User:Peridon/links
Administrative backlog
[edit]
Reports
[edit]
User-reported
[edit]- Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thank you everyone trying to help out with the Toolforge outage affecting bots, but please leave removing reports to administrators. Otherwise, multiple administrators are going to end up checking your removal to make sure those accounts were handled correctly (i.e., more work for everyone). Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- Gaeboi67 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) -- Username may be offensive. (Admins, please consider this one carefully). In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:17, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads 10:57, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Many temporary accounts making BLP violating edits in the PIA CTOP. Request long-term ECP to page to prevent arbitration violations. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – There have been several edits in recent days from anonymous accounts (likely all belonging to the same person) that keep adding speculative information without using sources or using unreliable ones, as well as adding superfluous links or modifying the text, thus worsening the writing. And, despite two users having already reverted the edits, the changes remain. Marco camino 10 (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- I was just going to file a request for this one. Considering protection expired earlier this month, I would like to request a longer protection period given the recent editing dispute stems from a LTA Chile-based dynamic IP temp account who has made similar disruptive edits across DC film articles. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 15:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – shoe dualcerbtalk 14:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- +1 No reason to drag this any longer. To paraphrase an old saying: "Cut the snake's head off and to done with it!" If TRYUNPROT failed twice, I don't see why we should continue this attempt. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected indefinitely. A 3-year-long protection expired earlier this year. Given that vandalism is still ongoing, I've upped the protection indefinitely. Epicgenius (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius Additional suggestion: Perhaps you could restore move protection as well? It's (presumedly) a high-traffic page of an established topic unlikely to ever require moving to another title. Giovanni Potage (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. Move-protected indefinitely. Epicgenius (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable.
- @Epicgenius Additional suggestion: Perhaps you could restore move protection as well? It's (presumedly) a high-traffic page of an established topic unlikely to ever require moving to another title. Giovanni Potage (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: BLP policy violations. dualcerbtalk 15:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) IMO, the recent edit history indicates PCP would be the better alternative, given that the page is only occasionally targeted every few weeks. At this rate, a full-blown semi block would be unfair to legitimate newcomers. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) However, move protection seems to be in order. The page revives a decent amount of daily traffic, and there isn't any other notable person named "Ted Nugent" to my knowledge. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pending changes–protected indefinitely. Since there has been no history of move vandalism, I don't see the need for protection in that area. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) However, move protection seems to be in order. The page revives a decent amount of daily traffic, and there isn't any other notable person named "Ted Nugent" to my knowledge. Giovanni Potage (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – This article is a magnet for unsourced contributions. Longer term protection or even pending changes would be a benefit. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. One day, commercial air passenger transport will be a contentious topic. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. dualcerbtalk 16:10, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: ~2026-55961-49 (talk · contribs) blocked by TonySt. From article for 31 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: I request that an administrator review the recent editing history of this article and consider temporary page protection if there is evidence of repeated disruptive editing or an ongoing edit war.
Given the ongoing coverage of the season and the potential for disagreements over contestant name and other episode details, I believe it is important to maintain accurate, properly sourced, and neutral content.
If repeated disruptive edits are occurring, please consider applying the lowest appropriate level of protection for the shortest necessary period, while allowing constructive editing to continue.
Thank you for reviewing this request. Bijzindia (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: High level of non-autoconfirmed vandalism — Unfortunately, I think protection is nessecary at this point if we're serious about improving this page. If any legitimate newcomer wants to add an improvement, they should suggest their idea to the Talk Page. For a long time, we applied a similar philosophy to TFAs, and look what happened.. Giovanni Potage (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Declined As rsjaffe stated yesterday: An increase in vandalism is not a reason to protect TWAFI. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also, @Giovanni Potage you might want to know that {{AFI}} puts a giant banner at the top of the page that is visible only to admins explaining why they should not protect the page. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I hate to admit, but as much as I respect you guys, I'm severely disappointed in the WP community's decision to leave TWAFI's unprotected. Nevertheless, I will drop my request. Giovanni Potage (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Protecting the AFI would completely defeat the purpose of AFI. It's like trying to dehydrate water (without making it taste worse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Thriller Night! 18:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- A decent number of admins are watching that page closely and being aggressive in handling vandals, so I think that is helping keep things ok. I'm actually surprised at how little vandalism there is.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. I hate to admit, but as much as I respect you guys, I'm severely disappointed in the WP community's decision to leave TWAFI's unprotected. Nevertheless, I will drop my request. Giovanni Potage (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also, @Giovanni Potage you might want to know that {{AFI}} puts a giant banner at the top of the page that is visible only to admins explaining why they should not protect the page. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent uptick in vandalism, likely due to recent but unrelated events concerning the files. Filmssssssssssss (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – sadly I can't say "Permaprotect" because this only needs temporary. dualcerbtalk 18:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:48, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- User(s) blocked: ~2026-54345-65 (talk · contribs) blocked by Materialscientist. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Reported yesterday over disruptive edits by IP, got denied. IP returned today with more persistent disruption that other editors got involved. IP refuses to engage in talk page but chose to go to AN3 and ANI instead, See here and Here.
