User:FlyingKiwi/Dash
CAVEAT: all the |show= parameters have been set to 7 days.
AB = Administrative Backlogs
[edit]Administrative backlog
[edit]AIV= Administrator intervention against vandalism
Reports
[edit]User-reported
[edit]- 2409:40C0:5A:910E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism after final warning. Repeated violations of the MoS and NPOV. Was previously warned as 2409:40C0:5C:EA8B:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs). AntiDionysius (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
IP ADDRESS OF THE SAME USER -
- 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D81A:9C9D:4833:65A4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2607:FEA8:571E:CE00:D8C:6DE5:FF66:5C6C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 2607:fea8:571e:ce00:bc29:6dfb:54bd:20c7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
-This user is continuously adding unsourced and false informations.
-He is also using different devices to support his edits.
-I have tried to discuss with him but he didn’t respond, he cleared the topic from the talk page from his another IP ADDRESS.
Some examples of his edits -
-1. (added a upazila which has no existence),
2. Person was from Indian area but he changed to East Pakistan,
3. Bir Bikrom is a high honouric title in Bangladesh, he shortened it to BB ,without any reference
4. (changed the official name),
5. In the honouric prefix he added a college name, have also added a word “psc” with no explanation, and involved in a edit war.
He has done so many edits like these, please take action. - Cerium4B • Talk? • 19:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- MsPSTA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Palmetto State Teachers Association: account is being used only for promotional purposes. Username is a reference to Palmetto State Teachers Association, which it exclusively edits. It removes sourced content from the article that it perceives as negative and adds unsourced content. Alith Anar 19:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
| Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
|---|---|
| User requested | 0 |
| Empty articles | 0 |
| Nonsense pages | 1 |
| Spam pages | 5 |
| Importance or significance not asserted | 1 |
| Other candidates | 4 |
The following articles have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
( source / chronological order / expired )
{{CSD backlogs}} 7 backlognav + 2 + 5 single cat
| BLP articles proposed for deletion by days left – No backlog currently |
|---|
| 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 |
|---|
| Proposed deletion – No backlog currently |
|---|
Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons – 2 items
Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 3 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 2 items
Requested RD1 redactions – 2 items
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
- Iate5watermelonsbecauseithoughttherewereapples (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- WololoLord (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
This username matched "l+o+l+o+l" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 11:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ispreadfakenewsforyou (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- This username matched "fake[- ]*news|disinformation|propaganda" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- ArtistInsiderTK (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a misleading and promotional username. See http://www.artistinsider.com for reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is just an individual spamming himself. TK is the initials of the person the article was about. Secretlondon (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with Secretlondon; the artistinsider website appears to be 15 year old cobwebs. I think the association is coincidental. It's worth keeping an eye on their edits as they may be self promoting. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Page content has been persistently edited by probably a single user (using several IPs and/or accounts) to change the official figures and statistics (most notably, by increasing the statistical figures of the Iglesia ni Cristo). Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: We are requesting protection for the Prague Film School Wikipedia page due to persistent and targeted vandalism. A specific entity, potentially associated with a competitor, has repeatedly deleted valid content and inserted false information promoting a rival institution. Following a formal request to cease these actions, further disruptions were carried out by a known disruptive editor, Viewmont Viking, suspected to be engaged for this purpose. We kindly request a block on further unverified edits, as previous warnings have been ineffective, and it appears likely the aggressor will continue using alternate accounts. Mrevcz (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Mrevcz Who is the "we" that you are referring to? Are you posting on behalf of the Prague Film School? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)- Thank you for your question, @Ahecht. I represent a group of alumni from Prague Film School; I attended myself in the mid-2000s, and several of us are concerned about preserving the page's accuracy. We did not create the Wikipedia page, and any contributions from anyone aiming to improve it is supported. However, we have observed ongoing, targeted edits that remove verified information and insert misleading claims. Given this pattern, we’re simply requesting protection to prevent further misinformation and preserve the page’s integrity for those interested in the school’s history. Mrevcz (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it's just a content dispute with one editor then page protection isn't the correct course of action and won't solve your problem. RachelTensions (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a simple content dispute, but vandalism, as the attacker has been illegitimately taking down legitimate content backed by sources and replacing it with false information promoting a rival institution. Mrevcz (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Whatever it is, protecting the page won't solve your problem.I'd also recommend you read the guideline at WP:COI and disengage from editing the article directly as editing articles in which you have a COI is strongly discouraged. RachelTensions (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a simple content dispute, but vandalism, as the attacker has been illegitimately taking down legitimate content backed by sources and replacing it with false information promoting a rival institution. Mrevcz (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- If it's just a content dispute with one editor then page protection isn't the correct course of action and won't solve your problem. RachelTensions (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, @Ahecht. I represent a group of alumni from Prague Film School; I attended myself in the mid-2000s, and several of us are concerned about preserving the page's accuracy. We did not create the Wikipedia page, and any contributions from anyone aiming to improve it is supported. However, we have observed ongoing, targeted edits that remove verified information and insert misleading claims. Given this pattern, we’re simply requesting protection to prevent further misinformation and preserve the page’s integrity for those interested in the school’s history. Mrevcz (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – The article has been vandalised recently as well as in the recent past, it's a state Govt. article and noticeably subject to vandalism till the election, which will be around June 2025, my request would be a protection till june 2025 so that the article only edited by registered users only. Drat8sub (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I've previously asked for protection for this page here and was told to come back if more issues occured. Even though it's semi-protected it is still being contantly disruptied. I'm asking for extended confirmed protection not indefinite but at least for a month, maybe a bit after just in case they disrupt the article after the event has concluded. [1] [2] [3] [4]] [5] [6] If you need any more evidence to confirm anything please let me know in the reply. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: No Level of Protection, a celebrity that might have his webpage vandalised in the future. Davud Patrioti (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. نوحفث Let's Chat! 15:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruption by IPs, would also probably fall under WP:AMPOL. Seawolf35 HGAV (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This user who requested protection has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
User(s) blocked. GoodnightmushTalk 17:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 14 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Wiiformii (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Repeated addition of unsourced trivia. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. GoodnightmushTalk 17:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: IP is removing warnings from pages. Either protect the talk page or a partial block from their talk page. TheWikipedetalk 17:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Declined – Under the present circumstances, blanking is allowed according to WP:BLANKING. Favonian (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Article is attracting "practice" edits for some reason. Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of seven days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Repeated addition of non-neutral content supported only by deprecated sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election A lot of misinformation is being written and edited, the page should be be placed under semi-protection as this article is an election article Tuian Times (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- 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 archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Looking through the history indicates the main edit wars are IP vs EC editors, not EC vs EC. Can this article please be downgraded from full administrative protection to EC protection? I believe protection skipped EC protection and was set straight to administration protection, despite it being edit wars from IP vs EC editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't like to essentially grant AC or EC editors the edit war through protection if there seem to be legitimate differences that require true consensus to resolve. It was (and is) hard to tell since the talk page has been sort of underutilized for this purpose and what discussion has taken place there seems to have centered around other users' misconduct, bad faith or allegations of same.
