Replacement of Israel with Palestine

• Task: No knowledge of wikicodes, but it should apply to article namespaces, scanning for unautoconfirmed/IP edits, triggering when mentions of Israel/Hebrew is replaced with words like Palestine/Arabic/Levant.
• Reason: There is a increase, likely due to recent events in the number of disruptive edits around Israel articles being replaced with irrelevant informations and Palestine mentions.
• Diffs:

^[1][2] IP edit replacing contents. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't think this a good candidate for an edit filter because while it's sometimes disruptive this can be contextually dependent and should probably not be disallowed automatically. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Philipnelson99I see. Where should this belong then? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean you're in the right place to request an edit filter, I'm just not sure this would be a good edit filter. If restricted to IPs/non-autoconfirmed that might reduce false positivess but I'm not convinced that would eliminate false positives altogether since it's hard to say if all replacements are disruptive. Happy to hear other opinions on it and it's really up to an EFM to decide to implement it. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 1154 (hist · log). Note that it logs both Israel -> Palestine and Palestine -> Israel. As Philipnelson99 points out, setting this sort of filter to disallow would be a bad idea, and even warning might open up a can of worms. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow thanks for pointing out the logging filter, didn't realize it existed. I think logging is really the only reasonable course of action here. If an edit is indeed an issue, it will likely be reverted speedily. Setting a filter to warn when there's a chance that the edit was good faith and not intentionally disruptive seems unproductive to me. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe tagging would work, as any good faith edits wouldn't be reverted but bad faith ones would be easier to see and thus revert? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think tagging these filter hits is necessary. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you think that? And I'm just curious that's all. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I’d like them tagged. I see these changes frequently, usually from IPs. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What would you suggest the tag be @Doug Weller? Something like Possible ARBPIA issue maybe? My concern with tagging is the area is a contentious topic and tagging these edits as a possible ARBPIA issue may need consensus elsewhere. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible a-i issue would be better. It seems obvious enough that I wouldn't think it needed consensus. I wouldn't mention ARBPIA as that's probably too strong. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha, as long as the tag isn't too strongly worded then I'm okay with tagging these. Just don't want someone to get the wrong idea that every filter hit has a problem. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Add BUST A NUT to a existing filter

• Task: See Title.
• Reason: Vandalism phrase
• Diffs: Diff

Probably reasonable to add to either filter 225, 260 or 384. Nobody (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth it to add it to one of those filters, because it seems like it could be common enough but not legitimate at all. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably could just be added with modification to 225, as that seems like the most relevant of the three, by adding to the end of line 3's string (included the last word in the code block for reference on where it probably should go), |(W|WANKA)KNIGHT|B+U+S+T|BUST A NUT"; . EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Add Marville City Rail to existing filter

• Task: See title
• Reason: This phrase is used exclusively for vandalism. It is being added by a wide variety of IP addresses across dozens of articles, and neither a range block nor page protection will solve the issue by itself. A simple range block would not work because the IP addresses known to have added this phrase include 110.54.190.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 110.54.191.52 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 122.3.45.189‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.20.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.14.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.49.19‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.36.77‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.59.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 180.191.59.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 202.60.12.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Page protection would not work because this is affecting dozens of articles, as seen in their contributions.
• Diffs: [1], [2], [3]

I think this could be added to filter 260. Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

At first glance, I'd say this looks like an LTA. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

So I don't like the idea of adding it to Special:AbuseFilter/260. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Marville City Rail" has no mentions in the search bar, so it could be added to a new LTA filter, with marville\bcity\brail. I also dislike the idea of adding it to a public filter like 260. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good; I think it might be better as a private filter now that you mentioned it. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I've sent an email regarding a new private filter to track this vandal to EggRoll97, which in turn they've forwarded it to the edit filter mailing list. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 01:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No rcats?

• Task: Simple, see created redirects without any rcats, tell the editor to add some rcats.
• Reason: Too many redirects without rcats.
• Diffs: I can add links if needed, but seems self explanatory.

~~~~ Geardona (talk to me?) 05:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be useful for this to not be a in-the-face notice but rather a filter that passively tags edits, atleast as a start. Sohom (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Possibly through the following?

