HudsonWiKi(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) – vandalism after final warning. Lots of unfounded nonsense about Nazis, adding non RS, and making generalizations about the whole family based off of reports about one member, and when they reply to their warnings its about me being part of some conspiracy with ESPN or something. Nswix (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, please be careful in blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Attempting to skip filters using multiple similar characters" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Multiple special characters can be contained in the same phrase, this rule detects when one or more occurs. -- DQB (owner / report) 02:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the username is promotional. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It could be, but it's ambiguous as it stands. More likely they're going to eat a block soon enough for being WP:NOTHERE and/or for inappropriate LLM-written content, so the username discussion may be premature. Worth keeping an eye on though.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
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.
Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes: Persistent disruptive editing – An IP editor has repeatedly restored this disputed content to the article: A fan who sent a text message to Cetrone regarding the Snyder Cut's existence later posted a doctored screenshot of them, falsely claiming that Cetrone confirmed the Snyder Cut's existence. It was originally removed by editor Dcdiehardfan for being not noteworthy [1], before being restored by the IP editor, at which point I removed it before the IP editor restored it multiple times, with increasing personal attacks in their edit summaries directed towards Dcdiehardfan: Yet another case of sourced references deleted without reason. User is a repeated remover using WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT logic.[2]; Do you not see what section it was put in? It's factually relevant to everything the extremist fanbase did throughout. Hence why someone included it in the first place and (once again) it was incoherently removed by an obvious biased fanboy who has repeatedly/illogically removed anything negative related to the movie or Snyder bit by bit while laughably claiming "cleaned up".[3]; It's not "two separate editors", one of them is a factually proven troll.[4]. The IP editor has refused to engage in the talk page discussion, where a third editor, JascaDucato, has said they agree that the content is not noteworthy. In response to a warning about their personal attacks on the IP's talk page, they responded with "stop the disruptive defending" LOL Piss off you pathetic troll-defending hypocrite. I repeatedly/effortlessly exposed the weirdo fanboy blanking out sourced info over and over solely because it was negative towards the movie. Soooo disruptive.
Reporting all of you now. And stop stalking my edits, douche. At this point, it doesn't seem like that the IP editor is going to be willing to engage in a discussion about the content on the article's talk page, and is rather going to try to edit war the content in despite three other editors disagreeing with its inclusion. – notwally (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
TLDR: An IP editor has repeatedly restored content that three other editors disagree with, and is not willing to engage in the talk page discussion. – notwally (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Non admin comment) pages aren't generally protected for 1 IP address/account causing an issue, it is usually easier to block if thats neccessary. @NotwallyMe Da Wikipedian (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Please semi-salt this talk page without an article that has now been created 3 times Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Spree of new accounts coming to remove sourced content reflecting negatively on the subject of the page. GraziePrego (talk) 05:20, 19 July 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: The protection is no longer necessary, because it was placed for an edit war which was 14 years ago. I think it is time to consider unprotecting the page. 74.14.6.233 (talk) 05:23, 19 July 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.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hello! Wikipedians,
I'm S-Aura with over three years of experience and extended confirmed user rights. I'd like to request an account creation on Wikipedia.
Thank you! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done User is not active in the WP:ACC process. -- LuK3(Talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hello, I have created 100+ articles, primarily focused on television series. And I plan to keep doing the same. Thanks for your consideration C1K98V(💬✒️📂) 08:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ, I appreciate it. Thanks for looking into my request. — C1K98V(💬✒️📂) 05:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Joe Roe, you declined this previously. Do you want to have another look? Schwede66 06:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't have time to look at this properly right now. I'm happy for another admin to process it as they see fit. – Joe (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Joe Roe, I appreciate it. Thanks for looking into my request. — C1K98V(💬✒️📂) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has created roughly 15 articles. — MusikBottalk 20:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Done I've cast my eye over your B-class articles and they are of fine quality. Checking their histories, there is nothing of substance that other editors have to fix. Very nice work that does not need patrolling. Schwede66 21:23, 18 July 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.
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 editing for over 7 years and I plan on using this permission in order to help with discussions on WP:RM and deal with cross-redirects for articles that should have more disambiguated titles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 12:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, my page mover privilege has just expired, after 90 days of what I believe to have been productive use in NPP and AFC. Could it be extended please? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 06:20, 15 July 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've been a rollbacker for some time now, and when I patrol the recent changes, it's not at all uncommon to come across pending revisions. Thus, I imagine that having the permission of a pending changes reviewer would help me in anti-vandalism activities and, even more, reduce the backlog and the work of other volunteers. Helping directly on Special:PendingChanges is also a possibility, of course. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Im requesting pending changes reviewer rights because I wish to review some changes made by inexperienced users, I’ll be fully active and really want to get this right. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Per your discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funnybros. It shows any editor with the motive to promote a subject either by Youtube link or any other link that are not necessary or accepted by wikipedia. You are likely to accept them. So I will be afraid if this right is being granted to you for the betterment of wikipedia. Administrators should be aware. Gabriel(talk to me ) 11:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, Gabriel101, I've looked at this user's contributions, and they look more than ready to be a reviewer. On top of that, you are requesting the same rights of this user? And though I am saying the same thing as this user did on your request, did you have to say what you said here and not on the user's talk page?Apollogetticax|talk 06:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Point of correction, I am not Gabriel101. And to address your concern. If I had gone to user talk page it could have been useless or a waste of time as the same user has removed everything that was notified against him recently by other editors. I don’t know what you have looked but I see no sense in what you are saying if you have really looked as you said and not noticing an edit was stroked here. Regarding same permission kindly read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Achievers Award. I will advice you focus on your Sockpuppet account case User:User:HTML5, CSS3! and here User_talk:Ferret#Thank_you. Cheers. Gabriel(weytin dey sup) 12:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting to review pages for copyvios, and, as a result, I'm starting to encounter reviewer-protected pages. (If the article on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't a backwards-copy, I might have been hosed.) In any case, I hope my experience across multiple Wikimedia projects demonstrates the competence needed for this permission. ⸺RandomStaplers 00:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
You commented ill about me based on the permission I’m trying to get, the best place was to be my talk page but you came here to say such why? And now you want same permission I’m requesting for? Not cool @Gabriel601Madeforall1 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am a Wikipedia editor who has an entire month of experience with counter-vandalism, and I also make many copyedits. I would like to stop vandalism in its crib by being a pending changes reviewer and stopping vandalism on pending changes-protected pages. I know what is vandalism and what isn't, and I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies, including Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not. I have read WP:Copyrights and I have read the guideline on reviewing. I am also in process of receiving rollback permissions, and you can see the discussion there too.
Thanks, Apollogetticax|talk 04:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had an account for 28 days. — MusikBottalk 04:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, 28 days is enough because on my first few days after I got Twinkle I spent over five hours (per day) RC patrolling. Apollogetticax|talk 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done Blocked as a sock. DanCherek (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! I'm ThatOneWolf, and, I know I've been here twice before, but those times I admit I didn't really get the whole idea of experience and stuff. Plus, my last request was months ago. I took a little break recently when I just was checking my talk page and watchlist, but now I've come back to editing.
