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 16:40, 13 November 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:Jannatulbaqi

    Hey, I am here again with another editor who has created 86 articles, including BLPs. One of their creations was taken to AfD but resulted in a keep. I reviewed some of their articles and found that adding them to the AP could be beneficial. Basic checks were done, and no major issues were found. It’s up to you, and thanks! GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 8 November 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:OpalYosutebito

    I'd like to keep using AutoWikiBrowser to better add WikiProjects to talk pages in other languages, such as those in the Vietnamese versions of Establishments in Italy by year, as well as fixing (not necessarily removing like before) unknown parameters in templates. OpalYosutebito (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 13:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your use of AWB appears to have been removed rather than for inactivity - can you explain why or how you will use AWB within the rules and guidelines going forward? Primefac (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{not done}}, no reply. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't receive a reply notification, sorry. I will not focus on flat-out removing unknown parameters like before, but instead fixing them (the biggest example being using the "via" parameter instead of "agency" for some of the citation templates). - OpalYosutebito (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping: Gonzo fan2007, who revoked. charlotte 👸♥ 03:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RCSCott91

    Disambugation links. I really enjoy doing them and I'd like to help bring the "articles with Dab links" number into the 3 digits. If you'll look at my dab history you'll see I have dealt with everything from standard, to Vandalism, to navbox, and even had to update a module for a disambugation link that had been present for a few months. I'm currently null editing manually ~120 pages so they won't be on the dab list and slow anyone else down.

    I currently do the majority of my disambugation on mobile, but if granted permission I can allocate two days on desktop to disambiguate. Based on on current normal fluctuations, I'm confident that I can help get disambiguation articles down to triple digits within 3-4 months. (notwithstanding random navbox disambiguation).

    I am currently ranked in the top 10 DAB users although that doesn't mean much right now considering the top 2 have about ten times my number. RCSCott91 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification: I can allocate 2 days per week. Sorry for the ambiguity. RCSCott91 (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Absolutiva

    I want to replace these links. For example, "LGBTQ" per WP:CONSUB and "minor-planet" for "minor-planet designation" per WP:HYPHEN and Talk:Minor-planet designation#Requested move 21 September 2021. Absolutiva (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone grant AWB permission? It's been for a week. Absolutiva (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checking, are these changes you want to make in order to avoid a redirect, or because the term(s) are actually incorrect? If it's the former, AWB should not be used. I meant to ask this the other day but got sidetracked. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to change links per page move, as well as moving categories. Absolutiva (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Carpimaps2

    I own the Carpimaps2 account. Please transfer AWB rights from this account to this alt account, which I plan to use for AWB edits. Thanks. Ca talk to me! 12:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please have that account edit here to verify? Primefac (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting verification at Special:PermaLink/1256764077#Confirmation. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obi2canibe

    There's a category with over 2,000 articles that I would like to diffuse into sub-categories. I do regularly use WP:CATALOT but this requires manually selecting each article which would be time consuming in this case due the sheer number of articles involved. Also, many of the articles will need to included in more than one sub-category. AWB would make the job easier as I can create lists of articles to be included in each sub-category and let AWB do the rest. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Synorem

    I want to get into the swing of helping out in more ways other than RCP/PCP. Manually editing each article can only do so much. This would be handy to have. Synorem (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (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.

    User:Hoben7599

    I am sorry for making pointless sandbox edits to get EC status, and i promise it will not happen again. Hoben7599 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 08:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we disregard the pointless edits, you're about 70 edits shy of the 500 mark. Marking  Not done, Hoben7599, but feel free to make another request once you've made 500 constructive edits in total. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheWikipede (vanilla)

    Testing/training alt TheWikipedetalk 16:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:39, 12 November 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:TheBirdsShedTears

    I'd like to request NPR rights. I have prior experience with AfC and NPP, so I'm familiar with the process of reviewing new pages. I'm confident in my understanding of notability guidelines and can easily spot paid/COI editing, as well as unreliable and branded sources. I am also familiar with WP:DP, WP:NOBITING, and CSD

