Template:Admin dashboard/light
- Frequently, some pages transcluding {{Admin dashboard}} are going on overflow and appear at Category:Pages_where_post-expand_include_size_is_exceeded.
This Template:Admin dashboard/light has been rewritten by including directly all the parts that were dispersed in so many sub-templates. - The "leaks out boxes" error has been fixed.
- Pages RFPP and UNFAA are simply linked (i.e. not transcluded) when too busy
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]
- Kariama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 809 twice in the last 5 minutes (Possible SPI/Project space disruption, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53595-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 384 five times in the last 5 minutes (Addition of bad words or other vandalism, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Warned user. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- TobyKohlhagen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1311 (LTA 1311, details). Note: This filter has a large number of false positives. Use caution before blocking. Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-52971-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 135 five times in the last 5 minutes (Repeating characters, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53646-84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53694-70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 491 five times in the last 5 minutes (Edits ending with emoticons or !, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53509-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1102 five times in the last 5 minutes (Rapid disruption, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- User keeps abusing the edit filter and has done it nine times. Non-communicative and keeps removing content from List of radio stations in Vietnam. User:M.O.A.B 22062005 may also be involved. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 09:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53622-81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 614 five times in the last 5 minutes (Memes and vandalism trends (moomer slang + zoomer slang), details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53579-55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 3 five times in the last 5 minutes (New user blanking articles, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- ~2026-42978-76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Therapy at the Club (diff): vandalism after final warning. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53619-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/~2026-36774-70, User:Hong Kong 2 Seoul. Tim (talk) 06:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Vincent2107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Spamming dubious edits with no explanation (WP:MEATBOT), not responding to concerns on talk page, possible undisclosed WP:COI. Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Foreversingingchoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Nissan (diff): actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. SuperFastSpellChecker (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- OAthur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Continued vandalism/disruption after multiple warnings. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Jackassmcgee1259 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Seth Olsen (diff): actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Account is being used only to insert profanity into articles; username contains identical profanity. - CreationFox Talk Page 08:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53724-74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BLP vandalism , adding same 'spouse' to multiple articles. KH-1 (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ~2026-53509-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Vandalism-only account. Maayaaaaa (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- DerekWolgemuth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Moxy🍁 09:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
CSD= Candidates for speedy deletion ; PROD= Proposed deletions
| Candidates for speedy deletion | Entries |
|---|---|
| User requested | 5 |
| Empty articles | 0 |
| Nonsense pages | 0 |
| Spam pages | 9 |
| Importance or significance not asserted | 4 |
| Other candidates | 28 |
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 – 1 item
Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 64 items
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old – 1 item
Requested RD1 redactions – No backlog currently
Expired proposed deletions of unsourced BLPs – No backlog currently
UAA= Usernames for administrator attention ; RFPP= Requests for page protection
- RowdyCDUBFanClub (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Leonardo6767 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Stanfordproductions (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Pricklypurrypurely (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- JamesSchoolcraftSherman1855 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- ALO Public Access TV (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
- Mr.Nincompoop (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
This username matched "Poop" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Üñêzzz (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, so please be careful when blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 21:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)- This username matched "Attempting to skip filters using multiple similar characters" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 21:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Note on file Multiple special characters can be contained in the same phrase, this rule detects when one or more occurs. -- DQB (owner / report) 21:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Manishagar123 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)
User-reported
[edit] | 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]Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Almost every change over the past few months (aside from reverts and removing protection notice) has been disruptive, even before a semi-protection of one year ended. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:00, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – Sockpuppetry crossed with COI/UPE. The exact details of how many people are involved are a bit opaque because of the sockpuppetry but it appears to be at least two, including the article subject and someone paid to edit on her behalf. They have been asked to clarify this, stop engaging in sockpuppetry, and make the necessary disclosures (see here, here, here and here) but haven't done so.
They have a good faith desire to see the article updated and to see some unnecessary person info removed from it (which has now been done); but they are not using sources, removing existing sources and relevant info without explanation, and generally being disruptive. Protecting the page might prompt them to engage in discussion and lead to a resolution of these good faith concerns. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing on this page and other Ahom-related pages. I think this falls under Contentious topics - South Asia.
