User:Rmhermen
 | This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than ten years. |
Admin
[edit]I am a Wikipedia:administrator since July 5, 2004. I first contributed to Wikipedia in April of 2001 (oldest edits lost in early software upgrades). My first edit with my username appears to be on April 26. I have been active on a number of online projects - active and passive (SETI@Home, Distributed Proofreaders, Mars crater labeling, Stardust@Home, Folding@Home on the Wikipedia team: Team page, etc.)
| Action | Count |
|---|---|
| Edits | 61560 |
| Edits+Deleted | 64924 |
| Pages deleted | 3958 |
| Revisions deleted | 14 |
| Pages restored | 30 |
| Pages protected | 80 |
| Pages unprotected | 9 |
| Protections modified | 23 |
| Users blocked | 101 |
| Users reblocked | 1 |
| User rights modified | 1 |
Administrative backlog
[edit]Reports
[edit]- Mboiceauto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1160 (LTA 1160, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- False positive for the filter but probably needs a MOS note. Izno (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Warned user. on that issue. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- False positive for the filter but probably needs a MOS note. Izno (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 45.247.233.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped disruption-catching filters five times in the last 5 minutes (details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
False positive. Edits are not vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 2603:6011:37f0:9840:918f:1ea7:15f4:6d56 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · 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) 00:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- 137.103.235.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 3 five times in the last 5 minutes (New user blanking articles, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- 103.180.200.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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) 00:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Adammdamitty (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) 01:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- 212.149.184.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Tripped filter 1328 (LTA 1328, details). Report false positive. DatBot (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- 173.95.213.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Re-added old vandalism on Loserfruit, and has been warned. (see old and new). Also, the old vandalism was added by a sock, so this editor might be one too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Tiddyskittles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Vandalism on Cody Rhodes. [1] Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Warned user. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Glassgovernor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Draft:Glass Governor of Atlanta (diff): account is being used only for promotional purposes. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 22:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Leonidlednev, please report issues which can be to WP:UAA. They have a better handle on whether (and to what degree) to block arbitrary accounts where name == topic. (This is not per se a decline.) Izno (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- 31.221.222.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Likely block evasion of Special:Contributions/91.242.155.157, who made the exact same edit and was blocked per WP:3RR. Both IP's geolocate to Spain, but have different ISPs — this one returns inconsistent results about where in Spain it is located. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
User-reported
[edit]- Inlandempirelife (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. Or shared use, probably a Magazine, newspaper or travel agency. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- They haven't made any edits promoting an entity by that name (or anything else) so for now it's Not a violation of the username policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- They haven't made any edits promoting an entity by that name (or anything else) so for now it's
- Glassgovernor (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. See Draft:Glass Governor of Atlanta. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pitchfork Games (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) – Violation of the username policy as a promotional username. See Draft:Skyblocker. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for increase in protection level
[edit]Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing. Mike Allen 16:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not disruptive. The version you restored is a bloated, repetitive mess, which is a real disservice to those seeking guidance. 41.32.39.128 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
User(s) blocked: 41.32.39.0/24 (talk · contribs) blocked by Daniel Case. for 72 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: IP vandalism and disruptive editing for the past month PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 16:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Continued IP vandalism since this decline. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: request was declined earlier due to a lack of vandalism. page has since seen an explosion in vandalism PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 23:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes protection: Edit warring / content dispute. Valorrr (lets chat) 17:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. The only dispute I can see occurred around 10 days ago. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (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.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I requested protection for this article on 9 April. It was declined on 11 April. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 18:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: I am requesting 6 months of ECP for Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2. All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID), and both of these article main pages are already protected by ECP.
The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. In the last two weeks alone, 11,000 words have been written at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (33 single-spaced pages in word), with IP addresses and SPAs all asking editors to change the article.
The pattern of discussion in each new talk page topic is the same: an editor with relatively few edits proposes a change to the article emphasizing a potential laboratory leak [2], discussion quickly descends into accusations and fruitless argument [3], and thousands of words are written before the discussion is closed [4]. Then, hours later, another and similarly pointless topic is opened with the same agenda [5].
