Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"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 04:10, 10 September 2025 (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.
    • Temporary account IP viewer (add request · view requests): Temporary accounts are coming to the English Wikipedia in October 2025. To prepare for this, non-admins may request access to view temporary account data.

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Review and removal of permissions

    The requests for permissions process is not used to review or remove user rights:

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions 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.

    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:Yoblyblob

    Requested this permission ~2 months ago, denied because I was mostly creating auto-notable stubs. I think I have expanded the types of articles I create, including well-sourced local pages or biographical entries where I take time to source subjects that do not inherently meet a generic notability criteria. (I still do create auto-notable pages sometimes, but those no longer make up the majority of pages I create.) As a new page reviewer, I got good experience with the notability guidelines reviewing articles during the backlog drive WP:MAY25, and also participating in AfD. Thought about requesting again as I have run into a few of my own pages while reviewing pages that are in topics I contribute to/am interested in. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also wanted to mention that if I am unsure of a subject's notability, I will utilize WP:AFC for my own articles occasionally Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Came here to request this permission for a different user, but since Yoblyblob is referencing their WP:MAY25 NPP work, it is worth noting that among the re-reviews of each patroller's work, 14/17 of their patrol decisions were approved. Of the remainder, two were drafted/redirected as WP:TOOSOON coverage of 2026 state elections and one was drafted for lacking enough coverage to qualify under WP:NEVENT. Considering they were the fifth most active patroller of the drive, this accuracy is good, not great. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I took note of that during the drive. I may have tried to do too much too soon into being granted the permission, but would like to think I take a lot more care now during reviews. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Luxtaythe2nd

    I have created more than 25 non redirect articles within the past few weeks and 53 non redirects overall. The two mainspace ones that have been deleted were by my own request, thanks to a slip of the "Publish changes" button. Aside from those, all have been approved by the adminteam. I would greatly be thankful to receive this permission. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is citypopulation.de a reliable source? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Luxtaythe2nd. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cites its sources all well and proper, and has a full catalogue of references here. They cite the Tuvalu Central Statistics Division for this matter, which conducts a Population and Housing Census once per decade (most recent one being on 12 Dec. 2022, which is the exact date referenced on the website). Additionally, the whole website is organized by a professor of geoinformatics who is clearly a subject matter expert, Thomas Brinkhoff (this is his profile on ResearchGate and on Google Scholar and on the website of an institute he works for). If I could, I would have cited data directly from the CSD, but they do not make their tables for individual settlements available in their data library, rather just the reports. But, citypopulation.de is far more than close enough. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 08:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have translated Ski jumping hills in Gdańsk from pl:Skocznie narciarskie w Gdańsku without providing proper attribution in the edit history. Please repair the attribution issue following the instructions at WP:RIA. Please go through other articles that you have translated from any other wiki and repair the attribution for those as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Luxtaythe2nd. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of coruse. I've fixed it and two others as well (adding the translated page template on the talk page). I usually attribute translated articles, but I can be forgetful at times. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 18:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page attribution is insufficient. You need to make a dummy edit for the article history per the instructions at WP:RIA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 10:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: Done now. (There was actually only one other, the total is two. I dont know what got to me.) Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shahnamk

    Hello,

    I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created around 30 well-sourced, policy-compliant articles on the English Wikipedia.

    In addition to my contributions here, I am an administrator (sysop) on the Persian Wikipedia (fa.wikipedia), where I have been active for many years, focusing on content creation, vandalism control, and community support.

    Granting this right would help reduce the workload of new page patrollers, as my article creations usually meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.

    Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

    Best regards, Shahnamk (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:NONENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance". For In the Mesh, did you search for English-language sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it appears that you translated the article from fa:چرخدنده (کتاب) without attribution, which is required per Help:Translation#Licensing. Could you please repair the attribution for that article and any others that you translated from fa-wiki without attribution? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Shahnamk. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello voorts, thank you very much for your careful review and constructive feedback.
    Regarding WP:NONENG and the article In the Mesh:
    You are absolutely right. I did rely on Persian-language sources since those were the ones I found most comprehensive at the time. However, I will now re-check for reliable English-language sources. If I find equally good English sources, I will integrate them into the article to ensure compliance with WP:NONENG.
    Regarding attribution for translations (e.g., Gear (book)):
    Thank you for pointing this out. I should indeed have provided the proper attribution when translating from fa-wiki. I will promptly fix this by adding the required attribution to the article’s talk page (per Help:Translation#Licensing). I will also review my other translated articles and repair the attribution wherever it is missing.
    I appreciate your guidance, and I will make sure my future contributions are fully compliant with sourcing and licensing requirements.
    Best regards, Shahnam K (Talk) 11:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, and thank you again User:voorts for your helpful feedback.
    I have now:
    1. Attribution fixes: Added the required attribution on the talk page of *Gear (book)* (and will continue to do so for any other articles translated from fa-wiki).
    2. Sources: For *In the Mesh*, I reviewed the sources again and included available reliable English-language sources in compliance with WP:NONENG.
    3. Future compliance: I will make sure that all future translations contain proper attribution and that, whenever possible, English-language reliable sources are prioritized.
    I truly appreciate your careful review and guidance. Hopefully, these corrections demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia’s policies and ensuring that my future article creations reduce, rather than add to, the workload of new page patrollers.
    Best regards, Shahnam K (Talk) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shahnamk: you didn't properly attribute. You must add attribution to the page history following the instructions linked to. Also, did you use an LLM to help generate your response to me here? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AdobongPogi

    As a part of Wikipedia: Tambayan Philippines and the Music Task Force, I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created over 25 articles, most of which are currently live and have been built with careful attention to WP:N, WP:V, and reliable sourcing. And also I understand that the autopatrolled right is meant to ease the workload of new page reviewrs by automatically marking new pages from trusted users as reviewed. Thank you! AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: AdobongPogi, your article Popo (film) need to address this. Administrators will flag that and it might affect your request as autopatrolled. But i will Weak Support for this. ROY is WAR Talk! (Non-administrator comment) 08:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AdobongPogi: Why is filmkrant.nl a reliable source? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Voorts, since the Dutch online film magazine Filmkrant has been publishing since 1981 and is run by experienced film critics. I'm using this source because in the article I created on Richard Raaphorst (who directed the film Popo) is also cited there, see #17 source. I also submitted that article for a GA nomination, which was promoted yesterday. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 22:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Memer15151

    After a few months break, I have decided to become active on the English Wikipedia once more. In this new period of activity, I look forward to creating new articles of high quality. As a New page patroller myself, I know how much of a backlog there is. Since I have created a considerable amount of clean articles in the past (mostly related to history, geography and entomology), and am hoping to make many more in the future, I am requesting the Autopatrolled right to slightly ease the work of patrollers such as myself. Thank you! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ref 7 in France–Suriname border has JSTOR as the name of the journal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Memer15151. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I was not active yesterday due to school-related conditions. I have changed ref 5, which I believe is the source you meant, to the cite journal format, ensuring that I don't make the website, JSTOR, the actual name of the journal. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Memer15151: why is Sovereign Limits reliable? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At this time I cannot access the webpage due to restrictions on my school laptop, however I do think your skepticism is justified so I have gone ahead and changed the source to the official U.N. website. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I have added a citation to the website of the Ambassador of France to Suriname. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hteiktinhein

