Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFR)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Requests for permissions
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, 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 06:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


Handled here

User groups

  • Account creator (add requestview 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 requestview 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 requestview 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 quick guide 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 only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you do not meet these qualifications.
  • Confirmed (add requestview 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.
  • Extended confirmed (add requestview requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts, 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 requestview 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 requestview requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have had made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
  • New page reviewer (add requestview requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation hoverbar.
  • Page mover (add requestview 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.
  • Pending changes reviewer (add requestview 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 requestview 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 requestview 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.

Note: The bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at 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.



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 are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, mass message sender, 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). 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.

Current requests

Account creator


Ongoing school projects are usually encouraged to use the request an account process - FlightTime (open channel) 19:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Special situation, qualifies under the "involved with education program". — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: can you please point me to the specific documentation your referring to, thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@FlightTime: I see that as qualifying under Wikipedia:Account_creator#Becoming_an_account_creator, bullet point 2. (c.f. exising EP flags on User:Piotrus). — xaosflux Talk 20:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I misunderstood the fact that Hanyangprofessor2 was a member of the education program and not an instructor using Wikipedia for class projects. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)



Experienced and prolific editor. 382 articles created according to Xtools, and although they had a number of articles on cricketers deleted in 2015 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. K. Jiyas), that seems to have been a one-off mistake that hasn't been repeated since. Also a new page patroller. – Joe (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 01:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: There is currently a discussion about the editor creating unreferenced pages with little indicator of notability. The number of pages created would be irrelevant if these pages don't live up to basic standards. Alex ShihTalk 12:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done I've just cast my eye over the last ten articles produced by the editor. Mass-produced stubs with lots of referencing, but all pointing back to sites where I could not establish whether any of those films are notable. Sloppy work, with every name linked, resulting in loads of red links (are they really all notable? who would know) and a decent number of links to disambiguation pages. Sentences run into one another; no space after a full stop. These creations still benefit from being reviewed by other editors. Schwede66 18:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Apologies, I didn't realise they'd recently had the right revoked, or that there was a discussion on Alex Shih's talk page. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


Please give me the flag autopatrolling. Have sufficient experience in the project, with project rules introduced Joshua57 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has created roughly 15 articles. MusikBot talk 21:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done Created a large of number of pages cross wiki that were deleted for being non-notable or forks. Wouldn't qualify for autopatrolled flag on, and certainly not here. Sorry. Alex ShihTalk 12:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


The editor has created only 16 articles. Mostly about entomology, and other species. Few articles about persons related to these fields. With only exception being Zaldy who seems to be a photographer/model (doesnt seem to be photographer of moths). As usual, editor's first article edit was a little inexperinced like, but within few minutes/hours the article got a good shape. That very article is currently a GA, and seems like the editor was the reason for that.
The recent creations of the editor show a good understanding of everything (syntax within articles, wikiproject banner, links/backlinks, and most importantly notability criteria). But this is my opinion (I am little biased towards science). Requesting an admin to take a look. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has created roughly 16 articles. MusikBot talk 12:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Quality contributions, even the stubs are extremely well-referenced. Alex ShihTalk 12:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Lex. The stubs might remain stub for a long while. But they are notable articles for sure. That was the reason why I nominated him even though he doesnt meet the 25 articles requirement. Similar to this. See you around. :)
usernamekiran(talk) 16:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Experienced editor, has created 800+ routine articles on sports events, none deleted according to Xtools. – Joe (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this one. They've been blocked in the past for content-related issues, according to his talk page, and many of the articles themselves are unfinished, poorly sourced, or poorly tagged. They're all short so it would take much time for an NPP to review it, so I'm inclined to say not done unless someone else disagrees. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)



Bonvallite (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Bonvallite, how are you planning on using AWB? Primefac (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, I am patrolling and making edits, improving articles on City and Municipality of the Philippines past on suggestbot recomendation. To speed up my works. Thanks Bonvallite (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


To speed up my editing, I mainly plan to use it to correct typos such as miscapitalization and on redirects e.g. adding rcats Wumbolo (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


I created a new article, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) today, and realized that I should use the AWB in order to update all the mentions of it that were not redlinked already. It is a U.S. federal government interagency committee, and I saw dozens (or more?) mentions of it it when I did an English Wikipedia search. I anticipate that having access to the AWB will be helpful to me in the future, for similar reasons. I should have asked for it before, as I have usually done the updating manually. I don't want to mess with the downloadable version of AWB, as I would rather just run it in my browser. That's why I am requesting access to the JavaScript supported version. Thank you for considering my request. FeralOink (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
FeralOink, I'm not sure what terms you're using but I only find 17 uses of "Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee". This isn't a commentary on your application itself, just trying to figure out what search params you're using. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)



