Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Help:Permanent link.
This page is under extended confirmed protection, but non-EC users may edit its subpages.

    Requests for permissions
    Shortcuts

    This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor rights, and AutoWikiBrowser access.

    Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".

    Requests for permissions are archived regularly; please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.

    Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 00:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

    Permissions

    Handled here

    • Account creator (add request · view requests): The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the request an account process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.
    • Autopatrolled (add request · view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability.
    • AutoWikiBrowser (add request · view requests): AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the rules of use and registration requirements on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
    • Confirmed (add request · view requests): The confirmed flag may be granted to new users who have not yet hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status. These are users who have not had both 10 edits and 4 days experience. People with this flag can upload files and edit semi-protected pages before hitting the autoconfirmed flag. Users requesting this flag must indicate clearly why they should be exempted from the customary confirmation period.
    • Event coordinator (add request · view requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles.
    • Extended confirmed (add request · view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. The flag allows users to edit pages under extended confirmed protection.
    • File mover (add request · view requests): The file mover user right is intended to allow users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy, with the ease that autoconfirmed users already enjoy when renaming Wikipedia articles.
    • Mass message sender (add request · view requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
    • New page reviewer (add request · view requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Page mover (add request · view requests): The page mover user right allows users experienced in working with article names to move them, subject to policy, without leaving behind a redirect. They may also move all subpages when moving the parent page(s). General guidelines include making 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Pending changes reviewer (add request · view requests): The reviewer flag is granted to users who are experienced enough with Wikipedia editing and its policies for contributing to the process of reviewing articles placed under pending changes.
    • Rollback (add request · view requests): Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it. Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here.
    • Template editor (add request · view requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates.

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Review and removal of permissions

    The requests for permissions process is not used to review or remove user rights:

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.

    Process

    Requestors

    To make a request for a permission, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission.

    Administrators

    Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

    Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

    Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality.

    Other editors

    Requests for permissions is primarily intended for editors requesting a permission for their own account. Other editors are welcome to comment if they have specific information that is relevant to that request that a patrolling administrator is unlikely to discover for themselves. Otherwise, since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general comments or 'clerking' by other users are rarely helpful. Non-administrators cannot "decline" to grant a request, because they're not in a position to accept it.

    A limited exception to this is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, where third party nominations are encouraged. Other editors should still avoid offering general remarks on requests and leave the final decision to an administrator.

    Current requests

    Account creator

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

    User:FlightTime

    Per the discussion at Overriding spoof checks. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC) - FlightTime (open channel) 00:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for now. That linked discussion seems to indicate that this isn't something that'd get you past the current hurdle you're facing. There's an indication that you'd need override-antispoof on Meta instead of enwiki, so the avenues there would be to request override-antispoof be added to a local group on Meta, or apply for one of the existing groups on Meta which has override-antispoof (admin or bureaucrat). If that discussion ends with consensus that getting account creator on enwiki would help then I'm not fully opposed to it, but my current reading of the consensus is that it wouldn't help. stwalkerster (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, @Stwalkerster: I do not work meta requests at all, I may have a couple edits years ago at meta, I only work renames here at en. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion on metawiki suggests that override spoof has nothing to do with the issue you ran in to. If there is something we missed there, please re-open the discussion and provide more details so we can open a bug track if needed. — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Autopatrolled

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

    User:Yoblyblob

    Requested this permission ~2 months ago, denied because I was mostly creating auto-notable stubs. I think I have expanded the types of articles I create, including well-sourced local pages or biographical entries where I take time to source subjects that do not inherently meet a generic notability criteria. (I still do create auto-notable pages sometimes, but those no longer make up the majority of pages I create.) As a new page reviewer, I got good experience with the notability guidelines reviewing articles during the backlog drive WP:MAY25, and also participating in AfD. Thought about requesting again as I have run into a few of my own pages while reviewing pages that are in topics I contribute to/am interested in. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also wanted to mention that if I am unsure of a subject's notability, I will utilize WP:AFC for my own articles occasionally Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Came here to request this permission for a different user, but since Yoblyblob is referencing their WP:MAY25 NPP work, it is worth noting that among the re-reviews of each patroller's work, 14/17 of their patrol decisions were approved. Of the remainder, two were drafted/redirected as WP:TOOSOON coverage of 2026 state elections and one was drafted for lacking enough coverage to qualify under WP:NEVENT. Considering they were the fifth most active patroller of the drive, this accuracy is good, not great. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:PickleG13

    I have been on Wikipedia for more than a decade, and I truly feel that it is one of my great passions in life. I have more than 30,000 edits, and I am credited with more than 300 articles that are not Redirects or Disambiguation pages. (I personally take credit for more than 100 of these, which did not originate as Redirect pages.) Although I continue to propose Draft pages to this day when I am not 100% confident myself about notability, I frequently go straight to the mainspace and have made a number of articles that have been significant in some form or field, with my particular focus being on film industry and electoral politics pages.