EDIT: User in question is the subject of a sock puppetry investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ney_konware
Theemausoliam (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Promotional material has been added by a number of sockpuppets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BManning08 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheFinalCut1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Upgrader101
After these accounts were banned the same edits are now being made by temporary accounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-50864-93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/~2026-53104-86 Idontwantaaccount (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Recent removal/reversion of sourced material and continued disruption by a new user connected to the same dispute affecting other Ahom-related articles like Joymoti Konwari and Ahom kingdom. The article falls within the South Asia contentious topic, and temporary extended-confirmed protection may help prevent further disruption. Ananya Taye (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This user who requested protection has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The user who is disrupting Ahom articles is the subject of a sock puppetry investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ney_konware Theemausoliam (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Toketaatalk 14:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- You should reconsider this, The Bushranger; more vandalism has since occurred on the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry – LTA target. Alith Anar 19:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Ban evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: High amount of edit warring, especially by unregistered users. Repeated insertion of trying to show the company as defunct and merged into Skydance Corporation, though the merger hasn't happened yet. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: TA hopper sockpuppets. FDW777 (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: High amount of reverts that keep trying to show the company has been "founded" and a merger of Paramount Skydance with Warner Bros. Discovery has already happened, which it hasn't yet. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – LLM generated edits are persistently being reinstated, most recently with an edit summary claiming that the page is "being monitored by ASV". I'm not sure what ASV is, but that does not imply independent editing and this is turning into a slow moving edit war to reinstate LLM-generated edits at this point. ‑‑gurkubondinn 08:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Several reverted edits about the brand he is assigned HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Extended history of vandalism, and has been temporarily protected in the past. An obvious target, too. Sycerion (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Reason: Protection was bumped from semi to extended confirmed in 2022 after a multi-day long vandal spree waged by a known LTA through multiple throwaway accounts. In the four years since, they are seemly inactive, with their last known account discovered on July 2023 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awolf58/Archive). With this in mind, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to give semi another wurl. Giovanni Potage (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: No longer nessecary. The sock responsible for protection has probably moved on, judging how long their last known account has been inactive for (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephaniemuue/Archive). Giovanni Potage (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
[edit]
Handled requests
[edit]
| 16 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 17:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC) |
| 23 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 19:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC) |
RFA= Requests for adminship
|
RFP= Requests for permissions
Autopatrolled
[edit]- Dionysodorus (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 created a range of articles in the past (mostly short biographies of scholars and clergy, along with a few conversions from the National Dictionary of Biography). These have not given rise to any substantial issues, and it occurs to me that it is probably not a good use of patrollers' time to have to review any articles I may write in future, given the backlog. I am a longstanding editor, and as a reasonably experienced NPP reviewer I am thoroughly familiar with the BLP and notability policies. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hey Dionysodorus, thanks for applying! I think there are a few things you could work on before you're ready for autopatrolled. I found a few uses of unreliable sources, which I've since removed or tagged, in Andrew Braddock (priest) and Lee Batson (you might find a citation highlighter useful for catching these ahead of time). And while Christopher Collard almost certainly meets the notability criteria for academics, the article is far too reliant on primary sources. Particularly in a BLP, these need to be treated with more care; for example, the claim "Collard is also known for his collaborations with Martin Cropp", cited to two books published by the pair, borders on original research in the way it overstates this fact. I'm going to call this
not done for now — please let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69: I think some of that is debatable. As it says at WP:WHOSWHO, Who's Who is treated as a self-published source, which means that it's not reliable in general, but it's still reliable for information about the subject themself under WP:ABOUTSELF. I would like to put that back in to the articles on Batson and Braddock, because taking it out just leaves appropriately self-sourced information appearing to be without a reliable source when this is not actually the case, since Who's Who is reliable for this purpose under our guidelines.
- As for Collard, he's clearly notable under WP:AUTHOR (multiple books with multiple reviews, which don't have to be cited in the article to contribute towards notability...) as well as WP:ACADEMIC. Almost all biographies about academics who aren't dead yet are based on primary sources to a large extent: after all, the whole premise of WP:ACADEMIC is that – as it says in the note at the top of the page – "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". I agree that it would have been better to have said "have collaborated" rather than "are known for their collaborations", but it seems rather debatable whether it's actually OR to say that two scholars are known for their collaborations when they have published four widely reviewed volumes together in well-established series and when these volumes represent a large portion of both scholars' work.