article_articleid == 0 &

(
 article_namespace == 0 &
 (
  new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &
  !new_wikitext rlike "(?i)(\{\{R from}\})"
 )
)

I checked this through batch testing, it already matched two redirects created and didn't show any false positives for the 2 edits it matched. Probably best to start on a filter with no actions rather than straight to tagging. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that there are rcats/rcat redirects/rcat wrappers that don’t start with ((R from - e.g. ((avoided double redirect)), ((NASTRO comment)), ((television episode redirect handler)). As an aside, should pages like Wikipedia talk:Redirect be notified of this proposal? All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, might just have to add those to a list, or change it to ((.*(Redirect|R from).*))
Yes they should be notified Geardona (talk to me?) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Tested that new condition, and it should work, with a modified proposed filter of:

article_articleid == 0 &

(
 article_namespace == 0 &
 (
  rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to).*\}\}|\{\{NASTRO comment\}\}";

  new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &
  !new_wikitext irlike rcats
 )
)

Verified against 3 different redirect creations, it matched each one. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice, if that is all for the filter work, I will inform the talk page for redirects. Geardona (talk to me?) 03:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This would probably miss ((R to section)). Sohom (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It would, this will fix that
((.*([Rr]edirect|R from|R to).*)) Geardona (talk to me?) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Modified the one I just pasted in for easy review. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also editing the proposed filter syntax so everything can start uppercase or lowercase, not just 'redirect'. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also adding NASTRO Comment as part of the functionality. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a "irlike" for case insensitive matching. – 2804:F1...01:18F4 (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I will change that. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Implementing some more edits to the proposed filter to make it more efficient. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: would you mind implementing the filter and creating it as log only or maybe tag now that you are an EFM? 24.4.109.4 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@24.4.109.4: I'm doing so right now, just double-checking through batch for good measure, even for log only. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok great. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is now  Done as 1298 (hist · log) as log-only. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: You might want to change rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to).*\}\}|\{\{NASTRO comment\}\}"; into rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to|NASTRO comment).*\}\}" to condense the regex a bit more. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Also, turns out article_articleid and article_namespace are deprecated: Rules format – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition, the filter's conditions should be the following:

page_id == 0 &
(
    page_namespace == 0 &
    (
        rcats := "\{\{.*(redirect|r from|r to|NASTRO comment).*\}\}";

        new_wikitext rlike "#REDIRECT" &
        !new_wikitext irlike rcats
    )
)

One question: do we need the filter to log every single redirect creation without rcats, regardless if the user who created it is experienced or not? Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 01:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

We should. This is a mistake that even experienced users make sometimes. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 01:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me if this question comes across as rude, but who are you? I tried looking at the previous history of your IP, but it has been mostly vandalism. – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s perfectly fine to ask and no offense taken. I am just a regular IP, and if you look back to my edits from January, it will look more clear. My IP just changed sometime in February to a vandal. 24.4.109.4 (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added in the regex and changed the deprecated variables out for page instead of article. As for user experience, it might be worthwhile to exclude bots, but other than that, it seems as though valid filter hits even occur on sysops, so given this is just a log-only filter, it may be best to keep it without exceptions for now. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to add something like !("bot" in user_groups) but I know of no bot that creates redirect pages (though I could be mistaken as I don’t go into that part of Wikipedia often). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't the filter exclude exoerienced users? Every 10 minutes or so, one of the redirect creations are, and would be tagged with this. Any thoughts? Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 21:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@ToadetteEdit: No objections to limiting this a bit, though experienced users seem to be the main ones actually tripping this filter. If we limit it down to only new editors that are creating non-categorized redirects, there would indeed be a lower filter rate though, yes, though as far as I can tell the intent of the filter request was to catch all the uncategorized redirects. Will leave for feedback for a day or two before limiting though. Obligatory ping to @24.4.109.4, Codename Noreste, PharyngealImplosive7, and Geardona: as they were involved in creation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Exempting bots should do, although experienced editors do make redirects but sometimes forget to add rcats. My redirect creation (La Sultana del Norte) to Monterrey counts as one. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 21:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I also believe that experienced editors should be included on this filter because they do forget to categorize their redirects. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I believe that this would work well as a filter that tags edits also as most of the 500 ish edits triggered are non-FPs and it would work well to categorize such edits. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging another IP, @2804:F14:80EC:AB01:DD3F:A8CA:F653:DD84:, who was involved in creation. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging IPs doesn't do anything btw, though you might already know that. I just helped with the syntax. I want to point out though, that @Geardona said "[..]tell the editor to add some rcats", which sounds like they want a warn filter - pretty sure that would require community consensus, in whatever forum is most appropriate(i.e. likely not here). Unless just logging is sufficient?

Also on the syntax thing again, it looks like there are still a few variations of rcats listed at WP:ALLRCATS that the filter wouldn't recognize, other "R word" variations. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Would prefer a warning before saving, having a log would be fine as well. What other variations may need to be added? not sure about the community consensus bit, although WP:VPM, WP:VPR or WP:VPT might work Geardona (talk to me?) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it now, what would the issue with doing ((.*R.*)) that should hit every possible redirect template, as long as it stays only on #redirect pages. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

((R avoided double redirect)), ((R mentioned in hatnote)), some ((R ME ..))(Middle-earth) ones, some ((R comics ..)) ones, ((R for convenience)), ((R with possibilities)), etc(?).