- User(s) blocked: ~2026-56356-87 (talk · contribs) blocked by ToBeFree. Indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Anonymous accounts have been consistently adding and re-adding libelous accusations against the article's subject and his relatives in the past few days, citing as sources news reports about a 2020 investigation that was dropped in 2021 without going to trial and that did not result in any convictions. The subject of the page is a major opposition candidate in the brazilian national election run-off that will occur on 25 October 2026, and I am requesting that the page be protected from anonymous editing until 26 October 2026. Fbergo (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- The article dates from October 2026, and the information it contains is still up to date. The fact that this case has not been adjudicated by the Brazilian courts does not change the fact that it exists. ~2026-56561-95 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Reinstatement of Semi-Protection: vandalism returned after 12 days off of semi-protection today and yesterday and will likely continue to occur into the next weeks. TheBridgeMaker (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, Daniel! I appreciate it. TheBridgeMaker (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Another spate of IP vandalism/blanking. Amigao (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary full protection: LLM-generated text and cites coming from TAs and User:Justdance85. Binksternet (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 19:51, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – tumblr post about goblin addition has caused people to continually add requests to return goblin. as a tumblr user, i can personally testify that memes go on there can occasionally last literal decades so i fear longer term protection may be necessary. Jackjd0 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. No disruption since protection ended two days ago. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism by temporary accounts. Farzeymedic (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Recent announcement of studio closure, attracting IP vandalism. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: High level of vandalism SevenSpheres (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- +1, getting tired of the gaster jokes St☆rlet! (Need to talk?) (Library) (Sandbox) 22:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. TonySt 22:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – LTA. -- Wesoree (talk·contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh the funny coincidence of there being an LTA on...the page of the LTA Netstars22 (talk to me!) 00:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- +1 Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- +1 Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent joke/vandalism edits that I'm getting tired of reverting. Prezbo (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Pending changes–protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Testing to see if stronger protection is needed. Yue🌙 (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Semi-protection. Request for protection due ongoing conflict Dumocrat (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of dispute resolution. The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: One editor is edit-warring against solid consensus established at article talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. I don't have the time here to determine whether this is actionable edit warring, though I am leaning toward thinking that. But as this involves only a single editor, it is better dealt with at that noticeboard. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Vandalism magnet, best to preemptively protect this ~2026-51743-41 (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent removal of maintenance template without explanation or resolving it by TA hopper. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- IP address(es) blocked by Daniel Case. Well, one, the same one all the TAs going back to when we can tell this have been editing from, for two weeks. In the future if they resume an indef block from the page should be considered for this IP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefnite move protection: Page receives a decent amount of traffic, and I can't envision that a move would ever realistically be necessary. This is somewhat of an unusual request as the page is already edit protected. Giovanni Potage (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. We have generally only move-protected pages when there is a move war over the name or when vandals think it's cute. As your comment allows, the first is highly unlikely (at least I very much hope so, given all the past angst over this page here), and as for the second there has not been any. Daniel Case (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:19, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Template:Merge et al.
