User:TexasAndroid
Computer programmer from San Antonio, Texas.
Reverter of vandalism, and wiki-link cleaner. (I'm no great author of Wiki pages, but I'm good at cleaning up other people's messes. :))
Current Projects
 |
| en | This user is a native speaker of the English language. |
 | This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. |
 | This user lives in the U.S. State of Texas. |
.svg){kind=small} | This user is male. |
 | This user participates in WikiProject Categories to improve Wikipedia categorization. |
 | This user has created a global account. |
 |
This user plays the PokÃĐmon RPGs and other related video games. |
| 719 | This user has owned 719 species of PokÃĐmon in PokÃĐmon X. |
.svg){kind=icon} |
This user uses Google Maps. |
 | This editor is a Master Editor IV and is entitled to display this Orichalcum Editor Star. |
| 100k+ |
Current Outstanding admin load
Administrative backlog
Reports
User-reported
User-reported
- Part Time Wiki Slave (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google · Spamcheck) âĒ (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) â Disruptive username. - TurquoiseGooseâĒthey/themâĒ(talk) 04:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TurquoiseGoose How can you tell that it's disruptive when they haven't made a single edit?
Not a violation of the username policy. HJÂ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- @TurquoiseGoose How can you tell that it's disruptive when they haven't made a single 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
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing â 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)
- @Theemausoliam Isn't this article part of WP:CT/IMH and therefore requires extended-confirmed protection? GoMSTL (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I could see that argument, yes. One focus of the disruptive editing has been the kingdom's conflicts with the Mughals. Theemausoliam (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing and WP:EVASION. JimRenge (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement â WP:CT/IMH. GoMSTL (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement â WP:CT/IMH. GoMSTL (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement â WP:CT/IMH. GoMSTL (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement â WP:CT/IMH. GoMSTL (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: As the article is just created it is possible target of vandalism and change thus I request Semi-Protection for a temporary period so the article should make its place in the community Tender980 (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined â Blatant attempt to bypass protection of Abdul Ahad. Favonian (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent vandalism â Perennial vandalism target after a number of protections spanning several years. A few recent TA edits have, however, been constructive or at the very least made in good faith. Entranced98 (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: New article created thus needs semi-protection for a temporary period Tender980 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined â Pages are not protected preemptively. Favonian (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing â recent edit-warring and clear disruptive edits by anonymous user, often unexplained. Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Increased activity (for a few weeks to months now) of mostly single-purpose accounts, accounts with very few edits and single-time IP users with the specific goal of removing links to Gaza genocide article. Protection should be increased to, at least, exclude users without extended confirmed status from editing until 30 November. Impru20talk 11:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-Protection High level of temporary account BLP vandalism in last few days. Servite et contribuere (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Unsourced claims and disruptions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:07, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.âcyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:18, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Toketaatalk 12:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry â I don't need to explain this one. Toketaatalk 12:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Toketaatalk 12:27, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Temporary semi-protection or extended confirmed protection requested. Persistent edit warring by a non-extended confirmed editor repeatedly reverting infobox cleanups (Template:Infobox company lineage parameters, MOS:NOBR, and factual studio address corrections) without engaging on the Talk page. Protection is needed to halt disruption on this breaking merger article and mandate discussion. Richardk80 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.âcyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Protection expired yesterday, and since then, there have been four cases of vandalism, along with other low-quality edits. I request at least a few more weeks of protection. âCopperyMarrow15 (talk · edits) 12:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) +1 Beat me to it... This should be the 11th verity related protection. (I lost count but I have reported way too many articles because of this meme.) I would probably say 1 year protection given that this is the main cause of 10 other protections I made... Toketaatalk 12:58, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism â Seems like the protection got removed during a move, which is very ironic for this page specifically. (on wheels). Toketaatalk 13:09, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Toketaatalk 13:21, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent sockpuppetry. Toketaatalk 13:22, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
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)
- Based on the disruption on that article and the time elapsed, I think it would be appropriate to downgrade to semi protect the article. It will be enough to stop new vandals and disruptors but not enough to prevent inexperienced editors to do productive changes. The sock puppeteer is user:klayclax and has moved on to other articles. Giovanni has made edits on the talk page.~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Have you checked with the still-active admin who protected the page, per the above instructions? â Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu I requested here because @El C is only semi-active. Regardless, I'm pinging them and @Favonian (who restored the EC protection after a short full protection lasped) for their input. Giovanni Potage (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think he meant me since I currently am not the protecting admin. El_C 18:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: since December 2025, The talk page for human penis has been protected due to disruptive requests on the talk page. While these requests on the talk page were unacceptable, I donât think it necessitates protection for a talk page indefinitely since itâs been almost a year since the vandalism. At this point, it is gonna stop communication from scientists or doctors who are getting started editing on the talk page more than it will stop goofballs making goofy requests. Unfortunately the protecting administratorâs talk page is protected, so I canât talk to the protecting administrator. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- We can still ping Daniel Case here to see what they think. â Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- That would be great. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The page's history for over a year leading up to the protection shows almost constant vandalism and reversion. Its pageviews since September 2024, about the beginning of that period, remain at the same range, significantly elevated from what they were previously. In short, I do not think unprotection is advisable at this time.
