Template:Admin_dashboard

Template:Admin dashboard

More information Immediate requests, Entries ...

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Purge the cache of this page

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

Usernames for administrator attention

Requests for page protection

Current requests for increase in protection level

Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level

Request protection

Shortcuts

Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here

Request edit

Shortcut

WP:RFED

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.

Israel–Hamas war

Israel–Hamas war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At present we have "On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must immediately halt its Rafah offensive.^[1]"

I suggest changing it to include a longer, semantically-complete, quotation, to read: "On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.^[2]"

As the Guardian article points out, and reports judges as arguing, the last comma is critical to the meaning of the ruling. Hunc (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Done - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually changed to a version which does not give the same meaning as the full text. I hope that you can change:

On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel's military offensive and anything "which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" must be halted."

to

On 24 May, the International Court of Justice ruled that "Israel must immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."

The precise grammar, in particular the last comma, is critical to the meaning.

Hunc (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

[1]
"ICJ orders Israel to halt its offensive on Rafah, Gaza in new ruling". Al Jazeera. 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-24.
[2]
How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah ruling. Israel is among those arguing that international court of justice directive is ambivalent and far from a blanket order to halt its offensive. Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor. The Guardian. Wed 29 May 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/global/article/2024/may/29/how-a-single-comma-is-allowing-israel-to-question-icj-rafah-ruling

More information Page, Tagged since ...

Protected edit requests

WP:PERM

More information Requests for autopatrolled ...

Requests for autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

(add request • view requests)

More information Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access ...

More information There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag. ...

More information Requests for extended confirmation, Extended content ...

Requests for extended confirmation

Extended confirmed

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

(add request • view requests)

User:Onlineone22

Onlineone22 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Dear Wiki Administrators,

Over the last few days, I drafted, created, and edited (with very minimal help from other users) the entire 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests article. I am in the process of making significant updates to this article because I have lots of information about the events I would like to add and many sources I have not yet added. I also have contacts who are sending me media, including photos and videos they've taken at the event (with copyright permission), to upload to this article.

A Wikipedia Administrator recently made this article Extended Protected. I am very glad that they did this, because I was worried about the potential of vandalism on this article.

However, this Wikipedia account no longer qualifies for editing this article because I created this account recently. As a result, in order to streamline my ability to quickly make changes, I would like to request that this account is whitelisted to edit this article. Please let me know if this will be possible.

Thank you for your help and contributions!

Onlineone22 (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

My take is that we should grant the extended confirmed status. The editor's account is four days old and has 200 edits, but if you look at the contributions to 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests, I do not think we are at any risk that this user is going to push POV improperly on other extended confirmed articles. Given that it is rare to grant these requests, I figured I would voice my support for this and let somebody else endorse or raise issue with it. Malinaccier (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

My view, for what it's worth, as someone only active in the PIA topic area nowadays, is that there should be no exceptions. Making judgements based on subjective assessments of an editor's resemblance to a normal rules-based person rather than, let's say, a camouflaged manipulative sociopath who uses deception without hesitation because 'the ends justify the means', is unreliable and opens a channel that you can be sure will be exploited by bad actors in the PIA topic area. No offense Onlineone22, I'm sure you are fine, but I just think adding a subjective component to the granting of the extendedconfirmed privilege is not a good strategy given the nature of the PIA topic area. It will be exploited by the people who use sockpuppetry. It will be used to make accusations of pro-Palestinian bias, pro-Israel bias, antisemitism, you name it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Sean.hoyland,

Thank you for your reply.

Your response is true that there is risk in making exceptions to this custom. However, I have three counterpoints:

The hypothetical sociopath you mention could just as easily make 500 insignificant edits and sleep an account for 30 days in order to gain extended protection. If the risk was completely eliminated by forcing me to wait for 30 days, then I could understand forcing me to wait for that time period to expire. However, this is not the case, and the risk remains of extended-protection editors being untrustworthy regardless of whether you make me wait 30 days.
I have devoted significant time and resources to the article in the past, and it has so far turned out to be unbiased. I also personally know people who have taken photos and videos at these protests, meaning that if I have access to the article, I will be able to upload media to which others do not have access. If I need to go on the talk page 30 times per day for each edit, I will no longer have the time nor motivation to continue editing this article. I will resume my job soon, at which point I will have significantly less time to devote to this article (all to say if I do not have edit power now, the article will be significantly worse for a long time before I can catch it back up to speed). So it really is a question of: should we assume the extremely small probability that waiting an extra 26 days will deter me from defacing the article into which I have already poured significant time and resources while reporting in an unbiased way just because this is the established custom? Or should we instead take that small risk, allow me to edit which will significantly improve the quality of this article which already has high traffic, and promptly ban me from Wikipedia if I deface it or uncharacteristically edit it in an unbiased manner?
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed exists. Therefore, exceptions should be made in some cases, or else Wiki admins would not allow requests to be made. If my case is not an exception, then what case is?

