Permanently protected template

Template:Admin dashboard

From WikiProjectMed
(Redirected from T:AD)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Immediate requests Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Wikipedians looking for help 1
Requests for unblock 164
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 27
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 31
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 7
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 0
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 128
Requested RD1 redactions 9
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Candidates for speedy deletion 16
Open sockpuppet investigations 129
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

Purge the cache of this page

Administrative backlog

WP:AIV

Reports

Bot-reported

User-reported

CSD / PRODs

Candidates for speedy deletion Entries
User requested 4
Empty articles 0
Nonsense pages 0
Spam pages 4
Importance or significance not asserted 0
Possibly contested candidates 1
Other candidates 9
The following articles and files have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
Deletion backlog

Wikipedia files with unknown source – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files missing permission – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale – No backlog currently
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently

Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons – No backlog currently

Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 2 items

Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review – 1 item

Requested RD1 redactions – 9 items

Proposed deletion – No backlog currently

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

Usernames for administrator attention


Bot-reported

User-reported

Requests for page protection


Current requests for increase in protection level

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.


2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Page is being created over and over again, irrespective of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Groups

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs are vandalising as the Group stage is coming to an end soon. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Indian Premier League

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs repeat the same every time protection expires; indefinite protection needed. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

18th Lok Sabha

Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Angus Gunn

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – ongoing IP vandalism and disruptive editing. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Leve Palestina

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – The song falls under Arab-Israeli conflict CTOP per WP:PIA with topic-wide WP:ECR restriction. I requested EC protection for the same reason before, but they were no then-recent EC-violations at the time. But now, they were recent ECR violations by unaware non-EC editor (this). And there was another ECR violation by IP editor one month ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leve_Palestina&diff=prev&oldid=1223131070), which happened after request was declined. Stylez995 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

  • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
  • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
  • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
  • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here

Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

  • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
  • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
  • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
  • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
  • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.


Israel–Hamas war

At present we have "On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must immediately halt its Rafah offensive.[1]"

I suggest changing it to include a longer, semantically-complete, quotation, to read: "On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.[2]"

As the Guardian article points out, and reports judges as arguing, the last comma is critical to the meaning of the ruling. Hunc (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually changed to a version which does not give the same meaning as the full text. I hope that you can change:

On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's military offensive and anything "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" must be halted."

to

On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

The precise grammar, in particular the last comma, is critical to the meaning.

Hunc (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ICJ orders Israel to halt its offensive on Rafah, Gaza in new ruling". Al Jazeera. 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-24.
  2. ^ How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah ruling. Israel is among those arguing that international court of justice directive is ambivalent and far from a blanket order to halt its offensive. Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor. The Guardian. Wed 29 May 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/global/article/2024/may/29/how-a-single-comma-is-allowing-israel-to-question-icj-rafah-ruling

Handled requests

A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.

Protected edit requests

0 protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Updated as needed. Last updated: 15:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
7 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Infobox Chinese (request) 2024-06-07 08:07 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Template:Uw-paid1 (request) 2024-06-07 14:16 Template-protected (log) Protected by Anarchyte on 2020-05-17: "Highly visible template"
Template:Rail-interchange (request) 2024-06-07 20:42 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Module:Gallery/styles.css (request) 2024-06-10 16:38 Template-protected (log) Protected by Izno on 2021-05-06: "Highly visible template: match parent"
Module:Road data (request) 2024-06-11 17:04 Template-protected (log) Modified by Lectonar on 2023-05-30: "High-risk template or module"
Module:Lang/data (request) 2024-06-11 18:55 Template-protected (log) Protected by Trappist the monk on 2017-12-13: "High-risk Lua module"
Template:Infobox court case (request) 2024-06-14 03:59 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-11-01: "Highly visible template"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 21:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFA

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

WP:PERM

Requests for autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

User:VaudevillianScientist

I have created over 120 articles (over 40 since 2023) on various STEM-related subjects, several of them received thanks from others and very few have so far had issues. My focus is on STEM-related biographies, concepts, or entities, with sufficient reference links. All my new articles are in the English Wikipedia, but I also do minor edits on factual information in other languages. I'm requesting autopatroller rights in the English Wikipedia to reduce the workload of other editors in reviewing my articles. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@VaudevillianScientist: Most of your articles look good at first glance, but I'm a bit concerned about Institute for Molecular Science. Can you expand on your thought process for that article? It doesn't have any secondary sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up that article I started. I meant to expand it further, but it requires to establish more entries on notable Japanese researchers first, which the English Wikipedia is lacking in. I have just added a couple external references and improved the entry. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Fanminton

Very good sourced new articles. Very low error rate. Searches in original literature, finds details I never expected to make available for Wikipedia. Creates important, very unique, very useful encyclopaedic articles. Florentyna (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  • +1. Instrumental in developing fine articles with excellent sourcing related to Badminton. zoglophie•talk• 10:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Ipscaij

@Ryan shell has suggested me to request autopatrol rights. I'm often creating simple articles about beetles in English (from the groups I'm personally already familiar with or learning about) and later expanding them if the existing resources allow me to do so. This is to allow other people to find this information and pictures more easily (otherwise it's often scattered on the internet and hard to find).

