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.

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, 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. 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 12:42, 29 July 2016 (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.
  • 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 quick guide on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you do not meet these qualifications.
  • Confirmed (add 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.
  • Extended confirmed (add request · view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. An extremely small selection of highly contentious pages require this access to edit.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

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)

Autopatrolled

(add requestview requests)

User:Ched anthony

Please I want autopatrolled me. Ched anthony (talk) 04:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has created roughly 3 articles. MusikBot talk 07:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done You have created 5 articles, 3 of which have been deleted, so it's clear that your creations need to be patrolled by other editors. Widr (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Yogwi21

I am requesting autopatrolled rights. Yogwi21(talk) 08:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Multiple articles that you recently created contained no references (Indonesia at the 2003 Southeast Asian Games and Indonesia at the 1994 Asian Games) and others contained foreign text, among other minor issues (2016 Indonesia Soccer Championship B and Parwati Soepangat). Your articles are clearly beneficial to the project, and I thank you for creating them, but I think allowing editors to patrol your pages and clean up some of the issues would be helpful. This doesn't impact your editing at all, so keep doing what you're doing. Thanks for your contributions. ~ Rob13Talk 23:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

(add requestview requests)

User:Jaguar

The only reason why my request got denied last time is because I wanted a self-imposed block in order to take a break. Over the past few months I have been learning Python and am ready to regain my AWB rights. The only reason why I had my access revoked was because I accidentally made ten superficial edits to Hong Kong talk pages. I'm eager to get my rights back and put my new programming language skills to good use. Furthermore, I will vouch to use AWB is lesser bursts and will be more careful to clear my default settings in the future. JAGUAR  12:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([1]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 12:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Kusma made it clear their recommendation was to wait a year (some time in 2017) before re-granting AWB access. We don't necessarily need to wait that long, but I'd like to respect that opinion and have other admins weigh in their thoughts. We can try this here, but you may find we need to move the discussion to WP:AN in order to receive sufficient input, or you can consider posting there pointing admins to this discussion. My opinion is that if in fact that AWB access was revoked purely because of accidental use, we may not need to wait a full year before re-granting and can take the leap of faith that Jaguar has learned to be more careful. Additionally I would question whether the issue with the "default settings" was due to negligence or a flaw in the software, but I'm unable to make any conclusions there as I'm only but so familiar with AWB MusikAnimal talk 16:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
To explain how this mistake could happen, AWB allows users to save settings as their own default (including the list of pages when you make the save), so when you open the program those settings are restored. If you then open up a settings file, those settings will replace the defaults, but the list of pages from the default will remain and any pages saved in the settings file will be appended to the end. I would completely understand such an accident made as part of a bot, but as a non-bot editor, Jaguar hit "Save" many times before realizing that the diffs being displayed had nothing to do with the changes he intended to make. That displays "human bot"-like behavior. As a result, he broke one of the rules of use of AWB and probably our bot policy as well by failing to actually review the edits he was making. @Jaguar: What edits were you trying to make when you made those cosmetic edits? The edit summary "cleanup" isn't particularly enlightening. ~ Rob13Talk 16:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I was renaming templates and doing a general "cleanup" which also involved aligning all of the WikiProject banners into a collapsible header, when appropriate. I was also running a general cleanup on the articles themselves which involved typo fixing etc, but many weren't needed. I was not still editing Hong Kong talk pages when I had my access revoked, however. I had not cleared my default settings for a few days when I decided to cleanup and patrol new pages, and one day when I loaded AWB up I accidentally let ten edits slip by which edited the Hong Kong talk pages. After that, Kusma revoked my rights. It was my fault that I didn't clear my default settings, and I accept that, but I wasn't expecting Kusma to actually revoke me for something as small as that. Aside from this, I really do accept the fact that I should be more careful, and I know the consequences of what will happen if I let something like this happen when I regain AWB. JAGUAR  16:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The edits you describe, even if they had happened successfully, would have been the type of insignificant/inconsequential edits barred by the rules of use. Replacing a template redirect's name with the actual template's name and placing them in {{WikiProject banner shell}} in the absence of any other changes is certainly an insignificant edit. You've been warned about this general issue repeatedly (see this search), and you were even warned specifically about template redirects at User talk:Jaguar/Archive 22#Pointless AWB edits. That alone is enough reason to oppose for me, but the failure to review your edits before you submit them is even more concerning. Edits such as this simply can't be made when you're looking at each of your edits before you save them. You stated at User talk:Jaguar/Archive 18#AWB that you believe "There are no editing restrictions for users using AWB" and later went on to say "I hope nobody takes this the wrong way (I know