    I am returning to request full rights after the three-month trial period expired. During the trial period, I encountered no issues and successfully created many articles to contribute to Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Myanmar. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hteiktinhein: I notice that you routinely cite YouTube videos. Why is this source from Kyaukthittar Pagoda reliable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts Thank you very much for your response. You asked whether the YT reference is reliable. I would say 'yes', because it is a documentary-style storytelling piece from Myanmar Celebrity Media, which is considered Myanmar's largest entertainment media outlet after the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. Before the coup, they operated a website channel, but now they only operate a YouTube video channel. After the coup, around 90% of entertainment media outlets were shut down, leaving only a few video-based entertainment news sources and other media only focus on the war and political news. I used this video version as a source for Wikipedia because it comes from a verified major media outlet. According to WP:YOUTUBE-EL, "If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable." Therefore, I sometimes use YouTube sources when needed. Best regards. Hteiktinhein (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do they have editorial standards? An "entertainment" outlet is quite different from news media. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I don't think their current website maintains editorial standards... When I checked, the remaining site did not mention any editor's name and only posted event and celebrity photos with very brief descriptions, without detailed news coverage. It seems the current version of their website is mostly for show and not suitable to use as a source for Wikipedia. If someone used it, sure I will remove. However, on their YouTube channel, they provide more detailed reporting and include the interviewer's name in the hashtags. Therefore, I think their place-documentary programs, where they interview or trace origin with local historians or highly venerated monks, are acceptable to use. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I don't speak/read Burmese, I can't really independently evaluate whether I find the source credible, and I can't really easily research if they had editorial standards in the past. I'll let another admin evaluate your request. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, thank you very much for your question and concerns @Voorts. I always welcome feedback or comments from senior editors, and I am eager to learn from others. Please correct me if I am wrong. I really do not want to use YouTube as a source; I only turn to it when there is no other choice (Myanmar is now a low-resource media environment, and it is difficult to find website-based reports bcs all gone [2], [3]). My Wiki mentor once told me that YouTube could be used as a source if the channel is verified and has a media license under the Myanmar government. After learning this, I began to cite videos from YouTube only when they came from licensed media.
    If media license–holder outlets that report on notable Burmese celebrities are not considered reliable sources, I am happy to agree with that. I have used YouTube sources in only a few of the articles I created (especially on temple or pagoda topics), and if this is still unclear, I am willing to remove or replace them with other references.
    I believe MC (Myanmar Celebrity) is one of the most popular celebrity and entertainment news outlets in Myanmar under license, although its website is now low in editorial standards and seems focused mostly on monetization and viewership (some reports on cele may gossip). The second most popular online outlet is Stun Magazine. To give a sense of MC's influence in Myanmar, as Burmese saying goes: “Someone can become a celebrity if Myanmar Celebrity features them.” Thank you again for reviewing my request. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that celebrity/gossip outlets tend not to be particularly reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I partly agree. Sometimes they report on celebrity conflicts, which feels more like gossip, but most of their reports are focused on celebrity life and news. They also have multiple programs such as travel, documentary, food reviews, daily life, and program of "forgotten celebrities". Some of these are actually very good reports.
    For ordinary lifestyle interviews with celebrities, I don't think those should be used as sources because I know they are not independent. But for other local news reports, I think we can consider using them for Wikipedia. In my view, the reliability of such MC sources should be decided on a case-by-case basis at each article's talk page. How do you think? Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts As of now, MC is a questionable source, and the reliability of that outlet still we cannot be decided. Therefore, removing it is better now, and I have replaced it with another source on Kyaukthittar Pagoda. You can verify again, and if you have any concerns about this, kindly ping me. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hteiktinhein Have you used that or similar sources in other articles? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I think I used MC only for this article. I’m checking my temple articles, and if I find any, I will replace them. If you notice any, please ping me. Cheers. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I have cleared MC sources from the article. I only found two in my contributions. In the future, I will not use MC since the reliability of that media is not clear at this time. However, if someone else uses it, I think it is best to discuss on the talk page and decide on a case-by-case basis. If you don’t have any further concerns, please review my request again. If there are concerns, I cannot follow up right now...it's already midnight here i now prepare to sleep but I will respond in the morning. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hteiktinhein: have you used similar gossip/celebrity news sites in any other articles you've written, not just articles about temples. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there are no more. I checked all my articles quickly with XTools and also cleaned the Media Queen source, the same as MC. Now I believe I have removed all celebrity news channel references from my articles. You can check as well, and if I missed anything, please ping me here. @Voorts Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spinin

    I am requesting autopatrolled rights. I have created more than 25 articles (see Special:Contributions/Spinin), primarily focused on cricket and sports-related topics. I consistently follow Wikipedia's core content policies such as WP:N (Notability), WP:V (Verifiability), and WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons).

    My contributions are based on reliable sources and maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone. I take care to ensure that the articles meet Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines. I believe that having autopatrolled rights will help reduce the workload on new page reviewers.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. Spinin (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ojsyork

    I wish to request Autopatrolled rights please. This was previously granted, and has recently expired. I have created 256 articles in the last 21 months Martin Ojsyork (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sswonk