    I understand the importance of careful, fair reviews and will do my best to uphold the quality of content on Wikipedia. Thank you! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    not done, this does not address the removal of your permissions last year under suspicion of UPE. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Switching to  On hold so that this doesn't get archived mid-discussion signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill: My account was compromised and i have never been engaged in paid editing. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are expected to be upfront about prior permissions changes and to address these concerns in your initial request. This is now the third time (2, 1) that you have requested permissions since then without addressing this concern in your initial request. That you did not do so does not inspire confidence. You also have not clarified what steps you have taken to prevent your account from being compromised again, which is a necessity before you are conferred any advanced permissions. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the chance to explain. I realize I should have addressed this in my initial request, and I'm sorry for not doing so. When my account was compromised, it resulted in my permissions being revoked. I want to be clear that I've never been involved in paid editing.
    Since then, I've taken steps to secure my account, including enabling two-factor authentication (2FA) on my registered email, setting a strong password for my account, occasionally changing my password, and regularly checking my account activity to prevent any future issues. I understand how serious this is and am fully committed to keeping my account secure going forward.
    I'm really keen to contribute positively to Wikipedia again and will approach NPP and other responsibilities with full accountability. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please also give a timeline of what happened? How many weeks was your account compromised for? What date was it compromised and what date was the compromise stopped? How bad was the damage when it was compromised? What kind of edits did the attackers make? Any idea how it was compromised in the first place? I understand this is a lot of detail to ask, but explaining exactly what happened should be helpful here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to my health concerns, as noted here, I was inactive on the site. I gradually recovered, as mentioned here. However, in June 2022, I experienced health issues again, and this time, I didn’t inform the administrators because I had completely stopped using digital devices. As a result of this inactivity, I wasn't able to monitor my account or review my activity on the site. During this time, when my account was compromised, it was used solely for promotional editing by the attacker. Around 15 days before my account was blocked, I noticed I couldn't reset my password because the attacker had hijacked my email and removed it from my Wikipedia account. I recovered my email soon after realizing it was hacked. Upon reviewing my account activity, I found it in a dire state, used solely for promotional editing, which not only damaged Wikipedia but also hurt the trust I had built over several years of hardwork. I also noticed that the account had been inactive after the attacker created 4 articles between May 2023 and July 2023. I was exploring possible ways to regain access. Since I had previously contacted Materialscientist, I emailed them again (as noted here) in August 2023 to confirm my identity and that my email was the original registered email. However, it seemed they were not available. I then contacted the steward team, who directed me to email ca(at)wikimedia.org. After a series of emails, they video-called me, asked some questions, and eventually restored my account on 16 September 2024. Compromise stopped since i regained access in September 2024 and i took necessary steps to secure my Wikipedia account as well as email address. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for those details. Sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope you're doing a lot better now.
    1) So your account was compromised from June 2022 to September 2023 (1 year 3 months)? When we take a look at those edits we should assume those are the attacker?
    2) Any idea how your account got compromised? They somehow broke into your email and from there used that to password reset your Wikipedia account and got access to it that way? I guess that means that a) you were specifically targeted by UPEs since random hackers would not know or care about your Wikipedia NPP perm and b) they somehow had your email address? Do you remember any phishing attacks against your email or anything like that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My account was compromised from May 2023 until it was blocked in August 2023, preventing further edits to the mainspace (actual compromise date is not known since i was inactive and under medical observation). The compromise ended when I regained access in September 2024. Any edits made between May and July 2023 were not mine but were done by the attacker. I'm unsure how they accessed my email, but I suspect it occurred after I clicked on a free mobile phone giveaway link shared in a local job offer WhatsApp group (which I have since exited). I downloaded a zip file containing a PDF, unaware that links from untrusted or unknown sources could compromise personal data. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those dates all seem to line up (stated inactivity dates, compromise dates, XTools activity graph). As long as no UPE-like behavior is found outside the specified compromise dates (contribs link, deleted contribs link, page curation log), and no poor reviewing is found, I think we should consider re-granting NPP. I haven't yet done a deeper check than just dates and any admin should feel free to jump in and help with checking that if they want. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the parallel discussion of TheBirdsShedTears' recent autopatrolled request. There xaosflux said the evidence for a compromised account was there but "not definitive" and I'm not sure if anyone ran a CU check at the time. Personally I don't feel comfortable granting rights that we know are actively sought by malicious UPEs (NPR and autopatrolled) based on "not definitive". And if there was a compromise, there's still the question of how it happened, which based on the discussion above still seems to be unclear. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Having reviewed article creations since regaining control of this account, I'm satisfied that they are of a completely different caliber than the promotional materials published while this account was compromised. signed, Rosguill talk 15:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frost