[edit]- Template:Merge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Merge to (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Merge from (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Afdx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Article for deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Article for deletion/dated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Article for deletion/switch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: I've attempted to contact the protecting admin several times, to no avail. For why protection needs to be lowered, kindly refer to my August request on their talk. All those reasons also apply to these other AfD templates, which were fully-protected by a now-former admin in 2006 and lowered to TE once it was introduced. Per the High-risk templates policy, there is consensus to permanently extended-confirmed protect templates with roughly 2500–5000 transclusions
, and these AfD templates have just over 700 transclusions (the first two are substed wrappers of the last two). Plus, they are almost always used on relatively unimportant articles, not on articles with high pageviews (those rarely get nominated for deletion). Thus, there is not enough potential for disruption to justify protection in this case, especially given the changes needed to implement the RfC result. FaviFake (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Redrose64: I see you're still active. Any objection? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for merge templates. I object to removing TE protection from the merge templates. Even if there are only 700 transclusions now, these are temporary states, because after the merge discussion is resolved, the templates are removed. The population of articles that have needed this template in the past is far, far, larger than any snapshot of the number of transclusions. That's a poor metric to use in this case. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- I believe you have misunderstood the changes that are planned as a result of the RfC. The old merge process you are referring to (PAM) has been shut down completely, but allow me to explain: (Disclaimer: I'm going to make an extremely long story really short, but you can learn more at WP:PAMHISTORY in case you're interested.)
- Starting from the late 2000s, the merge backlog used to grow without any restraint. This was caused by the simplicity of the PAM process: to propose a merge, all you had to was add one of the {{PAM templates}} to the articles you wanted to merge. (In theory, the instructions also required you to also create a discussion on the talk page, but in practice most people treated the PAM notices as glorified maintenance tags.)
- The misuse of these templates continued for several years. In 2010, for example, there were 16,551 articles proposed for merging. In those same years, several proposals to merge the process into AfD were created and some actually received strong consensus, but they were never implemented because moving 16 thousand merge proposals into AfD was simply impossible.
- Fast forward 15 years later. The only real differences are that (1) open and closed merge proposals are now kept in separate backlogs, and (2) both backlogs are very small (only ~400 articles) thanks to the work of the PAM team. Then, voorts makes the same exact proposal to shut down PAM, and it receives consensus once again. However, this time it can actually be implemented! Wohoo!
- ... but it's not easy. Over the past 7 months, dozens of PAM editors have opened 35 discussions and posted around 1,600 comments in order to implement the result of the RfC. The result? These merge templates will only work when the merge proposal is at AfD. If the AfD discussion doesn't exist yet, the templates will display an error and automagically show the user instructions on how to open one.
- This is why the assertion that
these are temporary states
is not really correct. I've been monitoring the AfD merging space very closely for over 5 months now (I watchlisted 90% of ALL merge proposals), and I can assure you that the number of AfDs has not significantly increased after PAM was shut down. When I made the request in August, the AfD templates had 700 transclusions, and now that number is down to 625. Even if we assume that, 6 months after PAM was shut down, for some strange reason, AfD suddenly receives an immense surge of new nominations and the current number doubles, the total would be just 1250, thus remaining well below the2500–5000 transclusions
cited by the guideline even in the most absurd scenario. Besides, the "625" number refers to all open AfD nominations, not just merge proposals. If we exclude deletion nominations, you can see that there are only 100 open merge nominations at AfD, and that number won't suddenly jump to, idk, 10,000, because that would mean that there are 10 thousand AfD discussion open at the same time. (And if that ever happens, we have much bigger problems to worry about!)This is a bit longer than I intended, sorry about that! FaviFake (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)- The work to merge these processes is impressive, I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise. The question here is whether these templates are high risk, and how we figure that out. These templates render on every revision that has ever included them; there are conservatively tens of thousand of page revisions in the database that include these templates, and changes to them will affect those historical pages and any permanent links to them. That's what Anachronist means when they say "The population of articles that have needed this template in the past is far, far, larger than any snapshot of the number of transclusions."For example, this April 2011 revision of Computer networking renders {{merge to}}. That page history sends the reader to the old merge discussion for them to look at, but the current sandbox template renders a redlink to a non-existent AFD page with no link to the historical discussion. The companion page, the merge target at Computer network completely breaks, with an error being shown. These are the kinds of things that admins need to consider when deciding whether a template is high risk, not just how many transclusions it has right now.To lower the protection to ECP, you should explain why letting any EC editor introduce potentially breaking changes to near interface-level templates won't lead to widespread problems. You explain that vandalism isn't a large concern, but HRT lists other risks and benefits to consider. For example, the guideline says
For templates that are stable, part of our critical technical infrastructure [...] administrators should consider full protection or template protection to enforce code review through edit requests which helps prevent accidental bugs and deliberate attacks.