I'm requesting autopatroller rights because I create large batches of articles at once, as Ryan mentioned. I only use reliable sources to provide information for Wikipedia Ipscaij (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access

AutoWikiBrowser


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: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)

User:JoelleJay

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

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

User:J. Lunau

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

User:AX29

I don't really like typos and want to test tools like the AWB. I now have nearly 600 edits. I've been registered on Wikipedia since the beginning of the year. AX29 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.

Confirmed

Requests for extended confirmation

Extended confirmed

User:Onlineone22

Dear Wiki Administrators,

Over the last few days, I drafted, created, and edited (with very minimal help from other users) the entire 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests article. I am in the process of making significant updates to this article because I have lots of information about the events I would like to add and many sources I have not yet added. I also have contacts who are sending me media, including photos and videos they've taken at the event (with copyright permission), to upload to this article.

A Wikipedia Administrator recently made this article Extended Protected. I am very glad that they did this, because I was worried about the potential of vandalism on this article.

However, this Wikipedia account no longer qualifies for editing this article because I created this account recently. As a result, in order to streamline my ability to quickly make changes, I would like to request that this account is whitelisted to edit this article. Please let me know if this will be possible.

Thank you for your help and contributions!

Onlineone22 (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended content
My take is that we should grant the extended confirmed status. The editor's account is four days old and has 200 edits, but if you look at the contributions to 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests, I do not think we are at any risk that this user is going to push POV improperly on other extended confirmed articles. Given that it is rare to grant these requests, I figured I would voice my support for this and let somebody else endorse or raise issue with it. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
My view, for what it's worth, as someone only active in the PIA topic area nowadays, is that there should be no exceptions. Making judgements based on subjective assessments of an editor's resemblance to a normal rules-based person rather than, let's say, a camouflaged manipulative sociopath who uses deception without hesitation because 'the ends justify the means', is unreliable and opens a channel that you can be sure will be exploited by bad actors in the PIA topic area. No offense Onlineone22, I'm sure you are fine, but I just think adding a subjective component to the granting of the extendedconfirmed privilege is not a good strategy given the nature of the PIA topic area. It will be exploited by the people who use sockpuppetry. It will be used to make accusations of pro-Palestinian bias, pro-Israel bias, antisemitism, you name it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Dear @Sean.hoyland,
Thank you for your reply.
Your response is true that there is risk in making exceptions to this custom. However, I have three counterpoints:
  • The hypothetical sociopath you mention could just as easily make 500 insignificant edits and sleep an account for 30 days in order to gain extended protection. If the risk was completely eliminated by forcing me to wait for 30 days, then I could understand forcing me to wait for that time period to expire. However, this is not the case, and the risk remains of extended-protection editors being untrustworthy regardless of whether you make me wait 30 days.
  • I have devoted significant time and resources to the article in the past, and it has so far turned out to be unbiased. I also personally know people who have taken photos and videos at these protests, meaning that if I have access to the article, I will be able to upload media to which others do not have access. If I need to go on the talk page 30 times per day for each edit, I will no longer have the time nor motivation to continue editing this article. I will resume my job soon, at which point I will have significantly less time to devote to this article (all to say if I do not have edit power now, the article will be significantly worse for a long time before I can catch it back up to speed). So it really is a question of: should we assume the extremely small probability that waiting an extra 26 days will deter me from defacing the article into which I have already poured significant time and resources while reporting in an unbiased way just because this is the established custom? Or should we instead take that small risk, allow me to edit which will significantly improve the quality of this article which already has high traffic, and promptly ban me from Wikipedia if I deface it or uncharacteristically edit it in an unbiased manner?
  • Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed exists. Therefore, exceptions should be made in some cases, or else Wiki admins would not allow requests to be made. If my case is not an exception, then what case is?
I hope these points are persuasive, and I look forward to hearing your reply.
Best, Onlineone22 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
The first thing to consider is that my opinion doesn't matter because I can't grant or deny user privileges. So, feel free to ignore it.
  • To your first point. I agree, not granting the privilege to you has no impact on those risks. And scenarios similar to the one you described happen frequently in the topic area. The extendedconfirmed privilege is a barrier but it clearly doesn't prevent determined and patient bad actors, and there are many. But my comment is not about you. It's about opening a new channel. No one is making you wait. You can participate in the topic area via edit requests (see WP:EDITXY for requests with the best chance of success) and there are millions of articles you can edit right now. Bear in mind that strictly speaking you were not allowed to generate that PIA related content in the first place because to do so requires the extendedconfirmed privilege. Maybe the rules are suboptimal and cause collateral damage in many cases, but for me, exceptions based on subjective (and non-deterministic/non-repeatable) value judgements won't help, despite helping you personally.
  • On your second point, there's no deadline or urgency for content creation.
  • "If my case is not an exception, then what case is?" any case that doesn't open a new channel that can be used to tunnel through the WP:ARBECR barrier.
Anyway, whatever happens, I hope you stick around and if your request is granted you won't hear any complaints from me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
A point to consider is that this new article is an ongoing protest, so ability to edit now that the article exists I'd consider time sensitive, ie it will quickly become outdated without continued contributions. This isn't quite the same as any other article where naturally the user could and should just wait a month or so until they are able to continue improving an article.
