Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Perm)
"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 19:10, 18 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]

    Tough one. Their articles seem mostly fine, but there have been recent issues with minor copyvios (e.g. Draft:Joseph Thornton Tweddle), statements failing verification (User_talk:Jannatulbaqi/Archive_11#Improper_articles), some draftifications (though I think many of these were unfair). They do seem to be responsive to feedback though so let's say  Not done for now but we could revisit in 6-12 months. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, thank you, Joe. As you mentioned, I had a minor copyvio issue, which I fully acknowledge. It was my mistake. However, several months have passed since then, and I have made significant improvements in my approach. I have carefully studied Wikipedia's policies and have followed them strictly while editing and creating articles.
    Regarding the article you mentioned, which was draftified by 'Maliner,' I feel that this was unfair to me. The article had already been reviewed by an experienced page reviewer.
    I humbly request that you give me another chance. I assure you that I will not disappoint you. Thank you very much for reconsidering my request. Baqi:) (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CometVolcano

    My previous account User:NGC 2736 (User talk:NGC 2736) had autopatrolled right [1]. CometVolcano (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has created roughly 2 articles. — MusikBot talk 03:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As NGC 2736 (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)(notify), I created 26 articles featured in DYKs. --CometVolcano (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done You would need to make an edit from that account to prove the connection at the very minimum. And in any event, Wikipedia's standards for what articles are acceptable have tightened considerably since 2012. And on one of the two articles you created with this account you added a copyvio that had to be revdelled. So I think it's still best for new page reviewers to review your creations for now. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Panamitsu

    After creating over 200 articles, I believe that I understand the policies of notability and BLPs. With that in mind, people having to review my article creations unnecessarily increases the work load for page reviewers. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You write fine articles indeed.  Done Schwede66 08:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tesleemah

    Following the feedback I got some months ago, I have improved previous articles created, see Pounded Yam, Azaiki library, Palace of Olowo of Owo and I'm ready to start creating article without patrol to ease the workloads of new page patrols. I appreciate the feedback given earlier. Tesleemah (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 13:20, 18 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 ([3]). — 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]
    I'd also like to help clean up Category:Pages with redundant living parameter. I noticed @Tom.Reding working on it and I wanted to help out. - OpalYosutebito (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Sorry, that doesn't cut it. The reason you had rights revoked is not just because you did one specific task wrong - your talk page was littered with complaints about unrelated AWB misuses dating back over a month before rights were finally revoked. It was instead due to a pattern of using automated tools without checking their output closely enough - a pattern which appears to be continuing as you're making 8-9 edits per minute with Rater. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 18 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]
     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Absolutiva

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

    Does anyone grant AWB permission? It's been for a week. Absolutiva (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checking, are these changes you want to make in order to avoid a redirect, or because the term(s) are actually incorrect? If it's the former, AWB should not be used. I meant to ask this the other day but got sidetracked. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to change links per page move, as well as moving categories. Absolutiva (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Neither of those are appropriate AWB tasks. Renaming categories should be done via Wikipedia:Categories for discussion which has its own bot. I'm trying to change links per page move is vague but seems to refer to the former of Primefac's points rather than the latter. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Obi2canibe

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

     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Synorem

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

    Do you have any specific task in mind for this? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly for tasks like fixing broken templates and adding article-improvement templates. Since I frequently go through hundreds of articles a day via Huggle, AWB would help by allowing me to quickly add these templates without having to manually search for them and copy-paste them into each article. A recent issue that comes to mind was dealing with a few instances of {{cn}} spam, as seen here and here. This would help clear up stuff like this. Synorem (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bis-Serjetà?

