Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 10:10, 20 January 2021 (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 will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
  • 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.
  • Event coordinator (add requestview 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 requestview 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 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 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 toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
  • 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. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
  • 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.

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.



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, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, 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.

Current requests

Account creator



Hello, I kindly request this right because I will be creating a lot of pages on places (villages, district etc) and also on local grape varieties. I do have an adequate knowledge on policies such as notability guidelines, copyright, BLP and etc. I would kindly to be assessed. Best Regards Kemalcan (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kemalcan:  Done, thank you for your contributions. Please remember to add WikiProject tags (e.g. {{WikiProject Turkey}}) to articles you create from now on, since reviewers will no longer do that for you. – Joe (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: For the record, I disagree with this and was intending on declining it. Users who only create one-sentenced, cookie cutter, geographical stubs should not be granted autopatrolled. Not that these creations aren't valuable or appreciated, just that they don't demonstrate any significant level of quality content creation experience and/or trustworthiness to warrant a blanket exemption from NPP. I say this only because I've been burned multiple times by these grants; users who assert they're here to create uncontentious stubs, and then subsequently have quality issues such as copyvios, POV-pushing or promotion. I'm not here to ABF on the part of the user nor to dress you down, I simply wish to share my experience that these types of grants are unwise. AP is a sweeping exemption from quality control and should not be granted without good reason. In these cases, the NPP time saved is minimal, and the uncertainty is fairly substantial. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Swarm makes a good point, although maybe expressed a bit too overtly. The user has had an account barely a month, only started making pages 5 days ago and practically all are identical iterations of each other, less a place name change. Bungle (talkcontribs) 09:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
My view is the opposite: people who create uncontroversial stubs have the clearest case for autopatrolled. Especially ones on populated places – WP:GEOLAND says they're automatically notable, they all follow the same simple format, and the risk of them violating any of the core content policies is minimal. They rarely if ever need to be reviewed. That said, I confess I didn't notice that Kemalcan had started actively editing so recently (their account is actually 5 years old). @Swarm: Do you want me to reverse this? Or perhaps make it temporary (until they are done with their GEOLAND project)? – Joe (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to agree, as I patrol articles off this page; there is no indication of any ability to create meaningful, problem-free content with the cookie-cutter account creation paradigm. GenQuest "scribble" 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
To answer your question, Joe, it’s best to revert. Schwede66 05:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I do think it would be best to reverse the grant here, especially considering the new information that has come to light. However I do not want it to distract from my point. My intent is not to overrule you, it's to share the larger point that I think is important for consideration. I do understand your logic, I once employed it myself. However, the problem is that that logic only applies so long as the user only ever makes uncontentious stubs. And there's no guarantee of that. AP doesn't just apply to such stubs, it applies to all creations ever. We have to be confident not just that their stubs don't need review, but that we can reasonably trust that any content they will ever create will not need review. And without anything showing us that, we have no reason to extend that sort of confidence. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, i have read the comments above. I have to admit that this ongoing topic after i am being granted as an Autopatrolled, is not motivating. Requirements for the application are clearly stated on top of the page. I requested it after the requirements have been met. As you can see from my contributions, my efforts for this community is obvious and valid. I would like to note that all articles i have created here were accepted by an NPP, and there were no violation. I may understand those articles look simple, but those are still notable and need to be created. We do all have different roles in the wiki community. (I am also a Patroller (NPP+Autopatrolled) at TurkishWiki.) As you may all know, the right i am being granted here, is a type of right that can be reverted by any admin by any time in the case of violation. Thank you once again. I will do my best to turn all comments here into positive and focused energy for the wiki community. Best Regards..--Kemalcan (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
You should not be demotivated, I made it clear that this has nothing to do with your articles not being valuable. This is simply a discussion as to whether editors who only create one-sentence stubs have demonstrated the experience and trustworthiness needed to obtain this right. If you read WP:AUTOPATROLLED, you'll know that the numerical requirement is not a guarantee that we just rubberstamp. This is absolutely nothing personal, and I don't want you to take it personally. However, these types of requests normally aren't granted, so it needs to be discussed. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello again, of course your comments are valuable. I respect your opinion. As it can be seen from my recent contributions, i am not necessarily adding one-sentence stubs. Here you can have a look at 1 2 3. As i said before, we do all have different roles in wiki community. There are thousands and thousands notable topics needs to be created. My efforts are obvious and clear. Good editing! Regards.--Kemalcan (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Zin Win Hlaing

I am the one who regularly create Myanmar-related articles which is my native project (WP:MYANMAR) and demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on biographies of non-living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. I do have a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have created 40 articles, many of them are not BLP ones and all are not deleted so far, and am planning to create more. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 11:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have been learning about copyediting and have some experiences, and thus I assume no eye-cast over my articles is needed anymore.