question mark Suggestion, what if the user agreed to only edit the article in question, and refrain from editing any other ECR articles, until they have the required 500/30? As I do understand the overall concerns of providing some sort of "pro-Palestinian bias", even if the same exceptions could be made for a user regarding a "pro-Israeli" protest article within the same context.
Overall, I agree with the Onlineone22's logic, that if this isn't a good cause for an exception, then there almost certainly are none. Hence my suggestion of approving a form of conditional ECR, that wouldn't "open a new channel" to bypass ABEECR. Assuming the user would be willing to abide by such conditions, which I believe would be the case. CNC (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment—I would certainly be willing to abide by these conditions!
Onlineone22 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
This is my thought too: I'd be inclined to grant but with the strict condition that they only edit this article, and stay away from any other extended-confirmed-protected articles until they would've been automatically granted the permission. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
As someone who's been quite involved in the pro-Palestinian protest articles, based on the considerable flaw in how this article has been approved, I think an exception could be made. In other examples drafts were refused because users weren't ECR, and other editors such as myself had to "adopt" the articles in order to move them to mainspace. My point is it seems this article draft shouldn't have been approved given the end result is an ECR protection followed by the main contributor no longer able to contribute. It's otherwise a shame there isn't the ability to allow requests for certain users to edit certain articles, as opposed to ECR articles broadly, such as in this case with a creator. As my only concern would be by approving this user, they could then edit any other contentious article, potentially without the foresight or understanding how to navigate these topics. Even if that concern, with this particular user, remains pretty low. CNC (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course this whole thing is messy because of arbcom and the content topic, I'd much rather have some sort of "you can keep editing THIS article" sort of exception than a "you should bypass all of the arbcom topics restrictions on the entire project because you did fine on one page" sort of exception... --- any creative options for something like that? — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't support that. What we have is a new account that created this as their first edit, and is now 40 percent of the way to extended confirmed with only ECR violating edits. When ECR exists in large part to clamp down on sock edits do we want to create a method to create an article in the topic area, edit solely in the topic area, and then become extended-confirmed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    For context, it's not possible to know if the user was aware, as the page restriction editnotice was never applied to the article that "must be used for announcing active page restrictions", nor did they receive an alert on their talk page. There was only the optional notice on the talk page which is quite simply not enough for enforcing such a restriction. So I don't believe this was deliberate, not that this was implied either, simply to clarify the situation and what has occurred here. I'd also hardly call it a violation when the ECR restrictions weren't enforceable, but that's just my perspective of how things work here. This is just another example of how if the restrictions had been applied correctly, there wouldn't have been these so-called violations. CNC (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    WP:ECR is enforceable without awareness. Enforcing ECR through reverts, protection, edit filters, and even blocks is allowed before any CTOP alert is given. I normally won't block until I've made sure they've seen an alert, but if someone is on a highly dynamic /64 how do you make sure they have been alerted? As the sanction applies to a topic area anywhere on Wikipedia there is no way to provide the edit notices and such preemptively, but ECR violations can still be reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, I meant against the user directly. Realistically, reverts should only occur if there is a page restriction in place "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted". Without using the template as referenced and as required based on documentation, then reverts shouldn't be taking place based on ECR. It's very simple (even if not always practical) to make sure the user has seen the restriction (or at least had the opportunity to) and that is is to add the required template to the page. Ideally users shouldn't be adding the talk page template prior to adding the edit restriction to page, as this only encourages incorrect enforcement against users. Have you otherwise read the "breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if" (emphasis added) part of CTOP enforcement? Quite clearly no user should ever be blocked due to violating ECR without an edit notice, there is no ifs or buts about that part. CNC (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    @ScottishFinnishRadish edit requests are likely the best way forward here, what I was calling out is that I think that a single-page-exception would be better than a wikipedia-wide exception; not really considering if simply 'no exception' is the best response. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Not done. I really don't see how we can carve out an exemption here. ECP exists for good reasons, and although I appreciate what seems like good intentions from this user, that is not among the very, very few reasons we grant this permission early. Currently, this is probably the most contentious topic area we have, and although I am a firm believer in the idea that rules can have common-sense exceptions, I just don't think it would be wise to set this precedent, and agree that edit requests will have to do for now. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Just Step Sideways, thank you for replying.
    It seems like your main concern is that if you set an exception for me, then bad actors in the future might take advantage of this precedent. It also seems like you believe that I am a good-faith actor and that were it not for your precedent concern, then you would believe in the common-sense exception of granting me WP:ECR permission to edit only this article.
    Therefore, if you make a one-time exception for me and explicitly establish that you will not make exceptions for similar cases in the future, then this would A) address your concern that bad actors might attempt to abuse precedent, because precedent cannot be established from a one-time exception; and B) be a common-sense exception that would be in the best interest of the article (with rapidly-developing information that needs to stay up-to-date in order not to become obsolete), considering how you believe I am a good-faith actor, and therefore presumably believe that this is the best course of action for a rapidly-developing article.
    On @ScottishFinnishRadish's point, I am sorry for violating ECR, but I did not think ECR was in effect because the article was not ECR locked. I also did not realize that even though I had the article approved, I was not allowed to make subsequent edits to that same article.
    Onlineone22 (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag.