Might be better to just look for an r, yeah. – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

True. I don’t think people would add other templates on a redirect page with r in them, and we shouldn’t forget about ((NASTRO comment)). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It would pick up the R in NASTRO so thats not a huge issue. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I just realized that. See my next comment. I’m extremely worried about the amount of FPs though, as this will match huge numbers of different templates, many having nothing to do with rcats. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Except ((NASTRO comment)) has an r in it so it would be included too by the filter. The amount of FPs might be concerning in here though, so maybe .*\br\b.* and code for NASTRO comment should work and minimize the amount of FPs. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

False negatives, you mean? And I don't think so, though admittedly I haven't checked, how common is it for people to create a redirect with a template that includes an R that isn't an rcat? Also this isn't looking for abuse or anything, so presumably no one is going to try to bypass the filter. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good, is there a way to look for FP's using logging? Geardona (talk to me?) 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Look through all the times the filter was triggered and see if you find a false positive or negative. It’s tedious but the only method I know of. If the amount of templates with r in them is small enough, the regex could always be changed to \{\{.*r.*\}\} but someone should check the logs to understand how many false negatives we’re going to be dealing with, telling us whether we need something generic or to specify every variation individually. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

All right, we should get the regex ready and tested before going to any of the village pumps, if someone could set that up so we could review it that would be great. (log only, no warning) Geardona (talk to me?) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Having now properly read the thread, I see the filter. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Geardona: I think the main question to you, before I pinged you because I was sure you wanted a warn filter, was what you think of Toadette's question about making the filter not go off on extended-confirmed edits *experienced users, which EggRoll97 then pinged you about.

@PharyngealImplosive7: A false negative in this case, would be an edit that creates a redirect without an rcat, but that does not set off the filter, so there would be no logs to check. You would need to use a test filter or something to see if those edits even exist. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:8CF5:7412:F217:B3C2 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) *edited 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, I would say that theres no reason to keep it to new users/ip's as its supposed to be a filter that gets rcats on every single new redirect. (sorry, I clearly need to focus) Geardona (talk to me?) 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that going through the list of rcat templates and seeing what doesn’t match the current regex, for example all the comic and middle earth templates could be the best thing us non EFMs can do. Otherwise an EFM could always use a test filter. My point about false positives and negatives still does stand though. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to summarize:
0. The filter created for this was 1298 (hist · log);
1. Toadette asked "Shouldn't the filter exclude exoerienced users?[..]"

Comment by Geardona about that above (Geardona is the one who suggested the filter);

2. EggRoll97 also commented on the possibility of excluding bots (2 people agreed with that);
3. There are more rcat variants listed in WP:ALLRCATS (examples: link);

On that end it might be possible to just match \{\{.*r.*\}\}, discussion ongoing;

4. I point out and asked that Geardona appears to be asking for a warn filter, Geardona confirmed that.

I'm pretty sure this would require community consensus, though Geardona wants the regex ready and tested before starting any discussion about that (no one else besides Geardona commented on this yet);

– 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As PharyngealImplosive7 briefly commented on, is there actually a bot that creates redirects? – 2804:F1...17:B3C2 (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I see a few, but they all use rcats. AnomieBOT and RussBot. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I support excluding bots, but oppose adding a warning. Log-only seems to do the job well. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 00:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, SoY is ranting again. Allow me to strenuously object to any sort of warning. Last night when I was bit tired, I decided to create a new redirect at maximal repeat. I usually don't bother with rcats, but this time I decided to do the "right" thing. It took me about five minutes to sift through the sea of tiny text at Template:R template index and figure that, no, even through I was redirecting from a phrase, the correct (?) template was ((r from related word)). Or wait, was it ((r to related topic))? Whatever, toss a coin. I can easily understand why people don't bother.

This is about edits that are unfinished, not harmful. A redirect without rcats is a net positive. A tagging filter is an excellent idea; it helps people who like categorizing redirects find the redirects to categorize. But a warning filter would be bitey to new users and irritating to experienced ones. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Tagging would be a better idea in my opinion to. I also don’t categorize my redirects and sometimes it’s just annoying to find the correct category to use. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @EggRoll97: as I’m sure they’re interested in the recent ideas for changing the filter by possibly making it more generic and making it exclude bots and tag edits passively. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Also not seeing any value in a warning filter. This filter is specifically designed to catch good-faith edits so someone else can come along and fix the redirect. I'm not a fan of tagging yet though until this whole idea of the r versus the current code is figured out. I did a couple of batch tests with that new \{\{.*r.*\}\} instead, and it seems to be working, but I'll hold off until the morning before I run it against a couple more edits and implement. Probably will go ahead and apply the tags at that point unless any objections arise overnight. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

As an update, tagging is now  Done and fully enabled as uncategorized-redirect . You can track changes in Special:RecentChanges as well as via the hit log for 1298 (hist · log). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Would it be better to check if the user is a bot after you check if it's a new page in article space? I think currently it's always checking if every user doing any action is a bot, probably why the average conditions are now 1.9 instead of 1.

