if this is possible. I'm worried about edits on other language scripts messing it up.

  • Reason: Why is the filter needed?

This is a relatively common pattern of vandalism; the diffs below were collected over a span of a single, non cherry-picked hour.

  • Diffs: Diffs of sample edits/cases. If the diffs are revdelled, consider emailing their contents to the mailing list

[2][3][4]

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  • If this is done, I would suggest a longer string length than 5. For example, place names in Wales where "w" is effectively a vowel, such as Cwmbran, Amlwch or Pwllheli, may regularly have five consonants in a row. Not to mention occasional normal English plurals such as "strengths". Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Have you given some thought to compounds such as Knightsbridge and Catchphrase, names like Goldschmidt and Norbert Pfretzschner, technical articles like HTML color names (white is #FFFFFF; see also hex for color names Blanched almond, Gainsboro, Lemon chiffon, Navajo white, Pale turquoise, and Snow); the parenthetical phrase in the first line of The Adventures of Mr. Nicholas Wisdom, and non-English content (notably German compounds) such as Handschriftencensus (6), Selbstschutz (7), and Rechtschreibreform (7). But I believe these examples are rare, and that there are no 8-letter examples, so you can probably whitelist all of these. There might be a portion of an article that covers keyboard spam with examples, and you might have to whitelist that, too. Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I didn't think of those. It appears that in addition to the filter below, there are way too many exceptions to work properly. I'm going to retract this request but I don't know how; can someone help out? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
There IS a filter for this:
It works almost exactly as suggested as well, even the exception for links, with the difference being it looks for 9 characters, not 5.
At any rate, perhaps the filter could be improved - for example, it didn't catch the second example because the edit edited a line starting with a pipe (|), why do we exclude edits that do that?
That change was done here in 2012, which changed it from excluding edits that left a line like |- or |. in the article to ones that edit any line starting with a pipe or an exclamation mark.
The filter did not catch examples 1 and 3 because of the aforementioned vowels before it reached 9 'repeating' characters. – 2804:F1...87:8192 (::/32) (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Alternate idea: since keyboard spam usually stays on the same keyboard row, could a filter that checks for repeated characters in the same row (usually the home row) be a thing? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
If that is the case, the length trigger would probably be ~7-8 or so, as there are sufficiently few words(typewriter, rupturewort) that would need to be implemented as exceptions. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yep, that would be a more reasonable length trigger – 5 is too short, but 8 would likely still match most keymashes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Implementing the balanced editing restriction

WP:ARBPIA5 has been closed, and one of the successful remedies was to authorize the imposition of the "balanced editing restriction" on an editor if it is found that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive. Doing so would require an edit filter that would ensure that [i]n a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures. See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5 § Balanced editing restriction. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It seem 1339 has already been written by SilverLocust. It looks about right to me, at least as a starting point. I can only see this as a log that interested editors are going to have to go through, rather than a filter which actually limit edits through the filter. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Later today I'm expecting to edit the filter a bit. SilverLocust 💬 00:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I have edited it to exclude bots, non-extended-confirmed users, and namespaces other than Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk. I'd welcome suggestions for improving it, preferably at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard. SilverLocust 💬 05:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed talk page filter

  • Task: Prevent edits to article talk pages where the article is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction, the user is not extended confirmed, and the talk page edit is not tagged as an edit request
  • Reason: The current system we seem to have consists of ECPing articles and not ECPing talk pages, expecting new users to know the difference, and blocking them when they don't get the message. Not only is this a much more heavy-handed system than it needs to be, enforcement of talk-page ECR is still patchy and inconsistent. An edit filter that simply prevents non-EC editors from inserting any edit that's not marked with an edit request template (and we should probably filter out edits that do have the edit but aren't new sections) would be much more robust.
  • Diffs: I mean, I can put some together if you want, but ECR violations are kinda everywhere in ARBPIA.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