- Therefore, although I can see why you have formed the views that you express above, I still think that these articles are in the spirit of our policies and are appropriately sourced, and would not be a good use of an NPP reviewer's time, which ought rather to be spent looking for substantively unsourced BLPs, promo, AI use, and so forth. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 12:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The standards for autopatrolled are somewhat higher than just the bar for clearing NPP. As Wikipedia:Autopatrolled states, the permission is for "prolific creators of clean articles" — as an administrator, I need to be confident that your creations are going to be in line with all of our core content policies (i.e. "clean"), including things like neutrality and reliable sourcing, which aren't strictly within NPP's purview. As I mentioned, I think you're on your way there, but the issues I brought up give me enough pause to hold off for the time being. I would encourage you to read the RfCs linked at the Who's Who RSP listing; I don't think the ABOUTSELF argument works here, since the source has been known to publish verifiably incorrect information, so they would run into the fourth and fifth caveats listed in that policy. With Collard, I was not questioning his notability, but the excessive reliance on primary sources in a BLP, and some of the knock-on effects of that decision. I would encourage you to take another look at your creations with this feedback in mind and reapply in a few months when you have new work to show that you've made improvements in these areas. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69: As far as I can see, the discussions listed at WP:WHOSWHO broadly say that it should be treated as a self-published source that is no more or less accurate than the quality of the information that is provided by the person in question: that view is correctly reflected in the perennial sources table. The objections are to the fact that Who's Who doesn't check the information, and therefore reproduces inaccurate information when the information provided to them is inaccurate; there's nothing at all to suggest that they misrepresent the information provided, or that they are less reliable than other SPS. There's also nothing in the discussions that excludes using Who's Who entries for uncontroversial information under WP:ABOUTSELF, and some commenters in those discussions specifically allow for that. The same is implied by WP:GUNREL, which explicitly says that generally unreliable sources can often be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.
- Also, surely it's not helpful to remove the actual sources from which material is drawn and replace them with citation needed tags. I've never understood why people do this, since if the info is to be included the source must also be included, or the information is effectively plagiarised. If you really think that these Who's Who entries cannot be relied upon and the accuracy of the information is therefore in doubt, I think you should remove the information as well; if not, I don't see how it makes sense to remove the source.
- I am not sure what you expect people to do with subjects such as Collard, short of not writing the article in the first place.
- The idea that I should improve my approach to sourcing and come back in a few months presupposes that I agree with you that the sourcing practices that I adopted in these articles are inadequate. But in my view this isn't really the position: rather, we have both read and thought about the guidelines in question, and have reached reasonable but different interpretations of them. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to grant me the flag, and I respect your right as an admin taking on the task of monitoring this page to proceed as you think best. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The standards for autopatrolled are somewhat higher than just the bar for clearing NPP. As Wikipedia:Autopatrolled states, the permission is for "prolific creators of clean articles" — as an administrator, I need to be confident that your creations are going to be in line with all of our core content policies (i.e. "clean"), including things like neutrality and reliable sourcing, which aren't strictly within NPP's purview. As I mentioned, I think you're on your way there, but the issues I brought up give me enough pause to hold off for the time being. I would encourage you to read the RfCs linked at the Who's Who RSP listing; I don't think the ABOUTSELF argument works here, since the source has been known to publish verifiably incorrect information, so they would run into the fourth and fifth caveats listed in that policy. With Collard, I was not questioning his notability, but the excessive reliance on primary sources in a BLP, and some of the knock-on effects of that decision. I would encourage you to take another look at your creations with this feedback in mind and reapply in a few months when you have new work to show that you've made improvements in these areas. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
File mover
[edit]- Haoreima (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)
Have contributed to the Wikimedia Commons community for a long time in moving files of all types, and now wishing to contribute to English Wikipedia for local community! Regards! :-) Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 01:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Page mover
[edit]- CROIX (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 usually edit low-to-mid traffic mainspace articles relating to Antigua and Barbuda. According to XTools, I have moved 447 pages across all namespaces. I have been moving pages since June 2021 and I have experience with both requested moves and technical requests. Given the nature of this topic (virtually always involving low-impact requests) and my multiple years of experience with page moving, having this permission would speed up my work. CROIXtalk 01:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
[edit]- EzYop (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)
Hello I would like to have pending changes reviewer rights, I routinely edit on my account with 500 edits in the past 3 weeks. I also have never participated in vandalism and routinely make productive edits. I have read Policy On Vandalism, Policy On Copyright, and I understand that I must obtain a neutral point of view and the guideline on reviewing. I request these services to help me expand my reach and find new ways of editing and helping Wikipedia. My limited services right now mainly include linking articles and welcoming new users. Thank you for your time and generosity! EzYop (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- PeterCooperJr (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 sometimes run into articles with pending changes while monitoring recent changes, and it could be helpful to be able to accept or decline them. I already have Rollback rights. Thanks. PeterCooperJr (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ivebeenhacked (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)