    Recently, I redirected a few thousand Supreme Court of the United States cases to the case volumes in which they were listed. It was a large-scale project for me, but in the end it was decided that redlinks would be better for promoting caseload knowledge, something that I agreed to and I believe will continue to service our Wikipedia community. For this reason, it might appear that I have a large number of deleted pages, but this is almost exclusively due to this particular project; I had an edit deletion rate of less than 2%, and I had not had a page that I created taken down in years, not since I was a far more novice editor. (You can read more about that SCOTUS discussion here.)

    I believe that being autopatrolled will continue to allow me to contribute to the Wikipedia community, and that is why I am reaching out to ask for permissions. I am happy to answer any questions or improve any articles that I have created if there is anything noticeable that needs help. Although I have long been looking to increase my permissions and role in the community, I quite frankly have always had impostor syndrome stop me from asking, but a bit of encouragement from Liz made me try. Thank you so much! PickleG13 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not inclined to grant autopatrolled so soon after the SCOTUS redirect deletions, but won't object if another admin wants to grant it. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your honest feedback, voorts. Although I hope that an admin decides to grant it, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time and I will continue to for a long time to come no matter what. Please let me know if you ever need help with anything, whether it's a full-scale project or a simple clean-up. PickleG13 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I don't think the redirect incident should be held against Pickle. It was an honest BOLD move that they weren't thinking of as article creation. If those lists actually had information in them about the cases, the redirects wouldn't have even been a negative. And I have made similar redirects before after determining the case was not Notable and adding holding information to the list. My view (obviously, given my longstanding project of making articles for SCOTUS cases) is that we should prefer to have articles, but Pickle's redirect idea did not come from a bad place. Plus, their responses to criticism about this incident were always good, even when I just left a message complaining about it on their talk page. lethargilistic (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CherryPie94

    I was granted a two month trial for this. Have created 100+ articles with 10K+ edits and will continue to do so. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary autopatrolled rights by Dr vulpes (expires 00:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 23:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lanceloth345

    I have created over 25 new articles that meet notability guidelines and follow Wikipedia standards and guideliness. I am familiar with Wikipedia’s core content policies (NPOV, V, NOR) and believe that being autopatrolled will reduce the workload on new page patrollers, my ittention for contributing to Wikipedia, i have mention to my talk page, also to be noted i am reviewer and patroller at Albanian wiki with all articles, neither deleted, and noone of edits are reverted. Thank you in advance. Lanceloth345 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Lanceloth345, could you comment on why Petrit Malaj was deleted a few weeks ago, and what you improved when you recreated it? (Courtesy ping for Sphilbrick, who deleted under CSD G12.) Similarlly with Gjesti, which is currently in draftspace. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 13:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page Petrit Malaj was recreated again in neutral way + more sources, becouse first version had some words "sounding" not neutral at all, (my fault) as per draft:Gjesti lacking notability it's under review but explained at talk page of draft page reasons why he is notable ect. (also partecipating other editor in discussion). Lanceloth345 (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ULPS

    Been an active user for a few years, created 25+ articles with the only two deletions being mistakenly created redirects (due to a script error). Multiple GAs and FLs. I understand enwiki notability guidelines thoroughly.ULPS (talk • contribs) 22:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Support! Low article creation activity in the trailing year, but I'm somewhat familiar with ULPS's work, and would consider him trustworthy enough for autopatrolled. Spot-checks for copyright concerns and sourcing turn up no issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Onatic

    As part of the Women in Red project, I create pages about women by translating, adapting, and improving articles from the Spanish Wikipedia. Onatic (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rollinginhisgrave

    Slightly below the recommended 25 creations before nomination, but this editor has a track record of writing quality content that I don't believe NPP needs to continue reviewing. No issues found spot-checking their recent creations. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has created roughly 21 articles. — MusikBot talk 21:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jolielover

    Demonstrates understanding of the notability guidelines on a variety of subjects. The articles are fairly well-written and -formatted; a few are also now GAs. I marked a couple of her newer creations as reviewed and found no major issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luxtaythe2nd

    I have created more than 25 non redirect articles within the past few weeks and 53 non redirects overall. The two mainspace ones that have been deleted were by my own request, thanks to a slip of the "Publish changes" button. Aside from those, all have been approved by the adminteam. I would greatly be thankful to receive this permission. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TinaLees-Jones

    I have created over 650 new articles and hope to continue contributing to Wikipedia and knowledge sharing. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shahnamk

    Hello,

    I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created around 30 well-sourced, policy-compliant articles on the English Wikipedia.