I hope these points are persuasive, and I look forward to hearing your reply.

Best, Onlineone22 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The first thing to consider is that my opinion doesn't matter because I can't grant or deny user privileges. So, feel free to ignore it.

To your first point. I agree, not granting the privilege to you has no impact on those risks. And scenarios similar to the one you described happen frequently in the topic area. The extendedconfirmed privilege is a barrier but it clearly doesn't prevent determined and patient bad actors, and there are many. But my comment is not about you. It's about opening a new channel. No one is making you wait. You can participate in the topic area via edit requests (see WP:EDITXY for requests with the best chance of success) and there are millions of articles you can edit right now. Bear in mind that strictly speaking you were not allowed to generate that PIA related content in the first place because to do so requires the extendedconfirmed privilege. Maybe the rules are suboptimal and cause collateral damage in many cases, but for me, exceptions based on subjective (and non-deterministic/non-repeatable) value judgements won't help, despite helping you personally.
On your second point, there's no deadline or urgency for content creation.
"If my case is not an exception, then what case is?" any case that doesn't open a new channel that can be used to tunnel through the WP:ARBECR barrier.

Anyway, whatever happens, I hope you stick around and if your request is granted you won't hear any complaints from me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A point to consider is that this new article is an ongoing protest, so ability to edit now that the article exists I'd consider time sensitive, ie it will quickly become outdated without continued contributions. This isn't quite the same as any other article where naturally the user could and should just wait a month or so until they are able to continue improving an article.

Suggestion, what if the user agreed to only edit the article in question, and refrain from editing any other ECR articles, until they have the required 500/30? As I do understand the overall concerns of providing some sort of "pro-Palestinian bias", even if the same exceptions could be made for a user regarding a "pro-Israeli" protest article within the same context.

Overall, I agree with the Onlineone22's logic, that if this isn't a good cause for an exception, then there almost certainly are none. Hence my suggestion of approving a form of conditional ECR, that wouldn't "open a new channel" to bypass ABEECR. Assuming the user would be willing to abide by such conditions, which I believe would be the case. CNC (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment—I would certainly be willing to abide by these conditions!

Onlineone22 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my thought too: I'd be inclined to grant but with the strict condition that they only edit this article, and stay away from any other extended-confirmed-protected articles until they would've been automatically granted the permission. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's been quite involved in the pro-Palestinian protest articles, based on the considerable flaw in how this article has been approved, I think an exception could be made. In other examples drafts were refused because users weren't ECR, and other editors such as myself had to "adopt" the articles in order to move them to mainspace. My point is it seems this article draft shouldn't have been approved given the end result is an ECR protection followed by the main contributor no longer able to contribute. It's otherwise a shame there isn't the ability to allow requests for certain users to edit certain articles, as opposed to ECR articles broadly, such as in this case with a creator. As my only concern would be by approving this user, they could then edit any other contentious article, potentially without the foresight or understanding how to navigate these topics. Even if that concern, with this particular user, remains pretty low. CNC (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Of course this whole thing is messy because of arbcom and the content topic, I'd much rather have some sort of "you can keep editing THIS article" sort of exception than a "you should bypass all of the arbcom topics restrictions on the entire project because you did fine on one page" sort of exception... --- any creative options for something like that? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't support that. What we have is a new account that created this as their first edit, and is now 40 percent of the way to extended confirmed with only ECR violating edits. When ECR exists in large part to clamp down on sock edits do we want to create a method to create an article in the topic area, edit solely in the topic area, and then become extended-confirmed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
For context, it's not possible to know if the user was aware, as the page restriction editnotice was never applied to the article that "must be used for announcing active page restrictions", nor did they receive an alert on their talk page. There was only the optional notice on the talk page which is quite simply not enough for enforcing such a restriction. So I don't believe this was deliberate, not that this was implied either, simply to clarify the situation and what has occurred here. I'd also hardly call it a violation when the ECR restrictions weren't enforceable, but that's just my perspective of how things work here. This is just another example of how if the restrictions had been applied correctly, there wouldn't have been these so-called violations. CNC (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:ECR is enforceable without awareness. Enforcing ECR through reverts, protection, edit filters, and even blocks is allowed before any CTOP alert is given. I normally won't block until I've made sure they've seen an alert, but if someone is on a highly dynamic /64 how do you make sure they have been alerted? As the sanction applies to a topic area anywhere on Wikipedia there is no way to provide the edit notices and such preemptively, but ECR violations can still be reverted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, I meant against the user directly. Realistically, reverts should only occur if there is a page restriction in place "Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted". Without using the template as referenced and as required based on documentation, then reverts shouldn't be taking place based on ECR. It's very simple (even if not always practical) to make sure the user has seen the restriction (or at least had the opportunity to) and that is is to add the required template to the page. Ideally users shouldn't be adding the talk page template prior to adding the edit restriction to page, as this only encourages incorrect enforcement against users. Have you otherwise read the "breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if" (emphasis added) part of CTOP enforcement? Quite clearly no user should ever be blocked due to violating ECR without an edit notice, there is no ifs or buts about that part. CNC (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish edit requests are likely the best way forward here, what I was calling out is that I think that a single-page-exception would be better than a wikipedia-wide exception; not really considering if simply 'no exception' is the best response. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done. I really don't see how we can carve out an exemption here. ECP exists for good reasons, and although I appreciate what seems like good intentions from this user, that is not among the very, very few reasons we grant this permission early. Currently, this is probably the most contentious topic area we have, and although I am a firm believer in the idea that rules can have common-sense exceptions, I just don't think it would be wise to set this precedent, and agree that edit requests will have to do for now. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