I am working creating new articles on Ghanaian politicians, sportsmen and traditional rulers, I am hoping to create more in other jurisdiction a well but the focus for now is Ghana,I have gone through the mill and gained adequate knowledge and skills pertaining to on policies on WP:V,WP:BLP,WP:COPYRIGHT,WP:RS. Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


I would like a review for this permission. Thank you.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)  // Timothy :: t | c | a   06:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


User:Steve M

I am planning to fix typos and citation styles on Hemothorax and on Wikipedia. I have recently expanded on that article and am attempting to make it a featured article. I have read the rules, and understand that I am responsible for every edit made, that I will be able to review every edit before publishing it, and that invisible edits are not allowed. Steve M (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Steve M (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


I would like to use AWB so that I can more efficiently work on the backlog at Biography articles without listas parameter. --C o r t e x 💬talk 23:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has approximately 70 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 23:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to decline this outright, but given that you fail both of the recommended metrics for granting, I'm not super-inclined to grant. Primefac (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)



Would like to make a change to Amy Poehler's page about her involvement in the Make Some Noise Music video in 2011 and her contribution in the Beastie Boys Story book. Poby31 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done – Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you are used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5 percent of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that more than 95 percent of the articles can use your help right now! — JJMC89(T·C) 04:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


I want add section about Discrimination of minorities on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia has discrimination "Noticeability" policy against minorities. For example, Wikipedia do not accept articles about popular minority singers because they are noticeable according to Wikipedia policy, even if they are noticeable person in minority. By this Wikipedia promotes only general-trend culture and suppress cultural diversity. Discrimination "notability policy" of Wikipedia do not consider impact and benefits of minority noticeable person for they society. According to Wikipedia policy only person of “big” nationalities allowed to be represented on wiki. If you are for example Aleut, who is only 400 people the world, your best singer never be allowed to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Good example of this that article about famous Kalmyk singer Bain Ligor nominated for deletion Makushima (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. MusikBot talk 12:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Event coordinator

Extended confirmed

User:Pahunkat Alternate Account

Requesting extended confirmed as this is my alternate account. Pahunkat Alternate Account (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm that this is my alternate account. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you need this on an alternate account? Also, what EC-protected page(s) are you planning to edit with this account? -FASTILY 05:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Fastily, the account will probably serve two purposes - for editing on public connections (when COVID restrictions end) and as a backup in case this one gets compromised. As for pages that it'll be editing, it'll probably be doing the same sort of work as my regular account, such as RC patrolling and perhaps maintenance tasks. Pahunkat (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File mover