While the idea is definitely good, I figure it might need some fine-tuning as some users might not always clearly mark their edit requests as such, even if they are an edit request "in spirit". However, if your proposal clearly instructs them to add the template if needed, it could definitely work.
Also, is it okay for users to reply in edit request sections they themselves created, or adjust their edit requests? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I would say yes to instructing them on how to make an edit request, no on replying to edit requests, yes to editing their original request if that's technically feasible to implement but I'm also okay with them just having to submit a new one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, let me take a whack at drafting this – no way I'd self-grant EFM, but this would be an interesting opportunity to teach this to myself :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! That definitely seems like a good filter, and disallowing with a custom message could work out. I was also thinking of trying to write it out, but we can both do it and compare our versions! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Incredible! Here's a first draft that I'm sure is riddled with bugs :) I cribbed everything that works from filter 1339 by SilverLocust. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop") &
equals_to_any(page_namespace,1,119) &
"This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_html &
!(added_lines irlike "{{(E(C|P)ER|Edit(|-)Extended(|-)Protected)" &
added_lines irlike "^==[^=]")
Close to what I was having!
! contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop") &
equals_to_any(page_namespace,1,119) &
"You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text &
! added_lines irlike "Edit *request(ed)?|Edit[ -](extended[ -])?protected|E(P|C)ER"
I used the generic message on talk pages so that it also targeted other topics under EC restrictions, and there's sooo many redirects for {{Edit protected}} to go through. Also I opted to not add the {{ since there was also the possibility of having whitespace or something between it, but I forgot about the header part, good catch! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah yeah, that seems better! Slapping one on the other, we've got: 
! contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop") &
equals_to_any(page_namespace,1,119) &
"You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text &
! (added_lines irlike "Edit *request(ed)?|Edit[ -](extended[ -])?protected|E[CP]ER" &
added_lines irlike "^==[^=]")
I have no idea what the process looks from here – does it get tested somewhere, do we need more input? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC) 
! contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop") &
equals_to_any(page_namespace,1,119) &
"You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text &
! (added_lines irlike "{{ *Edit ?request(ed)?|Edit[ -](extended[ -])?protected|E(P|C)ER|Req ?(uest(ed)?)?edit|Edit ?protect(ed)?|Protected edit|Edit locked|Changerequest" &
added_lines irlike "^==[^=]")
I think this should take care of every single {{Edit protected}} redirect there is. Also curious about the process now! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
[Watching with interest] I'll throw it into a filter when you've finished edit-conflicting me :) Guessing: 1341. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@zzuuzz: edit-conflicting has concluded! 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I've put the filter. Someone please suggest a better title for it. I haven't done any testing of past edits, which I normally would have. A few diffs would help.. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking at Talk:Palestine (region), Special:Diff/1269265277 could be a good check for a non-EC edit without an edit request, and Special:Diff/1251785711 for a non-EC edit with an edit request. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
1269265277 is a miss so far. Is it possibly because the link over "extended-confirmed" in "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed" appears as html markup in new_html? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to note that. Also, there are two slightly different versions of the PIA talk notice: {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} (the older version) and {{Contentious topics/Arab-Israeli talk notice}}. I would go back to the earlier suggestion of using "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_html so that this is limited to talk pages of ECP'd primary article rather than any talk page with a PIA notice (including unprotected related topic articles). SilverLocust 💬 19:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious, our last proposed version did have new_text and not new_html, @Zzuuzz was there a reason for why you changed it to new_html? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Sortof, starting from a precautionary approach based on what SilverLocust said immediately above. There are at least 2 versions for new_text: "You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (...", and "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit ". I'm wondering if simply "You must be logged-in" would perform this function. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yep, but neither gets caught with new_html, which adds hard-to-parse HTML code to the content of new_text, so I'm not sure why it would be preferable. Just "You must be logged-in" could work, although there's still the issue that any editor could add it to prevent others from editing the page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll just clarify this explicitly: new_html checks whether the article is protected. new_text checks whether there's a talk page notification irrespective of protection. I went with the former while cooking dinner. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it does make more sense to use "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_html for the hidden flag.
My question was about why you used "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_html at first (rather than "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text like in the submitted version), which still checks for a talk page notification but parses the HTML code instead. That still didn't check whether the article was protected, but didn't check for the text's wording itself, which is what I found confusing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems to have been corrected? There's a few reasons I might not copy a proposal verbatim, or make a temporary mistake. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
No problem, sorry then! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it! Small (and not very critical) detail I'm just realizing right now, I think there should be parentheses like "{{ *(Edit ?request(ed)?|Edit[ -](extended[ -])?protected|E(P|C)ER|Req ?(uest(ed)?)?edit|Edit ?protect(ed)?|Protected edit|Edit locked|Changerequest)", otherwise it only checks {{ for the first one. Leeky's original draft had them but I forgot to add them back! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. Here's one example of a new section without an explicit edit request: Special:Diff/1271256707. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I have a new suggestion for filter 1341:
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 1, 119) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
"You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text &
!(added_lines irlike "^==[^=]\n{{\s*(?:Edit ?request(?:ed)?|Edit[ -](?:extended[ -])?protected|E[CP]ER|Req ?(?:uest(?:ed)?)?edit|Edit ?protect(?:ed)?|Protected edit|Edit locked|Changerequest)")
Note that because of new_html, during testing, none of the edits have matched. Also, instead of checking twice for added_lines, I added a \n when I merged the regex together into one check (for a new line of blank space). Codename Noreste (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