The {{Afdx}} template, for example, is part of Twinkle's default install and changes could affect about 49,000 users and {{Merge}} affects Article Alerts which has more subscribing wikiprojects than I care to count.Is any given EC editor going to coordinate with those projects maintainers to make sure that changes work with that software? With ECP, will editors go through code review and testing to make sure the edits work before merging to the main template or will they just make changes on the live page potentially introducing unknown errors across the encyclopedia? How likely is it that an editor finds this template in order to cause problems? Number of current transclusions are a proxy for that, but as WP:HRT says[there is] no fixed transclusion count that is used to decide whether a template or module is high-risk; each page is considered separately
. With all that in mind, I think template protection is a reasonable level for this set of templates. — Wug·a·po·des 21:56, 21 October 2026 (UTC)- Thanks for your reply! However, I would prefer not to engage in a discussion about content on a forum used for determining whether a page should be protected under the protection policy. As I said multiple times in the discussion linked in my nomination,
we are not ready to deploy the new versions
. That was true in August and it remains true now; there are other errors and edge cases that are still being hammered out across the whole family of merge and AfD templates. These are not the only templates that needed to be updated, and my request was not intended to gather support or opposition for those changes.In my opinion, your rationales for rejecting unprotection, while very thoughtful and considerate, are not entirely aligned with Wikipedia's polices on editing protection. I'll quote the relevant parts of Wikipedia:Protection policy § Template protection and your comments below. I will not address your specific suggestions on how the template should be modified, as I consider them to be off-topic and at times impossible to implement in a way that satisfies the requirements set out at the months-long implementation discussions I linked in my reply.
It would be unreasonable to fully protect those templates, due to their low risk factors. Vandalism that mostly only appears on past revisions of pages is not a concrete risk factor, as past revisions from previous years are not commonly browsed by our readers and do not cause performance issues.It should be used on templates whose risk factor would have otherwise warranted full protection.
As I said, the PAM team has been working for months on these templates, but due to the sheer number and complexity of the updates, they might not be perfect on day 1 despite our best efforts. Therefore, they may still need to be edited regularly, possibly even for implementing the merge of PAM into Miscellany for deletion, which is currently waiting to be closed at Closure requests.In borderline cases, extended confirmed protection or lower can be applied to high-risk templates that the general editing community still needs to edit regularly.
Yes, they are required to do so. Needless to say, all of these updates have already been tested and are fully compatible with any bot, script, or other software that needs to handle them, and every developer has been made aware of the changes at least six months in advance (or as soon as possible, in the case of a new script created while we were discussing the new versions) and multiple times. Several scripts on GitHub and Phabricator have already been updated in light of these changes, such as PageTriage and XFDcloser.Is any given EC editor going to coordinate with those projects maintainers to make sure that changes work with that software?
