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)

Also added "what the sigma" to filter 614. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:26, 21 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)

The is not going to be the last AI-generated source we want to stop. Maybe a separate filter for AI sources? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea @Suffusion of Yellow! Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think that's a good idea. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Disallow removing dates from maintenance templates

• Task: Preventing removal of dates from maintenance templates, except when also removing the template entirely.
• Reason: Dates are not meant to be removed from maintenance templates.
• Diffs: Special:Diff/1219740646 (add diffs as you see more such edits)
• Conditions: maintenance := "(Citation needed|merge|enumerate more maintenance templates here)"
temp := "(?i){{" + maintenance + "\|date=(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)*}}"
dateless := "{{" + maintenance + "}}"
!"confirmed" in user_groups & rcount(temp,new_wikitext) < rcount(temp,old_wikitext) & rcount(dateless,new_wikitext) = rcount(dateless,old_wikitext)

Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a common problem? This doesn't seem worth a filter if it only happens occasionally. There's the general issue of people opening a page and removing all the parts they don't understand before getting down to editing, but that's probably more frequent with references and lead-section templates. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The IP that made that edit also tried doing vandalism edits like these: log1, log2 and log3. Kind of puts all their other edits into question. – 143.208.238.228 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The inappropriate use of obscenities is the problem in the edits you brought up, but it is not the goal of my filter suggestion, which targets a different issue. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that you picked an apparent vandal as your example of this happening. The point is that if you don't have any other examples then this could be a general issue like SoY says of people removing what they don't understand, but it could also just be one of this user's choice of vandalism - at which point maybe warning or blocking them would stop it from happening.

But I can't assume what it is, or that you don't have any other examples, so I just noted that the IP was trying to vandalise too. – 143.208.239.226 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could start the filter with no actions enabled first. If the number of edits caught by the filter is significant enough, then we should set the filter to disallow. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Faster than Thunder, rather than edit_delta < 25 * rcount(temp,removed_lines), do you have another rule format to check the removal of dates in the {{Citation needed}} template? I tested your filter conditions under FilterDebugger and it only showed a check, meaning that there was no indication of the removal of the date, and the regular removed_lines rlike temp did not detect that removal at all.

Also, I'm a little bit hesitant to support the implementation if this only happens occasionally. Codename Noreste 🤔 La Suma 03:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you here. Filters should only be used when something problematic happens frequently enough to warrant an entire filter. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reports

Bot-reported

• BenSmiththeGreat (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). . DatBot (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Declined. Doesn't look disruptive, and hasn't been warned. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

User-reported

• GoAbbyMallard2024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Disruptive editing on multiple TV related pages (mainly children's programming) including 2024 in American Television and Rugrats (2021 TV series) without explanation or obnoxious edit summaries. Has been warned early this month, but doesn't seem to be letting up. 136.57.150.89 (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Stale report. User has not edited in two days. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Laspinaslian1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Persistent disruptive editing and adding any fake information across Wikipedia. 36.76.3.20 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Stale report. User has not edited in three days. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2001:4C4E:1C46:2A00:E46:60C8:2E6E:2533 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Persistent disruptive editing and adding any fake information across Wikipedia. 36.76.3.20 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings. And, really ... two edits? Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 2001:4C4E:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) – Persistent disruptive editing and adding any fake information across Wikipedia. 36.76.3.20 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Declined. Basically the range on which the IP reported previously is. The /32 affects too many other legitimate users, and the /64 takes in only those previous edits which I found too few to justify any action. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yvan20190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Draft:Star Evaluator (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 15:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Warned user. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• 188.25.162.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism IP only, they have used multiple IPs to vandalise. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Warned user. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog CLEAN!

Account creator

AutoWikiBrowser

User:A smart kitten

• A smart kitten (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I'd like to request AWB permissions, in order to be able to make repetitive and non-controversial changes more efficiently than by hand. I sometimes come across situations where this would be beneficial - e.g., a couple of months ago, I noticed that there were a number of featured lists that were only marked as List-Class in {{WikiProject Lists}}. My current reason for requesting is in order to perform cleanup following the closure of this RfD discussion - to migrate the redirects on this list to use {{R from subtitle alone}}, & to migrate the rest of the transclusions of {{R from subtitle}} to {{R from title and subtitle}}. I have read through and understand the AWB Guide & the AWB Rules.

If this request is granted, please can my alt account a smart kitten (AWB) [verify] be added to the checkpage? (Also, as my alt, please can it be granted confirmed and XC in case any pages are protected?)