    In addition to my contributions here, I am an administrator (sysop) on the Persian Wikipedia (fa.wikipedia), where I have been active for many years, focusing on content creation, vandalism control, and community support.

    Granting this right would help reduce the workload of new page patrollers, as my article creations usually meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.

    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

    Best regards, Shahnamk (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sweetabena

    Hello,

    I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I’ve created several articles, many of which are currently live and meet Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and reliable sourcing.

    I’m familiar with the key content policies such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, and consistently apply them when creating or editing articles.

    I understand that this permission is intended to reduce the workload of new page reviewers by marking trusted users’ pages as reviewed automatically, and I believe my contributions demonstrate the consistency and policy alignment expected for this role.

    I have not received any blocks or serious warnings, and I’m committed to continuing constructive, policy-compliant editing.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. Sweetabena (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @Sweetabena: I’ve gone through some of the articles you’ve created, including Daniel Dung Mahama, Simon Akibange Aworigo, Anabah Thomas Winsum, and Nikyema Billa Alamzy. I noticed that these pages have been tagged for AI-generated content (WP:LLM). Could you please clarify this? Additionally, the article on Bright Owusu has a notability issue. Have you made any efforts to address or fix that? I also noticed that most of your articles are about politicians or MPs, which is generally a relatively easier area for a New Page Patroller. Regards! Baqi:) (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jannatulbaqi,
    Thanks for your response and for reviewing my request.
    I've now gone through the articles you mentioned; Daniel Dung Mahama, Simon Akibange Aworigo, Anabah Thomas Winsum, and Nikyema Billa Alamzy and made revisions to ensure they fully reflect a human-authored tone, improve clarity, and adhere to Wikipedia’s content policies. I manually wrote these articles based on reliable sources, and I’ve taken extra care to revise any sections that might have appeared too generic or AI-like in style.
    Regarding Bright Owusu, I realized that the subject is better known publicly as “C-Confion,” which is the name used in most reliable sources. I initially created a redirect page under that name, and since C-Confion better reflects WP:COMMONNAME, I’ve submitted a technical move request at WP:RM/TR to move the article accordingly.
    While many of my articles are in the political space, I’ve focused on that area because it's typically easier to demonstrate notability. That said, I’m open to expanding into other areas and continuing to improve the range and quality of my contributions.
    I appreciate your time and consideration, and I remain committed to constructive, policy-compliant editing. Thank you so much.Sweetabena (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AdobongPogi

    As a part of Wikipedia: Tambayan Philippines and the Music Task Force, I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created over 25 articles, most of which are currently live and have been built with careful attention to WP:N, WP:V, and reliable sourcing. And also I understand that the autopatrolled right is meant to ease the workload of new page reviewrs by automatically marking new pages from trusted users as reviewed. Thank you! AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cognifex

    • Cognifex (requesting Autopatrolled) (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)(notify) I am requesting the autopatrolled user right. I have been an active contributor for over a month, with more than 1,700 edits across diverse topics, particularly in Indian biographies, cinema, history, and culture. I consistently adhere to Wikipedia's content policies, including notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view. Several of my articles have been successfully accepted through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Granting me autopatrolled rights would help reduce the workload on new page reviewers by allowing trusted users like myself to create articles without requiring manual review. Thank you for your time and consideration.
     Automated comment This user has created roughly 7 articles. — MusikBot talk 10:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AlphaBetaGamma

    Had my first AP request declined due to my poor judgement with notability of railway stations. I've learned from that mistake (and cleaned up after myself), and I've created articles like Expo 2025 pavilions (Although this was a collaboration with Epicgenius) and Magical Girl Witch Trials since my request was declined. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Royalesignature

    I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for over two years, and I truly feel that it is one of my greatest passions in life. I have made more than 4,000 edits and am credited with creating over 100 articles, excluding redirects and disambiguation pages. Additionally, I have expanded and improved numerous stub articles, enhancing their content and quality. I have also translated several articles into local languages, making Wikipedia more accessible to a broader audience. By becoming autopatrolled, I believe I can not only continue contributing effectively to the Wikipedia community based on my vast knowledge of WP:N, WP:V, and reliable sourcing but also help ease the burden on administrators in assessing quality content. That's why I'm requesting this permission. I'm happy to answer any questions or improve any articles I've created if there's anything noticeable that needs attention. Royalesignature (talk). 11:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:lethargilistic