- And you can use he/him for me, OK? Daniel Case (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Unprotection: Protected after socking in 2012, which is unlikely to be a problem again. Worth a shot. CutlassCiera 22:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is the right article? The protection timeline of its former title Las Vegas, Nevada tells the story of a popular vandal target that had to be repeatedly protected throughout several years, not an article that unfortunately fall victim to a dedicated sock/troll with a short shelf life. We're tried WP:TRYUNPROT with other prominent city articles in the past, and most of the time, it was evident protection was still needed. Not to mention, a not insignificant number of people still visit the article daily. (Non-administrator comment) Giovanni Potage (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: Itâs been extended protected by a likely, retired admin MER-C, due to spamming and disruptive editing from auto-confirmed accounts since 2018. Given that itâs a while ago and not that controversial, I donât think extended protection is longer necessary. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Declined â First of all, MER-C edited three days ago. Secondly, the article is protected under the provisions of WP:GS/CRYPTO and cannot be unprotected just by request to this noticeboard. Finally, it's a magnet to editors with motives far removed from the principles of Wikipedia. Best to keep it well-protected. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- I mean is he still an admin. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- He is an editor but is he still an admin? ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Well, this past weekend they blocked editors and deleted pages, so the answer is "yes". Favonian (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- I looked at the noticeboard and does this apply to all cryptocurrencies. Iâm not sure if theyâre controversial. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- My apologies I didnât see the sanctions. I will not request unprotection from cryptocurrency articles. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- He is an editor but is he still an admin? ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- I mean is he still an admin. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: was semi protected by j greb since 2012 due to ip edit wars and I donât know if this admin is active or retired based on the adminâs user page. I feel like people have moved on from now and doesnât feel like the protection is necessary. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason: semiprotected due to vandalism a while ago since 2011 from administrator user:slimvirgin who unfortunately is deceased. I think we could try unprotect or at least pending changes. ~2026-53576-33 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Unprotection: Given that on wheels vandalism requires page moves, I think that the semi edit protection can be converted to PC, this article has basically no pageviews, protected 15 years ago, and barely gets edited (50 edits in 16 years). Protecting admin is inactive. (Keep the sysop move protection though). Toketaatalk 13:17, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
Previously second highest-grossing video game film at the time of its release BUT now the third since Mario Galaxy. WikiTimCharlier (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
My concern is not with the inclusion of the views of scholars, human rights organizations, UN bodies, or others who have concluded that genocide is occurring. Those views are significant and should continue to be fully represented.
Rather, my concern is that the current wording may unintentionally present a contested legal conclusion as an established fact. While a number of organizations and experts have characterized the events in Gaza as genocide, the matter remains the subject of ongoing legal proceedings before the International Court of Justice. The Court has issued provisional measures, but it has not yet delivered a final judgment determining whether genocide has legally occurred.
Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view encourages editors to describe significant disputes in a way that reflects the existence of differing viewpoints rather than presenting one side of a contested matter as settled fact. In this case, Israel rejects the allegation of genocide, and the issue continues to be debated among governments, legal experts, scholars, and international bodies.
For that reason, wording such as"Allegations of genocide in Gaza" may better communicate that the topic concerns claims and findings that are widely discussed but remain legally and politically disputed. Such wording would not diminish the importance of the evidence or arguments presented by those who believe genocide has occurred; it would simply help distinguish between allegations, opinions, findings, and a final judicial determination.
I offer this suggestion in the spirit of balance, accuracy, and neutrality, and I appreciate the considerable effort editors devote to maintaining such a complex and sensitive topic.
1. The ICJ case is still ongoing and no final ruling has determined that genocide has occurred. 2. The ICJ's January 2024 order was for provisional measures, not a final judgment on genocide. 3. Israel formally rejects the genocide accusation. 4. The article itself acknowledges both recognition and denial of genocide claims, demonstrating that the matter remains disputed. 5. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle generally favours describing contested claims in a way that reflects the existence of the dispute rather than assuming the conclusion has already been settled.
These points are likely to be more persuasive to Wikipedia editors than arguing whether genocide did or did not occur. The strongest argument is one about neutrality, terminology, and the absence of a final judicial determination, rather than about the underlying politics. Johnnpaul511 (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Please add the following comment to Talk:Gaza genocide, preferably under the existing âNot NPOVâ section as a direct response to EvergreenFir, or otherwise as a new section titled âLead wording and legal statusâ.