new_text is a good fix, but the new added_lines regex doesn't catch "header (blankline) template", which is fairly common, so that should probably be adjusted? I think having them as two separate checks is more bulletproof. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I can change it back to those two checks if you wish, thank you. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I've made a number of minor changes and implemented some suggestions from above. I'm off to cook some dinner, so I'll pass this along. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Enjoy dinner! A couple of things for whomever wants to tweak this further:
  1. "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." doesn't seem to appear in pages like Talk:Gaza war. Maybe check for membership in Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or that string?
  2. Our first filter hit is from a bot that seems to manually not have ECP, so we should probably add the bot flag to the list of exempt usergroups.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Bots have been added. We also need to consider people editing their own requests! -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I have a solution to fully exclude users who are editing their own requests:
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 1, 119) &
!contains_any(user_groups, "extendedconfirmed", "sysop", "bot") &
"This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." in new_text &
!(
    added_lines rlike "^==[^=]+==" &
    added_lines rlike "{{\s*(?i:Edit ?request|Edit[ -](?:extended[ -])?protected|E[CP]ER|Req ?(?:uest(?:ed)?)?edit|Edit ?protect|Protected edit|Edit locked|Changerequest)"
) &
!(user_name in (old_wikitext + page_recent_contributors)) /* Exclude users who are editing their own requests */
Note that using irlike in line 5 in its current version does not make sense, so I changed it to rlike, and I did the same for line 6, but for the non-capturing group, I used (?i:, which should make the text case-insensitive while using rlike. Thoughts or suggestions? Codename Noreste (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good, although the original proposal of "You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic" in new_text might still be better as it includes other CTOPs under similar restrictions? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Just realizing that there are two wordings for it, so your earlier proposal might be better, my bad. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I have recently changed it back to new_text. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the "This page is subject to the extended.." text doesn't appear within new_text, since it's a hidden element.. I might be wrong; it's not super easy to test. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Evidently new_html and new_text both work, per your example below (Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1869020215). But the latter is smaller – about half the size in that example. SilverLocust 💬 04:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Well spotted. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
For that, we might need to hear what leeky thinks about the suggestion you said above. Codename Noreste (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know whether it should be just PIA or broader, I'm mostly focused on PIA. I'm also not sure whether it makes a difference for it to be new_text or new_html, because the filter is currently at new_html and is catching edits. As for the suggested edit-own-request, doesn't that basically give any user a free pass around this filter if their name is on the page somewhere else? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The edit-own-request thing should already be taken care of without that line, as an edited request would show up in the "+" side of the diff and thus be present in added_lines. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Even if the ER template is on its own line? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
In that case no, you're right. I forgot they were on different lines! Would there be a way to check the lines immediately above to check for the template, until reaching either a header or something that can be parsed as a signature? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's a relevant example: Special:Diff/1271850666 (Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1869020215). It doesn't answer all the questions here, but a check of the edit summary may provide one route forward.-- zzuuzz (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'm guessing we could check if Extended-confirmed-protected edit request is in the edit summary but Reply isn't? While that is easy to game, non-ECP users usually do not know about the specifics of edit filters. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should just not filter out replies in edit-request sections? or is that too big a false negative... we do seem to be okay with people responding to concerns about their own edit requests. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a few recent FPs in the logs, due to how line breaks are used in added_lines, which I've now fixed. So having reviewed a few hits, I'm thinking we should be checking for a) any addition of an edit-request template, or b) any edit summary containing 'edit request' (loosely speaking), and then c) anything which could be reasonably construed to be an edit request (example (details)). -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the first two cases. For the third, it might be hard to filter something that presumably needs human understanding and can't rely on specific keywords, but words like proposed text, proposed change or change .* to .* could be good hints. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
As you know, this is relevant to my post at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Looking at RfCs in AP areas, I see a lot of very new editors, maybe EC should be required. Doug Weller talk 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Pardon me for not understanding edit filters, but how does this filter distinguish between "primary articles" and articles with related content? In the latter case (a few hundred articles) non-EC editors can join discussions so long as it isn't PIA discussion. Also, I worry about the random reader who wants to tell us about a typo and never heard of an "edit request" let alone a template — there are quite a lot of cases like that and they are useful. Zerotalk 13:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The filter checks for the hidden text "This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", which is added by templates if the article is extended protected and the talk page has a PIA talk notice without section=yes (or relatedcontent=yes for the old version) or nocat=yes. Category:Wikipedia pages subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict tracks the talk pages that are included. (One way you can directly see the hidden text is by adding .PIA-flag { display: block !important; visibility: visible !important; font-weight: bold; color: blue; } to your /common.css page. Or you can use the inspect element tool in a web browser and search for the hidden text.) SilverLocust 💬 15:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the second case, the filter doesn't disallow anything, and, even if we decide to configure it to disallow, it will show an editnotice informing the new editor of how to add the edit request template. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How about changing equals_to_any(page_namespace, 1, 119) to equals_to_any(page_namespace, 1, 11, 15, 119) to include template and category talk namespaces covered by EC restrictions? For the PIA topic area there are quite a lot. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