Every template change affects historical pages and any permanent links to them; this is irrelevant to an unprotection request. I do not believe your definition of transclusion, which seems to include every page revision where a template is used, can be found anywhere in our policies. Wordings such as those used in the protection policy and Wikipedia:High-risk templates § Criteria lead me to believe that the spirit of the law was only intended to cover the current transclusion count, as all templates are inevitably going to be updated and possibly rewritten and there is no way to get the "transclusion count" of every current and past revision.I disagree with the assertion thatchanges to them will affect those historical pages and any permanent links to them
[t]hese are the kinds of things that admins need to consider when deciding whether a template is high risk
. I would ask you why "these kinds of things" should be decided by admins and not by the general community of Wikipedia, or why the reasons behind one update could be considered a valid reason for rejecting an unprotection request for a page that is protected indefinitely. These templates are neither stable nor part of our critical technical infrastructure; I don't know how you could possibly reach the conclusion that they arenear interface-level templates
. If they were, I agree that they should be fully protected. FaviFake (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! However, I would prefer not to engage in a discussion about content on a forum used for determining whether a page should be protected under the protection policy. As I said multiple times in the discussion linked in my nomination,
- The work to merge these processes is impressive, I don't think anyone is trying to say otherwise. The question here is whether these templates are high risk, and how we figure that out. These templates render on every revision that has ever included them; there are conservatively tens of thousand of page revisions in the database that include these templates, and changes to them will affect those historical pages and any permanent links to them. That's what Anachronist means when they say "The population of articles that have needed this template in the past is far, far, larger than any snapshot of the number of transclusions."For example, this April 2011 revision of Computer networking renders {{merge to}}. That page history sends the reader to the old merge discussion for them to look at, but the current sandbox template renders a redlink to a non-existent AFD page with no link to the historical discussion. The companion page, the merge target at Computer network completely breaks, with an error being shown. These are the kinds of things that admins need to consider when deciding whether a template is high risk, not just how many transclusions it has right now.To lower the protection to ECP, you should explain why letting any EC editor introduce potentially breaking changes to near interface-level templates won't lead to widespread problems. You explain that vandalism isn't a large concern, but HRT lists other risks and benefits to consider. For example, the guideline says
- I believe you have misunderstood the changes that are planned as a result of the RfC. The old merge process you are referring to (PAM) has been shut down completely, but allow me to explain: (Disclaimer: I'm going to make an extremely long story really short, but you can learn more at WP:PAMHISTORY in case you're interested.)
Reason:
- Current protection level: Semi-protection
- Requested protection level: Unprotected or Downgraded to Pending Changes
According to the article's protection log, this page has been continuously semi-protected since 2009 due to excessive historical vandalism. Because the protecting administrator, User:Kaldari, is now retired and inactive, I am bringing this request directly to the noticeboard.
Reviewing the 2009 disruption shows it was heavily driven by a few specific, persistent IPs (such as 169.244.32.98, 72.73.88.129, and 24.10.77.209). A check of their contribution histories shows these accounts have long since been blocked or moved on. Given that 17 years have passed, the original bad actors are gone, and there are only two historical instances of protection in the log, an indefinite lock is no longer necessary. I request a trial reduction of protection or a downgrade to Pending Changes to see if modern community watchlists can handle the baseline traffic. ~2026-55230-13 (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. Article titles like this are magnets for grade-school vandalism. Even pending changes would be a burden on the reviewer community. There are almost zero constructive edits from anonymous IP addresses prior to the protection (far more than three IP addresses). Looking at about 400 edits prior to protection, more than 100 were not constructive (nearly all from IP addresses), there were more than 100 reverts, and less than 200 were constructive edits. That isn't a good proportion. There is no reason to believe that disruption won't resume if protection is lifted. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Okay ~2026-55230-13 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Anachronist I couldn't agree more, especially considering you did downgrade the Avocado article's protection from semi to pending changes five months ago per my request, but disruption persisted 19-20 days later, resulting in that article getting semi-protected again. BriDash9000 (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: It was indef semi'd for persistent disruptive editing, and as I can see back in the contribs, I think that disruptive editing can be controlled by pending changes instead. The incidents of disruptive editing was relatively isolated. JJhhdd89 (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hello JJhhdd89, if the page was not protected in a way that currently prevents you from editing it, would you make similar contributions to it as those you've started with 35 minutes ago, or do you have something specific constructive in mind? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just saw your other contributions. Sigh. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
[edit]
| − | 3,375+ | + | 3,375+ killed
33,806+ injured |
I am requesting a simple correction of WHO'S figures in the infobox. The cited WHO report does not state that these are for civilians only. They are actially total Iranian deaths and that is also more consistent with Iran's own figure and HRANA's. ~2026-55822-25 (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Done Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Please add the article for improvement for this week (or last week). ~2026-54295-85 (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
The image with the caption "Israeli soldiers in a Namer APC before invasion of the Gaza Strip" is wrong, as the shown vehicle is a Puma armored engineering vehicle, it can be identified as such by multiple characteristics such as the headlights, driver's hatch, driver loacation and frontal hull shape. ~2026-56014-36 (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
- Met you halfway: since there is nothing in the sourcing that says it's a Puma, changing the article text to say that would be OR. Instead I have just changed it to "an APC". Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Jailer 605 crores Beastleo (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Not done - You should have added (and can still add) this to your (presently blank) edit request on Talk:List of highest-grossing Tamil films. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Thriller Night! 17:58, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Include Drishyam 3 earnings as it has crossed 555 crores worldwide and there is no mention of it. Raghav.manish487 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Source? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Thriller Night! 22:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Handled requests
[edit]A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.