- There is no requirement that protection go through levels before being imposed. Often it is, yes, but if I think full protection for a very limited time (which I think the requesting editor may have asked for in this case) would work better, I'm going to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was two disagreements ongoing. One on if the damage total was unofficial/5th costliest. This has a consensus on the talk page, which bluntly was IP additions with EC removals. The item was actually admin edit request done (the way the EC editors were doing it) following this full protection. The other item of discussion was adding conspiracy theories or not. That discussion involved 2 EC editors, plus 2 IP editors. So, respectfully, full protection was unwarranted in my opinion. EC protection along with maybe a TP message and/or edit-warring notice to the 2 EC editors would have been sufficient. Basically, I am saying you jumped the gun on the full protection, which is why I am requesting it be dropped down to EC (since every EC editor involved is on the TP). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- EC former Helene editor here, so a bit biased but I feel like it should be open to EC per above. In addition, if needed, I would tell them Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season exists and that only the most notable conspiracy theories by notable figures(1-3 of them IMO) should be added to this article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- There was two disagreements ongoing. One on if the damage total was unofficial/5th costliest. This has a consensus on the talk page, which bluntly was IP additions with EC removals. The item was actually admin edit request done (the way the EC editors were doing it) following this full protection. The other item of discussion was adding conspiracy theories or not. That discussion involved 2 EC editors, plus 2 IP editors. So, respectfully, full protection was unwarranted in my opinion. EC protection along with maybe a TP message and/or edit-warring notice to the 2 EC editors would have been sufficient. Basically, I am saying you jumped the gun on the full protection, which is why I am requesting it be dropped down to EC (since every EC editor involved is on the TP). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I hereby guarantee to take the responsibility of rewriting the content without deviating from the neutral point of view and Wikipedia policy guidelines. I can guarantee that the subject in consideration passes WP:GNG. I have created a draft article Draft:Wimal Sockanathan for you all to take a closer look at it. In the past, the article had been repeatedly recreated maybe due to unambiguous advertising purposes. I have published a draft article where I have not exaggerated the subject matter and I have precisely written the content with the use of reliable sources.
Morning LK is one of the prime references that I have used throughout the process when I structured the article content. Please seek your approval to move this draft to mainspace. I have written a plethora of articles of around 2000+ in my seven year stint with Wikipedia platform and hence I hope I can continue to deliver the goods and fulfill the weight of expectations as a standout editor. Abishe (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Abishe: Let a reviewer request unprotection for this; you've submitted the draft for review already and admins are unlikely to unprotect it unless they are willing to review and accept it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not unprotected – If Draft:Wimal Sockanathan is accepted at WP:AFC, it will be moved to article space without further ado. Favonian (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
[edit]Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
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
{{Edit COI}}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.
I suggest changing the map on the states agreeing with with the Genocide charge (green coloured) to include Spain and Ireland, as these declared to join South Africa's case in the ICJ and generally agree with the allegations in public statements. Ireland also passed a motion in the parliament declaring it a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:9a4:6900:50f:51e:c5cd:b7cf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:
"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"
1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.
Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[7] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.
2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- @FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[8][9][10].VR (Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[11]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[12] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[13] VR (Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[11]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
- My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
- If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[16][17] and a form of Holocaust erasure[18], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[19][20][21][22]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Ecco2kstan, how about: "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations. Supporters of Israel say that accusing Israel of genocide is both antisemitic[16][17] and a form of Holocaust erasure[18], but others argue antisemitism shouldn't be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations.[19][20][21][22]".VR (Please ping on reply) 00:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.
Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:
International Positions on the Two-State Solution
Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]
EsenL (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Reply to Parliamentary Question on Palestine". Retrieved 2024-11-12.
- Source? Providing a source to back up your edit drastically improves the chance it'll be done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request that... (1. According to 2023 estimates the USA has 453,191 speakers.[1]
2. According to 2021 census, Canadas has 120,600 speakers[2].
3. According to 2021 census, Nepal has 23,774 speakers.) . 106.221.114.2 (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
References
In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":
Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]
References
- ^ "Concerns regarding Gaza mortality estimates". The Lancet. November 4, 2024.
- ^ "'186,000 Gazans dead': Lancet magazine publishes new blood libel". The Jerusalem Post. July 9, 2024.
Zlmark (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.
I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".
In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.
Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".
Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- The talk-page protection cannot be reversed here; either contact El C or appeal at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement to get it lifted. (I will note, however, that the semi-protection is set to lift 16 December.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Handled requests
[edit]
| 8 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 18:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
| 5 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
|
RFP= Requests for permissions
Autopatrolled
[edit]- Jannatulbaqi (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)
Hey, I am here again with another editor who has created 86 articles, including BLPs. One of their creations was taken to AfD but resulted in a keep. I reviewed some of their articles and found that adding them to the AP could be beneficial. Basic checks were done, and no major issues were found. It’s up to you, and thanks! GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Page mover
[edit]
- CoconutOctopus (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)
I've been editing on-and-off for years now and already have a number of permissions useful in the sort of wikignome work I tend to do, such as pending changes permission, rollback, and NPR rights; it is specifically new pages patrol I would be using this permission for. Primarily, I would like the permission in order to simplify the process when draftifying new articles so I would no longer need to leave a redirect for an admin to have to delete, but also for moving articles from misspellings or mis-titles. I've obviously got a fairly good understanding of the policies and wouldn't use the permission in a case that I thought might even be a little bit controversal. CoconutOctopus talk 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
[edit]- IDB.S (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)
I've been patrolling recent changes for a quiet while about Sri Lankan Articles, and I strongly believe this permission might be helpful. IDB.S (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- VolatileAnomaly (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)
As an active recent changes patroller, I have dealt with and reverted/warned many instances of vandalism, BLP, and unsourced content. Lately, I saw that the pending changes backlog was quite high and would like to expand my contributions to that area. Thank you for your time. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- JJPMaster (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)
I was granted temporary PCR privileges about four years ago, but did not request an extension due to genuine concerns regarding competence that were raised ahead of my successful rollback request about a month later. However, I believe that I have, at least for the most part, rectified these concerns over the past few months, where I have gotten much more active at AfC, NPP, and counter-vandalism (mainly using AntiVandal and, more recently, Huggle). Additionally, the reason for the competence concerns is now moot, since they arose due to my tendency to ask seemingly frivolous questions on AN and the help desk, while I now exercise great caution before bringing anything to the former, and rarely use the latter, as I am now much more familiar with our policies and guidelines, and no longer need as much clarification on them as then (see User talk:JJPMaster/Archive 2#WP:AN). If any concerns are still present, please let me know. Otherwise, I at least request that my temporary rights be restored, if it is not possible for me to be granted full rights at this time.
Courtesy pings: Nick, ToBeFree, Liz. JJPMaster (she/they) 17:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]- Rasteem (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)
I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.
I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteem Talk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}}I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteem Talk ®asteem Talk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)- Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use
{{Done}}or{{Not done}}in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use
- No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Sangsangaplaz (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)
I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable. Due to my forgetfulness I keep forgetting my wikipedia password so I tend to be gone for long periods of time. Although, when should I reapply. Should it be in around a month of activity? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
- BilledMammal (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)
Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Normally one would discuss problems with tool use with the editor, on their talk page, and go to a noticeboard which this page is not if they were still unsatisfied. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
@Extraordinary Writ: @Just Step Sideways: This privilege should be removed. The capability has its proper uses, but one of them isn't so that someone with a strong POV in a contentious topic can mass-revert the edits of someone with the opposite strong POV. Even if the latter has been blocked as a sock. Yes, it is legal to remove sock edits, but a good editor would review them first and keep what improves the article. Now someone has to go through all the reverts and restore what is salvageable. Many of the reverted edits included good content that someone else would have added if the sock hadn't. As examples of how blindly BilledMammal has been wielding this tool, I mention removal of an academic source, reintroduction of an error and deletion of an infobox. Per full disclosure, I am also involved in this topic, which is why I don't remove the permission myself. Zerotalk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
|
- Paytonisboss (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)
Reason for requesting rollback rights
Uhm hello I've been wondering if I could get rollback perms I want to help prevent vandalism on Wikipedia and if I'm not able to get rollback perms at the moment how do I sign up for the anti-vandilsim class please feel free to give your honest response as I beleave honesty is key and if you think I'm not prepared yet please tell me I like getting feedback it helps me grow and learn on Wikipedia best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done Normally what we are looking for is evidence that a user is already reverting and warning vandals, and I wasn't able to find that. WP:CVU is where to learn more, but I would also note that you could go in your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE if you want to make anti-vandalism work very easy to do. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- thank you for the advice i appreciate that and yes i will use twinkle and i will start patrolling for vandilisim best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Myrealnamm (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
I think I am ready for Rollback user rights, after being declined twice before. I have 1835 mainspace edits, several months finding and reverting vandalism, and almost always notifying editors about their edits. I understand that Rollback is only used for obvious vandalism, and it should not be used for good-faith edits. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Policies and links