    As I repeatedly find myself doing repetitive edits (such as creating the same types of redirects like St. X, Saint X and Saint/St. X of Y; Month Day (Orthodox liturgics) and Day Month (Orthodox liturgics)) I realise I could really make use with the AutoWikiBrowser to speed up the process of creating these redirects and other actions (of course, with appropriate double-checking before publishing them.
    As I am still learning as much as I can of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I will make sure, for the time being, to either consult with my Wiki mentor over anything large-scale and/or unknown for myself and to read the relevant Wikipedia guideline.
    I have read the guide to the AutoWikiBrowser and fully understand that I am entirely responsible for the edits I make with this tool, and that this tool may be taken away from me should I misuse or abuse it.
    Regards,
    𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raladic

    Requesting AWB rights to help with post-move cleanup when I'm doing some RM closures (as closer/page mover) that require bulk wikilinks updating. If it's a handful I've done it by hand, but it would be nice to have a helping automated hand to help with it in bulk rather than having to open all the pages manually to clean up the links. Raladic (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done You may want to consider using User:BilledMammal/Move instead though. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. And I'll take a look at Move as I was using rmCloser so far. Thanks for the tip :) Raladic (talk) 18:02, 18 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:YOLO WOLF

    I know this isn't the correct place to ask for help. I already have autoconfirmed status but i can't edit semi-protected pages (it says "you do not have permission to modify...this page is protected...). I hope you solve my problem. Thanks YOLO WOLF (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBot talk 05:00, 17 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.

    User:Berker1237

    Reason for requesting extended confirmed rights: Hello, I am a student in a Turkish school called "İzmir Özel Türk Koleji" (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/İzmir_Özel_Türk_Koleji) and I have created a Turkish translation with additional helpful and up to date info and would like to publish this to the public English wikipedia but since my account is not yet eligible to do this I am requesting the permission to publish my English translation of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berker1237/Izmir_Private_Turkish_College). Berker1237 (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a template to your draft, follow the directions at the top of User:Berker1237/Izmir Private Turkish College, and it will be queued for review. — xaosflux Talk 23:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hoben7599

    Since my last application, I edited about 71 times (Only include constructive edit), and I have been edited on wikipedia more than 500 times. Hoben7599 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for extended confirmed declined in the past 90 days ([4]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([5]). — MusikBot talk 07:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File mover

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

    Mass message sender

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


    New page reviewer

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

    User:Barrettsprivateers

    I've been contributing to wikipedia for about 6 years and would like to give back by reviewing new pages and helping new writers. The majority of my focus has been on eastern European topics including their impact in the U.S. I can also review pages in Croatian and Ukranian. Barrettsprivateers (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has 451 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 02:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barrettsprivateers: As noted by the bot, you don't mean the minimum requirement of 500 mainspace edits, so  Not done for now I'm afraid. – Joe (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for replying. I'll re-apply later :) Barrettsprivateers (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2RDD

    Please, I'd like to request New Page Reviewer rights to help improve the quality and accuracy of new pages on Wikipedia. With over one thousand edits and one year of contributing experience, I've developed a solid understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Specifically, I've: - Made significant contributions to song articles, artist articles and more - Demonstrated familiarity with core policies (WP:VER, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc.) Granting me New Page Reviewer rights will enable me to: - Effectively review and assess new pages - Identify and address potential issues (spam, vandalism, copyright violations) - Improve the overall quality of new content Thank you for considering my request. I love y'all 2RDD (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tesleemah

    I understand the process of Article for Creation and Deletion policy. Also, I have been guiding new editors on the Wikipedia Teahouse and within my community. I think it's time for me to be more engage with reviewing new page onwiki Tesleemah (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([6]). — MusikBot talk 13:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page mover

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


    User:2RDD

    Please, I would like to request Page Mover rights to help maintain and organize Wikipedia's namespace. I have been actively contributing to the encyclopedia almost a year and have demonstrated a clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for considering my request. I love y'all. 2RDD (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([7]). — MusikBot talk 10:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done, still fails minimum requirements. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac: Pls, what are the main minimum requirements. Guide my please. 2RDD (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says in the box at the top of this section: See Wikipedia:Page mover for the granting guidelines. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @2RDD: At least 3,000 total edits, 6 months tenure, experience with moving pages appropriately, no blocks in the past six months, and a demonstrated need. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Pending changes reviewer