Hello, I'm Ivebeenhacked. I have about 16,900+ edits and am familiar with the Wikipedia policies highlighted in WP:PCCRITERIA. I edit almost everyday in Wikipedia by correctly reverting vandalism, disruptive edits, and am competent in correcting incorrect information in articles. I'm confident I can be a great reviewer. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Rollback
[edit]- Jabba550 (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: I would like to use huggle to revert vandalism in a quicker manner as i find wp:twinkle a bit too slow sometimes and would like too see if I would prefer huggle or other similar editing tools. Jabba550 | ✉ in solidarity 13:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)
Done — Newslinger talk 19:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Baberoothless (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: I’ve been an RC patroller for better part of a year now. Rollback rights will help me counter vandalism more effectively, especially when I have to undo contributions of editors with a disruptive editing history, editors with single-purpose COI accounts, and editors who have been blocked. I’d also like to use the suite of tools that rollback rights come with including CVPI and Huggle. I will not use rollback rights to settle content disputes (I don’t get into many either way). I hope that my main space contributions so far, and my experience with the platform + RC patrol will attest to my intentions. Thanks! Baberoothless (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Baberoothless, you meet all of the criteria listed in the green notice at the top of the section, except for "A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits." While your reverts are sometimes accompanied by user talk page notices, some of your recent reverts were not: . Based on this, I am declining your request at this time, but if you can demonstrate a track record of properly warning editors after reverting unconstructive edits (which is most easily done with Twinkle, which you have been using, or with Ultraviolet), then your next request for this permission would be stronger. Not done for now. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Celjski Grad (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'd like rollback rights in order to make recent change patrolling easier with tools such as Interceptor. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- 16dvnk (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 am planning to use WP:Interceptor and I believe rollback would make reverting vandalism more efficient. I believe that I meet the recommended (edited) criteria listed above. Thank you for processing my request! 16dvnk (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Hi 16dvnk, because you have recently added LLM-generated content to an article (see Special:Diff/1371919576 at Cognitive robotic abstract machine, which added two LLM-generated citations, including an invalid URL in #7 and invalid DOI in #8), I am unable to accept your request because LLM misuse is disqualifying for permission requests. Please ensure that your future edits follow the WP:LLM guideline and the other AI-related policies and guidelines listed at WP:AIPOLICY. Not done for now. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. It was a while ago so I do not really recall everything. In that diff, I think I used some sort of LLM, but then only checked for AI minutes after I applied the diff (which was fixed after). Currently the article is free of AI content, but I apologize if even that was a violation of AI policy. Thanks for telling me, and in the future I will ensure something like that will not happen again. Thanks for your time. 16dvnk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Sksatsuma (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)
Previously had this as a temporary right for fighting vandalism with Huggle. Had a bit of a wiki-break but keen to revisit this. Thanks! sksatsuma 14:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- Done — Newslinger talk 13:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strongshorts (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 Hi, I would like the rollbacker right to more efficiently fight vandalism. As it is required for many counter-vandalism tools such as Huggle. I have experience in Recent Changes patrol. I also have moderation experience elsewhere. Thank you, Strongshorts (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC) Strongshorts (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 199 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 08:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- This bot is outdated, while I did have 199 edits I now have over 200 Strongshorts (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (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 am requesting rollback rights So that AI Model articles can be as high quality as possible CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- DocLG (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 would like rollback to handle obvious vandalism more efficiently. I enjoy monitoring for spam, unconstructive edits, and talking to/notifying newer editors . I have read WP:ROLLBACK and will not use the default rollback summary on good-faith or disputed edits. Thanks. DocLG (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- LuigiMcpe4549 (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)
Hello again! My name is LuigiMcpe4549. I would like to request rollback rights. That is because I have done some good edits and revert some vandalism on Wikipedia. I think that it is useful in case of crazy vandalism. It's ok if my application is denied again like last time. Cheers! :) LuigiMcpe4549 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Justcgi (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'd like to have rollback permissions so I can utilize tools like AntiVandal to help out with recent changes patrol. Justcgi (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- TobyKohlhagen (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 would like to have rollback permissions to use Interceptor while out and about :) TobyKohlhagen (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Footer
[edit]Policies and links