they will anyway) but it really isn't my fault that things that aren't related to Guam are still placed in the Guam category" in response to being alerted that you had made incorrect edits on articles that weren't actually related to Guam but were in the category tree. An editor using AWB is responsible for every single edit they make, and it's your responsibility to manually review each and every one before hitting the "Save" button. I'm opposed to granting access without a successful BRFA at this point because I'm not convinced that you'll be operating this in accordance with community consensus on WP:COSMETICBOT or as a truly semi-automated tool. ~ Rob13Talk 17:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm prepared to do other tasks in AWB when I get my access back. With the exception of the ten edits that I let slip by, I have always stopped and corrected my mistakes every time I have been warned. I took a month away from Wikipedia to re-evaluate myself and brush up on my programming skills, so that motivates me more in this matter. If you feel it's best, then I'm prepared to go to WP:AN or WP:BRFA (or however you do it) to gain a consensus and/or more opinions. I've been here for seven years, you'll have my word that I'll abide by the guidelines when I regain AWB. See if I can get AWB again under some community enforced probation for a while, if that works. JAGUAR  17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ron, I have to disagree. "Shelling runs" as User:Xeno called them are worthwhile, and an established use of AWB if not for bots. Reason being that talk pages get so much cruft at the top that new editors (or prospective editors, to be more accurate) will not see any of the actual discussion.
The other changes are of course a bonus.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
High frequency edits of that nature should be handled by an approved bot when the editor is going to make a large number of them or isn't going to personally review each edit. Without a bot flag, the watchlist spam would be horrific. Looking back, his last run of pages which did such talk page cleanup using AWB showed as many as ~40 edits within 60 seconds in some instances. At this contributions page (slow loading), he makes 2,000 edits in an hour. That is quite literally spamming the "Save" button without viewing anything. Additionally, his edits were not primarily "shelling". Almost every edit was merely replacing template redirects with the template name. ~ Rob13Talk 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I broadly agree, given the speed and that they weren't shelling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: - I saw 'NPP' mentioned somewhere above. I would like to see a firm understanding that AWB will not be used for patrolling new pages. That's absolutely not what it's for, and that's why we have the excellent suite of Page Curation tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I'm pretty sure by "patrol new pages", he meant that he was patrolling them for typos, not actually patrolling them. ~ Rob13Talk 20:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in the last days I used AWB I went through the 500 newest pages and made syntax and template fixes, typo corrections etc. JAGUAR  20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
() Based on BU Rob13's findings, I'm leaning toward declining as this appears to be more of an issue of not carefully reviewing edits, rather than clearing default settings or cleaning up mistakes after the fact. Jaguar, you say you have always stopped and corrected [your] mistakes every time [you] have been warned. I believe the point is to check the edits before they are saved so mistakes don't happen in the first place. This would require slowing down your use, and agreed edits like this are trivial and I have my doubts a BRFA would pass for this purpose MusikAnimal talk 16:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: What steps would there be for me regaining AWB? I realise that I made mistakes and I promise not to make trivial edits again, as I'm aware that was the reason why my rights had been revoked. Should I agree to a set of rules/limitations listed by admins if I get it back? I'm even willing to prove that I will not use AWB for trivial edits like I done last time by abiding by some terms laid out etc. JAGUAR  16:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
For me, the main issues here are oversight, both in terms of types of edits being made and the speed in which you make them. The easiest way to handle that is to go through a WP:BRFA. I don't think anyone would oppose you gaining AWB access for a bot account, which separates out your AWB edits from your manual edits to allow easy oversight and ensures you're not making trivial edits via the approval process. This doesn't need to be for an automated task; you can ask for approval for a semi-automated AWB bot task. I don't see any need to set up guidelines and then try to enforce them when we have an existing approvals process for automated or high-speed semi-automated editing that provides those guidelines and oversight. The path to AWB on your main account with no oversight is probably multiple uncontroversial BRFAs. ~ Rob13Talk 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Should I go to BRFA to get AWB back? I will promise to look over every individual edit I make and carry them out with at a slower pace, I can't do better than that. I proposed a JaguarBot back in 2012, but I won't have a purpose for a bot account without a serious task. JAGUAR  21:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

+Comment. I don't think there is much to be gained by working through the Page Curation list. A large number of articles get deleted there and flagged for other maintenance issues. I still think a commitment not to interfere with he NPP process would be appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I think the root of your previous problems with AWB use is that you have never really observed the most important one of the AWB rules: you are responsible for every edit you make with AWB, so you must check every edit before saving. After multiple broken promises to be more careful with your AWB use (check your talk page archives), it is not clear to me why we should believe that things will become better now. —Kusma (t·c) 19:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I've lost access to my AWB. If you think I haven't learned a thing because of that, then you couldn't be any more wrong. I'm determined to prove that I will be more careful when I get AWB back. JAGUAR  19:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MorbidEntree

I am looking to use AWB to fix minor spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors. MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}},(unless this is on my own talk page) otherwise I may not see your reply) 11:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has approximately 358 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 20:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@MorbidEntree: Looking through your contributions, I'm not seeing too many of those sorts of fixes. Could you demonstrate the type of edits you'd like to make by providing past diffs? Preferably a decent number of them (10–20). Linking to a page of your contributions which shows them is fine; you don't have to link individual diffs if that's more difficult. ~ Rob13Talk 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Here are the ones I could find: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorbidEntree (talkcontribs)
Does WP:MoS suggest italicising parenthetical birth dates "(born 1967)"? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
I don't believe it does. Either way, those edits don't seem like things that can be done with AWB, since they require something way more complicated than a find and replace rule. I'm specifically looking to see the type of repetitive edits where AWB can be used. ~ Rob13Talk 21:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@MorbidEntree: Could you explain how you plan to use AWB to make those sorts of edits? Examples of find-and-replace rules you'd plan to use or specific edits would be helpful. Given your relatively small body of work, it's difficult to judge what you actually expect to use AWB for or whether you understand what tasks AWB is useful for without concrete examples. ~ Rob13Talk 20:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Some examples would be changing <references /> to {{reflist}}, changing wikilinks that link to the same thing as the text ([[Switzerland|Switzerland]] to [[Switzerland]]), and substituting templates that should be substituted.
X mark.svg Not done The first two examples would violate the rules of use of AWB as purely cosmetic edits, since they have no impact on the visual output of the page. Templates that need to be automatically substituted can be added to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, where an existing bot substitutes them. ~ Rob13Talk 23:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed

(add requestview requests)

Extended confirmed

(add requestview requests)

User:Gary "Roach" Sanderson

I have over 1,500 edits including various wikis across the NIWA under TabuuandPeach TabuuandMasterCore True Preacher and Christian:TabuuandMasterCore Bayonetta Princess Peach The F*****-F***** Princess Peach (2) and finally to finish it all TabuuandPeach (2) I also have been here since March
Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 22:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought that it was correct, I know you aren't a human, but thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, Extended Confirmed is a permission specific to the English Wikipedia, so edits on other wikis are not considered. Nakon 23:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the place to say it or if it's even necessary to say it, but just for the record, the user has gotten himself permanently banned in more than one of those wikis. --Tucayo, Super Mario Wiki Administrator. 03:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:ProgrammingNerd

Public and doppelganger account of extendedconfirmed user ProgrammingGeek. ProgrammingNerd (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Can confirm ProgrammingGeek (Page!Talk!Contribs!) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done MusikAnimal talk 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File mover

(add requestview requests)
I've contributed to Wikipedia for over three years, and have uploaded over 30 fair use images during that time; alongside this, I've uploaded 20 images and one video file to the Commons. As I stated when requesting rollback privileges, the discovery and sharing of knowledge is something I can get passionate about. While I don't necessarily agree with the copyright rules tied to Wikipedia's image policies, I still obey them, and I find that images and videos can be informative and, often, just aesthetically pleasing additions to articles. Being able to move file names when appropriate would be a helpful privilege. Thank you for your consideration. –Matthew - (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - As far as I can tell, this requestor has never placed a file rename request, at least locally.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    X mark.svg Not done Thanks for applying, but one file rename request on Commons is a wee too little experience with file renaming to grant the right locally.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Mass message sender

(add requestview requests)

Page mover

(add requestview requests)

Pending changes reviewer

(add requestview requests)

User:Yogwi21

I am requesting pending changes reviewer rights. I want to help with getting pending changes reviewed faster and I want to help fight vandalism. Yogwi21(talk) 07:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Widr (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Aayush Sangal

I want to help Wikipedia to fight with vandalism. So, please grant me right of pending changes reviewer.}} Aayush Sangal (talk) 09:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


Rollback

(add requestview requests)

User:Seba5tien

Rollback would be useful for contributing towards counter-vandalism efforts with semi-automated tools (for obvious acts of vandalism and widespread edits). I'm a co-operative editor with over 300 mainspace article edits and 400 total edits. At present, I have been granted autoconfirmed rights and use Twinkle to handle vandalism and CSD requests. Thank you for your consideration! Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 07:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Only just became an editor; need a longer track record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:GeoffreyT2000

I have been reverting vandalism recently with various tools including the "undo" link, Twinkle, and STiki; and would like to use another tool, rollback. I already have the pending changes reviewer right, which I will use together with rollback on pages with pending changes enabled. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 01:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

User:ProgrammingGeek

I applied a few days ago, hours before I graduated from WP:CVUA. Since then, I have met the 200-edit requirement and I am using WP:STiki. I'd also like to start using WP:Huggle, so I'd like this right. ProgrammingGeek (Page!Talk!Contribs!) 08:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([17]). MusikBot talk 08:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Widr (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Template editor

(add requestview requests)