    I'm interested in participating in this area of the project. I had a request declined for this two years ago due to lacking "familiarity with relevant policies and guidelines". Since then, I believe I have improved a lot in that aspect. Frost 05:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xegma

    I want to retain my NPR rights as it is going to expire and requesting for granting the right and love to review new pages. Xegma(talk) 19:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([3]). — MusikBot talk 19:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping to @Hey man im josh, who granted this trial. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, thanks for all your work so far. – Joe (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WeirdNAnnoyed

    I'd like to be a part of the new page patrol process. I have an extensive record with AfD, successfully arguing for deletion of several unsourced or otherwise un-notable articles that should not have been created in the first place. While I have created only a few entirely new articles, all of my articles have been extensively researched and well-sourced. I believe I meet all the requirements in terms of number of edits and length of time on Wikipedia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @WeirdNAnnoyed: I'm sorry but, between your statement here, your AfD record (only 8.7% keep !votes and several nominations being resoundingly kept), and lack of significant engagement with AfC or article creation, I'm concerned that your primary interest is deleting articles rather than improving the encyclopaedia.  Not done. – Joe (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Guessitsavis

    I was hoping to retain my NPR rights, which are set to expire in a few days. My activity has dropped slightly following the drive due to personal commitments, but I should be able to more actively contribute in the immediate future. Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) Talk 00:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy ping: Hey man im josh Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) Talk 00:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go ahead and extend your trial for another month, as you've had a bit of a rocky start at AfD. You also missed some clear signs of COI/UPE at Draft:Werapong Prapha. But overall, your reviews and AfD comments show a general understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines and I expect you will be able to continue to improve  Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kingsmasher678

    Requesting these rights after a trial expired, as I do use it from time to time. I think I did a decent job. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 01:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Microplastic Consumer

    Hello, I'm Microplastic Consumer and I've had this account for about two years now, with no warnings or blocks. I've made a good deal of articles and would love to get permission to review new ones. Some of my older work didn't meet Wikipedia standards (See: Eric Hovde, Glenn Elliot), but I've only used those discussions to learn more about Wikipedia policy and notability guidelines. Be rest assured that if given this opportunity I will provide non-biased review. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has 315 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 03:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Hi @Microplastic Consumer, sorry but you don't meet the requirements for NPP. Look into attending WP:NPRSCHOOL after you've gained some more experience working on articles and at WP:AFD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Killarnee

    My NPP permission expires soon and I would like to continue help reviewing. Killarnee (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 22:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as much AfD participation as I would have liked, but the articles, redirects, and dab pages that I looked at seemed to be appropriate reviews. I'll grant the right indefinitely but make sure to take it slow with borderline cases and give thoughtful rationales at AfDs. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Fathoms Below (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Synorem

    I've spent a fair amount of time patrolling recent changes and pending changes, and I had also undertook NPP training (see here) and completed almost all of it no issues. Unfortunately life and work gets in the way, and I was unable to schedule the final assessment, but I believe my completed tasks reflect my readiness and understanding of how things work, the guidelines & procedures, etc. Given the backlog in unreviewed new pages, I'd like to help chip in to reduce it. Synorem (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for volunteering, Synorem, but I'm not seeing much prior experience at deletion, AfC, or article creation, which are the primary things we look for per WP:NPPCRITERIA. Please give one or more of these areas a try first;  Not done for now. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 13 November 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.