My concern is less that a specific source is being misquoted, and more that the lead gives undue certainty to one characterisation by stating it in Wikipediaâs own voice without equally clear legal/procedural context.
The sources supporting the genocide characterisation are significant and should be covered prominently. However, âgenocideâ is also a specific legal classification, and the ICJ proceedings remain ongoing. The Court has issued provisional measures, but it has not made a final merits determination that genocide has occurred.
I do not think including that point in the lead would give undue weight to Israelâs denial or create false balance. It is basic context needed for readers to understand the current status of the claim.
A more neutral formulation might be:
âMultiple human rights organisations, genocide scholars, UN-linked experts and some states have characterised Israelâs conduct in Gaza as genocide. Israel denies the allegation. Proceedings under the Genocide Convention remain ongoing before the International Court of Justice, which has issued provisional measures but has not made a final ruling on whether genocide has occurred.â ~2026-54148-28 (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
Handled requests
A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.
| 13 protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 04:13, 7 October 2026 (UTC) |
| 19 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 09:24, 7 October 2026 (UTC) |
WP:RFA
|
|||||||||||
WP:PERM
| Requests for autopatrolled |
|---|
Autopatrolled(add request · view requests)
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)
|
| Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access |
|---|
AutoWikiBrowser(add request · view requests)
I plan to replace archive.today or other deprecated archives with web.archive.org, for which AWB would be more than useful. ð formerly U.T. 08:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
I plan to semi-automate some typo fixes that I have already been making manually. I have completed several hundred of these edits, mainly removing incorrect spaces between the last word and the following punctuation mark. I would like to request AWB/JWB access, as these tools would be very useful for handling this type of repetitive maintenance work more efficiently. My intended workflow is to identify the relevant cases, apply the correction, review the result, and save the edit. I understand that I remain responsible for reviewing every edit and for following the AWB/JWB guidelines. I am still building my editing experience and intend to use JWB carefully and only for appropriate repetitive maintenance tasks. Score Beethoven (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
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)
I'd like to use the script mainly for deduping refs because after installing duplicate-references.js it seems Wikipedia is lousy with them. Â == Peter NYC 20:55, 4 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)
|
| There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag. |
|---|
Confirmed(add request · view requests)
|
| Requests for extended confirmation |
|---|
Extended confirmed(add request · view requests)
|
| Requests for event coordinator |
|---|
Event coordinator(add request · view requests)
Hello, I would like to request Event Coordinator status for the UCSC Wiki-a-thon to support BIPOC Scientists and Engineers. It will be on Thursday, October 22nd, 2026 from 2pm - 5pm PT. Here is a link to the event: https://events.ucsc.edu/event/wiki-a-thon-to-support-bipoc-scientists-and-engineers/ Please let me know if there's any more information you need from me. Thank you! Longmermaidhair (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request Event Coordinator permissions as I am taking part in TtT 2026 and will be creating a programme of events in Perth Women on Wikipedia's name taking part across Perthshire over at least the next 2 years. I am taking part in the TtT Weekend event in Birmingham over the weekend 16th 19th October. |
| Requests for file mover |
|---|
File mover(add request · view requests)
|
| Requests for new page reviewer |
|---|
New page reviewer(add request · view requests)
hi, I would like to renew my NPP rights witch are about to expire. Different articles were reviewed over the last month, often after I added additional refs, images, or added/rephrased some text. After my adjustments, a few articles also got reviewed... by others :o) _regards Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I have been editing since January 2025 and have over 1600 edits, among them 16 new articles that I wrote. I have also contributed to AfDs and DYKs and am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I would like to help new editors improve their newly added content to Wikipedia and reduce the backlog of new articles. Lynngol (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I am currently a temporary new page reviewer, but it seems this is about to run out. I am looking to extend for longer (hopefully indefinitely). WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I believe I am eligible to obtain reviewer status. My account is over the minimum of 90 days old (been here since December), and has a history of I believe at least 500 undeleted edits (reaching around 6000 edits in general in total). I have also not engaged in incivil behavior to others, and I understand WP's policies in regarding matters. One mistake I made prior to submitting a request here, was that I declined one draft myself without knowing you needed to apply first until now. Will this exempt me now from being able to review? Please let me know. Thank you for taking your time. Sharkeston (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