Editors are complaining of burnout, and you can see why. ECP on the talk pages would not impede article improvement, but would significantly reduce the strain and stress on editors working in this publicly contentious area. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm not sure if this is the right location to post but Tryptofish suggested that any competent administrator can decide to apply ECP to these talk pages given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID). Tryptofish your input also welcome. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Anyway, my advice came out of the discussion at User talk:Bon courage#These covid pages are exhausting, where it sure sounds to me like those talk pages are, indeed, needlessly exhausting. This is a matter of CTOP, and I hope no one minds that the request ended up here rather than at WP:AE, but it does very much seem to me that it would be a good idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC) - I'm not sure if protection is the answer as much as not feeding the trolls. The regular editors are under no obligation to answer or engage in these discussions to the extent they seem to be doing. I would also suggest following the lead of many other talk pages of contentious articles and putting a FAQ up top basically saying, we are not discussing this issue here anymore without some change in the facts underlying consensus. Because I think protection here goes beyond the scope of what CTOPS authorizes, and when we have applied ECP to other talk pages (something we do not do lightly).
- Now, if ArbCom itself were to specifically authorize this here, that would be different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Tryptofish: right, thanks for the clarification and further explanation!
- Daniel Case, my sense is that editors fear that an erroneous "consensus" will form to dismantle these articles if they restrict their involement, so, they remain involved, and as I noted above, the pace and consistency of these continued efforts are withering. The talk pages have also noted that there are calls on social media to recruit people to edit Wikipedia's articles on these topics.
- Sadly, and this is my own deficiency, I am wholly incompetent to approach Arbcom: I've been editing Wikipedia for a while and everything about Arbcom - its processes, how to understand its decisions, etc - remain wholly mysterious to me. -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that there is nothing going on on these talk pages that rises to the level of disruptive editing sufficient to justify protection IMO. New editors civilly propose information, civilly discuss it with existing editors ... what's disruptive about that? It's how, by our own standards, these things are to be handled. No regular reverting, no profane IP outbursts at Wikipedia or certain editors, no repeated reposting of rejected edit requests ... all things that we have experienced on other CTOPS talk pages that we have protected (save Talk:Taylor Swift, where too many people have arrived from, I suppose, searching on "talk to Taylor Swift" and assumed that that page had a direct connection to her phone).
- Yes, there has been a little pushing and shoving, particularly between one five-day-old account (a likely SPA, it seems to me from their POINT-y behavior) and one regular editor on those two pages whose brusque responses aren't helping matters). But that's not enough to justify the bluelock, or even (at this point) a gray one.
- Any admin's decision to unilaterally ECP that talk page right now is likely going to be portrayed as some sort of censorship effort ... and you know what? That perception would be legitimate IMO—established editors, generally tending towards sources that support one side of this more than the other (Although I should say the lab-leak article does, to me, fairly represent the point of view that there was a lab leak, which is the most important thing to worry about here), ask that access to the talk page be limited to similarly established editors because they're afraid the article might have to be changed by our own rules, via an unprecedented use of administrative power. How would that not look suspect?
- For now I really think the best measure would be to have some sort of FAQ template on the talk pages, listing all the sources proposed for use and why we're not considering them reliable enough to use in the article, so we can just point to that instead of rehashing those reasons in the talk discussion (We might also take more affirmative steps to identify where on social media these coordinated efforts are originating from so that we can more clearly identify them as such when those users get here).
- If we want to ask ArbCom if we can do this to repel a possibly offwiki-coordinated sealioning effort, then in addition to any evidence of offwiki activity we would need piles of diffs (or at least links to the sections on the talk pages). My talk page has been freshly archived, so there's space. You can also email me if you think it's better off keeping that confidential. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent.
Reason: Privacy Sir Barron Giraffe (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Declined, I do not see anything which would require protection. Ymblanter (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Risk of vandalism, since it is about Zionism. Edward Mike005 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism by IPs. LightlySeared (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Repeated addition of false information. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page faces consistent vandalism despite existing level of page protection. Evident by >90% of the last 500 edits having to be reverted. Existing level of page protection is not sufficient. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent addition of promotional wording. Likely the same person using multiple IPs. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – ARBPIA. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for reduction in protection level
[edit]Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
- To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
- Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
- Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
- If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Several new sources found for subject including an award from Forbes 30 Under 30. Also, a fellow of the FRSA[1]. KingMud (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: This article was semi-protected in September 2013 due to an edit war over using an image in the infobox. 12 years later, I think the protection isn't needed anymore as there is currently a fair use photo on the infobox and there's been no edit war against it nor any edits to the article in over seven months. I think we should try unprotecting it. Kaptain Yummy (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Reason: try for phone hack 49.156.103.212 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Current requests for edits to a protected page
[edit]Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
- Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among
{{Edit protected}},{{Edit template-protected}},{{Edit extended-protected}}, or{{Edit semi-protected}}to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed. - Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the
{{Edit COI}}template should be used. - Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
- If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
- This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Handled requests
[edit]A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.