    User:CoconutOctopus

    I've been editing on-and-off for years now and already have a number of permissions useful in the sort of wikignome work I tend to do, such as pending changes permission, rollback, and NPR rights; it is specifically new pages patrol I would be using this permission for. Primarily, I would like the permission in order to simplify the process when draftifying new articles so I would no longer need to leave a redirect for an admin to have to delete, but also for moving articles from misspellings or mis-titles. I've obviously got a fairly good understanding of the policies and wouldn't use the permission in a case that I thought might even be a little bit controversal. CoconutOctopus talk 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. SilverLocust 💬 20:20, 13 November 2024 (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:IDB.S

    I've been patrolling recent changes for a quiet while about Sri Lankan Articles, and I strongly believe this permission might be helpful. IDB.S (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VolatileAnomaly

    As an active recent changes patroller, I have dealt with and reverted/warned many instances of vandalism, BLP, and unsourced content. Lately, I saw that the pending changes backlog was quite high and would like to expand my contributions to that area. Thank you for your time. VolatileAnomaly (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JJPMaster

    I was granted temporary PCR privileges about four years ago, but did not request an extension due to genuine concerns regarding competence that were raised ahead of my successful rollback request about a month later. However, I believe that I have, at least for the most part, rectified these concerns over the past few months, where I have gotten much more active at AfC, NPP, and counter-vandalism (mainly using AntiVandal and, more recently, Huggle). Additionally, the reason for the competence concerns is now moot, since they arose due to my tendency to ask seemingly frivolous questions on AN and the help desk, while I now exercise great caution before bringing anything to the former, and rarely use the latter, as I am now much more familiar with our policies and guidelines, and no longer need as much clarification on them as then (see User talk:JJPMaster/Archive 2#WP:AN). If any concerns are still present, please let me know. Otherwise, I at least request that my temporary rights be restored, if it is not possible for me to be granted full rights at this time.

    Courtesy pings: Nick, ToBeFree, Liz. JJPMaster (she/they) 17:47, 13 November 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:Rasteem

    I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.

    I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteem Talk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteem Talk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteem Talk ®asteem Talk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteem Talk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sangsangaplaz

    I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 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 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable. Due to my forgetfulness I keep forgetting my wikipedia password so I tend to be gone for long periods of time. Although, when should I reapply. Should it be in around a month of activity? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 08:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BilledMammal

    Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally one would discuss problems with tool use with the editor, on their talk page, and go to a noticeboard which this page is not if they were still unsatisfied. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways: @Fastily: Looking at BilledMammal's use of the rollback (31 edits) so far, they have involved removing sourced content from articles, and are seemingly in violation of "Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits by sockpuppets are by definition in bad faith. Further, given the frequent source misrepresentation issues by that sockpuppet, we can’t trust that the presence of a source means the content is supported - and thus it is better to remove them all. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is factually incorrect as WP:GF says: “Violation of policies—such as engaging in sockpuppetry, violating consensus, and so on—may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith.”
    Also that’s the second half of what I quoted. The first half explicitly says “vandalism only.” Sockpuppetry although disruptive is not vandalism. You should revert what you disagree with, not mass remove large chunks of what appears to be reliably sourced content.
    If you have concerns, which is legitimate given the socking, you can check each of these sources yourself. Otherwise, mass removing everything is doing more harm than good. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, would you also argue against reverting edits by Icewhiz’s sockpuppets?
    Regardless, this is common practice, and if you are willing to take full responsibility for CAE’s edits you are welcome to restore them. Personally, given the frequent issues with these edits, I would not be willing to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, a couple of days ago you were reverting sockpuppet edits with the same justification - what’s different here? BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I would also argue against that. There were many articles even created from scratch by Icewhiz’s several socks including Cuisine of Jerusalem, and the Jordanian Option which I find to be incredibly biased and have not touched. I reverted what I disagreed with, I did not mass revert everything. When linking to my reverts of that sock to make an argument, please maintain honesty by presenting the full picture, and not by presenting a misleading one. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t see your self-revert - I was looking at just your edits with a relevant edit summary - and regardless, there were many more examples I could have chosen, unless you are saying you’ve self-reverted all of them?
    In any case, this is standard practice, and given the widespread issues with this editors contributions I think it was necessary. Of course, as I said before, if you are willing to assume responsibility for the edits you may restore them. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am clearly saying that I selectively reverted some of the socks edits, and not that I mass reverted all of their edits. The link you chose appeared to suggest a mass reversion, which was a technical mistake as evidenced by the immediate following self-revert. Again, back to the real issue here: your use of the rollback was given on explicit conditions that were violated, and this should be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the right place for this conversation, but reverting block evasion is explicitly a valid use case for rollback: see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ: #5 mentions "by misguided editors" and "unhelpful to WP," which is not necessarily the case here. I think you meant #4? If so, #4 ends with "(but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)." This means that there should be explanations for the removals, i.e. selective removals and not wholesale ones. (Does #4 include socks anyway?) And also to quote #6: "With a custom edit summary explaining the reason for reverting the changes." Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, #4. The "explain" part is about explaining that the user is a sock, which isn't always obvious. And #6 is a separate criterion, not a requirement for all rollbacks, as the rest of the guideline makes clear. But again, this isn't the place—feel free to stop by my talk page if you'd like to talk about it more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Extraordinary Writ: @Just Step Sideways: This privilege should be removed. The capability has its proper uses, but one of them isn't so that someone with a strong POV in a contentious topic can mass-revert the edits of someone with the opposite strong POV. Even if the latter has been blocked as a sock. Yes, it is legal to remove sock edits, but a good editor would review them first and keep what improves the article. Now someone has to go through all the reverts and restore what is salvageable. Many of the reverted edits included good content that someone else would have added if the sock hadn't. As examples of how blindly BilledMammal has been wielding this tool, I mention removal of an academic source, reintroduction of an error and deletion of an infobox. Per full disclosure, I am also involved in this topic, which is why I don't remove the permission myself. Zerotalk 12:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BANREVERT notes that anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason, and WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4 expressly permits rollback to be used to revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban. So, [e]ven if the latter has been blocked as a sock does matter a great bit, since rollback is explicitly permitted to be used when encountering edits made by ban-evading sockpuppets.
    That being said, WP:BANREVERT also notes that when reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. For this reason, mass rollbacks tend to most prudent for dealing with a VOA or when the edits being rolled back are manually checked before the button is clicked. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote WP:BANREVERT fully, not partially: "This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Makeandtoss (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paytonisboss

    Reason for requesting rollback rights

    Uhm hello I've been wondering if I could get rollback perms I want to help prevent vandalism on Wikipedia and if I'm not able to get rollback perms at the moment how do I sign up for the anti-vandilsim class please feel free to give your honest response as I beleave honesty is key and if you think I'm not prepared yet please tell me I like getting feedback it helps me grow and learn on Wikipedia best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Normally what we are looking for is evidence that a user is already reverting and warning vandals, and I wasn't able to find that. WP:CVU is where to learn more, but I would also note that you could go in your preferences and turn on WP:TWINKLE if you want to make anti-vandalism work very easy to do. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you for the advice i appreciate that and yes i will use twinkle and i will start patrolling for vandilisim best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Myrealnamm

    I think I am ready for Rollback user rights, after being declined twice before. I have 1835 mainspace edits, several months finding and reverting vandalism, and almost always notifying editors about their edits. I understand that Rollback is only used for obvious vandalism, and it should not be used for good-faith edits. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:31, 12 November 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"