Permanently protected template

Template:Admin dashboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Shortcut

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Immediate requests Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 0
Wikipedians looking for help 0
Requests for unblock 47
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 62
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 0
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 3
Wikipedia fully-protected edit requests 3
Requested edits 106
Requested RD1 redactions 0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 4
Candidates for speedy deletion 97
Open sockpuppet investigations 49
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

Purge the cache of this page


Administrative backlog

► All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
► Candidates for speedy deletion by user
► Requests for unblock
► SPI cases awaiting administration
► Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons
► Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
► Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems
► Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues
► Backlog templates
  Template:Admin dashboard
  Template:Admin dashboard/light
  Template:Admin dashboard/testcases
  Template:Admin dashboard/uaarfpp
  Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
  Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
  Wikipedia:Copyright problems
  Template:Did you know/Queue
  Template:DYK queue/backlog
  Wikipedia:Files for discussion
  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion
  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
  Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
  Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
  Wikipedia:Requested moves
  Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
  Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser
  Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover
  Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
  Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Bot
  Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge

WP:AIV

Reports

Bot-reported

User-reported

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Neither of the user's two edits so far appear promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

CSD / PRODs

Candidates for speedy deletion Entries
User requested 0
Empty articles 0
Nonsense pages 0
Spam pages 55
Importance or significance not asserted 1
Possibly contested candidates 25
Other candidates 41
The following articles and files have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
Deletion backlog

This box:
Wikipedia files with unknown source – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files missing permission – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale – No backlog currently
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons – 3 items
Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 147 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review – No backlog currently
Requested RD1 redactions – 1 item
Proposed deletion – No backlog currently

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

Usernames for administrator attention


Bot-reported

User-reported

Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear. @Justanothersgwikieditor: That account's edits seem to be unrelated to that company, unless I'm missing something. It's possible that it's only a coincidence that the username matches that company's name. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Kj cheetham: Wait until the user edits. Salvio 12:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Red Phoenix talk 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Not a violation of the username policy. Textbook example of the Mark at Alcoa exception. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for page protection


Current requests for increase in protection level

Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the rolling 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.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism coming from multiple IPs. Call me when you get the chance 20:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

  •  Declined - Two vandals in the last month; one blocked, one has made a single edit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Suki Waterhouse

Extended confirmed protection: Constant back and forth about her personal life (which has been going on for years really), but now people want to take to removing indisputably reliable sources just because they don’t like it. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Cyclone Ianos

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism by new vandalism-only accounts and by IPs. User accounts (except IP) blocked, currently article is on main page and will attract a lot of editors. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

{{rfpp|nea}} Vast majority of edits have been helpful and good faith, and the exceptions have been dealt with quickly. I don't think protection will be useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: Another IP has just vandalised the page. Just protect it for three days until it's out of the main page please. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: What's your opinion? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: Wugapodes's decision isn't obviously in error, so per WP:ADMINSHOP, I'm going to respect it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Wugapodes's decision was before the new account of vandalism. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll give them a chance to respond to our pings. I'll take a closer look myself in a few hours if there's no response. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Jackmcbarn. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: If you think the page should be protected, go for it. My worry with protecting front page content is always collateral damage since lots of readers means lots of potential new editors. Last I saw, the vandalism wasn't out of hand, but I'm on mobile at the moment and can't check easily. I don't think there's really a wrong choice so do what you thinks best. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I don't see that much vandalism, and I see a few good edits from IPs/newbies. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

2021 FIFA U-17 World Cup

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IP-hopping vandalism resumed after protection expired. See also Geolocation of all involved IPs. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. This page has been temporarily semi-protected many times and the vandalism always comes back. It's time for it to be indefinitely semi-protected. Bowling is life (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Crash Bandicoot

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing from IP, despite reverts from several editors and bots. – Rhain ☔ 02:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked: 2a02:c7f:7ee8:1400::/64 (talk · contribs). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The Prince of Egypt

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of New Japan Pro-Wrestling personnel

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing from an user that's been going on over the last week or so, it's the same user that was making disruptive edits on List of All Elite Wrestling personnel article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

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

Check the rolling archive if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests
Shortcut

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

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

Create a level 3 header with a link to the article in question, then a {{pagelinks}} template and then the reason.

Handled requests

A rolling archive of the last seven days of protection requests can be found at Wikipedia: Requests for page protection/Rolling archive.