I'm working in an app that show some charts about articles from watchlist. So, I need to implement a login interface to get the watchlist of user, but I require OAuth method and to apply a proposal I need this permission. Leotesta94 (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Leotesta94: OAuth proposals are not performed on the English Wikipedia, did someone direct you here? — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Nobody, myself.. So, what is the proper and possible way to implement a login using mediawiki api? (Excluding bot password). Leotesta94 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done @Leotest194: start at meta:OAuth app guidelines. — xaosflux Talk 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


Howdy. Longtime editor out of retirement. I only have a day and a half to wait but I'd really like to get started on a deceased soldier/academic's biography. The new article creation wizard is a pain and I've discovered I need autoconfirm to avoid having to use it. Familiar with all the requirements for a new article having created dozens over the past 12 years. I know it's not a long wait time but I have to grab opportunities to edit when real life allows. Thanks! LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC) LargelyRecyclable (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done @LargelyRecyclable: see WP:ACTRIAL, new accounts are purposefully being denied creating new articles right now. You can create without the wizard under Draft:TitleName if you want to get started right away. If this is an alternative account of an established account that can be verified we can do this early, but it is up to you to show that relationship. — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Louise Horder Mc.

Louise Horder Mc. (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia, I am the maternal granddaughter of Percy Richard Morley Horder, Architect. Someone has already made a Wikipedia page for my Grandfather and I managed to add three photographs which I have of him. My Grandmother kept a very large record book of all of the buildings my grandfather built or added restorations, additions and alterations. I have painstakingly typed a table of all of these buildings, made it into a PDF and I want to upload it as a record of his Complete Works. It was a big job and has been proof read. I come from a family of 4 other siblings, who will confirm this is correct. How can I get this uploaded please? I don't want to edit any other Wikipedia page, except my Grandfather's. Louise Barbara Horder Mclean

 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 17:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done Please note, you can upload PDF's to commons: just like you uploaded image files. Please also see the English Wikipedia's Original Research rules. — xaosflux Talk 23:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


With respect, Sir I like to edit in Wikipedia, I think I will do my best to do this job with my elders, please confirm me, I would be fortunate to edit Wikipedia.I will not make any mistake and whatever I will do after my administration I will do the tail.please confirm me. RocketFast (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done And another sock blocked by Ponyo a few days back. This is a globally locked farm. —SpacemanSpiff 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Elvin mail

Elvin mail (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 18:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done No reason listed. — xaosflux Talk 20:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


I want to add a family information, history, details/ tree in the wikipedia. So I hereby request you to confirm my account. Ameer.alipc (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


my life is very simple
but every thing is people
some say
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done No reason listed. — xaosflux Talk 02:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed


Alt account of user 1997kB used for editing on public computers. 0007kB 06:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I confirm that this is my alt account. – 1997kB 06:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 13:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:72 (alt)

My alt account. The user creation log can confirm this. Although I don't forsee myself using the account very often I'd rather this was done before I find myself needing to use the account and not having the sufficient permissions. –72 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 02:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

File mover

User:Pharaoh of the Wizards

Pharaoh of the Wizards

I have editing for a long time and have come across various occasions when I run into the issue of not being able to rename files during the work.Hence felt it would be better if I requested the permission. Thanks.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Alex ShihTalk 17:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer


I'm sitting vacant at home I like working in Wikipedia: Will you make me see the page?I have a lot of love for Wikipedia. This is the work I do throughout my day that I work in Wikipedia, will you give me this job.I love this work very much, I will do this work with my hard work. RamboRock (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had an account for 1 days and has 14 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done - two day old account. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
And already blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