SL and CE, thanks for your detailed response. This is a great design. Perhaps this is the wrong place but I'll take the opportunity to note an anomaly regarding the visible text generated by the templates. The parameter relatedcontent=yes on the template {{ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement}} and friends causes the text to change from "This page is related" to "Parts of this page relate" and an extra paragraph appears. However, adding the parameter section=yes to {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} makes no change to the visible text at all. Both with and without the parameter, the visible text says that only parts of the page are covered. This is inconsistent and looks like an error to me. There are samples at User:Zero0000/sandbox2. Zerotalk 02:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Whoa! I discovered that {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i|section=no}} produces text indicating full coverage. So the problem is that the default (at least for topic=a-i) is section=yes. This does not correspond to the way the template has been used on multiple pages and it isn't how this edit filter is interpretting the parameter. I propose to make section=no the default. After that, I can do a scan for articles that really should have section=yes but don't have it. Zerotalk 03:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. Sometime relatively soon the two versions of the talk notice ought to be merged back into one template. In any event, unless someone explicitly uses =yes or =no, placing either template on its own doesn't really tell you whether the person was thinking of it as related content or a primary article. This is more a topic for WT:AC/C than the edit filter page. SilverLocust 💬 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
For the record, there are 597 article talk pages with {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} of which 19 use section=yes and none use section=no. The relevance here is that this edit filter will produce a result that differs from what the visible text of the template says. Making section=no the default would fix both problems at once. I'll comment at WT:AC/C. Zerotalk 04:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