Protected edit requests

3 protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-upload (request) 2020-09-11 15:53 MediaWiki page (log)
MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-move (request) 2020-09-11 15:58 MediaWiki page (log)
Directioners (request) 2020-09-26 04:40 Fully protected (log) Protected by Mike Rosoft on 2013-05-09: "Constant posting of unencyclopedic content"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 04:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
3 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Module:College color (request) 2020-09-19 15:49 Template-protected (log) Protected by The Earwig on 2015-12-14: "High-risk Lua module: over 55,000 mainspace transclusions"
Template:Oceania topic (request) 2020-09-20 20:57 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Module:Routemap (request) 2020-09-26 03:20 Template-protected (log) Modified by Materialscientist on 2016-11-21: "Highly visible template"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 04:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:RFA

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

No RfXs since 21:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

WP:PERM

There are no outstanding requests for account creator.

Account creator

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)
Requests for autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:Spudlace

I've created 50 new articles now without incident and I guess that qualifies as prolific enough that it would reduce the work for reviewers if I requested this. Spudlace (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.

Confirmed

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)
Requests for extended confirmation

Extended confirmed

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:Terasail II

I have just made this alternate account to my User:Terasail account since I do not find the settings on my main account useful when editing on other devices and to edit on this account I need my accounts permissions. Terasail II[Talk] 14:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Just confirming this is my account. Terasail[Talk] 14:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. @Terasail: I have also temporarily manually confirmed your account, which allows you to edit semi-protected pages, install Twinkle, etc. The manual confirmation will lapse after 10 days, but you may simply submit 5 more edits with the account in order to obtain autoconfirmed status. Mz7 (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for file mover

File mover

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:Yogwi21

Hello. I am making a new request for file mover user rights. I am working on uploading several football club emblem and sports tournament logos in vector format. Sometimes, I encounter an issue on the file naming. If given this permission, it would be easy for me to rename just in case if there is a need to rename certain files. I can also help in handling renaming requests. Hopefully my request would be granted. Thanks. Yogwi21 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


Requests for new page reviewer

New page reviewer

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

Zindor

Zindor (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (blocks • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)