Greetings & thank you all for giving me a chance to serve. I believe I have thus far familiarized myself with file moving in accordance to WP:FMV/W & work predominantly with FNC#2 & have successfully renamed this , this, this this to their current appropriate title. I also have knowledge of image policies discussed in detail at WP:IUP & when not requesting for a “rename media” I do general file patrolling & work With Di's & F9's as can be observed here, here. here & here. I optimize the Tin Eye reverse image function to aid me in identifying copyvio’s. I also understand to satisfaction the WP:FURG policy. I also sparingly do menial work on Commons by detecting copyvio’s & requesting their speedy deletions as seen here, here, here or partaking in image related deletion discussion as seen here In the spirit of transparency, i should also state that during my early days of working with files I had erred occasionally in applying incorrectly [[WP:#FNC2]]’s in titles that weren’t necessarily meaningless as can observed here & correctly declined here & it took the help of Godsy to set me straight. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Really, once a rename is deemed appropriate per the criteria, there is wide leeway with the name. Regarding File:Russian Crash Fabric Material.jpg (which I renamed), capitalization is merely a preference. There may, rightly, be no backlog but it never hurts to have more hands on deck to timely reject or approve and implement requests. The only thing not approving new users when they demonstrate the appropriate capabilities does is to establish an old-guard cutlure. I think Celestina007 has worked and inquired more than most to learn the ropes of file renaming and see no issue with their request being granted. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Godsy: While I agree the old guard culture is toxic and can result in increased corruption, I think the only difference between us is that my bar for "demonstrate the appropriate capabilities" is slightly higher than yours. I do think Celestina007 could be a file mover fairly soon, but just not yet. Personally I'd say that in general any user who has requested 20 file moves of which 90% or more were granted without major adjustments can be promoted. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the support @Godsy it is very much appreciated. Hello@Alexis Jazz, thank you for raising those points/queries as I believe them to be constructive criticism but like I stated earlier most of my errors were at my early stages of working with files and ones I won’t repeat because as of now I understand to satisfaction what is outlined in WP:FMV/W. Generally I find file moving in its entirety, a great place to work in, I believe I can contribute my own quota there, as you rightfully stated there isn’t a huge backlog there but I believe if granted this perm and the backlog does invariably increase, I would be there to take care of them alongside yourself, Godsy and the lot of other editors who work with files. Thank you also for the advice above which states I would generally recommend to make the filename more descriptive than just the name, especially when more images of the subject are available or could be uploaded in the near future. (e.g. by adding "in 2020", "with white background". I’d be more than happy to answer any further queries. Furthermore, It’s interesting how working with files also aids me in new page patrolling and fighting spam articles. Happy new year to you all and I hope you do take all this into consideration and give me s chance to prove myself and serve the community better. Thank you all. Celestina007 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns about me not filing enough rename media’s, however Alexis, I did nab both this & this today. I really do put in effort. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Celestina007: I've copied your comment from my talk page to keep the discussion central, as I actually want to comment on this. According to the uploader of File:Screen Shot 2021-01-08 at 1.02.02 PM.png: "Glenn Foley, mid pass. This is from an old newspaper clipping I believe, I couldn't find the original source". I declined the request and tagged the file for WP:CSD#F9. No license and Glenn Foley is alive. (so no fair use) File:Scott Cawthon.png appears to be a selfie of Scott Cawthon and was extracted from Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted game files: (the narrator says "the majority of them were total fabrications from the mind of a complete lunatic (lawsuits pending)." so this explains why the file was originally uploaded as "CompleteLunatic.png". No license and Scott is also alive so no possible fair use rationale, tagged for CSD F9. There is no need to rename media that is going to be deleted anyway. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz, oh thanks, I’d be keeping that in mind moving forward and won’t bother to rename files that are likely to be deleted. Pertaining this I had seen “Complete Lunatic” and thought it very much offensive thus I applied FNC#8. I would be keeping an eye on source and license information before proceeding to renaming, which I usually always do, but to be honest I was a tad bit hasty and I take responsibility for that. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


as i have good exposure in wikipedia and i want to be in a position to help be in a position to move pages that are in a inappropriate place Neelgai2020 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 08:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done You have no experience with renaming media. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer


I've joined Wikipedia over a year back. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines very well now, and I also wanted to help review new pages. I promise I'll work dedicatedly and review pages carefully. :) -Tatupiplu'talk 18:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 18:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
On hold pending outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knightrises10. -- Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello i would kindly to be assessed as a new page reviewer. I do have adequate knowledge on policies. I would like take more responsibility on wikipedia. Best Regards --Kemalcan (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Kemalcan (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in this permission. While you have made many positive contributions to Wikipedia in your short time here, you have been actively editing for less than the recommended minimum of 3 months suggested for this permission, and you have not been active enough in participating in deletion processes to clearly establish that you fully understand the relevant policies and guidelines. You may want to consider applying for WP:AFC, participating more at AfD, and requesting these permissions again at a later date. Not done for now. signed, Rosguill talk 20:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


I have previously held this right but took a WikiBreak and it timed out. I've been back for a bit, mostly working on WP:CVU and WP:AFC, and want to continue working in the new article realm. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 20:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


as i have good exposure in wikipedia and i want to be in a position to help clear backlogs of new wiki pages that are pending and need to be expedited. Neelgai2020 (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had an account for 40 days and has 86 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 09:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 86 mainspace edits, you don't meet the minimum requirements for granting. Please come back when you have the experience required for administrators to review your edits. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Previously had temporary NPP rights, which have now lapsed. Useful in conjunction with AfC work, so requesting they be extended. Darren-M talk 14:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Hi,I am an Active AFC Reviewer, I've been carefully reviewing submitted drafts with caution, adding helpful comments as needed and also participated in several AFD discussions. I would like to be considered for the role of New Page Reviewer in order to assist with the backlog.Thanks Padavalam🌂  ►  17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Page mover

