@Bruce1eeNot a violation of the username policy. Real names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 17:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. The username could be a variation of <name> at <company name>. The promotional edit is a concern.– robertsky (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Requests for page protection
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
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.
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Seems like incessant disruption is likely to pick up, resembling the situation this summer. Remsense ‥ 论 05:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated deletions of sourced material by unregistered users. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing, mostly the same edits, since the start of December at least. CMD (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: COVID 19 isn’t a huge topic anymore, I think the protection can be reduced to semi. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: you did the most recent protection. I think the reason for the current EC protection is likely no longer a concern. There are a couple of old but reasonable edit requests on the talk page too. Is it OK with you to reduce to semi? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
HJ did a visibility change to a vandal's edit. @El C did the most recent protection level change. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: It's been 13 years. The vandal who kept saying the article subject was dead is surely long gone by now. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Brandon, who protected the page in 2011. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason:Article is in a poorly written state and barely gets meaningful contributions since it was last protected. No signs of disruptive editing for a long time either.Axedd (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Last time this specific user was active was 4 years ago according to his case page. I believe another sock caused this page to locked over an year ago for edit warring, but they weren't solely interested in this particular page. Axedd (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection was applied to this article in 2010 by Anthony Appleyard (who is now sadly deceased) due to excessive vandalism. I do not think this is still necessary. XabqEfdg (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:
"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"
1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.
Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[1] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.
2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[2][3][4].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[5]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[6] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[7]VR(Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[8]][[9]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Can an admin please check this out!!! Avishai11 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This appears to have been dealt with? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That does sound quite balanced. 1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
This one, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:
International Positions on the Two-State Solution
Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]
I support this. It makes sense, has quotations and everything. If only an admin would answer... @Avishai11Avishai11 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":
Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]
I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.
I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".
In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.
Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".
Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
In the state results table, I would like to request that the columns labeled Margin and Margin swing be filled in, for those rows/states in which the relevant data has already been entered. Obviously not every state has data, but most do.
This should be trivial, at least for Margin, but the inability to sort by margin has been annoying me for a week now. LoganStokols (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
In this article, the following section is problematic.
"On 9 or 10 October, Hamas offered to release all civilian hostages held in Gaza if Israel would call off its planned invasion of the Gaza Strip, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.[242]"
It needs to be taken out completely.
The original article is based on an interview in Times of Israel newspaper. In the interview, the interviewee mentions this as a side comment:
“We later found out that Hamas had offered on October 9 or 10 to release all the civilian hostages in exchange for the IDF not entering the Strip, but the government rejected the offer.”
There is no mention of how they found out, and this is pretty much the only "evidence" given in support of any offer from Hamas to release all civilian hostages. It is less than hearsay.
Add US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Parties list
Add US Marshal Service to Parties list
Add Arlington County Police to Parties list
Add US Park Police to Parties List
Change 'Trump achieved a decisive victory in the electoral college' to 'Trump won the electoral college.'
I know reliable sources are using the word "decisive," but it feels a little too editorializing for the tone of Wikipedia. 2600:1700:46B0:D50:3074:103:DAF0:F89F (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I want it to be added somewhere that Kamala Harris, despite her loss, received about 74.5 million votes, surpassing Trump's vote count in 2020. She also received almost 10 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, and received the 3rd highest vote count of any nominee in history, and the most for any woman in American political history. Nate12346 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Could you provide source(s) please? Lectonar (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The article references a Brookings poll[1]
in its body under: Academic and legal discourse->Middle Eastern studies.
The lead appears to misrepresent the information presented in the body.
In the lead, please change:
−
Amajority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
According to a recent Middle East Scholar Barometer poll of 758 mostly US-based Middle East scholars, a majority of those respondents believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
The wording found in the article body: "A Brookings 23 May to 6 June 2024 survey asked 758 Middle East scholars and experts who study the issue, most in the United States: "How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza?" The responses were: "major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%; "genocide", 34%; "major war crimes but not akin to genocide", 16%; "unjustified actions but not major war crimes", 4%; "justified actions under the right to self-defense", 4%; and "I don't know", 2%."
One single poll is almost certainly undue for the lead of any article, but if it will stand, it should accurately reflect the source. Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I would kindly like to submit a request for autopatrolled rights. I have created 50 articles since 2017, which you will find listed on my user page here, none of which have been deleted nor have received any new page reviewers' comments in quite some time. I have also improved thousands more articles across Wikipedia. I am mainly interested in increasing the coverage of all things Brussels-related. Thanks in advance! Jason Lagos (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years with over 1000 edits, with 32 live articles primarily focusing on topic elated to asian audio visual and the institute in Bangladesh.