  • Looking for permanent granting of NPR user-right. Pinging Rosguill as temp granter. Thanks Zindor (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)) and has 172 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 20:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I have to offer a bit of a mea culpa here--I miscalculated the amount of time elapsed since Zindor had been blocked on their prior account, and should not have conferred the original trial period. Following the guidelines strictly, I should have waited until early November. That having been said, having reviewed their AfD record and their reviews over the past two weeks, I think they've done good work and would normally grant permissions at this point. I'm thus going to let another admin make the final decision here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Here is my problem. Government College, Kodanchery reads like an advertisement, and is debatable G11. The user only seems to know three modes of review (notability, references, and stubs) while not tagging other issues. Plus several things in the curation log are stuffers (redirects, disambigs, etc). Given there are not even 50 entries in there, I hesitant. Add the block history and number of administrative hands involved with the user, and I'm extremely hesitant. My recommendation is don't grant anything over another 1 month trial or a tad more if the user needs it, request a certain amount of legitimate reviews, require going beyond the three tags I listed, and encourage usage on BLPs or more policy heavy articles to show they can be granted permanently. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Inclined to agree with Amanda on this one. I would suggest another month or two on the project to get some experience, and reapply in Nov when the normal time would be appropriate. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
AmandaNP, Primefac I think that Government College, Kodanchery is a bit of an unfair one to ding them on given that their first action there was to draftify the article (IMO the correct call, although I'm not sure why they prefaced their comment with "A1"), only for that to be reversed by another editor who admonished them. That having been said, the rest of your concerns are valid, so I'm going to agree to mark this Not done for now, but am willing to grant another trial run in November on request. signed, Rosguill talk 00:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: As you noted yourself when you moved me back into active AfC reviewers, the block had nothing to do with the userrights. Indef doesn't typically mean a stripping of userrights and I fail to understand why I'm getting treated like a leper here. There was no prejudice against my access to these tools in either the community or un-block discussions. Yes I have to use NPR tools in a wider array of topics, Rosguill pointed that out to me, but I can't do that without access to the tools. If you'd like me to apply other tags, then I'll do so. I've been around for 15 years, I can distinguish between actual promo and the combination of Indian English and mild fancruft present in the government college article: if that's G11 i'll eat my socks. There's a disparity between NSCHOOLS and AfD consensus regarding degree-awarding institutes, certainly for India-related articles. I was towing a hard central line, but being familiar with AfD outcomes I fully understood why SD0001 moved it back into mainspace, and it would have been a waste of time for us to hash it out.
I've demonstrated enough competency to at the very least be granted another trial. Discretion could easily be used here to grant a trial from today onwards.
If i'm not back in good-standing i guess I shouldn't even be helping out at the Teahouse? Nick Moyes, thoughts?
@Zindor: Thank you for the ping. When you signed up as a Teahouse host, I did take a look at your mainspace edit count. It thought your mainspace edit count was a little on the low side for some new hosts, but I didn't want to put you off by turning you down. To be quite frank, absolutely nothing I've seen you do or say at the Teahouse, thus far, has caused me any concern whatsoever. You have just the perfect welcoming, helpful style we need, and your answers have all been pretty sound. We have another host who is a reformed vandal (now making excellent contributions) plus another very long standing host who has just got themselves indeffed for incivility and personal attacks. So you're doing just fine - don't be downhearted. And do please stay! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I made mistakes, apologised, was welcomed back. I was granted Perm NPR in the past; now I can't even get a trial? All this hoop-jumping feels punitive. Have I become less competent since the decision to permanently grant me the NPR tool was made?
Thanks all for looking it into this, but between you could you muster the strength to extend my trial please. Regards as ever, Zindor (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah well, Rosguill I don't think I "admonished" them – or at least that wasn't my intention. It's definitely not a G11 either, perhaps AmandaNP is not accustomed to the weird situation we have surrounding Indian colleges – being degree-awarding institutions, they're almost always considered notable, but there usually aren't any good sources to write with. What I do is to just leave them, even removing the fluff isn't usually worth the effort as that does little to "improve" the article. – SD0001 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
SD0001 I just meant that you advised them against it, wasn't trying to imply that you were too harsh signed, Rosguill talk 17:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I may not be accustom to notability claims at AFD in the current climate, I admit that. But that is not my argument, my argument was that it had promotional material in it and read like an advertisement. I mentioned it is borderline G11, and hence why I haven't deleted it. I'm thinking some tags about the promo and the fact that the sources are all primary sources weren't applied. Page review is not a simple process and there is a very detailed guide on it. But Zindor mentions they don't want to hash this out which I agree. I have multiple other points made.
Usually people who are caught socking have to wait six months for the standard offer, but your violating an active block through most of July goes contrary to the sockpuppetry policy. So no, apologies alone don't get you your previous standing back. You have to earn that trust back. Also, I see there are 7 years since it's creation, not 15. Besides, tenure doesn't mean you automatically get userrights.
Also, good standing for say checkuser rights and good standing to edits are two different things. I use that to illustrate the point that good standing is also different for NPR. Someone can be an editor but be creating a lot that gets deleted at AFD eventually. Doesn't mean they are going to be blocked or in a bad standing as an editor, but there certainly aren't good for NPR. So no, that doesn't mean you need to stop helping at the teahouse.
As for if you get a trial or not, I did not opine on that and left my original recommendation of what should be done at most. I think that still stands with this commentary. My final comment is punitive would be not letting you edit. Preventative and caution is ensuring you won't abuse privileges given moving forward. If you really have issue our three opinions after further comments, you can try AN. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
@AmandaNP: "Debatable G11" and "borderline" are two different things, let's not gaslight here. It doesn't read like an advert. While I'm not in the business of making generalizations, new Indian editors are typically extremely enthusiastic about content addition. Even if there were flowery words about the subject, that does happen in Indian English, which for some speakers comes out unintentionally poetic. I would copyedit prose like that for neutrality, but I wouldn't be slapping down promo tags for it. That would be mis-characterizing the situation.
Promo sticks out like a sore thumb, and i'd happily tag it, rephrase it or nuke it; whichever fits the situation.
I have 15 years of tenure, yes there are seven on that account, and no i've not socked before the event you note. I've never abused the NPR privilege, nor have I given indication that I would.
I'm well aware that you didn't opine on the matter of an NPR trial, and I wonder why you even bothered blessing us with your opinion.
The strawman you created about an editor who makes sub-standard content is left wanting, and I question its relevance to this discussion.
I see two opinions about perm NPR, and a recusal. No indication was made that i'd be unsuitable to continue my trial. We all edit at our own pace and do what we can. I'm not saying that apologies alone gets standing back, but it's clear I'm a net positive editor, so how does an arbitrary time period play into this?
Not granting a user-right to a capable editor is preventing them from editing, and is punitive.
The idea of bringing this to the cabal inner fortress sounds interesting. Naturally I'll let you know if I decide to bite that carrot. All the best, Zindor (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Hughesdarren