I would still like to participate in NPP, I did apply before but was rejected as some of my pages were in AfD 'heading for deletion', In general my article creations have survived well since and have not been deleted, although Bert Biscoe is still potentially heading for deletion (my work on the honors lists was not deleted) and other articles I have made have been nominated as well, like Mir Mohammed Raza, I doubt this is going to stop happening unless I stop making articles, especially as some of my creations are rather weak, so I am applying again (some other editors and Drstrauss suggested I should reapply). I am aware of how policy works, and I help out explaining policy to new users quite a bit. I have been doing some AfC reviewing recently as well. (it has added 700 semi-automated edits to my count, I can't figure out how many articles that is though). Only 30% of my edits are in mainspace, as I work on numerous other areas of the project as well. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  15:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 16:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: As you rejected the previous one, I thought it'd be right to ping you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Thanks for the ping, I was going to recuse myself for this one. I don't think much has changed since the previous request, but this reminds me of the discussions about different skill sets with reviewer and autopatrolled. So it's entirely possible the editor would do well in NPP if he insists, so I wouldn't oppose for this time. Cheers. Alex ShihTalk 11:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Might be worth looking into the AFC acceptances, as this user has a prodigiously high acceptance rate. I know AFC has a bit of a higher bar than NPP, but it's worth mentioning. Primefac (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC) update: I genuinely have no opinion on AGIB as an NPR, so please do not take my statements as opposition to their request. It was more of a "here's another aspect to look at when you make your decision" post. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Aguyintobooks is ready for this yet. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Apologies in advance for the wall of text.
What am I doing wrong? I promise not to indiscriminately approve poor quality articles, I am reasonably sure I have not been doing so. Although I have not figured out how to see my AfC log, I only approve articles that I think add to the encyclopedia and wouldn’t be deleted at AfD.
I somewhat doubt that there is anything left for me to learn here (other than the fine detail of sports notability perhaps) so I am not sure waiting would help me, although it may further demonstrate my ability level to others.
Obviously as stated on my userpage, I am more comfortable with including articles than deleting them, but that does not mean I won't delete them, and I have sent numerous articles to AfD when deserving. At the moment I will skip articles in AfC that I am unsure whether would be deleted or not, and focus on declining the obvious promotional/non-notable stuff and accepting articles on places, and obviously notable people.
I will admit that some of my work is on articles created by editors from other countries, these articles always have some issue, normally due to the inability for the editor to understand the guidelines. I feel that the best way to deal with these is to be reasonably forgiving, as the articles themselves are often salvageable or the issues are not insurmountable, possibly due to my background, I think that these editors are generally doing the best they can, and as long as the article adds to Wikipedia and does not break any core guidelines, it is probably alright.
I have been working with some other editors to improve the article wizard (talk) to help deal with this, the idea is that a simpler article wizard would be easier to use, and therfore save us work explaining the guidelines to newcomers.
I generally take advantage of having free access to most subscription academic services via my university, particularly when assessing NPROF drafts. In short I do believe that I would be good at NPP patrolling, and am not overly concerned about my focus on certain areas, since the NPP browser allows for this. Α Guy into Books § (Message) -  08:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi, interested in taking this up as I don't do any administrative tasks here and should really pull my weight a bit more and want to get an idea of the scale of the problem. Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 353 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 15:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done You are definitely on the right track, but I would like to see more experience before granting this tool to you. Malinaccier (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Page mover

User:In ictu oculi

I think the user would do well with the right as they're active at Requested Moves and would find it useful. — Zawl 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. This user is very knowledgeable in Page moving. Very active at Requested Moves. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Alex ShihTalk 09:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: just wondering if you reviewed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive955#Pattern_of_making_controversial_title_changes_without_RM_or_discussion_by_user_In_ictu_oculi before granting this right? Although there was no consensus for banning IIO from making page moves, there were a number of concerns raised there, which maybe should be considered before granting extra page move rights. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I would concur with @Amakuru:. In ictu is certainly active at RM, but not uncontroversially. Not sure that page mover is appropriate here. Dohn joe (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Dohn joe: Thank you for the input. I have to admit that I was fazed by the 193,013 edits and 20,091 moves and missed seeing the AN/I discussion even though I did skim through the talk page in my review, so I apologize. Here are my thoughts after reviewing the contributions more closely.
Since the conclusion of the AN/I discussion (which lasted from 17 April to 21 May 2017), IIO's contributions sharply declined, which I assume is related to the discussion based on the move log. Ever since that discussion, IIO has performed 891 moves, and in these moves, I can only see one instance where the move was seriously contested, and the result of that RM discussion appears to have been resolved amicably. My only interaction with the editor seem to agree with the consensus that IIO is quick to make unilateral moves without checking relevant discussions, but in that interaction they were also quick to revert the mistake after I approached the editor. Reading through the RM discussions, IIO seem to respond to contested moves promptly with reasonable rationale usually. With these aspects taken into consideration, I was wondering if it's fair to propose that IIO deserves a chance to prove their competence with the tool? In the ideal scenario, the access to the page mover tool would add more responsibility to IIO, which will lead to more ways for them to be scrutinized if the controversial behaviour continues. When that happens, WP:PMRR can be easily invoked by any administrator, and it will help to generate a clearer consensus about this editor.
These are my opinions only. If the proposal still seems to be problematic, I will go ahead and apologize to IIO and revoke the page mover rights. Sorry about the long post. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 07:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
In my experience, most of In ictu's page moves are warranted/neutral, but a sizable minority (10-20% (?)) are questionable. In many cases, In ictu will take things through RM if called on it, but just as many times, they'll seem to go the unilateral route in areas where they should know better. That's what leads to most of the concerns, including the AN/I. I don't know how widely this page is viewed/watched, but I do know that other editors would likely have similar concerns to Amakuru here. Dohn joe (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: I didn't ask for the tool, and can accomplish most of the disambiguation work I do without it. I'd respect Amakuru's view. As you note with 193,013 edits and 20,091 moves you'd expect occasionally someone to ask a question. I have never hung on any edit. Life is too short. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Absent an ANI (or AN, AE, RFARB) determination that IIO did not address the concerns raised in the May ANI (which did not sanction or restrict him, just indicated generalized concerns for him to be more careful, a little less BOLD), he clearly qualifies for this userbit. (And it is easily removed if provably abused.) Someone raising an issue at ANI doesn't mean that the issue is real or permanent or insoluble, and "you were taken to ANI once, so you forever bear a yoke, such that in every request you will be subjected to double jeopardy" isn't how WP works. If someone wants to strip IIO of the bit, they should file an ANI report with evidence proving it should be stripped. And they should do so with clean hands; the old ANI at issue here came to within a hair's breadth of a WP:BOOMERANG. PERM/PM process should not run off the rails, with admins granting the PM bit pursuant to the clearly codified process for doing so, then just removing it, without any process at all (i.e., without any of the criteria at WP:PMRR being met), just because someone complains; that just isn't the way we do things, either. If some wanna-be "RM police" (who never seem to be admins themselves) care that much to want to blockade various long-experienced editors from this userbit, it's their burden to watchlist this page, not try to retroactively undo this process's decisions. I wouldn't have an issue with an admin self-reversing their own granting of the bit if they'd missed sanctions – within the timeframe covered by WP:PMRC – and had thus genuinely made a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