Thank you for considering my request. UzbukUdash (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment): This editor recently violated copyright guidelines in an article that was speedy deleted, and many of their articles have been deleted or moved to draft space. I don’t think AP would be a good fit for this user. GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done. AP requires a track record of problem-less articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Pbritti told me to. Apparently I qualify, and I've been cranking out a decent number of articled recently. Been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2009, been editing more regularly for the last year or two. Been a rollbacker and pending changes reviewer for almost 12 years. I created one GA and have taken two articles from being just a few sentences to GA status, a few more nominations in the pipeline. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Stating my support here. Encouraged him to seek this. He's told me about his plans for future articles and they seem to involve careful research up to GNG standards. His recent work has passed through GA and DYK, so quality is there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
During the temporary stint granted as autopatrolled, I have created over 100 pages following the suggestions of the admin. Have been consistently adding relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them. Have also started using Rater and StubSorter. Trying to strengthen myself with Wikipedia's core content policies by regular reading. Requesting extension... Davidindia (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Reason for requesting confirmed rights
Adding to the pregnancy portion to the cancer page. I have worked on this piece for a whlie and have valid citations and sources. This is for a school project and not an act of vandalism or false information. Prarthanarawal (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done – Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you are used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5 percent of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that more than 95 percent of the articles can use your help right now! Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 19:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I have been doing NPP for a while in the physical sciences, with a bit of editing, creating a few articles and AfC. Several times during NPP I have come across "messes" where relics such as drafts have been left behind by inexperienced users. I would like to have the ability to move without a redirect. I don't expect to be using it that often, probably once a month at most. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Ldm1954: Based on your CSD log, my understanding is that you are requesting this so that you can move an existing draft "Draft:___" out of the way in order to draftify an article of that name "___". Assuming draftification would be appropriate (so, for example, it isn't a redraftification after a user has republished it to mainspace), you can just draftify the page to "Draft:___ (2)" (like this example) and possibly redirect the original draft to the new draft. If you need to history merge the drafts (or to delete one), then an administrator will be necessary whether or not you have pagemover permissions. Because of that, I don't see how pagemover permission would help. SilverLocust💬 03:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Ok, then let's not bother with it. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Marking as Request withdrawn for the archiving bot. SilverLocust💬 06:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Experienced editor (10k edits; acccout over 5 years old), requesting this permission for occassional page moves I come across that need to be done also from moving drafts out into mainspace. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done. 10 moves (1 this year) and 2 RM/TR requests is not enough demonstrated need or experience with moving. For occasional technical moves, please just request assistance at WP:RM/TR. SilverLocust💬 09:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been participating and closing RMs for a while. I would like this perm to fulfill more requests at RM/TR. For now I have one draftify, but would like to eventually dab into more. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I've read and understood WP:RPC and will proceed slowly at first (that is, leave what I deem edge cases to someone else). JayCubbyTalk 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Calling this as a WP:NOTYET. Let's wait a little longer after the unblock to consider this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm a humanities student from India, so I can review South Asian history, culture, societal norm very carefully and with authentic information. Malhar1234 (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Thank you for volunteering, but we'd prefer that you get a bit more experience on site before requesting additional permissions. In particular, we prefer some anti-vandalism work when considering granting this perm. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I monitor recent edits to combat vandalism and improve articles, I also act on drafts, I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia rules. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC) SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Requesting rollback permission to combat the pervasive presence of vandalism and/or edits of unencyclopedic quality to the best of my ability. At the present moment I am a semi-retired user; however, I have been a regular patroller of recent changes to both specific pages as well as the site as a whole. I'd very much like to learn the counter-vandalism tool RedWarn and/or Ultraviolet and get involved to a greater extent across the site in keeping pages up to editors' standards - I intend to be a long-term contributor to the site and expect to be much more active in the future, predominantly in this line of work. I've familiarized myself with WP:VANDTYPES and have encountered and attempted thus far to manually revert instances of controversial edits at times - edits which it would be far more helpful to all parties to take care of via rollback. I'd particularly like to delve into new ways to spot the more subtle instances that go unnoticed for longer periods of time, per WP:SNEAKY, as well as monitor for violations of WP:TPV and continually make an effort to practice WP:WARNVAND, WP:HTSV, WP:NOTVANDALISM, WP:RVAN and WP:NORESVAND among others. My most notable effort to prevent escalated conflict(s) would be in the Talk:Wings_of_Fire_(novel_series)#February_2023_Content_Editing_Conflict, though I do not yet have a track record of notifying users when reverting their edits beyond discussions on article talk pages (though this is typically as the reverted editor has tended to initiate the conversations first). Furthermore, I intend to prioritize diligently monitoring sockfarm-targeted pages in addition watching out for recent changes. Please let me know if you'd like me to undergo training and/or further regulatory practice first - and thank you for your consideration of me for this responsibility. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I see, I see; thanks for letting me know. Would I still be allowed to request rollback rights for the sake of utilizing these anti-vandalism tools to the utmost, or would you prefer I use RedWarn/Ultraviolet before making such a request (or, rather, the rollback-required AntiVandal)? In either instance I would still like to request the option of using rollback in the case of rollback-preferred cases of vandalism, which is - again - the primary reason I am making this request. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi TheMysteriousShadeheart, I'll grant rollback if you provide a list of five diffs where you have used, in practice, anything else than rollback (RedWarn, Ultraviolet, manual undo or whatever) and could have used the more performant, simple server-side rollback instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
(see WP:ROLLBACKUSE for the limitations of what these five diffs may be about) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
A sample of twenty-five (25) instances of manual undo are as follows (as the first method I learned, I have used it most frequently):
On that note, the following edit - where I addressed WP:TALKOFFTOPIC - is one of my outlying contributions which clearly would constitutionally not require rollback; rather, page clean-up is a better solution:
The majority of my editing history has been through correcting overlooked errors/mistakes of minor significance on pages (ex. punctuation; spelling; spacing; formatting; cross-linking; broken citations; etc.).