My access to NPR rights has just expired, looking to have them returned. Thanks. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC) Hughesdarren (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done it's been a year and access was revoked - can't see a reason to keep this temporary. — xaosflux Talk 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Synoman Barris

I believe I have establish a track record since I’ve been able to review over 100 pages since granted trial period. I will be going on a short Wikibreak next month and would want to avoid my first edit after the Wikibreak to be here. I have followed the guidelines of the NPP flowchart while reviewing, I am also farmiliar with renaming articles (due to extensive participation in RM) and I am also an AFC reviewer. I also have a clean record with the deletion processes I.e AFD and CSD from my logs. I am thereby requesting for indefinite extension of this user right to my account. Best regards Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 22:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Salvio giuliano (expires 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 22:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for page mover

Page mover

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:SpectresWrath

I need this flag because I move tv seasons and don't want to annoy the admins with move requests when I'm unable to move the page without approval. SpectresWrath (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 06:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Reasonable number of successful RM/TR requests (only one declined that I can tell), but with the exception of JoJo there doesn't appear to be any RM experience, no edit summaries for the moves, and not really anything that looks like it would require suppressing. I'm solidly on the fence here, but if it weren't for the RM/TR requests I'd say no. Primefac (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: FWIW, I agree. I was looking over this one briefly before and I couldn't find a solid need for the permission because they've only made a handful of RM/TR requests and have limited experience outside that, too. I'm not sure whether to grant a trial period or decline for a few months. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

User:The9Man

Majorly for the Draft moves without leaving a redirect during WP:NPP. - The9Man (Talk) 18:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@The9Man: I'm not seeing a true need for this permission. Out of all your talk page edits, you've only participated in one RM where you didn't give any rationale in your !vote. Furthermore, you haven't made that many moves in total and I disagree with some, such as Draft:Sofia Millares. You moved it to draftspace four months after its creation, which may come across as a way to circumvent the typical deletion methods. While I'm not saying this was your intention, if it fails the notability guidelines, it should have been AfD'd/PROD'd this far after its creation in mainspace. Are you opposed to waiting some more months and then re-requesting when you have more experience in obvious areas that require this permission (such as WP:RM)? Anarchyte (talk • work) 15:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: No oppose at all. As I said, I thought it would be convenient and helpful while doing the WP:NPP. It is perfectly fine if you didn't see any need at all. Just to make it clear the delay in Draft:Sofia_Millares was because it was still in the new articles que and never reviewed. I will take a note of your suggestion in this matter. Thanks for your time. - The9Man (Talk) 18:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for pending changes reviewer

Pending changes reviewer

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:A-NEUN

I have been a rollbacker for a few months now, and would like to take on some additional responsibility. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Dylsss

Hello, I have become a lot more active on Wikipedia recently, specifically patrolling recent changes and reverting, warning and reporting vandals, and occasional content creation. I would like to become a pending changes reviewer as I believe I have a grasp of the policies on Wikipedia, I have 1,736 edits currently (944 mainspace) and I have never received any warning templates (apart from accidental ones). Thanks. Dylsss (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Enjoyer of World

Enjoyer of World💬 09:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I have been a Wikipedian for three years. I understood many Wikipedia policies, I know what is and isn't vandalism, whether edits are constructive or not, and whether they're done in good faiths or not. And most importantly, I've never got into trouble.

 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBot talk 09:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done Insufficient counter-vandalism experience. You have only made 14 undos throughout your time here and you don't use edit summaries, which is problematic because more often than not, you will have to explain your reason for declining a pending change. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Very well. Enjoyer of World💬 11:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Rahulsoman

I am a beginner, but I feel I can handle it.

Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights Believe that, I can manage my time to do it. If you feel that i can do it better, then you can activate it. Rahul Somantalk - contribs 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done Only three undos in total. You also do not use edit summaries as much as you should. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Giraffer

Hello, I'm Giraffer. I have nearly 2000 edits, of which ~1500 are counter vandalism. I have been granted rollback temporarily with two extensions and am enrolled in CVUA. I have never been warned for any of my CV actions (although I have made a couple misclicks), nor have I ever been blocked. I am requesting PCR to be able to do more in my CV efforts. Recently I have run into multiple pages with PC protection, and have had CV experience on them - see this, this, and the ANI thread I filed. It's quite frustrating to see the backlog, and also not be able to reject revisions I know are bad. I've read up and understand all the relevant policy and would love to help. Thanks! Giraffer munch 21:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done. Fun fact: technically, non-PCR editors can reject edits—if you submit an edit that reverts a PC-protected article to its last accepted revision, that edit will be automatically accepted. Mz7 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Walwal20

I have seen some innocent pending changes in my watchlist, and would like to be able to accept them when this happens. I believe I know enough of WP:MOS and MOS:MATH (since I mostly contribute to mathematics articles) to be granted this permission. I also believe I can identify clear WP:VANDALISM; if it is not clear vandalism, I'd assume good faith and accept the edit if I felt capable of improving upon their accepted edit. Best, Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 02:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Mz7 (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Suonii180

Hello! I've been a Wikipedian for a while now and I would like to contribute and help out more. I have read and understood WP:RPC and I also understand WP: VANDALISM, WP:MOS and WP:GF. Suonii180 (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

User:SwitchBladeZer0

I have been in wiki for a few months now, and would like to take on some additional responsibility to help in assisting in filtering out vandalism. SwitchBladeZer0 (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for rollback

Rollback

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:Rdp060707

I am a user who fights vandalism since June 15 of this year. I first reverted vandalism on this article called "Bacoor", then to Philippine-related articles, who has vandalized edits on any section. As of today, i went to any articles vandalized by any vandals. I reverted this by "Undo" button as of today, but it is time to give permission to rollback any vandalism over the free encyclopedia. My edits on my first day on Wikipedia is 2, and as of today, it grown now to 4,026. I got thanked by the users of Wikipedia for my fight against vandalism. It looks like that i am a fastest-growing Wikipedian by total of contributions. I already read the instructions on how the one Wikipedian rollbacked the vandalized edits. Rdp060707 (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Nalbarian

There are many incidents reported regarding vandalism on Wikipedia after a social media debate or due to other controversies. I always try to figure out the reasons why it's happening and then what the root cause of doing these activities by people. Rollback feature will be added advantage for me to prevent such vandalism. Please check my profile for trust factor. Thank you! Nalbariantalk 06:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done Insufficient experience. Only 5 undoes in total and a recent warn for copyright violations. Anarchyte (talk • work) 14:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Doggy54321

Hello! I’m Doggy54321. I am applying to become a rollbacker because the pages I visit always have vandalism, and I would like a quicker way to revert that. I have been on Wikipedia since June 2019, have made over 1800 edits, and have familiarized myself with what vandalism on Wikipedia looks like and how to revert it. Currently, I don’t have Twinkle or any other tool, so reverting vandalism takes more time. Thank you for considering me! Doggy54321 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KRtau16

I am regularly active on Wikipedia editing mostly on Fijian related articles. I've been watching the recent changes and I've reverted a lot of edits usually on vandalism or unsourced statements. I was declined this request due to "No Experience", however I've been using Twinkle and RedWarn. Just want to help out more. Thanks. KRtau16 (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([3]). — MusikBot talk 05:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done Contributions since previous decline show good reverts with warnings and AIV reports as necessary, so I think reasons for previous decline have been resolved. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:AviationFreak

Hello! I've spent a decent amount of time on enwiki, creeping up on 3,000 edits (currently >1300 in mainspace). I occasionally do vandalism watching and I would like to try using Huggle instead of Twinkle, as my current setup does not work as smoothly as I'd like. I've read the guidelines thoroughly and I'm pretty familiar with Wikipedia policy. AviationFreak💬 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

User:VictoriousDwarf

VictoriousDwarf (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBot talk 09:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 40 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 09:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 40 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Salvio 09:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Seemplez

I have been using Twinkle to fight vandalism in my spare time for a few months now, and I feel that rollback permissions would be beneficial in helping me continue this. I have just over 1000 edits on all wikis, of which 600 are on enwn. Thank you for considering me. Seemplez 13:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
It has been two days, any update? Seemplez 11:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Requests for template editor

Template editor

Sorry, please be aware that unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(add request • view requests)