    Created hundreds of articles, new creations do not appear to require patrolling. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, I guess this would be nice. Thanks for thinking of me. lethargilistic (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWikiBrowser

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


    User:Dantus21

    I would like to do cleanups after requested moves, in particular fixing links to go to the main article instead of a redirect. Dantus21 (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This smells like a violation of point 4 of WP:AWBRULES. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, but feel free to deny my request, or if you want I can retract it. Dantus21 (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem reasonable to use AWB for this purpose (changing mistargeted wikilinks does not seem fun to do by hand, especially if it comes into the hundreds), albeit it might be a good time to see if there's consensus for this type of usage if there hasn't been any relevant discussions. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Confirmed

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

    Event coordinator

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

    Extended confirmed

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

    File mover

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

    Mass message sender

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

    User:Gvihar

    Reason for requesting mass message sender rights Gvihar 21:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done besides the lack of reason above, you also do not appear to have any experience in this process. If you are trying to coordinate sending your first mass message, you may request assistance at WT:MMS. — xaosflux Talk 13:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AirshipJungleman29

    Just proposed a large WikiProject merge here, and intend to propose more in the future of similar scale. I would rather prefer avoiding the trouble of sending individual notifications (in this case to 55 WikiProject talk pages) and don't want to be a bother constantly spamming the talk page with requests. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    New page reviewer

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

    User:Gjb0zWxOb

    I am requesting for this permission to help address the backlog of unreviewed pages and to ensure the quality of new content submitted uses encyclopedic language and that the content is accurate and neutral. I have participated in hundreds of AfDs and during that time I have developed a solid understanding of WP:GNG, RS requirements (WP:SIGCOV), and other relevant policies for reviewing pages. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. Reviewing your recent contributions, however, I'm concerned that War on Crypto and the attendant page move discussion demonstrates a weak understanding of WP:TITLE. I'm also doubtful of some other editorial decisions, such as having an entire section on "Views on Bitcoin" in Lyn Alden.  Not done signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, isn't this decision usually determined by a more objective set of criteria than only the subject matter content of the edits? This seems subjective to me and is based on the topics I am interested in and good faith disagreements between me and other parties made on that matter rather than being made strictly on policy. Given my AfD history, I clearly understand what makes a notable, reliable page and what does not.
    Would it be possible for another admin to look at my AfD history among other factors to consider if I am eligible for this perm? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that War on Crypto is a pretty clear-cut misapplication of WP:TITLE. By contrast, War on crypto would have been defensible in my evaluation, but that's not the title you chose. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No issue with this improvement. The page move has already been completed to now be titled "War on crypto" Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone this move, as the ongoing RM should be allowed to unfold and followed. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please revert it back to War on crypto, I agreed with concerns about the capital “C” in “Crypto.” Then we can still discuss which title is best. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a process to appeal a permission decision to have one additional admin review my application? Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bakhtar40

    I received notification that my NPP rights will expire on July 26, 2025. If you believe I have performed satisfactorily during my NPP probationary period. Please renew my position as an NPP reviewer. Thank you. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 09:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Track record looks good,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You Rosguill. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StraussInTheHouse

    Previously assigned, removed in October due to extended wiki break, back now. SITH (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, StraussInTheHouse, welcome back! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sophisticatedevening

    After a break I would like to get back into reviewing, I'm a regular AfC reviewer and have experience with creating new articles (e.g. Parasitic ant, List of insect orders, Agerafenib, etc.) Sophisticatedevening(talk) 17:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 17:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you requested that the permissions be removed while still undergoing your trial run, so I'm reviewing your past batch of reviews. One review that draws some concern is this revision of Marcus Stokes (football). Sophisticatedevening, could you speak to your review process for this article? signed, Rosguill talk 19:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: Sure, I ran it through earwigs with no red flags, I saw some articles like this this and this on him (the fake sources were concerning at the time but I thought it was unlikely to be deleted with the real ones present and other sources out there I found), prose wasn't egregious so I reviewed it. I personally disagreed with the draftification reason by CycloneYoris saying it was machine generated as I see an awful lot of AI slop at AfC and this didn't raise any of those red flags for me. Looking back I should have given more alarm to the number of fake sources and could have draftified based on that, but this was my review process at the time. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 19:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems well-reasoned,  Done. As it turns out, the initial editor was able to repair the broken links after the draftification signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Northernhenge