On another point, it isn't good to send newbies to WP:Edit requests because it gives instructions that don't apply here, namely to get consensus before adding a template. Zerotalk 05:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we have an equivalent page giving instructions adapted to edit requests in CTOP areas? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Zerotalk 11:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR pointing at WP:EDITXY is better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

New T: prefixed page creations

  • Task: Flag new creations of mainspace pages starting with T:
  • Reason: A few hours ago, the pseudonamespace T: has been deprecated at WP:VPR, being redundant with the existing alias TM: (supported by the MediaWiki software). Now, "T:" pseudonamespace redirects cannot be created without talk page consensus. While blacklisting was not an option due to mainspace redirects using T: as an abbreviation of actual article titles, there has been a proposal to flag new creations with an edit filter for further verification. Would the following work for that purpose?
page_namespace == 0 &&
page_title rlike "T:.*" &&
page_age == 0

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Instead of page_age, I would use page_id (that seems more suited to what you seem to be aiming for. You also might want to filter out edits made my bots to reduce the cost of the filter (and decrease searching through edits that won’t match the filter) at the top of the regex. Otherwise, looks good. 04:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC) – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Wasn't sure whether to use page_age or page_id, to be fair. I figured that, since page_age was more precise but more costly, it would make more sense to use it as the previous filter page_title rlike "T:.*" would leave us with only a few dozens of hits in total. But now, I'd be curious to find out why page_id is preferable!
Also, I wonder if page_namespace == 0 && page_title rlike "T:.*" is faster or slower than page_prefixedtitle rlike "T:.*".
page_namespace == 0 &&
! user_groups contains "bot" &&
page_title rlike "T:.*" &&
page_id == 0
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Someone seems to be used to writing ampersands in C. I don't think the prefix makes much difference. If using regex it should probably go with page_prefixedtitle rlike "^T:". Definitely check the placement. So I see, for one example, there's a redirect (and plausibly an article) at T: New York Times Style Magazine. Should it also check for redirects to template space? -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Not sure if it should check for redirects to template space – there are probably little enough creations of new T: titles to make this manageable without it. It shouldn't be very difficult to code either, but it might mean that we'll have to check for more than just page creations (if, say, the redirect is misspelled at first).
Regarding "^T:" versus "T:.*", are you saying that rlike checks if any substring matches the regex rather than the entire string? I wasn't really sure about which of the two behaviors it had. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, "T:.*" would match "CAT:A", whereas "^T:" is only the start of the string (and that's all you need to check). I might also put the page_id check at the top, as it's relatively rare. The point about "little enough creations" is a fair point, but as a non-zero it makes me slightly queasy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! In either case, the edits are just logged, not disallowed, right? If we're surveying for new redirects instead of page creations, I don't think we need page_id as we'd like to also check for retargeted redirects, or redirects that were mistyped at page creation and fixed later on.
page_namespace == 0 &
!(user_groups contains "bot") &
page_title rlike "^T:" &
added_lines irlike "#REDIRECT\s*\[\[\s*(Template|TM):"
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
You're right. I was recently reading something about disallow and misinterpreted. Log only is not such an issue. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
I've added filter 1342 based on the original suggestion. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Filter 1342 (new) — Actions: none; Flags: enabled,public; Pattern modified
Last changed at 14:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Filter 80 — Flags: private; Pattern modified

Last changed at 15:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Filter 624 (deleted) &mdash

Last changed at 16:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Filter 1231 — Flags: disabled

Last changed at 15:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Articles

Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV)

Reports

Bot-reported

User-reported

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:Yeshivish613

It would be helpful to use this tool so I can quickly do otherwise tedious tasks. In the past I've spent a lot of time adding a new navbox to a bunch of pages, this would make it a lot quicker. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Smallangryplanet

Sometimes I kill time waiting for tests to run at work or similar by doing WikiGnome activities and/or fixing various small errors, so it would be nice to have access to this tool. Thanks in advance. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2025 (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:Rodney Baggins

I've been Wiki-editing since 2018 and have become a familiar face on the snooker project. I'm accustomed to creating articles and redirects, and I'm fully conversant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've co-nominated three articles for FAC (all promoted) and contributed to many other FACs. I've been a pending changes reviewer since May 2020, and I like to think I am fair and neutral in any discussions that I get involved in. With over 24,000 main space edits to my name, I've been quite an active editor over the years, and I think I could make a useful contribution as a New page reviewer. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([5]). — MusikBot talk 05:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Ignore the bot, I misclicked. :( Sohom (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:ViridianPenguin