User:Goldsztajn

Requesting my template editor permission be regranted. I was previously granted permission for a 3 month period by Xaosflux which lasted until mid-August, but due to non-virtual world circumstances, I had to be absent from Wikipedia from late July until early this month and I missed the opportunity to request the permission be made permanent. I would like to continue working on edit requests for semi-protected templates and template work in the Organized Labour project. Thank you.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC) Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you only used it to make 5 edits to Template:WikiProject Organized Labour and made a series of edits and partial reverts, rather than testing in the sandbox. I can't see any evidence that you sought consensus for the changes either (not that they were particularly controversial, but it would have been good to see some discussion). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, not really keen on the not-sandboxing. If we're talking about one major set of edits to that template every three months (or less) and you otherwise have little to no experience in complex markup, I don't see the point in extending this (TPERs are more than sufficient for that). I could maybe see another trial if there was an indication of an inclination otherwise. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to participate in another 3 month trial if that is considered preferable. I've been a member of the Organized Labour project for 14 years, at present I'm the only editor actively working on project-related matters; I'd earlier indicated my intention to revive the project. I've contacted multiple previously active editors in the project about my intentions (some examples: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]).
In terms of not sandboxing, the edits I made to the Template:WikiProject Organized Labour would not have shown up any functional difference since they were all related to classification of articles related to the project. I had already signposted my intention to update the project template, both of you would have been aware having assisted with my earlier requests before I had the tool. However, I'm happy to commit going forward that *any* proposed change I make in future will firstly be done in the relevant sandbox.
In terms of my commitment to this work, in addition to being active across a number of areas in this encyclodpaedia, I deliberately erred on the side of caution with the use of this tool, making one requested edit to the NATO template during this period. I'm not sure what where the line begins with "complex markup" (clearly not the NATO template, but the infobox ship begin ship template? where I've made contributions to discussions), but given the limitations placed when granted the tool, and Xaosflux's explicit instructions to stay away from complex markup, I took the view far better to stay away from anything but the most simple templates and to work in the least contentious way possible. Unfortunately, due to non-virtual world circumstances, I was not able to edit during a period of almost half the trial, nevertheless it feels a little as though I'm being held to account for being too cautious....
I requested the tool first and foremost because I am working in a specific area where the tool is necessary and rather than repeatedly requesting others to complete my requests I hoped to relieve the load. Which led to the second reason - to assist the encylopaedia more generally, of which, over the last 12 months, I've done a great deal more. So, to reiterate: I wish to continue to work on the protected template in the Organized Labour project and to assist with the template-protected requested edits.
Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) If it's just/mainly Template:WikiProject Organized Labour you want to work on, admins could IAR lower this to ECP? Plenty of precedent for this for WikiProject templates, e.g. Template:WikiProject Languages which has double the number of transclusions. Just another option admins may want to consider to allow you to do your thing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. Goldsztajn, with this change, do you still see yourself needing this perm? Primefac (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks ProcrastinatingReader for the helpful suggestion. Primefac I'd prefer permanent, please. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Happy to support another 3 month trial to give Goldsztajn a chance to show they have the skills required. But I trust them not to tackle work they are not ready for. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done for another three months. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Primefac and MSGJ - thank you for your help. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Usage

Parameters

This is the TemplateData documentation for this template used by VisualEditor and other tools; see the monthly parameter usage report for this template.

TemplateData for Admin dashboard

Administrators Dashboard

Template parameters

ParameterDescriptionTypeStatus
style1

Backwards compatibility. Not entirely show of purpose at this time.

Default
Stringoptional
New administratornewadmin

Allows you to toggle the 'New administrators' navbox on/off. Set to 'yes' to transclude.

Default
no
Stringoptional
Show AIVshowaiv

Allows you to toggle the WP:AIV section on/off. Set to 'no' to prevent transclusion.

Default
yes
Stringoptional
Show PERMshowperm

Allows control over the entire WP:PERM section in one parameter. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show sections that have had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show RfA/RfBshowrfab

Allows hiding the requests for RfA/RfB section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show account creatorshowacc

Allows hiding the requests for account creator section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show autopatrolledshowaptl

Allows hiding the requests for autopatrolled section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show confirmedshowconf

Allows hiding the requests for confirmed section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show extended confirmedshowext

Allows hiding the requests for extended confirmed section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show file movershowfmvr

Allows hiding the requests for file mover section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show new page reviewershownpr

Allows hiding the requests for new page reviewer section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show page movershowpmvr

Allows hiding the requests for page mover section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show reviewershowrevr

Allows hiding the requests for reviewer section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show rollbackshowrlbk

Allows hiding the requests for rollback section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional
Show template editorshowte

Allows hiding the requests for template editor section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time.

Default
7 days
Stringoptional

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Admin_dashboard&oldid=968037659"