Pending changes reviewer


I've read and internalized the PCR criteria, and I think I'd be well-suited for the role. I enjoy clearing backlogs, and I strive to be fair and non-bitey when dealing with mis-stepping new users such as those who may get their changes rejected. I've been working actively on an article that has a history of COI edits, so I'm used to keeping an eye out for things that look wrong. I think becoming a pending changes reviewer would allow me to contribute better to the wiki, both by honing skills I have and helping me develop ones I'm still working on. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Cyclone Toby

I have read the criterions for PCR, I believe I meet all of them (if I didn't, I wouldnt be doing this), I have read the policy on vandalism, and all the things that should be reverted. I believe that I could be a PCR. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 03:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


I'm not as active as some of the other users on here, but I've made over a thousand edits (mostly a mix of RC antivandalism and typo/grammar fixes) and I'm interested in becoming a pending changes reviewer as another way to contribute. I've got a solid understanding of the various relevant edit policies, and I've never had any past problems so I think I'm reasonably qualified. Thanks for your consideration :) MDDevice talk 05:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Ken Tony Peter

I mainly does cleanup in articles like the grammar mistakes, tone in sentences, formatting and expanding the content. I also have special interest in reverting the vandalism and warning the vandals. I am now interested to be a reviewer because I believe that it can make me more decisive in Wikipedia as I pledged to make this platform more welcoming. I had read all the policies and guidelines regarding what Wikipedia is for, when I established myself in Wikipedia. That's the reason why I believe I'm a perfect fit to be a reviewer. Best Regards. Ken Tony (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


I edit frequently (been editing for almost year and a half now), mostly fixing typos, doing clean-ups and occasionally patrol Recent Changes against vandalism. I've also attended WP:CVUA and am familiar with all the appropriate policies. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 20:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Can you provide some insight into your previous block log that determined you were working in concert with someone at the time of your block? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It was 9 months ago, when I first actively started editing, and at the time, I wasn't really familiar with most Wikipedia policies. Although, I hadn't really done off-wiki coordinated work with anyone, but had shared what I was editing in a Discord server, which prompted other members to replicate my edits and resulted in a short ban. I think it's safe to say that I've learnt not to share my editing work anywhere since then and am familiar with all relevant Wikipedia policies. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Since my last comment, I have finished WP:CVUA with 91% score and also have Rollback rights if this helps. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Since a few minutes, yes. Don't use them as an argument for getting others granted though, please :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it was "since my last comment", which wasn't that long ago. I didn't mean to use it as an argument, sorry. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello, I have become a lot more active on Wikipedia recently, specifically patrolling recent changes and reverting, warning and reporting vandals, and occasional content creation. I want to become a pending changes reviewer as I believe I grasp the policies on Wikipedia. I currently have 2,507 edits (888 mainspace), and I have never received any warning templates (apart from accidental ones). Thanks :) - Tatupiplu'talk 13:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Since you previously removed these rights and they aren't mentioned in the nomination, could you comment? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@AmandaNP:, I removed these permissions when investigating an NPP-related issue and saw both what appeared to be tampering with a CSD log and an old, ignored COI notice. If memory serves, Tatupiplu claimed that the CSD log issue was an honest mistake, saying that she thought that failed nominations didn't belong in the log, and that she didn't realize that she needed to respond to the COI. I have no objection to them being restored if her track record since then is clear. signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've also been informed of an SPI this morning. On hold pending outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knightrises10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Peerzada Mohammad Iflaq

Sir, I have been very active on Wikipedia. I have also read the guideline for "Pending Change Reviewer". I want to get this permission so that I can contribute in another manner.

I ensure i will stick to the guidelines. Thankyou. Syed Iflaq (talk) 09:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done Brand new user who is still learning ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Gerald Waldo Luis

Previously I was declined by Anarchyte due to the need for more experience. I think I now have more experience needed to be trusted in managing the backlog, and have met all the reviewer criteria. As an AFC reviewer, I have understood what constitutes un-Wikipedia-worthy content, and what's not. GeraldWL 08:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


I've been on Wikipedia for almost 10 years now, mostly editing articles, but also fighting vandalism when the need arises. I'd like to help with pending changes. I'm familiar with the rules and the process, as I used to edit on the German Wikipedia, where pending changes are implemented for all articles. Cheers, intforce (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) intforce (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Hello once more! I was previously given temporary access by Anarchyte and I was looking to re-apply for permanent access. I did make make a slip up when approving this edit because I didn't check the article, but I can assure you I will try to spend more time. Previously Anarchyte stated he noticed a lack of messaging users after reverts, and a quick glance at my contribs should show that I've been doing that more often. Thanks! SnazzyInfinity (chat?what I've done) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)