Also, unless bots are going to create a significant amount of redirects (and often), this check is probably pointless. – 2804:F14:8090:C501:5CC4:7D96:1106:13FE (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like changes were made by Zzuuzz. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Memes and trends with obviously no encyclopedic value

• Task: Sure, memes and vandalism trends are done by autoconfirmed users sometimes, but there are some which never have encyclopedic value.
• Reason: Some memes and vandalism trends never have encyclopedic value, so this filter would catch and disallow those edits.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1213282387
• Conditions: vandalism:="*nigg(er|a|ar)*";
action == "edit" & page_namespace == 0 & added_lines irlike vandalism & !page_title irlike vandalism
• Notes: Can be bypassed on certain pages because such language is sometimes necessary.

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

There is alreadgy a general filter for vandalism. The diff you linked may actually be a legitimate edit. See Special:search/insource:niggardly. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the other terms your proposed filter would match. Special:AbuseFilter/384 handles those cases for non-confirmed users. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Also chiming in to say this seems a bit unnecessary. The current filters, as far as I can tell, are doing the job well. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with them that the proposed filter in this section is unnecessary, 260 also covers the job of preventing the N word slur as well. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 19:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think that this is not necessary. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Does not seem to be necessary. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Danny Duncan

• Task: Warn and possibly disallow users attempting to add "Danny Duncan" or "dannyduncan69.com" to articles
• Reason: Repeated addition of this non-notable YouTuber (per multiple AfDs) to articles, including recreations of his deleted article. I suspect this YouTuber (or one of his fans) is encouraging Wikipedia vandalism. One thing I will point out though is that this Forbes article establishes more WP:N than the subjects we cover in some articles have ever known, leading part of me to wonder if the AfD should be revisited.
• Diffs: See entire history of this page along with these edits to various articles (non-exhaustive list): [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If this type of trend continues, then maybe we should add this to filter 614. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 20:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This trend has been going on for several years, not sure why we would need to wait to add it. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible RegEx includes danny duncan and dannyduncan69\.com. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

PI7, the correction would be (?:daniel|danny) duncan|danny duncan69\.com, and I have tested the new regex under FilterDebugger. No false negatives or positives have happened. Codename Noreste 🤔 talk 18:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste: I think you may have made a mistake in the regex. The requester said that there isn’t any space in the website name that is being spammed, so correct me if I’m wrong but (?:daniel|danny)\bduncan|danny\b?duncan69\.com might work better, and allow all types of word-boundaries (if needed). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean \s instead of \b there? The first \b can't match – it's between [ly] and d – and I've never seen \b? in the wild but logically it would have no effect. Certes (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It should be (?:daniel|danny)\sduncan|danny\s?duncan69\.com. Thanks for correcting me. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Block "Billy Flowers" edits

• Task: For the last few days I've found various IPs adding material about a Billy Flowers(see [20]) Examples are "(the Quora user who is a big rival of Billy Flowers}", "Billy Flowers, the world famous debunker of atheism, attended this university.", "He has engaged in debates with [https://www.quora.com/profile/Billy-Flowers-21 Billy Flowers before, such as when he created a YouTube video with a response to Billy Flowers's famous question about skydiving wit, h a Christian baby.", "* Billy Flowers  – (born 1990), the man who debunked atheism"," Billy Flowers  – (born 1990), the man who debunked atheism". See also the edit susmmaries, link to two IPs below.
• Reason: to block the spam
• Diffs: See [[21]]. Unfortunately I didn't keep samples from other IP addresses. ALso found [22].

Doug Weller talk 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Another IP. The usual plus a serious BLP violation. [[[Special:Contributions/70.33.148.202]] Doug Weller talk 20:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should add this to 614 (hist · log), with the regex billy?\sflowers, but the amount of false positives might be high due to legitimate uses of the name, so I would suggest that we test this out first on log only in a test filter to see how common these edits are and if the amount of false positives is manageable. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@PharyngealImplosive7 Now from Special:Contributions/70.33.148.202 Doug Weller talk 17:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. It’s clear to me at this point that this needs to be filtered. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the private abuse filter email list about this. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Skibidi Toilet vandalism

• Task: Prevent addition of Skibidi Toilet-related words to articles.