    Permission was revoked at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169754554 . The permission was revoked four months ago before I recently returned after 14 years of absence from the project, please reinstate. Sswonk (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([4]). — MusikBot talk 15:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This RfC recently established that autopatrolled can be procedurally revoked from inactive contributors, but I don't think there was consensus that it could be procedurally reinstated upon request, so I would encourage the reviewing administrator (I'm not one) to consider this like any other request. @Sswonk: I had a couple of questions about the articles you recently created: what makes this website (on Loretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter) and this website (on Honky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics) reliable sources? Also, since IMDb is an unreliable source, is there another citation that could be used for the award on that first article? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I forgot to say: welcome back to the project! I realized my comments above could come across as trying to shoot you down after your wikibreak, but I did mean it as genuine questions/feedback. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks TS69, I did not realize that you had posted here before I went to your talk, I am copy-pasting that here so we can continue the conversation in one place. Below is re: Jeff Burger, will respond on other questions momentarily.
    I added a second citation to the first paragraph of Loretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter. I think the first citation is fine, yes it is a self-published source by Jeff Burger however Burger is well-known (https://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/burger--jeff-contributor-301827.php) and the site serves as an archive of his previously published reviews. The page I cite is a reprint of a review first published in 1976, the publication is not specified, however the information about Burger suggests it satisfies "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." See also https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=au=%22Burger%2C%20Jeff%22 -- Burger should be considered reliable. Sswonk (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the second question about Chapter 16, please see https://chapter16.org/about-us/ and https://www.humanitiestennessee.org/about/our-story/?cn-reloaded=1 publisher of the cited, archived website. I would also consider that as satisfying WP:V.
    I did not realize IMDb was unreliable, I used that because it is the single source of the page 38th Golden Globe Awards. I added the actual Golden Globes as a source. Sswonk (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making those changes — your point about Burger makes sense to me, so I'll remove the {{sps?}} tag, and citing the Golden Globes' website for that award looks appropriate. I'm less sure about the reliability of Chapter 16, but I think I'll leave this for an administrator to weigh whether or not that would be a significant blocker to granting the permission. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, thank you. Sswonk (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The question remaining from TechnoSquirrel69 asks for administrator input on the reliability of the Chapter 16 web outlet of the Tennessee Humanities organization. Links are provided a couple of paragraphs above. I am noting here that this morning I changed the previously existing citation link on the Honky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics page to a direct link rather than to the archived page, as I was able to find the current url for the review. The link TechnoSquirrel69 includes above in his initial post has been updated to a current page. So we are dealing with the WP:RS status of a current page on a site that supports a 51-year old Tennessee institution funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. I think Chapter 16 is entirely reliable and should be used on Wikipedia articles related to Tennessee culture and history as needed. However, I want to thank TechnoSquirrel69 for diligence in finding areas for improvement in these stubs. Like him, I strive for the best references available and had determined the Chapter 16 and Jeff Burger sites were satisfactory prior to opening this request for permission; however I have been away for over a decade and am prepared to face challenges with humility. Fifteen years ago I worked on Led Zeppelin which was at the time poorly organized but since I left has been promoted to GA status. My opinion is that Loretta Lynn is on a similar level as a significant performer and figure in popular music history, and naturally I want articles about her and her work to have top-shelf reviews; even stubs should strive for high quality, especially references within them, to help other editors find further material, to set a tone of sincerity and professionalism. Thank you again TechnoSquirrel69. Sswonk (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (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:Keironoshea

    I am requesting access to AutoWikiBrowser in order to assist with routine maintenance tasks. Having this tool will hopefully enable me to work more efficiently, reduce manual workload, and ensure consistency in edits. After reading the guide, I believe I am now familiar with relevant policies and will use the tool responsibly, restricting its use to appropriate tasks. Thank you. Keironoshea (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @User:Keironoshea: can you be more specific for what you'd like to use it for? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding. I would like to use AWB for routine maintenance tasks that I've been doing manually up until this point, which has been quite time-consuming - and a little difficult to do consistently.
    My primary intended uses include category maintenance, standardising templates, and basic cleanup tasks such as fixing formatting issues and standardising reference formatting. For link maintenance, I would focus on updating disambiguation links and fixing broken wikilinks following page moves, particularly in areas related to Wales biography, geography, and politics where I have experience.
    I understand the importance of responsible use and will ensure all edits follow Wikipedia policies with appropriate edit summaries.
    Thank you for considering my request. Keironoshea (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Wonk

    Requesting access to AutoWikiBrowser to assist with smaller maintenance tasks and working more efficiently in general. Thanks! The Wonk (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you give a example of a "maintenance task" you would do. Sohom (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, I would like to use AWB for cleaning up and updating pages related to US and international law and policy within my areas of specialty. The Wonk (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JesusisGreat7