I have 74,459 edits over a span of 10 years including thousands of moves & move-related edits. This right will enable me to perform uncontroversial technical moves. Timmyshin (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Support. I will recuse myself for this one. I have seen this editor frequently in East Asian topics, and the editor is easily experienced, having demonstrated good understanding of relevant policies. I expect the page mover tool should be helpful in dealing with uncontroversial WP:CHINESE move requests. Alex ShihTalk 07:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 13:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jon Kolbert

Looking to use the "surpressredirect" tool when moving certain files. Ideal for suppressing redirects from moves from problematic names such as a double file-extension or a totally meaningless name (e.g. File:Dsasadsdaassaddassda.jpg and File:R-1873233-1369268uhhkjhkj019-7956.jpeg.jpg) and by doing so reducing the workload on admins who end up deleting these useless redirects. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Alex ShihTalk 17:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer



Because it opens up for me to use much more anti-vandal tools to revert vandalism quickly. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 127 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 20:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done Less than 500 edits, and over 45% of them have been to user talks. I'm not sure you have enough experience just yet. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

User:S.A. Julio

With a watchlist of 3,500+ articles, I come across a fair amount of vandalism on articles, so rollback would be a useful tool to help fight this. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done Malinaccier (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Template editor

User:Was a bee

Currently I'm planning to propose the new edit for {{infobox gene}} (and in future possibly {{infobox anatomy}}). Both pages are protected. It is uncertain whether my proposal could get support or be declined (I'm now developing new code for infobox gene at User:Was a bee/Infobox gene). But in the case if my proposal will be supported by other editors in English Wikipedia, I think it is better that I can edit the template. Because that template is complex, which is not only long but also works in the intersection of wikitext, Lua code, and wikidata. Was a bee (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. Green tickY (guideline: >1, applicant: 9)
  2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000, applicant: >7465)
  3. Green tickY (guideline: >150, applicant: 388/175)
  4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
  5. Red XN (guideline: 3, applicant: ~1)
  6. Red XN (guideline: 5, applicant: ~3, all at same template)
Primefac (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems like a want/need disparity, but user has put a lot of effort into improving {{infobox anatomy}}. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
More to the point for me, this seems like something that should be done via sandboxing. The "need" case being laid out is not an actual need. And it's really narrowly focused on a single template. We need TEs to be people who will answer {{edit template-protected}} requests (including often declining, and sometimes also going the extra mile to sandbox for people who don't have the skills do so themselves). TE isn't for making it easier to work in a particular template the TE-requester wants to work on.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  17:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done per previous comment. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing and commenting. I requested here because formerly I received suggestion about TE (User_talk:Was_a_bee#Template_editing). If I could edit protected template, I can reduce the burdens of TEs, especially who respond to complex template edit requests very sincerely. That's only reason. But OK, I'll use {{edit template-protected}} in the case. Thanks! --Was a bee (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Was a bee: once you find that your edit requests are getting processed without issue regularly, feel free to stop back by. I'd give it a few months that include successful request. — xaosflux Talk 23:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)