| 1 protected edit request | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 03:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC) |
| 16 template-protected edit requests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Updated as needed. Last updated: 01:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC) |
WP:RFA
|
WP:PERM
| Requests for autopatrolled |
|---|
Autopatrolled[edit]
New page reviewer who has made over 90 articles including 1 good article and quite familiar with content guidelines, I may also as well not clutter the backlog for other reviewers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I had created around 50+ articles on the English wikipedia, I handle and edit topics mostly on colonial architectures, there are many articles needed to be created on that feild so I would like to request Autopatrolled rights for my account and also to help page reviewers for decreasing workload. Thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 14:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access |
|---|
AutoWikiBrowser[edit]
Requesting access mostly to perform reference/grammar edits. Brent Silby (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I’ll mostly use AWB for small fixes like typos and other minor errors ProtobowlAddict talk! 23:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag. |
|---|
Confirmed[edit] |
| Requests for extended confirmation |
|---|
Extended confirmed[edit]
I had my EC revoked last year by the arbitration committee. I have since completed the required 500 substantial edits to the best of my knowledge. I applied about a month ago and was refused because I didn't clearly understand the requirements. But hopefully this time I got it correctly. Tashmetu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I had my ECP revoked 5 months ago. Since then, I've made hundreds of meaningful edits and currently have 806 edits. IdanST (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
I had my EC revoked because of gaming of the system. I believe this happened March 22, 2025. Since then, I have attempted to edit constructively on Wikipedia. I want to see if there is a way that I can get EC. Thanks again |
| There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag. |
|---|
Event coordinator[edit]
|
| Requests for new page reviewer |
|---|
New page reviewer[edit]
I am reapplying for the new page reviewer role after my initial request was declined because now I realize I had applied prematurely. Since then, I have gained some experience, refined my understanding of Wikipedia’s policies, and have been actively contributing to the Articles for Creation (AfC) review process. This has not only strengthened my ability to assess new articles but has also given me useful experience in engaging constructively with editors. I am well-versed with Wikipedia’s guidelines, particularly regarding notability, verifiability, and neutrality. My strength is my ability to remain unbiased while reviewing, and I always strive to improve by learning from my mistakes. Though my registered account is only a few months old, I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, which has given me substantial familiarity with its norms and regulations. I have been enjoying reviewing AfC drafts, and this experience has encouraged me to take on a more active role in maintaining Wikipedia’s quality. I now feel myself confident that I can handle this responsibility and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute as a new page reviewer. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I would like to request NPR rights to contribute more effectively to this area and help reduce the backlog at NPP. I have created 18 articles and have been actively involved in patrolling new pages, tagging non-notable and promotional content for CSD and AfD. Many of the articles I have nominated for CSD or AfD have been deleted, which I believe reflects my understanding of Wikipedia's notability and content policies. With NPR rights, I will be able to continue this work more efficiently. I am familiar with relevant guidelines and policies and would appreciate the opportunity to help out in this area. Thanks for your time and consideration! Junbeesh (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I've been an editor for a while and have experience in article creation (mainly on the shorter side for more niche areas with fewer sources) and have a few DYKs under my belt. Think my knowledge of policy demonstrated through this makes me a good fit for these permissions. Upjav (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I wish to apply for New Page Reviewer permissions to deal with the large backlog of unreviewed pages. I have participated in many AfD discussions, which proves my understanding of Wikipedia's content policies and notability guidelines. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I am a quite experienced Wikipedia editor and pending changes reviewer; I may contribute in this field as well. Itemirus (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I have significant experience patrolling new pages from years ago. I have re-familiarized myself with content policies and would like to resume. — yutsi (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I am requesting this permission because I want to volunteer in reducing the NPP backlog and ensuring that new pages are encyclopedic and properly cited. I believe that I am qualified to be a new page reviewer because I have created many new articles that are encyclopedic and adequately sourced, nominated new pages for speedy deletion when appropriate and have participated in the AfD process. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I have temporary NPP right which will expire in few days, I kindly request renewal of this right to continue reviewing articles. Thank you. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I am an AFC reviewer asking for another trial or permanent permission for this flag. Last time, it was granted by @Sohom Datta: for a 2-month trial after the first month trial was successful. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have 1 denied applied about a month ago because I didn't have 500 undeleted Main space edits at the time. I now have 501 so I am reapplying for temporary permissions. I have a decent amount of experience going through AfDs and source searching to check if they are notability. Moritoriko (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I would like to expand my contributions to Wikipedia by helping address the extensive backlog at NPP. I have been an active participant in the AfC process as a probationary reviewer for multiple months, and I regularly take part in AfDs and occasionally in PRODs within the scope of WP:PHILIPPINES. While I understand that my impact on the backlog may not be significant in terms of numbers, I am committed to performing thorough, policy-aligned reviews to the best of my ability. AstrooKai (Talk) 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I had a trial permission to manage redirects close to a year ago, if I remember correctly. I did not have time for the back half of that trial, but have more time now. I have noticed how large the article backlog is and would try to work on lowering that, since I am finding myself with a lot more free time on here. Generally think I have a good past experience with AfD, not as much as some, but understand most guidelines well. May leave some more questionable pages up for a different reviewer, but have a good record adding categories and WikiProjects on my own article. Lots of my current pages are election pages or football pages, so might lean more into reviewing those since I am most familiar with those guidelines. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I was granted temporary New page reviewer rights on 14 January 2025 ([17]) for a period of two months and again on 20 March ([18]) for an additional month. This current period is due to expire on 20 April. I would appreciate it if these rights could be extended and made permanent. Thank you. QEnigma talk 05:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I have been active mostly at the creator side for a while and would like to help out in the filtering/supporting new editors and pages. Juxlos (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I was granted temporary New Page Reviewer rights for one month, which expire on 20 April. During this period, I carefully completed a reasonable number of reviews (of pages of various topics), including reviewing and tagging new pages with banners, draftifying, requesting speedy deletions, and creating AfDs. While reviewing new pages, I often searched for additional reliable sources and added them to the articles I was reviewing, to ensure that they were not lacking significant coverage references. It was time-consuming, but I felt it was a good thing to do. Therefore, I kindly ask to review my NPP work and, if it's ok, consider granting me permanent NPP rights. Cinder painter (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| Requests for page mover |
|---|
Page mover[edit]
|
| Requests for pending changes reviewer |
|---|
Pending changes reviewer[edit]
I have been active on Wikipedia, I'd like to request PCR to monitor recent changes. I'm aware of WP:NOTVANDAL & WP:AGF, so there won't be any "biting newcomers" reverts. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi! My name is WormEater13. I would like to request PCR rights. Having created multiple articles before and having made over 100 manual mainspace edits, especially for WP:BLP, I believe that I am knowledgable about Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I am requesting permission to be a Pending Changes Reviewer. I spend most of my day editing Wikipedia. I have gone through almost all the pages under Category:Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia's policies on vandalism detection, BLP policy, NPOV, Verifiability, and copyright. I have read the Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes guideline. Please consider my request. Somajyoti ✉ 07:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to request pending changes reviewer rights on English Wikipedia to tackle with the edits protected with pending changes while patrolling in the RC, since I have rollback rights. I think I fulfill the criteria to get this right. Also, I understand the related policies to manage these edits. This would give me a better chance to work to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for considering my request. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC) |
| Requests for rollback |
|---|
Rollback[edit]
Greetings, I am requesting for the rollback rights to assist my passion in fighting against vandalism and roll off disruptive edits on Wikipedia, I actively scroll on recent changes feed and also new page feeds, I am familiar with WP:VANDALISM, I wish to use the AntiVandal tool which will help me revert more edits that goes against Wikipedia policies, I will love to help the community, Thanks to any admin willing at his or her discretion to grant me this permission. Best Regards (CP) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
I have been editing constructively on the project for a few years now and would like to more effectively revert disruptive edits when I encounter them. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and understand the distinction between purely disruptive edits and edits that may be unhelpful but are made in good-faith. When reverting a new user's edits, I make sure to properly explain myself in an edit summary and leave a message on the relevant article's or user's talk page as appropriate, unless the user is obviously acting in bad faith and WP:DENY applies, in which case I report them to a relevant noticeboard. I have thoroughly read the WP:ROLLBACK instructions and will make sure to familiarize myself with the tools before using them, and avoid using the rollback tools when they are not appropriate and another reversion tool would be more suitable. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I would like to request rollback permissions to help combat vandalism more effectively on Wikipedia, I have been reverting vandalism for a good amount of time from recent changes using twinkle and undo. Therefore I think rollback tool can help me to assist in identifying and reverting unconstructive edits efficiently. Imwin567 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello. I would like to get a rollback. I often search for vandalism on Wikipedia, and it will obviously be easier for me to fight it with a rollback. I warn users when necessary, and i know the most important WP policies. The Seal F1 (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello! Im requesting rollback rights because i am an extended confirmed user that has made hundreds of high-quality edits in mainspace. I need rollback tool to revert vandalism and other non-constructive edits more easier. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I request rollback rights to quickly revert clear vandalism and disruptive edits. This would help maintain article integrity and ease the workload for admins, especially during active vandalism periods. Thank you for considering my request. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 16:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC) |
| There are no outstanding requests for template editor. |
|---|
Template editor[edit] |
I am at about 70,000 edits aross all Wiki projects.