Please note that edit discussions, when necessary, took place on page talk pages rather than user talk pages; I do not believe I have ever issued a talk page warning as other users typically did so before myself (though I am fully familiar with what is required/expected of in the practice).
Keeping in mind the limitations and responsibilities of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I again thank you for your consideration of me for this privilege and power. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
[Comment: Considering the differences between RedWarn, Ultraviolet, AntiVandal and other such anti-vandal tools, I'd gladly accept pointers/suggestions as to which would be believed the best course of action to pursue should I be granted the opportunity to use rollback. Please let me know if you have any other questions, comments or concerns.] TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
TheMysteriousShadeheart, thanks, hm. I didn't have a look at all examples, but the first 5 don't really look like the kind of obvious vandalism that can be rollbacked without an edit summary explaining the revert. I'm looking for five (but really just five) diffs where you undid obvious malicious editing, not someone's editing tests, not someone mistaking a talk page for a forum without wanting to harm the project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The list of dragon names removed in Special:Diff/1252791870 doesn't look like vandalism; same for Special:Diff/1222922750, where additionally the unnecessary changing of a phrasing was surely not meant to cause damage. I'll decline this request for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Understood - thanks for your consideration. I'll get more practice combating vandalism first; hopefully my editing slate will be more up to grade in the future! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks – do feel free to ask again, perhaps in a month or so, simply on my talk page or here; if you choose this page here, please let me know and I'll either grant the request or leave the decision to someone else. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
My next logical request for permission, one that I don't suppose I can utilize alongside Ultraviolet to stop the bad faith one-timers and vandals where I watch. Although, I must admit, I should simultaneously take care to not get into any content dispute I see; I'll do my best not to get into one this way. Thanks for considering (again). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
P.S.: as a sure guarantee my use of rollback is done safely and without causing any significant issue, I'll use Mr. Stradivarius' ConfirmRollback. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like rollback permissions to make fighting vandalism quicker and easier. I have been reverting vandalism for over 1 month and have experience with tools such as Twinkle and Ultraviolet. I would also like to be able to have access to Huggle to make my anti-vandalism experience easier. MouseCursor (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to be able to access rollback tools to fight vandalism more effectively, I am familiar with Wikipedia's rules. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Dealing with a lot of vandalism lately. Undoing, warning and reporting. Hope that undoing could be made easier with Rollback rights. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, requesting rollback permission for my counter-vandalism efforts, as I would like to quickly remove obvious vandalism and to access helpful tools. I have been active in this area for several months here and even longer on dewiki. Therefore, I am familiar with the relevant guidelines and tools. With regards, –MrBenjo (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC) MrBenjo (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This permission will help me in combating vandalism. I’ve been actively patrolling recent changes, always warning users when necessary, assuming good faith, and taking full responsibility for all my edits. I also do crosswiki patrolling and recently joined the SWMT. — Tres Libras (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I am here to reapply for rollback permissions to assist in combating vandalism more efficiently. Over time, I have actively reverted vandalism using the "undo" tool and have familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies, particularly vandalism and rollback.I fully understand that rollback should only be used for clear cases of vandalism, and I am committed to using the tool responsibly. My contributions reflect my dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's quality and integrity.If there are any concerns or further clarification needed regarding my request, please let me know. Thank you for considering my request.MP1999❯❯❯Talk 11:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Can you accept my request? @ToBeFreeMP1999❯❯❯Talk 13:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Please do not send multiple messages @MP1999, the people who manage the requests have lives and cannot necessarily respond directly, be patient. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @MP1999: I'd suggest waiting more than a day to ping an administrator. Permission requests are completed by administrators on a volunteer basis and can take up to a week or more to process. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I had been actively patrolling RC in 2023 but paused for a long time since I was too busy. I plan to resume soon and would like rollback rights to make it easier. However, I mostly edit on my school computer so I am unable to use any tools such as Huggle, RedWarn, etc. Thank you for considering my request.
Note from 07:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC): I had just been informed that RedWarn can be used on a school computer, so it's very likely that I will be using it. xRozuRozu • teacups 23:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
