Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
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, mass message sender, 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. 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 07:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Permissions

Handled here

User groups

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 had made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
  • 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. 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), 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.

Other

  • AutoWikiBrowser (view requests): Requests for access to AutoWikiBrowser should be made at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, if approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Windows Vista and newer versions, 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. Users with under 500 mainspace edits are RARELY approved and you only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you have fewer than 500 mainspace edits!

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 come from members of the Arbitration Committee or a user who is requesting their own access be removed.

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

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. 36 hours after the last comment was made, the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk/Archive for more information on archiving functionality.

Current requests

Account creator

(add requestview requests)

User:Mdann52

I'm a member of ACC, and have hit the 6 accounts/day limit. I'm requesting this flag to let me avoid this restriction, and allow me to take on more complex cases. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

(add requestview requests)

Information icon4.svg Notice to administrators: The article creation requirement for Autopatrolled has been reduced to 25 per community consensus.

User:BU Rob13

I've created upward of 40 BLPs and have never had issues with my articles being tagged. ~ RobTalk 00:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Swarm 06:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed

(add requestview requests)

User:Knutjb

Knutjb (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 20:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Already done - You are already autoconfirmed. Swarm 06:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

File mover

(add requestview requests)


User:Umais Bin Sajjad

I'm regular editor and media uploader. There are many media files that I come across which needs to be moved as per moving guidelines. It would be easier for me to move files to better title if you grant me this right rather than adding templates or uploading the same file with new name as it is time taking. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you please provide 3 diffs showing where you requested a file be moved? Thanks, Nakon 04:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Pinging Umais Bin Sajjad MusikAnimal talk 19:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Here 1 2 3 4 5. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
(pinging Nakon). Swarm 07:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mass message sender

(add requestview requests)

User:Themessengerofknowledge

It would be quite helpful for me to edit if I get the rights, Themessengerofknowledge write to me 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 04:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This user seems to be hat collecting. RMS52 Talk to me 06:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Pending changes reviewer

(add requestview requests)

User:Belle

All the world is waiting for me, For this power to possess, In my satin tights, Fighting for this right ... Make a hawk a dove, stop a war with love, Make a liar tell the truth ... maybe it won't make me Wonder Woman, but it would be handy occasionally; I'm sometimes silly but always trustworthy. Belle (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done No concerns here. Yunshui  10:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Themessengerofknowledge

It would be quite helpful to get the above right... Themessengerofknowledge write to me 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 04:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This user seems to be hat collecting. RMS52 Talk to me 06:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Rollback

(add requestview requests)

User:AkshayAnand

The last time when I requested this privilege, I had only 198 mainspace edits. As of now, I have over a thousand edits including 600+ mainspace edits and around 15 articles created by myself. I have been editing pages related to academia, sports and entertainment including video-games which are usually the ones that get vandalized more often. I have also undid few unnecessary and incorrect edits and reverted/corrected them to authentic content manually so far. With this right, I hope I can do this more actively. Thanks in advance. AkshayAnand 09:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 09:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. While I thank you for your work and greatly appreciate your efforts and enthusiasm, there's more to editing Wikipedia than racking up your edit count. I remain unwilling to grant your request for any additional rights at this time. First and foremost, you don't appear to be actively involved in anti-vandalism patrol, so your need for this tool is unconvincing. This also presents the problem of a lack of experience with which to review your request. Next, undoing "unnecessary and incorrect edits" is not what rollback is for. Rollback is strictly an anti-vandalism tool and based on your request and the lack of experience, it's questionable whether you can clearly differentiate between situations where rollback would and would not be appropriate. Also, you do not appear to utilize edit summaries or talk pages often, which are both important parts of a collaborative project. And lastly, your signature is in violation of the signature guideline, which is concerning (please rectify this issue as soon as possible). Swarm 07:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyllfully

With over 700 cross-wiki contributions, I protect, edit, improve and CSD articles on Wikipedia. With the help of Twinkle, I've been able to protect against vandals and help newcomers find their way. I am also experienced with how to Assume good faith, how to be nice to users and still include a message, and how to use multiple levels of warnings. I will use rollback rights to keep protecting Wikipedia from vandals, and to use Huggle. I will not use rollback rights to rollback possibly helpful edits, but instead will help the editor out and improve their edits in any way I can. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has 68 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Skyllfully: You do not even meet the normal editing requirement for this user right. However it looks like you know what you're doing to the point that it seems fairly obvious that you have a significant amount of prior experience here. Can you please explain the situation regarding this obvious prior experience? Swarm 07:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ayub407

This is my second request where the first one was rejected due to less experience. Now, I have gain some experiences by reverting vandal edit on many articles as soon as the articles were vandalized. If granted, the rollback tool will be very helpful in reverting vandalism in the future. Also, I have pending changes reviewer rights. Thanks Ayub407 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 18:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Themessengerofknowledge

Respected Reviewer,
You one of the great lords of the Wikipedian networking space may grant me rollback rights if thee feel that I am worthy of them...
P.S. I certainly meet the criteria and am an honest and diligent wikipedian so do consider that... Themessengerofknowledge write to me 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 04:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has 111 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 04:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This user seems to be hat collecting. RMS52 Talk to me 06:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Template editor

(add requestview requests)