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| Minor edits make a major difference. —Gaff ταλκ 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| Ahh, a sigh of relief from IvoShandor to Rmhermen, thanks for your work on articles related to the Black Hawk War. IvoShandor 05:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is for that quick and poisonous work you did on the Ayina River. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
Templates I use often but never remember
[edit]- {{NorthAmNative}} {{WikiProject Michigan}} {{WikiProject Protected areas}} {{river}}
- (Wikipedia:Template_messages/Image_namespace)
- {{fact}}{{no license}} {{no source}} {{or-fu-re|Image:replacementimage}} {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced or {{or-fu-nr}} *{{PD-USGov-Interior-NPS}} {{subst:deletedpage}} {{globalize/USA}}{{intro-missing}}
 |
WP:AIV |  |
WP:ANI |  |
WP:NPP |  |
WP:RPP |  |
WP:RFR |  |
WP:AFD |  |
WP:XFD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
CAT:CSD |  |
WP:CSD |  |
WP:RM |  |
WP:RAA |  |
WP:DR |  |
WP:TM |  |
WP:TT | ||||||
 |
WP:RCU |  |
WP:LOP |  |
CAT:AB |  |
WP:BS |  |
WP:RD |  |
WP:NFC |  |
WP:IUP |
Help box by Jennavecia (talk · contribs)
"Do you want to take a survey?"
[edit]On Feb. 12, 2005, I did a random pages survey. Out of 100 random pages, only 1 was a U.S. town. That's progress. Three towns in the UK, 1 in Spain and 1 in Portugal also turned up. Overall biographies were the largest category at 22%, followed by geography with 15% total. Then Lists at 7%, Disambiguation pages at 6%.
On Feb. 24, 2006, I repeated the 100 random page survey, this time getting 5 U.S. towns. Overall, geography had 26%, biography 21%, fiction 9%, music 4%, colleges 4%, lists 3% and disambigs 4%. Clearly geography and biography are our largest areas. Music, science and business scored less than I expected. Non-individual History was hardly discernable.
Even by Feb. 2005, 100 out of almost 500,000 was not statistically significant but was as much as I had patience for.
Wikiprojects I am a member of:
[edit]- Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan
Short To Do list
[edit]- add maps to cities in Chad
- have done ten largest plus A-Biltine (plus Doba, Faya-Largeau, Goz Beïda, Guéréda, Mao, Ouara) from List of cities in Chad
- sources for Hook and Cod wars
- History of camping
- User:Rmhermen/sandbox
- reduce repetition between Chemical Weapons Convention, Chemical weapon proliferation, Destruction of chemical weapons, Chemical weapon#Disposal and Chemical warfare
- Pueblo Chemical Depot - full destruction in Sept 2016
- Joan Walsh Anglund
Early Anon work, no need to bug the developers
[edit]Up to Dec 16, 2003, all the edits at these anonymous id's were mine (59 edits):
- User:64.152.154.140
- User:64.152.153.104
- User:166.90.233.102
- User:65.25.234.xxx
- User:64.7.163.180
- User:64.152.153.139
- User:63.212.148.98
- User:64.152.159.57
- User:64.152.154.147
More recently 1,250 or so edits on 75.41.110.200 are apparently all mine. Apparently my new ID is 75.41.109.190. There are undoubtedly many others as the earliest history of many articles was not preserved by the software.
List of most of my original pictures and some maps
[edit]For copyright declaration purposes The following photographs and diagrams on Wikipedia were taken by and uploaded by me and released under GNU-FDL:
- Update March 21, 2006 by searching with Interiot's Tool (no longer updated - [20] does edit counts though)
Pictures
[edit]
Maps
[edit]- Image:Michigan map.png
- Image:Toledo Strip.png
- Image:Les Cheneaux Islands.PNG
- Image:Blackfeet Indian Reservation map.PNG
- Image:1999_west_nile_map.png, and the others in article
- Image:US execution methods.png
- Image:Lake of Egypt.PNG - an unimproved map
- Image:Upper Peninsula of Michigan.png
Numerous locator maps for U.S. national parks like Image:LocMap Big Bend National Park.png and Image:LocMap Tongariro National Park.png - most now replaced by dynamic map system