    I've been spending quite a bit of time recently at Special:NewPagesFeed sometimes making small improvements where I think it could be useful. I've noticed the enoromous backlog there, so what I'm currently doing in any case, could also help with the backlog if I have the new page reviewer role. There's a discussion near the end of my talk page about me possibly doing this. I'm still a bit cautious about it but willing to give it a go. Northernhenge (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Page mover

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

    User:Kowal2701

    Mainly requesting so I can bold move pages to multi-revision redirects, but I may cautiously move into closing RMs one day. I think I have decent experience from participating at WP:RMC and understand the guidelines reasonably well. Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Some recent examples where I had to start an RM where I would have bold moved are Talk:Caliphate of Hamdullahi#Requested move 15 July 2025 and Talk:Amina, Queen of Zazzau#Requested move 24 July 2025 (ongoing) Kowal2701 (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, if you would normally have bold moved a page (uncontroversial, do not expect opposition) but couldn't for technical reasons, WP:RM/TR would be the better way to do it since it avoids the 7 day listing period of a full RM. This is not a comment on the actual merits of granting or not granting though, which I'll leave to the patrolling admins. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If people don’t think I need the tool or that the benefit doesn’t outweigh the potential costs just say and I’ll retract this Kowal2701 (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be patient, you only asked a few days ago and perm requests are rarely handled same-day. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mb, I just saw one answered below and assumed it wasn’t a no-brainer Kowal2701 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danners430

    I've been involved in a few page swaps recently following move requests - however, I've been unable to complete them due to the default permissions leaving behind redirects, which is undesirable when swapping pages. I'd like to be able to carry out such moves without having to request technical support. Danners430 tweaks made 17:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I don't think you have enough experience for this yet; you have only two RMTR requests, relatively low RM participation, and only 13 total uses of the move tool. Spend some time making requests to RMTR that get consistently approved (to prove you know when that is appropriate) and only then request page mover rights. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough :) many thanks! Danners430 tweaks made 03:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StraussInTheHouse

    Previously assigned, removed in October due to extended wiki break, back now. SITH (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, StraussInTheHouse, welcome back! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    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.

    User:Saltymagnolia

    I am a (relatively) long time contributor to Wikipedia, primarily active in content creation. However, following a recent and rather vexing experience involving a user introducing potentially harmful changes to articles en masse without any sort of satisfactory communication with other editors, I have decided I want to become active in dealing with vandalism as well. ✠ Saltymagnolia ✠ 15:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Saltymagnolia, pending changes reviewer is for approving edits on articles with pending changes protection -- it does not affect your ability to revert vandalism. I'm happy to grant the permission, but I just want to double check you're clear on what this will let you do? Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Giraffer: if I understood correctly, it applies to pages with a certain level of protection, where edits by newer or anonymous users require manual approval, e.g. on the article for Margaret Sanger. I believe it would still be an asset. Thanks. ✠ Saltymagnolia ✠ 20:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


    Rollback

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

    User:Yelps

    Hello, I'd like to get rollback rights to fight vandalism more effectively. While I don't patrol recent pages often, I do patrol new pages and short pages, where I frequently undo obvious vandalism (as seen in [3]). I'd like rollback to more easily undo edits, as well as access huggle and other tools. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 08:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Camilasdandelions

    Hello, I want to receive a rollback right because there are a lot of editors who add informations but not citing sources. Usually, they do not add unsourced informations at once, but they add them by multiple times. There are also edits violating MoS or Wikipedia policies. And I have struggled with reverting all of them one by one, so I decided to request a right for rollback. Thank you. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([4]). — MusikBot talk 04:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, my notification didn't notice that reply. I'm sorry for it. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 09:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panda Arun

    Hello, I am requesting Rollback rights to help stop vandalism. I have made more than 2000 edits on Wikipedia since 2021. I understand how rollback works and will use it only when needed.

    Thank you Panda 🐼 Arun (Talk) 07:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OceanLoop

    I am a budding copyeditor with a growing number of watched pages to police for vandalism. Unfortunately, some vandals use multiple revisions, making it tedious and time-consuming to fix without a rollback permission. Thank you for your considerations. OceanLoop (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor

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

    User:Kiwipete

    I would like to make a comparatively minor change to Template:TERYT as requested by Altenmann on the template's talk page. However, even though I created this template, it has had its protection level set. Kiwipete (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like that has gone unprocessed primarily because it was dequeued from having an active edit request. If this is one-off issue, I think the best solution would be to just put {{edit protected|answered=no}} back on the page, and a patrolling template editor should process it. (the backlog at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests isn't usually very long). — xaosflux Talk 13:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"