• Reason: If you look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter "Memes and vandalism trends", a lot of them try to add "skibidi." This filter distinguishes users who trigger the "Memes and vandalism trends" filter who should be blocked from those that should be warned.
• Diffs: Look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter "Memes and vandalism trends".
• Code: !"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups & rmdoubles(ccnorm(added_lines)) rlike "skibidi" & !ccnorm(removed_lines) rlike "skibidi" & !page_title rlike "skibidi"
• Actions: Block

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: This is already covered by 614 (hist · log). The edits are already disallowed, so what are you trying to do here? If you would like to block users adding it, that is not possible on enwiki. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Faster than Thunder: As stated above, this is already dealt with by 614 (hist · log). Further, for various reasons, we do not enable actions on filters until the filter is fine-tuned, and especially not blocking actions...? Finally, the ability to block users is also disabled as a restricted action per this Phabricator commit. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the change they wanted was to make that part of the filter affect autoconfirmed users. They mention "If you look in the filter log for edits blocked by filter[..]"(emphasis mine), so I assume that's just another way of saying disallowed edits - but the one obvious change they do make is !"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups, currently the filter starts with !("confirmed" in user_groups).

No comments on the merits of the suggestion, or on if the start of that code would actually work(which I guess is a comment) – 2804:F1...53:DD84 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Filter 614

• Task: Prevents meme and vandalism trends
• Reason: Missing | between toilet and sigma causing it to not prevent “sigma” vandalism.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1218047295

Nagol0929 (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that "sigma" has a lot of legitimate uses so we would need to see how many FPs are there first because it is used many times in articles like sigma, summation, and cross section, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think that was intentional. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You're correct. Preventing editors from adding the word sigma would cause far too many FPs. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done "sigma" has plenty of valid uses --DannyS712 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This part of 1297 (hist · log) ("Mixed-use words"), which I just set to tag, and am refining to the point where it can be set to disallow. It will not catch every addition, only those with a some other hints of vandalism. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sciencedirect topics again

Following on from Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested/Archive_21#ScienceDirect_topics, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_432#ScienceDirect_Topics_(AI-generated_pages), there is now clear consensus to implement an edit filter warning people against using Sciencedirect topics. Can this now be implemented? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added it to the deprecated sources filter, as it's marked as deprecated at RSP and I think it's good to have our source-related filters limited to the deprecated subset as that's a streamlined community process. But I think the message in MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-deprecated might be confusing to someone citing sciencedirect, at first glance very reliable in general.

I wonder if that message can be improved to indicate a) that it may not be the entire source that's deprecated, just a particular part of it; b) to have less focus on linking to RSN and more on "To see the restrictions that apply to this source and reasons, visit WP:RSP and find the relevant source in the list." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Reports

Bot-reported

• 2804:14d:4cd2:8598:8878:51dc:8ae2:1ec2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1241 (User talk page disruption, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Declined. Can't see what was disruptive here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• President Desss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  False positive. Edits are not vandalism. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oneguythat1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Probably not vandalism. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Arya Shakh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1067 (LTA 1067, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 2a00:23c5:50e8:ee01:79fb:bc74:bedf:ff0c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1122 (LTA 1122, details). Note: This filter has a large number of false positives. Use caution before blocking. Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Jssjsjs3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Mount Elbrus was changed by Jssjsjs3 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.982067 on 2024-04-19T15:58:02+00:00 (Automated) ClueBot NG (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 5.14.150.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 926 (Image vandalism II, details). Note: Please carefully consider context before blocking. Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

User-reported

• 2001:448A:60A0:7B5:1D8C:A6C9:61C5:1FEB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Sockpuppet of LOCK177, disruptive editing and adding any fake information across Wikipedia. 2001:448A:1021:28B1:6C98:E0C:CF23:ECED (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 176.204.124.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Highly disruptive block-evading sock of 2001:8F8:1B69:0:0:0:0:0/49, using other IPs such as 176.204.159.105, 176.204.158.121, 176.204.115.34, 31.218.17.8, and 31.218.180.224. Please consider blocking their IP ranges, as they persistently switch IPs to engage in vandalism. This has been going on for a long time now. Skitash (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 201.207.28.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Persistent addition of unsourced content to biographies, continued after block expired. Waxworker (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 112.206.2.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Long-term abuse by banned sockmaster; I've compiled a summary of the case here. Compare this edit by the IP address with this edit several months ago by confirmed sockpuppet SonyGM. The IP address' edits are consistent with previous sockpuppets if we can avoid SPI. Note: My previous request a few days ago turned stale, and the abuse has continued. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 31.61.173.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Zhe with breve (diff): vandalism after final warning. Nardog (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 7imamitsingh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Sanjay Salil: account is being used only for promotional purposes. Panian513 15:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• 75.154.76.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – On Taotie: vandalism after final warning. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog CLEAN!