I've been editing for over five years with 2.2K mainspace edits, which includes over 30 new articles. In May 2024, Clovermoss gave me a three-month trial of the NPP permission, and I got the reviewer barnstar in that month's backlog drive. I sparingly used AFD and CSD during my reviewing, but that is mostly because when I found deficient articles, I spent the time to make them passable, rather than sending them for draftification/deletion. When I did propose content for deletion, I generally received community consensus to do so. I am seeking the permission for permanent use, but another trial works too! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done (till May 3rd) I'm not seeing a lot of patrols to go off here, so I'm hesitant to grant rights indefinitely, however, whatever I do see, I do like it, so I've given another 3 month trail to do more reviews :) Sohom (talk) 05:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:DoctorWhoFan91

My trial of 2 months is ending soon, so I would like to be granted the permission permanently. I know that I have made mistakes while reviewing (though nothing close to egregious), so in case it would be another trial, I can ask later, as I might or might not be busy this month. And thank you for providing me the trial, it's been fun, trying to help Wikipedia through npp. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 21:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
 Done (till 3rd April) Sohom (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Hounaam

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I would like to formally request the permanent assignment of the New Page Reviewer permission.

Since being granted this role on a trial basis, I have actively contributed to reviewing new pages, particularly those related to Iran, Persian language, and Persianate culture areas in which I have both expertise and a long-standing editorial commitment. In addition to evaluating new articles, I have assisted other authors in completing their work, providing guidance when they were unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines. In cases where further intervention was needed, I took the initiative to edit the articles myself to ensure they met the necessary standards.

I believe my trial period as a New Page Reviewer have demonstrated my dedication to maintaining and improving Wikipedia’s content. I remain committed to collaborating with fellow editors and ensuring that new articles align with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

I appreciate your time and consideration. Best regards, Hounaam (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 11:30, 2 February 2025 (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:BryceM2001

I have lots of experience in the WP:TW scale of reverting edits, and wish to continue this through WP:PENDING BryceM2001 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 92 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 20:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not at this time due to limited editing experience but please do apply again later. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ali Beary

I'd like to request pending changes review rights because I am familiar with the policy and this would help me with my vandalism patrols. Furthermore, I am currently trying to accept a request, but I do not have the permissions. Thanks! Ali Beary (talk2me!) (stalk me?!) 13:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ali Beary Given your recent WP:CUTPASTE move, I'd like to see a little more time for you to demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and procedures before granting additional permissions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ahecht, ah, apologies. I didn't realize a "request moves" page existed, and I do not have move or merge permissions. I was simply undoing something that wasn't correct... hence why I requested move perms earlier so I could fix it. Ali Beary (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2025 (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:Protobowladdict

I am requesting rollback rights because I spend most of my time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism, and I would like to help fight vandals more effectively. I have made some mistakes, but I mostly have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies, and I try to always WP:AGF. Rollback will also allow me to use tools like AntiVandal. Thank you. Protobowladdict (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Vineyard93

Some newbie editors contain IP address not their username editing wrong and fake information even if is not the area origin. Vineyard93 (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done User:Vineyard93. I don't understand your request. You don't need rollback to revert fake information. If you encounter vandalism from IPs, you can warn the users. When they persist after sufficient warnings, you can report to WP:AIV. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

User:UndeadAnarchy

Hello, I have been working on counter-vandalism with RedWarn for a while now. Despite my inconsistent and relatively low edit count compared to other requesters, I believe I would be a good fit. I approach CV with the idea that it is better to have somebody with malicious intentions get away with their behavior than it is to accuse an innocent person of Vandalism. I aim for high accuracy over total reverts. I have made mistakes in the past but I am usually quick to notice and fix them. The main reason I am requesting Rollback is to gain experience with the Huggle desktop application. Thank you for the consideration and I look forward to hearing back. UndeadAnarchy|✉ 14:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 03:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Rahmatula786

I would like to request rollback permission to help combat vandalism, particularly in Nepal-related articles, which I frequently come across while patrolling recent changes. Having rollback rights would allow me to efficiently revert obvious and disruptive edits, improving the quality of affected pages. I always assume good faith and am careful when reviewing edits. If I am uncertain whether an edit is vandalism, I do not revert it. I am also familiar with Wikipedia’s warning templates and know when it is appropriate to report persistent vandals to WP:AIV. I believe rollback will be a valuable tool in my efforts to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity, and I will use it responsibly. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Xiphoid Vigour