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

    User:PEPSI697

    I have been patrolling RC since 8 August 2024 and would ask to have Pending changes reviewer rights. I've initially had a request for this permission here on 30 September 2024 but was denied. Anyways, I have stumbled upon across lots of Pending edits on RC and some of them appear to be constructive. I have a good understanding in basic and some advanced Wikipedia policies and have been editing Wikipedia since April 2024 and have nearly 9,000 edits in my contributions. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([8]). — MusikBot talk 06:00, 15 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 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]
    I sincerely apologize for these mistakes. However, I didn't mean to make such errors; in essence, the internet is quite slow where I reside, which is in a hilly area. I accidentally lost my internet connection, which resulted in these two reverts for the edit warnings I neglected to leave. I came here to reapply for rollback rights after attempting to adhere to the RC log and maintaining a clean record with the goal of leaving edit warnings for every update I reverted for non-constructive edits. I sincerely apologize for these errors. Please review my recent history of RC reverts and reconsider my request for the rollback right. ®asteem Talk 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, could you please slow down and double check that you have actually left warnings? I'm finding examples as recently as today where you failed to notify the editor (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Also I see that you were just warned for edit warring. Would you care to comment on that? Courtesy ping for @NXcrypto. -Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume Rasteem is on a verge of getting topic banned for his aggressive and frequent edit warring especially on caste topics. I really don't think he can be trusted with any advanced permissions at all. Nxcrypto Message 04:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, I'll slow down, but I gave them an edit warning for this revert [9][10] It appeared as though I've not given them an edit warning because wide range from this IP is blocked. For the other last two reverts, I never gave them an edit warning because this IP was already globally blocked.
    Explanations about edit warning notice


    On Political marriages in India[11] User: NXcrypto made 2 reverts for the same content within 5 hours (Time 12:13 to 17:31)[12][13] I made only one revert.[14] For such a revert, I made on "Political marriages in India". NXcrypto gave me an edit warning at (12:15, 15 November 2024).[15] Instead of engaging in any edit war, I left a note on Talk:Political marriages in India[16] regarding the concern of removal of a revision. Contrary to the other user's actions, which constituted a 2RR violation, my own edits were compliant with Wikipedia's 2revert Rule.[17]
    He also violates 2RR on Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu on October 27, 2024, within 5_hours (Time 12:49 to 18:20).[18][19]
    Most recently, he violated 3RR on Magadhan Empire on 17 October within 3_hours (Time 6:32 to 9:14).[20][21][22]
    1. User received a warning notice from admin Bishonen[23] 
    2. He was warned about the improper user of warning and blocking templates by Remsense[24] 
    3. He also received edit warning notices from other editors for the conduct of edit wars.[25][26][27][28][29][30] ®asteem Talk 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rasteem There is no such thing as "2RR violation" and do not poison the well against editors who oppose your request for rollback. You clearly did not make a "single" revert as you claimed, but the chain of edits you made were all just reverting the previous edits by Ratnahastin. [31][32][33] The fact that you do not even understand what counts as a "revert" and WP:BRD cycle is an enough proof that you should not be given an advanced permission whose sole purpose is to revert. @Fastily: As someone who has dealt with this user's aggressive edit warring, WP:CIR, WP:IDHT , battleground mentality issues before which are visible even in the reply above. I'm firmly opposed to granting any advanced permission to him. I have no doubt that this user will abuse the rollback right, if granted in his typical over-zealous edit warring like he did before[34][35][36][37], in spite of my warning which he called retaliatory despite me never even interacting with him before. Nxcrypto Message 02:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the diffs and from what I can see there does indeed seem to be some edit warring going on over here. Rasteem, please take a moment to re-review WP:EW & WP:3RR; I'd like to see first establish a track record of constructive contributions before reapplying for rollback. As such, closing as  Not done. Thanks, Fastily 09:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Myrealnamm

    I think I am ready for Rollback user rights, after being declined twice before. I have 1835 mainspace edits, several months finding and reverting vandalism, and almost always notifying editors about their edits. I understand that Rollback is only used for obvious vandalism, and it should not be used for good-faith edits. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done -Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SayantanDhara