Account creator

AutoWikiBrowser

User:REDACTED403

• REDACTED403 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I would like access to make typo error fixing edits to the wiki, as existing tools I have perms for don't let me filter for those. -REDACTED403 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Can't stop the stopr

• Can't stop the stopr (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I would like to improve my workflow with copywriting on Wikipedia, as finding typos can be tedious and AWB can help with this. Can't stop the stopr (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You have 81 edits, which is well below both (very lax) minimum standards we have for this tool. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer

User:Pbritti

• Pbritti (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Requesting a trial period of a month or less (dealer's choice) to address the backlog. I was previously granted this permission last summer but resigned them after a request to do so stemming from my repeated draftification of articles on potentially notable subjects that were created by disruptive editors (a more detailed accounting of that can be found in the discussion that took place on my talk page). Essentially, I wouldn't do that again, instead following the current NPP best-practices of leaning on more procedural alternatives like PROD, AfD, and improvement tags. I have a good amount of experience in AfC, have participated in a decent number of AfDs, and have a strong track record with my own article creations. I can provide additional context or affirmations of understanding of the current NPP standards as requested. I would prefer a trial period of at least two week so that my use of the permission can be observed and critiqued with enough examples. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done for a one-month trial. – Joe (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Jtrrs0

• Jtrrs0 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I've got some experience at AfD, both participating and nominating. I have also written one article which was approved at AfC and got C-rated. I also have relevant experience in anti-vandalism, which shows I always try to be friendly to newcomers and I am always open to being corrected. I'd obviously be happy to have it granted on a trial basis. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jtrrs0: Thank you for volunteering, but I'd like to see a bit more prior experience in relevant areas. When we refer to AfC, it's reviewing AfC submissions that we're looking for – though a record in article creation is also relevant. You're off to a good start at AfD but when I look at this recent nomination, for example, you appear to have overlooked WP:NEXIST. That's a common enough mistake but it's the kind of thing we'd really like to be sure people have squared away before they start reviewing new articles with less supervision.  Not done for now, sorry. – Joe (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Aplucas0703

• Aplucas0703 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I have made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, and have a decent amount of experience in Articles for Creation, and I have approved AfC reviewer for nearly 1 year. I have had no controversy thus far while working in this area. I mainly want to focus on patrolling the backlog of redirects, but occasionally I would also review articles. I also know my limits, and only work in the areas I am confident in, or I seek help. I am big on assuming the good faith of editors and pointing them in the right direction if their efforts are misguided, as I often do at AfC. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Dan Leonard

• Dan Leonard (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I'm nearing the end of my trial period just as the May backlog begins and I'd like to keep my permissions to participate. I've been intermittently active with new page patrol and I think my page curation log should show fairly uncontroversial activity and AfDs with consensus for my proposals. Reviewing the log myself there are two articles I marked as reviewed but were later deleted, but both appear to have been deleted for G5 (created by banned user) and not for notability or other content reasons. Dan • ✉ 06:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Spicy (expires 14:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Klbrain

• Klbrain (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I'm coming to the end of a two-month trial, and write to request that this access be extended. I've worked on NPP and, as asked, AfD. Many of these AfDs have been my proposals, which has been a helpful learning experience! Klbrain (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 10:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Storye book

• Storye book (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

On 13 December 2023 I was granted a 3-month new page reviewer rights trial, which expired on 12 March 2024. I reviewed 5 new articles in 2023, and 8 new articles in 2024. My habit is to spend a lot of time on each article, helping to expand them sometimes, and helping to bring some of them to DYK - which is why I did not attempt to achieve high numbers of new page article reviews.