Event coordinator

Requests for file mover

File mover

User:Lunar-akaunto

Hello. I'm requesting file mover rights. I've uploaded 21 files till now. Please note that when I started uploading, I did not know we were supposed to change the file names to English. My reasoning was that the files I uploaded will certainly not need to be moved or used elsewhere as they are non-free and their original titles can be preserved. I changed this, which reflects in my recently uploaded files after a fellow editor's mention regarding the same on my talk page. I'm familiar with Wikipedia:File mover and the first thing I'll do if I'm granted the rights will be to update my previously uploaded file names to English, but I believe it will be helpful in the future and will only use it to rename files uploaded by others when necessary. Lunar-akauntotalk 11:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Requests for new page reviewer

New page reviewer

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: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 ([6]). MusikBot talk 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

User:TheNuggeteer

I have over 1,400 edits and I have participated in both AFC and AFD, I also created more than 30 articles. I would like to help reduce the backlog. TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

User:RoboCric

I have been given temporary NPR rights for 2 months trial which ends on 16 June. I don't think I've made any blatant error while reviewing pages and hope that Wikipedia is being benefitted by my reviews. I would still like to keep reducing backlogs of sports articles. RoboCric Let's chat 07:12, 15 June 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 07:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Requests for page mover

Page mover

Requests for pending changes reviewer

Pending changes reviewer

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: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)

I'm concerned about this post on your talk page about proper verification of sources from two weeks ago, and I also saw that you posted a nomination to DYK for an article (written by an IP) that had concerns about close paraphrasing. Understanding verifiability and spotting copyright-violating material is necessary for the PCR flag. You also don't seem to have much experience with reverting vandalism, with only three undos in total. The sum of these concerns amount to a  Not done for now, though I suggest you re-apply in a month or two once you have a track record with understanding our content policies and perhaps become more involved with antivandalism. The Night Watch (talk) 19:17, 14 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)

User:Garsh2

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

Rollback

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)

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

User:Totalirus

Hi. I have been reverting vandalism using UltraViolet for a while (quite a bit last year and getting back into it now), and I meet the criteria for rollback permissions. I would like to have rollback permissions to use Huggle or AntiVandal to revert vandalism faster. Totalirus (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will be sure to take into consideration the tips you have given me. However, would you mind providing a couple examples of when I forgot to warn people? I don't remember forgetting to do so, but I'll be sure to pay more attention to warning in the future. Totalirus (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Sure: 1, 2, 3 -Fastily 00:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

User:JFHJr

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

 Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for template editor.

Template editor