- Reason: Protection may be needed. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 02:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
| 15 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 17:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC) |
| 17 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 22:31, 20 October 2026 (UTC) |
WP:PERM
| Requests for autopatrolled |
|---|
Autopatrolled[edit]
I've been fully editing Wikipedia since May of this year, and I've created almost 50 active articles. I have had a couple deleted in my early days and, in recent times, have had about one nominated for deletion, but it was kept without hassle. Thanks! ReelCosmix (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. My previous request was declined due to a copyright-related concern. I acknowledge the feedback and remain committed to complying with Wikipedia's copyright policy and content guidelines. I request a reassessment of my article-creation record and subsequent contributions. Thanks Biplab Anand (Talk) 01:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access |
|---|
AutoWikiBrowser[edit]
I want to use AutoWikiBrowser to speed up my deorphaning process as well as for general maintenance tasks. Script7921 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights for Janes citation issue. Issue description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Janes_citation_zotero_issue 3vw5 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
I am working on a personal project to address pages marked as needing copy edits (See: Category:All Wikipedia articles needing copy edit). I'd like a bit of help making these edits. I do agree that I need to carefully review each edit, and that each edit should be meaningful in the context of the article. NevinThompson (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
My access to AWB was removed during an extended hiatus from Wikipedia between March 2021 and December last year (Talk page notification); requesting reinstatement of access please. YSSYguy (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| Requests for confirmation |
|---|
Confirmed[edit]
Reason for requesting confirmed rights Keran29 (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2026 (UTC) |
| Requests for extended confirmation |
|---|
Extended confirmed[edit]
Will be editing my talk page for archiving, which occasionally gets semi or extended protection. Cheers! – LuniZunie(talk) 18:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag. |
|---|
Event coordinator[edit] |
| There are no outstanding requests for the file mover flag. |
|---|
File mover[edit] |
| Requests for new page reviewer |
|---|
New page reviewer[edit]
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights:Hi sorry for being a bit early but I would like to be a permanent NPR. I meet all the criteria, and I have reviewed lots of articles. I would like to reduce the backlog. Emmanbotan🌹 (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to help reduce the backlog. I've been pretty active on AfD and have also reviewed several drafts as an AfC reviewer. I also create articles. I've read the relevant guidelines and will use the right responsibly. — Raihanur (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I started spending more time looking through new articles. I fix things that need fixing and nominate for deletion if subject isn't notable enough. I nominated 15 articles at AfD this month. I also remove spam links and clean up promo in older articles. I've read the NPP tutorial and would be happy to give it a try. Ell Pollar (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I was encouraged by User:Dreamyshade to apply and help reviewing California or Bay Area related articles. E mln e (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been patrolling physics related pages for a while and would like to help reduce the backlog. I have been NPP for a month before. I was encouraged to apply again by Ldm1954.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I've read the guidelines and would like to help reduce the backlog. I have experience with AfD and have created over 50 articles. मल्ल (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I've had a trial run for a little over 3 weeks now, meaning it ends soon. I'd like to continue reviewing. Thanks! Bungle491 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| Requests for page mover |
|---|
Page mover[edit]
|
| Requests for pending changes reviewer |
|---|
Pending changes reviewer[edit]
I wanna make sure that people make good edits and help the encyclopedia. KNM5847478 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
I have well understood WP:PCR and I pass WP:PCCRITERIA. I shouldn't claim that I am something special, so I rest my request for granting Admin. Whatever is decided, I would accept with good faith. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting pending changes reviewer rights because I think I can help prevent vandalism and bad faith edits. The Squirrel Game (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been an editor on Wikipedia for about four years now, and I have a good grasp on the policies. I believe that I can be an efficient patroller of recent changes, and hopefully do a good job reverting vandalism across the wiki if given this right. I appreciate the time that has been dedicated to my request. Sir Banking (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