I'm requesting this right to revert vandalism from the all the articles on Wikipedia, especially India related articles. I'm also patrolling recent changes from when I started i.e. almost a month. Please remember to ping me if done Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 05:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 187 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 15:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Heeheemalu

I have been actively combating vandalism on Wikipedia for some time, especially Taiwan related articles. I regularly monitor recent changes and undo obvious vandalism while ensuring that good-faith edits are not mistakenly removed. Having rollback rights would allow me to revert vandalism more efficiently, especially on high-traffic pages. I am familiar with Wikipedia’s policies on vandalism, edit warring, and proper rollback usage, and I will use the tool responsibly to help maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. Heeheemalu (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:ScrabbleTiles

Hi, I would like to request rollback rights as I have been patrolling on Wikipedia for a while, finding vandals, and I would like to have the ability to use rollback to revert their edits more effectively (as I have had a couple where I had to undo lots of small edits and it took up lots of my time). Thanks, ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 76 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 18:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
 Not done Hello User:ScrabbleTiles. Usually, we expect users to have at least 200 edits to mainspace. I would like to see you understand warnings a bit better for isntance before giving rollback. At User talk:OKTO on 6, you have a level-1 warning and only warning in rapid succession. Of course, a second warning can't be an only warning, so a level-2 warning would have been more appropriate (or none, as they may not have noticed the first warning immediately). In the meantime, you can already install WP:Twinkle to combat vandalism more effectively. You're on the right track, so feel free to come back in a few weeks when you've hit the threshold. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for that. I went straight to 4 because their edits were very disruptive and I didn’t see any constructive edit coming from them but in the future, I will be more forgiving. I will request again once I have reached the threshold. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Pbritti

I've been involved in combatting low-intensity disruption and vandalism for a while. I've recently encountered an increased level of sustained socks, LTAs, and contentious topic disruption. Having rollback would be just another tool in the toolkit, as I've enjoyed the luxury of Twinkle for a couple years. An even more streamlined approach to combatting disruption is always nice, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

User:LightlySeared

I'm requesting rollback to help me revert vandalism better. I've been using Twinkle for a while now, but in a few cases the proper rollback toll would have been more useful. I think I only revert blatant vandalism, as I prefer accuracy over volume. Mainly, it would be another tool in the kit. LightlySeared (talk) 10:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

BRFAs

Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
UrbanBot 3 (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-01-26, 18:15:06 Urban Versis 32 2025-02-03, 00:22:05 DreamRimmer 2025-02-02, 15:19:00
Jlwoodbot (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-01-13, 03:01:53 DreamRimmer 2025-01-29, 06:15:59 DreamRimmer 2025-01-29, 06:15:59
Tom.Bot 8 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2024-12-27, 09:33:39 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:25:52 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:25:52
C1MM-bot 3 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial 2024-12-12, 04:42:12 JarJarInks 2025-02-01, 21:46:33 DreamRimmer 2025-01-29, 12:23:00
HilstBot (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-01-27, 15:58:39 DreamRimmer 2025-01-29, 06:07:54 DreamRimmer 2025-01-29, 06:07:54
KiranBOT 14 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-12-26, 23:47:23 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:30:16 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:30:16
CFA (bot) (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-12-31, 05:00:34 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:24:09 Primefac 2025-01-01, 13:24:09
CanonNiBot 1 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-12-17, 12:50:01 Primefac 2024-12-23, 12:35:47 Primefac 2024-12-23, 12:35:47
KiranBOT 10 (T|C|B|F) On hold 2024-09-07, 13:04:48 Xaosflux 2025-01-01, 18:01:09 Xaosflux 2025-01-01, 18:01:09
SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 DreamRimmer 2025-01-26, 08:10:11 DreamRimmer 2025-01-26, 08:10:11
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 DreamRimmer 2025-02-02, 11:19:10 DreamRimmer 2025-02-02, 11:19:10
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User:MusikAnimal/Dashboard&oldid=1013833114"