Hi, I'm on Wikipedia since last 6 years. During this period, I have made many constructive edits here. It also includes fighting vandalism and maintenance of the pages. I've also encountered several times where a user repeatedly changes articles for promotional purposes (I edit articles related to India and Science). It would be great help if rollback rights are conferred to me to deal with notorious editors. TrendSPLEND 05:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Had a look at your contributions, but I'm seeing little to no recent counter-vandalism work. Is there any reason why Twinkle rollback is insufficient for your needs? -FASTILY 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
(notified/pinged) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done stale request. No response for over a week and no demonstrated need for the tool. -FASTILY 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


I am requesting the rollback permission to make it easier to clean up vandalism from many of the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles that I frequently edit, which happens a lot when they are protected to some degree and when they are not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Had a look at your contributions, but I'm seeing little to no recent counter-vandalism work. Is there any reason why Twinkle rollback is insufficient for your needs? -FASTILY 06:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, Twinkle works just fine. I withdraw this request. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done Withdrawn, no worries ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Super Cyclonic Storm Corona

It will help me reverting things after many edits have been done, not copy/pasting the source. 🦠🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🦠 14:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 153 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 14:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 153 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. — JJMC89(T·C) 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
JJMC89, That's because I mainly edit drafts. 🦠🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🦠 15:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Nvm. Twinkle's good enough. 🦠🌀𝕾𝖚𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝕮𝖞𝖈𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖎𝖈 𝕾𝖙𝖔𝖗𝖒 𝕮𝖔𝖗𝖔𝖓𝖆🌀🦠 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


I have become very active with reverting vandalism and recent change patrolling. I am aware of and have read WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and understand that it is only for blatant vandalism. I have been using a combination of Redwarn and Twinkle, which have both worked very well, and I have been very effective with. I feel I could be more effective if I was able to use rollback on the blatant vandalism, as rollback works faster than native redwarn, and I often run into other editors 'sniping' me to performing the actions. I plan on continuing to use these tools as well as trying Huggle.
Thank you! ~RAM (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Ram1055, if the only reason was being quicker than someone else to perform the same action, the result would be the same for the encyclopedia, and the request would be pointless. That said,
 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)



I like to think that I am pretty active in the counter-vandalism community. I have 735 edits and I believe that I could be trusted with this permission.

I am seeking this permission due to my search for a different counter-vandalism tool. I absolutely love twinkle and ive been using it with Lupin for a while, however Lupin's tools have slowly stopped working well for me and i'm seeking to branch out into other tools, and regardless of my resistance to applying for this permission it seems my options are greatly restricted without it.

I believe that my past edits demonstrate my understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines surrounding counter-vandalism.

Thank you for your consideration. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


I've been doing anti-vandalism work for a while now (though I had taken a short break from it until recently). I have attended and passed WP:CVUA with a 91 score and am familiar with all relevant policies, including WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I currently use Twinkle, which is good, but I feel like I can work easier and faster with Huggle. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done with special thanks to Girth Summit ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


ArbCom has overturned the block which led to this being removed so I'm making a request to get this user right (along with pending changes review, though I'd hopefully not have to do 2 separate requests) back, if it poses no problem. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Template editor


I've worked on templates such as {{cite tweet}}, creating Module:TwitterSnowflake. I'd like to continue improving templates. While I will always test in the sandbox for any changes — and get consensus for any potentially controversial changes — I'd like to be able to edit a bit more effectively. I'll also respond to non-controversial edit requests (or ones with a clear consensus). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: ~7)
  2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~8k)
  3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~220)
  4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
  5. Red XN (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: ~1)
  6. Red XN (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: ~1 (plus 1 pending))
Primefac (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: I have been discussing a module with Elliot321 and was about to visit their talk and offer this right on condition that they had absorbed the requirements of WP:Template editor. I'm not familiar with protocol here—are points 5/6 above a knockout or would you be ok with me proceeding here? Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
They are the two discretionary guides. The last two requests where 5/6 were not met were denied (one was similar to this and we just dropped the template/module protection). However, we've also granted in similar circumstances, though I will say that's usually when the requester is in the thousands for a template-edit count. If you feel that granting is acceptable, you are welcome to go for it; when I did the numbers last night I decided I was too tired to make any summary judgement (and thus I haven't looked into it enough to really give an opinion at this time). Primefac (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I too am inclined to endorse this. Knows how to write modules, and (more importantly) has been responsive on talk. Nardog (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done, given these two endorsements. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)