As an RC patroller, most of my edits are removing vandalism or unsourced content. I understand the policies listed at WP:PCCRITERIA, as well as other relevant policies that I've learned about while patrolling recent changes. Thank you. Streetr4 (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights: I have Rollback permissions and are experienced in Recent Changes Patrol, I would like to expand my capabilities to also review Pending Changes Strongshorts (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I have understood WP:PCR, I pass the WP:PCCRITERIA and I shall try my best to remove bad faiths and vandalism. Cheese240 (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting the pending changes right. I think I am ready and I can help the encyclopedia. It's ok if you deny this request, I'm not that confident in being accepted, but thank you if you do accept this request. Have a nice day! :D -Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 01:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| Requests for rollback |
|---|
Rollback[edit]
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)
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)
I would like to have rollback permissions to use Interceptor while out and about :) TobyKohlhagen (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
My reason for requesting rollback permissions is so I can make Recent Changes Patrolling easier with tools like Huggle and Interceptor instead of patrolling the old-school way. Evercool1 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been involved with RC patrolling on and off for a while now, and would like to have rollback permissions to help my antivandalism efforts, particularly with the tools that require it. smallest red boy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I am willing to fight against vandalism and I am requesting the right to continue against vandals. I have manually reverted some vandalism by reporting it at ANI. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:43, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to have rollback rights so I can use Interceptor in order to do RCP on mobile. FYI, I've already been granted Pending changes reviewer. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 16:21, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting rollback rights I would like to request rollback rights be better handle repeated vandalism incidents in Wikipedia articles. It will be beneficial and helpful for me to use such as Interceptor and Antivandal tools. Thank you. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I became an active page watcher a month ago after learning where the “watch page” was located, and I also noticed that a lot of random and IP users vandalize wiki pages, making it harder to undo except manually. I would like to request rollback rights to make reverts easier. Obinna Tony (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years now. I do some of my work on articles related to WikiProject Schools. I believe rollback right might be helpful in reverting obvious vandalism. There is often a lot going on when it comes to schools. I am not particularly technically savvy and have done most of my editing by doing everything manually. It may take me a while to learn this tool, as it did take me forever to finally start using Twinkie. So I do hope that this tool might help me work more efficiently. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
100k edits with eight years of experience in editing here. The reason for requesting rollback permissions is the need of cleaning up professional wrestling-related articles which I am constantly patrolling and keeping updated and away of spam or unsourced edits on a daily basis. JeyReydar97 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to make Recent Changes patrolling easier with tools like Interceptor instead of the manual method. Cheese240 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Would like to be granted rollback to more efficiently do AI cleanup. In particular, WP:AI noticeboard/Carigval.97 seems infeasible to deal with otherwise. Would only use in collection with WP:LLMPRV when consensus has been reached on LLM use and a cleanup effort begins. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been on RC Patrol for a while now and I would like to try out the tools available with rollback to better help me clean up vandalisms. LkL-70547 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd like to make this nomination on behalf of another user. I know usually editors request these rights themselves; however, I have taken note of Rencoolguy's edits, and they seem to be rather good for a newcomer. Doing an amazing job at AntiVandal, I strongly feel that these rights will help this user with recent changes patrol. I went through their edit history, and there seems to be few speed bumps. Issac I Navarro (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
For the past few weeks I've been using twinkle to revert edits (both constructive an unconstructive). Thought I might as well get formal rollback rights to do this more effectively. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 17:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| Requests for template editor |
|---|
Template editor[edit]
Much of my time here is spent using and modifying templates, so this permission would be highly useful. I've made several edit requests that have been quickly approved, generally after extensive sandbox testing (some recent examples), so this permission would save time and allow me to action similar requests from other editors. Many thanks! – Rhain ☔ he |
| Requests for temporary account IP viewer |
|---|
Temporary account IP viewer[edit] |
Things I might need.
[edit]Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English
Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies
Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vandalbot
Category:Wikipedia backlog
"If you add the following single line to your javascript page at Special:MyPage/skin.js;
importScript('User:Gracenotes/rollback.js'); "
Wikipedia:New admin school/Granting and revoking rollback
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete
{{Subst:UsernameBlocked}}
Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves {{Persondata}} https://reftag.appspot.com
{{subst:submit}} AfC
User talk:Ryan (Wiki Ed) WP:Student assignments Educational project stuff