My trial rights are about to expire, and I would like to request them either on another trial or on a permanent basis. I think I have done well for my first few weeks as a NPP reviewer, making a few errors here and there but overall, I believe I have grasped the essence of patrolling. A slight error of judgement that I made along the way was also kindly corrected by Thilsebatti TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 17:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
My temporary New Pages Reviewer access is due to expire at 00:00 on 18 October 2026. If I am eligible, I would like to request permanent access before it expires, so that there is no break in my NPP workflow. Thank you. AriuCH (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: i make articles of flora of vegatation zones, and i did my first good article Flora of Samoa Emmanbotan (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC) |
| Requests for page mover |
|---|
Page mover(add request · view requests)
|
| Requests for pending changes reviewer |
|---|
Pending changes reviewer(add request · view requests)
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)
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)
|
| Requests for rollback |
|---|
Rollback(add request · view requests)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) |
| Requests for temporary account IP viewer |
|---|
Temporary account IP viewer(add request · view requests)
I do a good amount of vandalism reverting, which some of the vandals that I deal with are multiple different temporary accounts vandalising pages in short periods of time. It would be nice to know if they are using the same IP address, so that why I can appropriately report the vandals to AIV. I promise that I will not inappropriately use the tool. MathMan4 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
|
Immediate requests
| Category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Wikipedians looking for help | 0 |
| Requests for unblock | 109 |
| Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages | 0 |
| Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations | 0 |
| Candidates for speedy deletion | 62 |
| Wikipedia fully protected edit requests | 6 |
Deletion
| Category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Articles for deletion | 686 |
| Templates for deletion | 73 |
| Categories for deletion | 272 |
| Wikipedia files for discussion | 95 |
| All redirects for discussion | 449 |
| Miscellaneous pages for deletion | 17 |
| Possible copyright violations | 7 |
| All articles proposed for deletion | 351 |
| All files proposed for deletion | 26 |
| Unsorted AfD debates | 2 |
| All files with the same name on Commons | 56 |
Image copyright problems
| Category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Orphaned non-free use | 572 |
| Unknown copyright status | 21 |
| Unknown source | 12 |
| No non-free use rationale | 0 |
| Replaceable non-free use images | 12 |
| Disputed non-free use images | 2 |
Page protection
| Category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Protected | 10 |
| Semi-protected user and user talk pages | 1,392 |
| Fully protected user and user talk pages | 741 |
| Protected against vandalism | 5 |
| Protected talk pages of blocked users | 34 |
| Semi-protected | 2,257 |
| Arbitration 500/30 restricted | 0 |
Cleanup
|
General cleanup | ||
| Category | Entries | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| All pages needing cleanup | 33,682 | 0.46 |
| All articles needing rewrite | 6,534 | 0.09 |
| All articles needing expert attention | 1,537 | 0.02 |
| All Wikipedia articles in need of updating | 45,507 | 0.63 |
|
Reference problems | ||
| Category | Entries | Percentage |
| All pages needing factual verification | 13,797 | 0.19 |
| All articles with unsourced statements | 585,802 | 8.08 |
| All articles lacking sources | 32,593 | 0.45 |
| All unreferenced BLPs | 15 | 0 |
| All articles needing additional references | 541,815 | 7.47 |
| All articles needing references cleanup | 5,656 | 0.08 |
| All articles lacking in-text citations | 109,637 | 1.51 |
| All articles with dead external links | 359,083 | 4.95 |
|
Image cleanup problems | ||
| Category | Entries | Percentage |
| Image files for cleanup | 17 | - |
| Wikipedia files lacking a description | 155 | - |
| Wikipedia files with unknown source | 14 | - |
|
Other problems | ||
| Category | Entries | Percentage |
| All articles proposed for merging | 99 | 0 |
| All articles proposed for splitting | 862 | 0.01 |
| Unsorted Stubs | 24 | - |
| Stub categories | 21,761 | - |
| All uncategorized pages | 332 | 0 |
| All orphaned articles | 53,119 | 0.73 |
| All articles needing copy edit | 1,492 | 0.02 |
| All articles with style issues | 20,591 | 0.28 |
| All Wikipedia articles needing context | 2,650 | 0.04 |
| All articles that may contain original research | 17,327 | 0.24 |
Miscellaneous
| Category | Entries |
|---|---|
| Requested moves | 276 |
| All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes | 2,161 |
| All accuracy disputes | 15,706 |
| Articles with invalid ISBNs | 1 |
| Articles with invalid ISSNs | 4 |
| All articles to be expanded | 52,450 |
Special pages
| Maintenance reports | Information |
|---|---|
| Broken redirects | |
| Dead-end pages | Dead-end pages |
| Dormant pages | Dusty articles |
| DoubleRedirects | Double redirects |
| Lonely pages | Orphaned articles |
| Long pages | |
| New pages | New page patrol |
| New pages feed | Page curation |
| Protected pages | Protection policy |
| Short pages | |
| Uncategorized | Categorization |
| Uncategorized cats | |
| Uncategorized templates | |
| Unused categories | |
| Unused files (images) | |
| Unused templates | |
| Without interwiki links | |
| Most interwiki links | |