Being overloaded with WP research (some for my local Civic Society, which wanted WP articles on several historical subjects - all for free of course) I have had to miss out on new page reviews for a while. I was also needed to help with the recent DYK review backlog. But I would like to get back to it. So if you think that I have been useful so far, please would you kindly extend or confirm my new page reviewer rights? I have added my name to the May 2024 new page review list, but would like confirmation that I am still a valid member of this working group. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Storye book (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, trial extended for another 2 months. Thank you for volunteering and thank you for the work you're putting in! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much - much appreciated. I look forward to continuing with this, when I can. There are some great new editors out there, writing some good stuff. Storye book (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Grahaml35

• Grahaml35 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hello! In December of 2023 I applied for New Page Reviewer Rights and given a 1 month trial period then again in January of 2024 I was granted 3 months. I am here today to apply for permanent rights. Over the last 90 days I have reviewed 370 articles. A short background on myself I've been on Wikipedia for over eight years and have created 47 active article on EN Wikipedia. I have strong knowledge of the policies that a NPP reviewer must follow and how each article should be treated. I would like to to continue to help decease the large article backlog currently on Wikipedia. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you! Grahaml35 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Knowledgegatherer23

• Knowledgegatherer23 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I would like to participate in the upcoming backlog drive. I have done a trial period before. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 17:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Orange sticker

• Orange sticker (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, I'd like to help with the backlog, I enjoy doing maintenance tasks like WP:CAT and WP:ORPHAN and I've submitted AfDs for articles I've come across in this process:

• example 1
• example 2

as well as taking part in more contentious deletions. Obviously still learning but have experience of quite a few different outcomes now such as redirect, merge and transwiki options. Orange sticker (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:SafariScribe

• SafariScribe (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, I'm volunteering to help in patrolling new pages on Wikipedia. Over the months I have stayed here, I've learnt much on relating with editors including the early mistakes I did at first; those have improved my person. It's also pleasing participating in the May drive. Thanks for considering me.— Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:NYMan6

• NYMan6 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Hi, I would like to start start volunteering to help patrol pages across the Wikipedia site. I've been on the site for quite some time, sometimes I may make some mistakes around but it has led me to create more pages and overall be a more active person. I find it pleasing to help Wikipedia more and make it a more pleasing, friendly and diligent environment of people. Thank you for looking through, and hope whoever sees this has a blessed day. NYMan6 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

User:Nihonjoe

• Nihonjoe (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

There are a number of articles on my watchlist that require pending changes to be reviewed. This would facilitate reviewing those changes and approving or declining them as appropriate. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done According to the review log, you haven't used PCR since May 2022, nearly 2 years ago. As such, I'm not seeing a legitimate need to grant you this right. Please feel free to make a new request if you become active in RC patrol. Thanks, Fastily 20:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Grabup

• Grabup (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

With two years of dedicated service and prior receipt of reviewer rights twice, I respectfully requesting this right again. My intent is to assist in reviewing pending changes and lightening the workload for fellow editors. I remain committed to upholding Wikipedia's standards of accuracy and reliability. Granting me this privilege again would enable me to contribute more effectively to the platform's mission of disseminating knowledge to the world. Grabup (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I get a reply? 4 days passed but not recived any reply. Grabup (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

User:NebY

• NebY (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I can't say I'd use this often and am not intending to patrol, but a number of the pages on my watchlist have pending-changes protection (even by my request) and I do sometimes see good edits to them awaiting acceptance. I am accustomed to filtering out vandalism, test edits, unsupported edits and the like, and to following WP:BLP (though a lot of my watchlist's deep in ancient history and mythology). NebY (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

User:Neko Lexi

• Neko Lexi (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Reason for requesting rollback rights Hi! I would like to have rollback rights, because I keep seeing persistant Vandalism in articles, I usually warn editors and or IP users about that and I use Twinkle for that too. And I usually revert vandalism but It usually doesn't work properly because of my computer problems. Thanks! Starixxgamerrix (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 10 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot ^talk 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See the notice at the top of this page. You've barely made any contributions to the mainspace, let alone done any anti-vandalism work. -Fastily 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks and I completely understand, as soon as I get more edits in the main space, I will try again. Neko Lexi (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Me Da Wikipedian

• Me Da Wikipedian (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Mainly want them so that I can use a lot of the anti-vandalism tools, many of which are unusable/much more annoying without rollback. Also a few instances where in actual rollback would be helpful. I have done a lot of anti-vandalism work. I had 5 reverts at the very beginning that were problematic (my thinking is explained at my talk page), but I think I've gotten more aware of the policies and there has only been one other issue with my reverts since, which was caused mostly by the fact that I didn't realize there was an ongoing edit war, just saw an edit summary of "." removing content, and reverted.

I have read Wikipedia:Rollback and understood it. I know what is intentional disruptive editing/vandalism, and a good faith mistake. For example, a typo is usually an honset mistake, and blanking a page is usually intentional, particularly if done repeatedly.

Done a lot of anti vandalism work. I have like 140 edit to the user talk space, vast majority of which are warning for bad edits. Searching "revert" brings up 120 results in my contributions, the vast majority of which are me reverting vandalism.

Thank you and have a nice day! Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

'Successful applicants will usually have: at least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges."

