Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

MediaWiki

Just a quick note to say that I have updated the page where user permissions are assigned (or rescinded) to include a list of useful template notifications, which you can see here. I er, trust this is useful. Let me know if there's anything else that would be helpful. WilliamH (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You could add {{RFPC|done}} as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Falling in Reverse

Hi, I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is guy" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is its only people without accounts that do it Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

This is not the correct venue for this type of request, you need to make your request here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Mlpearc (powwow) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Besides the fact that it looks like pending changes will go live in December, the reviewer user-right user group is being used for the Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool, which will apparently go live in 2 weeks, and they're apparently hoping to see lots more people with the abilities therein.

So I would suggest being prepared for a lot of new requests. - jc37 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've activated Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Please feel free to help by doing whatever is necessary to bring the page in line with the rest of the process pages here. - jc37 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The best I can tell, we've got 4 months to decide what it means to be a reviewer for purposes of Pending Changes, so it's premature to certify someone as a reviewer for that ... so it's fortuitous I think that we've got this other use for reviewership available in two weeks. Hopefully people will be content with that while the PC RFC process grinds on. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The archiving for reviewer requests have always been done differently from the other permissions (using the style of the old NPWatcher requests). IIRC this was done because at the time PC was in trial, so we wanted to keep the request processes separate. The bot is still set up to archive them like that. If people want me to change that, I can do, but I'll leave it as is for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned tghat neither the WP:AFT5 or WP:RVW pages have anything about this new use for the reviewer right on. It means that, unless you know where to go, this will pass you by. Could someone more in the know that I am please add something to both pages? Also, do we have any procedure for adding this right at the moment? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Trainee clerks have now been appointed for Requests for Permissions

Hi folks, I've been informed on my talkpage that "trainee clerks" have now been appointed for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Apparently they are appointed by User:Armbrust and User:Bwilkins, and they are "allowed" to make non-admin closures of rights requests. (Indeed, anyone could before, especially if frivolous or obviously ridiculous.)

I'm wondering if this is widespread knowledge, or if the trainee clerk concept was discussed somewhere before being implemented? Especially given the previous discussions about an excess of non-admin commentary on rights requests. Also, is there a listing of trainee clerks somewhere? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)