Anyway, the reason I'm requesting Reviewer rights now is because I feel like I could help in that area, with most of my edits being vandalism reversions. I also feel I suitably warn editors when I think they are intending to vandalize, or just let them know if it seems they could be trying to help. I've read all the policies listed in Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, and am very familiar with the copyright laws. This is why I feel I would be more fit now to receive this right. Thanks for reading! -- ThatOneWolf (ChatEdits 12:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hi there! Requesting rollback rights to be able to use different tools for reverting vandalism. I'm open to any questions or feedback on my editing and counter-vandalism actions. Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make. Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 06:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: hi there. It's true that I seldom warn IP users that don't edit on a regular basis. I just feel like no one is going to see that warning and it might be confusing for other users from that IP. This might be a mistake on my part and I'll gladly fix it. You'll see that, with registered users, I've warned them 100% of the time or very close to that. Thanks for your time. Rkieferbaum (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Please ensure that you are always leaving warnings. I can't stress enough the importance of notbiting the newcomers; if you find yourself reverting good faith edits, then it's especially important to notify the editor. If you don't want to leave a template warning, that's completely fine, but you do need to leave a talk page message explaining why you reverted the edit. Moving forward, could you please make a promise to leave warnings/notifications for every revert? -Fastily 10:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: of course, it's a promise. I do agree that welcoming newcomers is among the most important things we do here. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Great, thanks for confirming. Could you please now go some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will be notifying all users? -Fastily 03:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: sure! I've been at it for a few minutes. I'll leave a warning each and every time from now on, IP or otherwise. Cheers and thanks for your input. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I used to be highly active before 2022, and had rollback rights back then (was inactive for quite a while)
I have a history of defending WP: Hinduism related articles, and further need to do it, especially after few recurring cases of vandalism by a series of sockpuppets
It may seem that i am constantly reverting a particular user's edits but that user is a sockpuppet of Kairakairav, [see their huge list of sockpuppets] who removes well sourced info, blanks them and add original research stuff, most of which are also factually incorrect. The sockpuppets get blocked, but somehow returns with a new account (Not only me, but other users have also reported this issue in the user's earlier sockpuppet investigations). It is alo worthless to tell them to stop on talk page, as they never reply and keep doing the same stuff; recent example of Madri which was blanked by them!
Its quite irritating for me to constantly go to history and copy paste entire full page, so the rollback right will be quite helpful, Thanks .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC) .245CMR.•👥📜 09:03, 16 July 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 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: Really!? I just explained how the sockpuppet User:NairaMahiHDPaakhiAadhya basically removed cited information from articles like Kunti, Madri, Sahadeva, Eklavya, etc. It's been reported by other users, see that user's earlier sockpuppets (linked in the request). Also its pointless to try to guide them as i seriously tried to do so many time on their earlier (now blocked) accounts. Recently while doing manual copy paste, I accidentally deleted chunks of articles by mistake. I really require this right as I am free to waste my entire half an hour doing this. Sorry if I sounded rude, but I am really irritated after recently doing the manual copy paste for 100th time! .245CMR.•👥📜 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, really. You shouldn't be copy/pasting anyways. The use case you've described doesn't require rollback; we have tools such as Twinkle & Ultraviolet that already do what you're asking for. Like I said, if you're still interested in rollback, then please spend a month actively patrolling RecentChanges before creating a new request -Fastily 21:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
As a third party, I just want to comment on why you were copy pasting? Apollogetticax|talk 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, I wish to get the Rollback right because I want to fight vandalism and revert edits that goes Wikipedia’s guidelines, also I want to be able to revert edits frm users who aren’t sure of what they are doing most especially IP user. Madeforall1 (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 10:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to have the rollback permission to revert vandalism quicker and to use tools like Huggle. Also, with Awesome Aasim's RC patrol tool, reverting is very slow, but with rollback it will be much faster. I use Twinkle already.
I am keen in the field of anti-vandalism. While my track record isn't exactly the best, I acknowledge my mistakes, and improve on them. I can tell what is and what isn't vandalism, and I know to always warn users, no exception. While edit counts don't matter, I have over 250 mainspace edits (just for the record). This also brings light to my experience. I have been doing counter-vandalism since the day I created my account.
If you think I am doing anything wrong, you are free to tell me my mistakes, and I can fix myself. | Apollogetticaxtalk 23:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Lots of anti-vandalism in contribs including edit summaries, so that's great. Good attitude on talk pages. I was going to grant this but then I found they admitted to being the sockpuppet User:HTML5, CSS3! over at User talk:Ferret#Thank you. Honestly I am still inclined to grant, they seem to be reformed. But this probably needs a little discussion first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Gonna go ahead and mark this one as Not done, with the requester now sock-blocked and fresh block evasion noted at User talk:Apollogetticax#July 2024. DanCherek (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for template editor.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