Let me know if there are any queries. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done on all counts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer

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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 23 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 23 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 23 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Not done. Thank you for volunteering, but I'm going to deny this for now due to a lack of experience with the policy process (I'm seeing only 4 AFDs participated in). You're making good contributions, but I'd like to see more activity at WP:AFD to demonstrate an understanding of notability and relevant guidelines before you re-apply. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 23 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

Thank you for volunteering,  Done for a 2-month trial. You are encouraged to re-apply roughly a week before the permission is set to expire. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 23 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Not done. Thank you for volunteering, but I'm going to decline this for now. There's not enough demonstrated knowledge of content policies and guidelines for me to evaluate at this point in time. Experience with notability guidelines can be demonstrated in many ways, including participation at Articles for deletion or Articles for Creation and deletion tagging (PROD and speedy deletion). If you're interested in re-applying at some point I encourage you to participate at WP:AFD. If you choose to do so, make sure your votes are policy based and explain why an article does or doesn't meet a specific guideline. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:GSS

• GSS (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I was added to this group on a 2-month trial period and was instructed by Hey man im josh to re-apply a week before the permission expires. Therefore, I'm requesting to continue using this tool so I can review newly created articles. Thank you. GSS ^💬 05:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 05:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User:PharyngealImplosive7

• PharyngealImplosive7 (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I was granted new page reviewer rights temporarily and I think that I'm ready to get them permanently since I've tagged and patroled over 50 pages now. I've also tagged many pages for deletion that were unfit for the wiki. Finally, I would like to participate in the May backlog drive. I thank the reviewing admin for their time and hope that I will be granted this perm. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Ingenuity (expires 00:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 16:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Nokia621

• Nokia621 (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

Hi there! I've been here since 2018 and would like to apply as a page patroller for the first time. I'd definitely want to help with that backlog. –Nokia621 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Thank you for volunteering, but in reviewing your editing history I wasn't able to find sufficient experience with the deletion process or evaluating content to be comfortable granting you the permission at this point in time. I encourage you to spend some time at WP:AFD and make policy based votes to show that you're comfortable evaluating notability. Alternatively, you can still apply to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Melmann

• Melmann (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

Hi. I generally rotate between different maintenance activities such as RC patrol, pending changes patrol, and edit request patrol, and would like to contribute to the NPP/AFC queues too. Editing Wikipedia for 15 years, but with long bouts of low activity or inactivity, but I feel I have a strong grasp on the core policies (especially copyright-related). Despite focusing on maintenance mainly, I have created/significantly contributed to few articles, most recently XZ Utils backdoor (permalink when moved from draft to mainspace) and BG3. Thanks for your time. Melmann 22:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Kp2016rockin

• Kp2016rockin (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I've been editing pages since 2019 and was initially a trial user. Would like to try to clear up the backlog, especially for WP:AfC. I've read the guidelines. kpgamingz (rant me) 23:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Thank you for volunteering, but in reviewing your editing history I wasn't able to find sufficient experience with the deletion process to feel comfortable granting you the permission at this point in time. I encourage you to spend some time at WP:AFD and make policy based votes to show that you're comfortable evaluating notability. Alternatively, you can still apply to help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:SheriffIsInTown

• SheriffIsInTown (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I regularly create pages and want to save others time from reveiwing pages created by me, in addition to that I would be able to help with the backlog. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: To be clear, the NPR permission does not assist with review of your own pages. If you want to "save others time from reviewing pages created by me", then you would want to request autopatrolled at WP:PERM/AP. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I will still want new page reviewers rights so I can possibly help with the backlog. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Викидим

• Викидим (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

My temporary permission will expire soon. I am hereby requesting a permanent one. Викидим (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Novem Linguae (expires 00:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Darcyisverycute

• Darcyisverycute (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I requested and was granted one month of the permission previously ([23]), to participate in the January 2024 NPP backlog where I reviewed 51 articles. I have been away from Wikipedia for a few months due to personal issues, but I plan to get back into editing the next few days/weeks and would like to participate in the upcoming May backlog drive. I don't mind if the permission is granted on a permanent or temporary basis. Darcyisverycute (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

User:2003 LN6

• 2003 LN6 (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

I have recently received rollback rights a few weeks ago, and I would like to request for pending changes reviewer because I believe that I would be good at reviewing pending changes. With around four months of experience patrolling RecentChanges and fulfilling all of the criteria, I believe that I am a good candidate for this right. Thank you. 2003 LN6 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

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)

 Done Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

User:ElENdElA

• ElENdElA (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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

To continue patrolling recent changes with semi-automated tools. ElENdElA (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:28, 22 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)^{( · · · · · · · · )}

Hi and thanks for looking. I'do love to volunteer in patrolling recent changes as well as other aspect of vandalism. My previous request was followed by my bad in lacking civility over IPs, which Dan Cherek advised me. For atleast close/a month, I've taken the advice and sometimes instead of warning, I write messages to the editor in question. I'm not perfect but will do my best in patrolling Special:RecentChanges. I have maintained at least in a good capability, a track record of consistently notifying editors after reverting. Thanks for considering me also.— Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)