More information There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag. ...

More information Requests for new page reviewer ...

More information Requests for page mover ...

More information Requests for pending changes reviewer ...

Requests for pending changes reviewer

Pending changes reviewer

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

(add request • view requests)

More information Requests for rollback ...

Requests for rollback

Rollback

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

(add request • view requests)

User:M S Hassan

M S Hassan (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I am requesting rollback rights to assist in combating vandalism more efficiently. Over the past several months, I have actively reverted vandalism, I would like to have rollback permissions so that I can revert vandalism faster. I have taken feedback from my previous request seriously and have since ensured to warn users after reverting their edits, including good faith edits. Granting me rollback rights will enable me to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia more effectively. M S Hassan (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make. Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for not consistently warning editors when reverting their edits. While I was aware of tools like Twinkle and Ultraviolet, I sometimes forgot to use them. I understand the importance of leaving notifications and will ensure to consistently use these tools moving forward. I am committed to improving my communication and adhering to guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. M S Hassan (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Great, please do that going forward. However, I do see that you were recently blocked for edit warring. Please see the notice at the top of this page; successful applicants are expected to have no recent history of edit warring. That said, please spend a few months establishing a track record of positive contributions before reapplying. As such, closing as

Not done. -Fastily 08:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and for considering my request. I understand the importance of having a clean record and will focus on making positive contributions to the community. I appreciate the guidance and will work diligently to avoiding edit warring and ensuring I warn editors after reverting their edits. I will reapply in a few months with a stronger track record. Thank you for your time and consideration. M S Hassan (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

More information There are no outstanding requests for template editor. ...

This dashboard (talk)

Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

Shortcut

T:ADMINDASH

Usage

{{Admin dashboard/header}}

{{Admin dashboard/ab}}
{{#ifeq:{{Yesno|{{{showaiv|7 days}}}}}|yes|{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U|-{{{showaiv|7 days}}}}}-{{#time:U|{{REVISIONTIMESTAMP:WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism}}}} <= 0|{{Admin dashboard/aiv}}}}}}
{{Admin dashboard/csd}}
{{Admin dashboard/uaarfpp}}
{{Admin dashboard/rfarfp
 | 1 = {{{style|}}}{{#if:{{{showperm|}}}|
 {{!}} showperm {{=}} {{{showperm}}} }}{{#if:{{{showrfab|}}}|
 {{!}} showrfab {{=}} {{{showrfab}}} }}{{#if:{{{showacc|}}}|
 {{!}} showacc  {{=}} {{{showacc}}}} }}{{#if:{{{showaptl|}}}|
 {{!}} showaptl {{=}} {{{showaptl}}} }}{{#if:{{{showawb|}}}|
 {{!}} showacc  {{=}} {{{showawb}}}} }}{{#if:{{{showconf|}}}|
 {{!}} showconf {{=}} {{{showconf}}} }}{{#if:{{{showfmvr|}}}|
 {{!}} showext  {{=}} {{{showext}}}  }}{{#if:{{{showacc|}}}|
 {{!}} showacc  {{=}} {{{showevco}}}} }}{{#if:{{{showext|}}}|
 {{!}} showfmvr {{=}} {{{showfmvr}}} }}{{#if:{{{showmms|}}}|
 {{!}} showmms  {{=}} {{{showmms}}}  }}{{#if:{{{showrevr|}}}|
 {{!}} shownpr  {{=}} {{{shownpr}}}  }}{{#if:{{{shownpr|}}}|
 {{!}} showpmvr {{=}} {{{showpmvr}}} }}{{#if:{{{showpmvr|}}}|
 {{!}} showrevr {{=}} {{{showrevr}}} }}{{#if:{{{showrlbk|}}}|
 {{!}} showrlbk {{=}} {{{showrlbk}}} }}{{#if:{{{showte|}}}|
 {{!}} showte   {{=}} {{{showte}}} }}
}}
{{Admin dashboard/footer|newadmin={{{newadmin|no}}}}}<!--

You can re-arrange the order or pick and choose by transcluding elements separately -->

Note that directly transcluding the template or using all the subtemplates above can cause the page to exceed the post-expand include size.

Parameters

This is the TemplateData for this template used by TemplateWizard, VisualEditor and other tools. See a monthly parameter usage report for Template:Admin dashboard in articles based on its TemplateData.

TemplateData for Admin dashboard

More information Parameter, Description ...

Template parameters
Parameter		Description	Type	Status
style	`1`	Backwards compatibility. Not entirely show of purpose at this time. Default	String	optional
New administrator	`newadmin`	Allows you to toggle the 'New administrators' navbox on/off. Set to 'yes' to transclude. Default no	String	optional
Show AIV	`showaiv`	Allows you to toggle the WP:AIV section on/off. Set to 'no' to prevent transclusion. Default yes	String	optional
Show PERM	`showperm`	Allows control over the entire WP:PERM section in one parameter. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show sections that have had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show RfA/RfB	`showrfab`	Allows hiding the requests for RfA/RfB section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show account creator	`showacc`	Allows hiding the requests for account creator section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show autopatrolled	`showaptl`	Allows hiding the requests for autopatrolled section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show confirmed	`showconf`	Allows hiding the requests for confirmed section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show extended confirmed	`showext`	Allows hiding the requests for extended confirmed section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show file mover	`showfmvr`	Allows hiding the requests for file mover section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show new page reviewer	`shownpr`	Allows hiding the requests for new page reviewer section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show page mover	`showpmvr`	Allows hiding the requests for page mover section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show reviewer	`showrevr`	Allows hiding the requests for reviewer section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show rollback	`showrlbk`	Allows hiding the requests for rollback section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional
Show template editor	`showte`	Allows hiding the requests for template editor section of WP:PERM. Setting this parameter to a valid time offset will only show this section if it has had an edit in the specified amount of time. Default 7 days	String	optional

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Admin dashboard/doc.
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox and testcases pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.

Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Template:Admin_dashboard, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[auto-1] [1]
"ICJ orders Israel to halt its offensive on Rafah, Gaza in new ruling". Al Jazeera. 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-05-24.

[2] [2]
How a single comma is allowing Israel to question ICJ Rafah ruling. Israel is among those arguing that international court of justice directive is ambivalent and far from a blanket order to halt its offensive. Patrick Wintour, diplomatic editor. The Guardian. Wed 29 May 2024 https://www.theguardian.com/global/article/2024/may/29/how-a-single-comma-is-allowing-israel-to-question-icj-rafah-ruling

[1]

[2]

Immediate requests	Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages	5
Wikipedians looking for help	0
Requests for unblock	162
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests	31
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests	27
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests	7
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests	0
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests	129
Requested RD1 redactions	0
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations	0
Candidates for speedy deletion	12
Open sockpuppet investigations	135
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

Template:Admin_dashboard

Administrative backlog

Reports

User-reported

CSD / PRODs

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

User-reported

Current requests for increase in protection level

Kwame Augustine

Current requests for reduction in protection level

Current requests for edits to a protected page

Handled requests

Autopatrolled

AutoWikiBrowser

Confirmed

Extended confirmed

Event coordinator

New page reviewer

Page mover

Pending changes reviewer

Rollback

Template editor

Usage

Parameters

See also

Share this article: