Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PERMS)
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Help:Permanent link.
This page is under extended confirmed protection, but non-EC users may edit its subpages.

    Requests for permissions
    Shortcuts

    This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor rights, and AutoWikiBrowser access.

    Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".

    Requests for permissions are archived regularly; please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.

    Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 16:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

    Permissions

    Handled here

    • Account creator (add request · view requests): The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the request an account process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.
    • Autopatrolled (add request · view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability.
    • AutoWikiBrowser (add request · view requests): AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the rules of use and registration requirements on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
    • Confirmed (add request · view requests): The confirmed flag may be granted to new users who have not yet hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status. These are users who have not had both 10 edits and 4 days experience. People with this flag can upload files and edit semi-protected pages before hitting the autoconfirmed flag. Users requesting this flag must indicate clearly why they should be exempted from the customary confirmation period.
    • Event coordinator (add request · view requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles.
    • Extended confirmed (add request · view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. The flag allows users to edit pages under extended confirmed protection.
    • File mover (add request · view requests): The file mover user right is intended to allow users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to policy, with the ease that autoconfirmed users already enjoy when renaming Wikipedia articles.
    • Mass message sender (add request · view requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
    • New page reviewer (add request · view requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Page mover (add request · view requests): The page mover user right allows users experienced in working with article names to move them, subject to policy, without leaving behind a redirect. They may also move all subpages when moving the parent page(s). General guidelines include making 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Pending changes reviewer (add request · view requests): The reviewer flag is granted to users who are experienced enough with Wikipedia editing and its policies for contributing to the process of reviewing articles placed under pending changes.
    • Rollback (add request · view requests): Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it. Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here.
    • Template editor (add request · view requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates.

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Removal of permissions

    If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat.

    This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard.

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.

    Process

    Requestors

    To make a request for a permission, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission.

    Any editor may comment on requests for permission.

    Administrators

    Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

    Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

    Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality.

    Other editors

    Requests for permissions is primarily intended for editors requesting a permission for their own account. Other editors are welcome to comment if they have specific information that is relevant to that request that a patrolling administrator is unlikely to discover for themselves. Otherwise, since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general comments or 'clerking' by other users are rarely helpful. Non-administrators cannot "decline" to grant a request, because they're not in a position to accept it.

    A limited exception to this is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, where third party nominations are encouraged. Other editors should still avoid offering general remarks on requests and leave the final decision to an administrator.

    Current requests

    Account creator

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Autopatrolled

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:Jannatulbaqi

    Hey, I am here again with another editor who has created 86 articles, including BLPs. One of their creations was taken to AfD but resulted in a keep. I reviewed some of their articles and found that adding them to the AP could be beneficial. Basic checks were done, and no major issues were found. It’s up to you, and thanks! GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWikiBrowser

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


    User:OpalYosutebito

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

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

    User:Cooldudeseven7

    Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights: I have achieved 500 mainspace edits and I feel like this tool will be used so that I can contribute to wikipedia while expanding my knowledge of it- as well as how these tools work. This tool will be handy in my improvement of wikipedia articles no matter stub or good articles. This tool will be so handy in fixing problems that are in multiple articles! Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cooldudeseven7, do you actually see a need for this right now or is it just a thing you are wanting to play around with? Primefac (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to first make categories follow WP:CATSPECIFIC, I also am trying to do bulk additions of inline citations, as well as general cleanup to articles in bulk. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac, Just following up, is there any news on this thread or is it declined ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't had a chance to look at perms the last few days; if another admin doesn't get to it I should be able to free up some time this weekend. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright,  Thanks ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 13:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much!! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RCSCott91

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

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

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

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

    User:Absolutiva

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

    User:Carpimaps2

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

    Could you please have that account edit here to verify? Primefac (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Confirmed

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:Anopisthograph

    Hello. While I have met the necessary edit requirements, my account is not yet old enough to fulfill the account age criterion. I am a Recent Changes patroller, and I would love to be able to use Twinkle to speed up the process. It is my belief that access to Twinkle would significantly enhance my ability to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. However, Twinkle requires confirmed rights to use. Given Twinkle's requirement for confirmed rights, I am respectfully requesting this status. I know confirmed status is rarely given upon request, and I fully understand if my request is not approved. Thank you for considering it!

    All the best, Anopisthograph (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I think you need to take a close read of WP:VANDAL and make sure you understand what is and is not vandalism before continuing to engage in anti-vandal activities. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Event coordinator

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Extended confirmed

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    File mover

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    Mass message sender

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


    New page reviewer

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:TheBirdsShedTears

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

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

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

    User:عماد الدين المقدسي

    I have been a registered user on Wikipedia for several years, with over 500 undeleted mainspace edits. I possess a strong understanding of content policies and guidelines, supported by my experience in quality control processes. I have actively participated in deletion processes like AfD, PROD, and CSD, contributed to Articles for Creation, and written new articles. I maintain a solid track record of interacting civilly and constructively with other editors, especially newcomers. I have no active behavioral blocks or 3RR violations within the last 6 months, and I am committed to reviewing pages solely on a volunteer basis. Imad_J (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 19:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    عماد الدين المقدسي, could you please address the concerns I raised at your last permissions request? signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done The request above is a copy and paste of the last one, without a follow-up or response to Rosguill's concerns. Seeing that your last 50 edits go back all the way to 2022 doesn't give a track record for how you understand our current policies and good practices around notability and deletion, which are updated and changed over the years. I suggest re-applying if you become more active and can demonstrate understanding of our current policies and practices through participation in AfD and other maintenance venues. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frost

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

    User:Xegma

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

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

    User:WeirdNAnnoyed

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

    Page mover

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.



    Pending changes reviewer

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:OXYLYPSE

    I would like to put my hat in the ring again for this tool. I am aware of vandalism is and have familiarity with BLP policies. I try to avoid being trigger-happy, and usually err on the good side of AGF, so I tend to just leave things I'm not too familiar with alone for other editors to review.

    Note: I made my previous request at the same time as requesting rollback. The rollback was declined by User:Fastily due to my recent return from a Wikibreak and failing to leave warnings for my first few edits. I disagree that reasoning carries across to reviewing pending changes, where the bar is to "filter out obvious inappropriate edits and vandalism" in "clear-cut cases". I ask that a new administrator considers this request on its own merits. If declined, I shall not submit another PC request for at least 90 days. Thank you in advance. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([4]). — MusikBot talk 09:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn - Clearly this isn't going to happen. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiEditor5678910

    I am requesting to be a pending changes reveiwer because I want to help make Wikipedia a better place and be a part of something bigger than myself. If you give me this great honor I promise to only use my powers for good. WikiEditor5678910 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has 23 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 16:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiEditor5678910:  Not done; thirty edits is unfortunately not enough to know if we should trust you. Please read over WP:PCCRITERIA, make a few hundred constructive edits to mainspace, and wait a few months before requesting again. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 22:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hajpo

    I have been engaging in constructive talk discussions to contribute to Wikipedia. I would like to contribute more Hajpo (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had an account for 7 days and has 28 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done You don't seem like you're experienced enough on Wikipedia yet since you've made only 28 edits in the mainspace and have been around for only seven days. I suggest waiting a month and making a couple hundred edits in the mainspace that demonstrate your understanding of our policies and guidelines mentioned at WP:PCCRITERIA before requesting this right again. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anonymous1261

    I want to review pending changes. I have reverted vandalism, and I have self-reverted my mistakes (see [5] and [6]). I would like to help review pending changes as a voluntary task. Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 10:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done @Anonymous1261 while you have a good track record of edits so far and an article published in the mainspace, I see that you have only done a handful of reverts and are not always warning editors after you revert them [7] [8], [9], [10]. When you revert a clearly nonconstructive edit, please make sure to properly warn the user if you can. Some tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet can help with that. I think you can re-apply after maybe a month or two of reverting more nonconstructive edits and gaining a longer track record. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and will I do so.
    Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 03:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IDB.S

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


    Rollback

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

    User:Rasteem

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

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

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

    User:Sangsangaplaz

    I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BilledMammal

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

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


    User:CFA

    Hi, I'd like to request rollback to use Huggle. I was granted it on trial in April 2023 but went on a year-long Wikibreak almost immediately afterwards. A request I made in June was denied because I hadn't been active for very long. I've been much more active since then. Thanks. C F A 💬 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm initially inclined to grant the right, seeing as you have both New Page Reviewer and Page Mover (which generally require higher levels of trust). However, after reading this archived talk comment from August, where you appear to agree that you were edit warring, I do have a few questions:
    If you are granted this right, under what circumstances do you plan to use the vanilla (i.e. out-of-the box, in-browser) rollback functions? Will you use vanilla rollback while reverting vandalism through Special:RecentChanges, while disputing content edits made by other editors in lieu of using the undo tool, or will you simply use this right for Huggle?
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I might use it to revert sockpuppet edits or blatant vandalism, though Twinkle rollback works just fine for that. I'm mainly looking to use it for Huggle. I wouldn't use it to dispute content edits because it's easier to add an edit summary with Twinkle rollback or Undo. C F A 💬 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. The reason I asked is because it is prohibited to use the vanilla rollback tool while disputing good-faith/non-vandal content edits. Keep this in mind, and all should be fine. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"