Your account was created on 28/03/2024 - less than one month ago, which already means you have not met that point well. Furthermore - I see several editors & administrators have had to remind you several times about your mistakes. While I am not implying you are a vandal or a problematic user of any sort - are you sure additional privileges are something you feel as if you're ready to undertake this early? Synorem (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done given the many, many complaints/warnings on OP's talk page. Me Da Wikipedian, at this point you're closer to being blocked than securing elevated permissions. -Fastily 00:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, wow! What should I do to improve/when would it be appropriate for me to come back @Fastily Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Do some decent editing, patrol RC for a month+ and do well to the point where admins are not on your back. That's my advice. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Do some decent editing" could you please define. Could this means for counter vandalism work or non counter vandalism work@TheTechie Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Like get experience. Sorry if that wasn't clear. If you want any more info, ask me on my talk page; I don't want to clog up this thread. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:TheTechie

• TheTechie (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I am TheTechie. I was suggested by User:Synorem to become a rollbacker as I, at least in their words, am encouraged to apply for rollback. I meet the requirements as follows:

1. As of this writing, I have 448 undeleted mainspace edits. 448 > 200
2. I have been patrolling recent changes for a month+.
3. I have not edit warred recently (frankly, I don't remember edit warring at all since I got this account)
4. I consistently notify editors when I revert their edits which appear to be vandalism, and where there would be an obvious need to do so.

Requesting permission because of these reasons. Thanks --- thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious why you felt it was appropriate to add yourself to add yourself as a CVUA trainer when you clearly lack the necessary experience (and then respond very defensively when Cassiopeia correctly called you out for it). There's also a lot of recent warnings/complaints on your talk page concerning basic understanding of our policies/guidelines. I'd prefer that requesters have a good understanding of these things before assigning them advanced permissions. Perhaps you'd like to comment on that? -Fastily 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think there was an edit count associated with it.

About the threads on my talk page on your permalink:

1. WP:MAINPAGE was for April Fools.
2. Ok, I agree that my CSD nominations are a hit or miss. I thought the Mama Lion wasn't very notable due to 3-4 sources. I will note that PROD/AFD is the way to go next time.
3. About the CSD for the Gen Beta page, I reached an understanding by talking (politely) with other edits on whether G4 would apply. I told them that a comment was made during the AFD saying we could use G4 to create recreations, and after another admin told me to keep the page, I didn't re-tag it.
4. About my signature: When pigsonthewing inquired about my signature, I was simply waiting for a third opinion. I agreed to change my signature after I had heard from a third opinion. And when Yamla asked me to remove the background from my signature, I complied.
5. About CVUA: I didn't mean to sound defensive. I just was trying to understand. And in this diff I complied after the user explained to me. I did not re-add my name.
6. About the signature of Nate: I read that you cannot have a name that is not similar to your username, which is why I brought it up elsewhere. I'm sorry if I sounded rude, but I've had a long day today and can't bother having any more problems. Maybe I'll take a wikibreak if need be.

I hope that clears it up User:Fastily. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I get the impression that you're still very green around here and still have a lot to learn. Totally fine though, we all were at some point, however I think you'd benefit from more experience before applying for advanced permissions. Keep up the good work, and consider reapplying in a month. As such, closing as  Not done. -Fastily 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, thank you. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Vestrian24Bio

• Vestrian24Bio (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Reason for requesting rollback rights: Hi! I am Vestrian24Bio; I have been editing on Wikipedia for almost 2 years now, I have made 2000+ edits and I have already reverted 200+ vandalisms, mostly using Twinkle. See my contributions here. Now, having the Rollback permission would be more helpful in patrolling vandalisms and it would grant me access to using the AntiVandal thus, making it easier to fight vandalisms. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:11, 17 April 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 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Thanks 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Myrealnamm

• Myrealnamm (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

Reason for requesting rollback rights. I have at least 200 mainspace edits, frequently warn users, and no edit warnings. However, I do not yet have a month of experience patrolling Recent Changes. I would like to request rollback rights because it would be easier for me to revert vandalism through View History. I have a habit of going back to View History after comparing edits, and having the Rollback user right would make it easier for me to revert edits on View History pages. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 190 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot ^talk 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that doesn't look like "at least 200" to me. Synorem (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I did... Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 18:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I noticed you started actively reverting vandalism 4 days ago. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend more time gaining experience fighting vandalism before assigning you advanced permissions. Keep up the good work, and consider reapplying in a month. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (I recommend using tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which makes this extremely easy). Thanks, Fastily 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will continue to revert vandalism for some time and warn users. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

User:MuffinHunter0

• MuffinHunter0 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I've been patrolling Recent Changes for around a month or so, reverting any vandalism I come across, while also warning/notifying other users about their edits and why it was reverted. Having rollback would allow me to use AntiVandal, which is quite faster in reverting vandalism than RedWarn(the script I am using currently), while also allow quickly rollback edits without having to add a reason. That helps me deal with the edit and move onto other vandalism on the RC list. Some more info that you may want is that I have no warnings, no instances of edit-warring, joined 3/12/2024, which was around 36 days ago, and a near, if not perfect, track record in notifying users. Thanks - Muffin(Spreading Democracy, one edit at a time) 19:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)