User:Alakzi

So that I can blow up the project, as has been prophesied. Alakzi (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
{{notdone}} - I personally want to, but since it has been stripped from your account, I am not comfortable restoring it without either: MSGJ's assent, the greenlight from three current template-editors/admins, or general community consensus (such as at WP:AN).  · Salvidrim! ·  14:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And who's gonna approach admins and TEs to vouch for me? I'd be rapidly accused of canvassing if I did. No, I'm not going to post on WP:AN. Alakzi (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This is sensible, and hopefully there are sufficient admins who watch this page to develop consensus here so that a visit to WP:AN is unnecessary. My position is that I will not stand in the way if a consensus develops but I am not yet able to support it. Without a doubt Alakzi is a keen, helpful and skilled editor who would be more productive with the extra tool kit. However the "meltdown" that occurred last month is still rather recent in my opinion and I would like more time to see evidence of level-headed editing, an absence of battleground behaviour and more willingness to collaborate even when he/she "knows" that they are right. I have offered to restore the user right after 1-2 months of drama-free constructive editing and this offer still stands. However I am still seeing some problematic behaviour quite recently, documented for example here and here. In my opinion the potential damage and subsequent drama that Alakzi could do would be a exacerbated by the extra tools at this stage and are likely to counteract the positive effects. So I would regretfully oppose. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
"This" editor has a fucking name. "This editor" is nothing less but a tactic to objectify me to make your extremely offensive wikijargon-littered ramblings sound reasonable. And I'm done. Alakzi (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced once instance of "this editor" with "Alakzi" as it seems to upset you. (One reason I use it is I don't like to assume your gender and all the he/she stuff sounds awkward.) I can't comment on your second sentence because I don't understand it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I am also regretfully opposed. There's no question that Alakzi has the technical ability and the need for this user right. However, if we were to give it back right now, I worry that Alakzi would start edit-warring on template-protected pages again, or making edits to template-protected pages against consensus. I assume that Alakzi's request reason, "So that I can blow up the project, as has been prophesied", is meant as a joke, but unfortunately it is one that hits a little too close to home. For me to be persuaded to change my mind, I think I would need to see a more sincere request, or perhaps just a couple of months of problem-free template editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Pray tell, which are these template-protected pages where I've edit warred? I reverted once a couple of times (at Template:Infobox person and Template:Composition bar); but no more. And which might these template-protected pages I've edited against consensus be?
The insinuation that I'd attempt to compromise the encyclopaedia makes my blood boil. No, indeed, my sincerity is apparent in the hundreds of hours I've invested in the keeping of the template and module namespaces. But there's no use arguing with you, or any other admin - none of whom I trust in the slightest. (And hence my resignation of all of my admin-bestowed privileges.) The feeling, it would seem, is mutual. Alakzi (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of Template:Infobox television season - the one that got you the template-editor bit removed in the first place. I forgot that it was only semi-protected when you were edit-warring there (sorry for not checking that before commenting). However, the fact it was semi-protected and not template-protected is not making the thought of giving you the template-editor bit back much more comfortable. I have no doubt that you are sincere, and I never said that I thought you would attempt to compromise the encyclopaedia, by the way. I'm saying that I am worried that you will edit war again. I am perfectly willing to reconsider my position on this, but I think you are right that argument is not going to work. I need to trust you not to edit war, and trust isn't built through argument. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No, trust is built through not dragging people to SPI on utterly spurious grounds (and refusing to apologise); not blocking established editors indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE (and apologising half-asssedly); not conducting checks on my acccount 'cause you've got a hunch (and refusing to apologise); and not publicly accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor (and refusing to budge for days). My having stopped short of 3RR on a semi-protected template, the accessibility of which had been seriously compromised, pales in comparison. Of course, when I criticise the community, it must be that I'm unduly generalising; but when my detractors criticise me, they speak on behalf of each and every Wikipedian who's ever lived and ever will live, and are welcome to scribble such nonsense as "no longer holds the trust required [by the community]" on my user rights log, without actually having consulted with anybody. That MSGJ would think it his duty to unilaterally revoke my TE because he'd originally granted me the right would also betray a sense of entitlement. Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose I am too late for this (stupid time zones), but for the record I would have supported this request. I am familiar with the background here and while I do not watchlist WP:PERM, I did get dragged into closing TfDs a few months ago and as a result have been generally following template-related matters.
I had followed up with MSGJ here about the original removal, which IMO should have been reverted to status quo ante after the resolution of the sockpuppet thing. I do not think it is reasonable for "the community" to collectively step on someone's foot, even if by accident, and then fuss about their behavior when they yell. The "problematic behavior" cited above is one case of routine heated disagreement and one case of sockpuppet fallout, neither being the sort of thing we revoke TE for. The single instance I am aware of that actually involved problematic template editing is the discussion here, which was a) productively resolved, b) over a month ago, and c) not a reason to revoke TE at the time. If making jokes while participating in Serious Wikipedia Business is now evidence of behavior problems, you're all going to have to kick me out. In short I find the objections presented here insufficient to counterbalance the technical benefits to the project that granting this request would have produced. Opabinia regalis (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This bit should never have been removed. The removal was done in relation to an incident which did not involve use of TE status, for a reason outwith the TE policy's list of reasons for doing so, and without community discussion. This happened at tie when Alakzi was subject to unacceptable hounding. Alakzi is both one of our most capable, and most active, template editors. [Since Salvidrim! solicits discussion above, I have disabled the 'not done' template, to prevent the bot from prematurely archiving this section.]Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    • P.S. TE policy does not require "greenlight from three current template-editors/admins" nor "general community consensus... at WP:AN". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has had an account for 306 days ([3]). MusikBot talk 07:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Peaceray

While I have edited unprotected templates before (template edit count), I sometimes find a (thus unfulfilled) need to edit protected templates. I have had experience copying templates from Wikipedia into another Mediawiki implementation, & I have 25 years experience in IT, including many years of coding. In particular, I need to add a WikiProject to WikiProject United States. I understand the necessity of working in the sandbox first for protected templates. Peaceray (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has 73 edits in the template and module namespaces. MusikBot talk 17:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Swarm 07:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


AutoWikiBrowser

(add request for primary account or bot accountview requests)

Users

Bots

Please only list approved/trial approved bots here and add a link to your bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.