    Reason for requesting rollback rights: I am deeply interested in editing and improving Wikipedia articles, with a particular focus on topics related to films. Given the prevalence of vandalism in film-related articles, I believe having rollback rights would enable me to address such issues more efficiently. I am committed to contributing positively to Wikipedia and ensuring the integrity of its content. SayantanDhara (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GrabUp

    Hey, I was granted a 3-month trial by Robertsky, and I used Anti-Vandal to counter vandalism. However, it was not renewed. Now I would like to continue using this amazing tool to counter vandalism. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily: Does my previous trial not provide enough evidence of my experience with this tool? I don’t like the layout of SPECIAL:RECENTCHANGES, where I have to manually handle these tasks. That’s why I haven’t done much anti-vandalism work recently. However, during my trial period, when I had access to the Anti-Vandal tool, I performed sufficient anti-vandalism work. Where is it written that I need to perform anti-vandalism work in recent days to qualify for the rollback role? The requirement simply states, “At least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges.” I have used the Anti-Vandal tool during my 3-month trial and demonstrated sufficient experience. Additionally, I consistently warn users when I revert their edits. GrabUp - Talk 05:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware that rollback functionality is already available in Twinkle or Ultraviolet and that you don't need elevated permissions to access these tools? The rollback right gates access to high-volume anti-vandalism tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal which are for patrolling RecentChanges. In the wrong hands, these tools can cause a lot damage in a short amount of time. So I have to admit, this is an unusual request. It has been months since your trial ended, I haven't seen any obvious need for the right based on your recent contributions, and you don't seem to be interested in patrolling RecentChanges, so why are you suddenly interested in this right? -Fastily 06:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want access to the Anti-Vandal tool, which will automate the process. I didn’t say I dislike the RecentChanges feature, but rather the manual process involved. I have not caused any type of damage with any tools I have more valuable than the rollback right, nor did I misuse this tool when I had it for three months. I hope you understand. Cheers! GrabUp - Talk 06:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. However, I see that you were blocked for disruptive hat collecting last June. Would you care to comment on that? Also courtesy ping for @Joe Roe. -Fastily 09:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemonademan22

    Reason for requesting rollback rights Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I request this tool to counter vandalism, which I am seeing constantly especially on the articles I edit. I am a very active user and are already reverting edits and warning users of unsourced material or cases of WP:OR Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. I think I do a lot of anti-vandalism work, albeit casually, on Professional wrestling articles. Here are some anti-vandalism contributions I have made this month alone: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] I hope you can look at these and reconsider. If not, I will take your advice on board and I will start warning users when I revert their edits. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but that's simply not enough activity for me to determine whether you'll be able to use rollback appropriately. For context, seasoned anti-vandalism patrollers routinely perform dozens of reverts a day. Like I said above, I'd like to see you get some more experience before reapplying, thanks. -Fastily 09:31, 18 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.

    User:TheThomanski

    I am primarily active in WikiProject Eurovision and want to improve protected templates such as Template:Infobox song contest national year, Template:Escyr, and Template:Country in the Eurovision Song Contest. Furthermore I would love to contribute with others if needed. As a software engineer I have a passion in templates and modules.

    I have about 2,500 total edits on Wikipedia of which more than 300 are in the module and template namespaces. I have edited 6 sandbox pages, however I have only 3 edit request. I have never received blocks and I've definitely been editing more than one year. — TheThomanski | t | c | 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Guidelines review:
    1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: 7 year)
    2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: 2500)
    3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: 316)
    4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: never)
    5. Green tickY (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: ~5)
    6. Red XN (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: 2)
    I only count two edit requests: Template_talk:Infobox_song_contest_national_year#Template-protected_edit_request_on_29_January_2021, Template_talk:US$#Template-protected_edit_request_on_27_December_2022. Not sure what the third one is supposed to be. And both of those are years ago. You would make a more convincing case if you edit-requested a few of the improvements you would like to make now. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The third one is at Template_talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_year#Template_protected_edit_request_on_28_March_2021, which you even implemented :) Damn, I didn't realise it's been years since those (how has it been so long?) But fair enough, if it's really neccesary to make more edit requests then I can do a couple more in a bit. — TheThomanski | t | c | 06:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"