    Hi, I’m requesting AWB access to add categories (which I usually add manually), fix typos, and tag articles that contain a lot of LLM content, like over here [5]. I know AWB doesn’t detect it automatically, but tagging articles after reviewing would make cleanup easier. Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 14:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([6]). — MusikBot talk 14:50, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    5t6ur74657zue356u7u7z6e36u5t743e56u3e5u7

    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:Cactusisme

    My NPPR is going to expire soon and would like to renew it, likely to permanent. I know this is early, but I have some major exams next week and won't edit much (and when I do, I probably will forget about this). Really sorry. Thanks, Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 08:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 08:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cactusisme, could you please comment and reflect on your checkuser block from June 2024-January 2025? While technically speaking you've cleared the prerequisite of having a clean block log for the past six months, I will say that it's rather unusual to be able to regain the community's trust enough for advanced permissions following a checkuser block in such a short timespan. Courtesy ping to admins that have been involved, Sohom Datta, Spicy, PhilKnight signed, Rosguill talk 14:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I found Cactusisme's track record post their block to be pretty good (which led me to grant the right) and saw the grant of RB and PCR as a recognition of the fact that the communities confidence in Cactus was on the path towards restoration. Sohom (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was blocked for sock puppetry from June 2024 to Jan 2025.when I first started editing Wikipedia, I thought it was just a sandbox where you can do anything in. However, soon after the block, I decided to read up more Wp policies which resulted in me gaining more knowledge of the purpose of Wikipedia. Since the block, I have been contributing and learning in Simple EN Wiki, where I hold patroller (patrol and autopatrol) and rollbacker perms. After appealing my block here, I was granted an unblock by PhilKnight after consultation with Spicy (the full discussion can be seen in my archives). Over the months after my block, I have contributed to creating redirects for new users as well as helping people. I have also been focussed on reverting vandalism (therefore I got rollbacker and PCR). Thanks, Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 22:44, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing User talk:Cactusisme/Archive 1, which includes the successful unblock request as well as prior unsuccessful ones, I am leaning against conferring further advanced permissions at this time. For one, none of your explanations acknowledge the apparent issue that led to the block, which per Spicy was that your reaction to a minor conflict with other editors is to create multiple attack accounts. Noting that NPP can be a relatively stressful and confrontational area of work, I don't feel comfortable conferring this permission. The indefinite blocks on other projects (including one ostensibly for not realizing which language bug.wiki is written in when contributing there?) further do not inspire confidence that you will be approaching this with sufficient care. signed, Rosguill talk 15:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also consider the fact I had this perm for 3 months, with no major issues or complains.--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 10:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still like further explanation of the socking, which seems to have been handwaved away as a newbie mistake. Your user page indicates the original account was Helloidonthaveaname (talk · contribs), which in fact could have been sitebanned under WP:3X. This is pretty bad after they rejected your draft, as well as JameslWatson (talk · contribs) after JBW interacted with you on your talk page. I forgive the reasons for your original block much easier than the attack accounts. DatGuyTalkContribs 20:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn No point arguing, open for quite some time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plutus (talk • contribs)
     Not done for the bot, since I'm not sure the above {{withdrawn}} will be recognized by it. signed, Rosguill talk 15:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mamani1990

    Hello. I'm kindly requesting the NPP right please. I’ve been active in creating new pages, finding and adding reliable sources, and uploading public domain or my own photos. I also have a lot of experience with vandalism cleanup and AfD discussions. I meet the edit and time requirements, have never been blocked, and I’m committed to reviewing constructively and helping new editors. Thank you in advance for considering. Best, m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 14:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, the recent declined speedy deletion messages and warning about AI-like content do not inspire confidence in your ability to review other folks' work. Sohom (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t understand. I’ve had more speedy deletions accepted than declined. And it wasn’t AI as I explained. My ability to review other’s work seems acceptable in my anti vandalism activities? What more do I need to do? m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 08:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NPR is much higher bar compared to other anti-vandalism user-rights (which only require that you be able to distinguish obvious vandalism from good faith edit). Neither of the three discussions that you have now archived from your user-talk page reflect well on your understanding of WP:CSD criteria and WP:NPOV (at the very least) -- both of which are essential knowledge for NPP work. I would start maintaining WP:CSD log and volunteering for WP:AFC in the meantime. Sohom (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moly Roy

    Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I want to partcipate in the NPP backlog drive. Moly Roy (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done based on your talk page. Sohom (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sdsds

    Maybe a year or so ago I tried out the WP:AFC Articles for creation reviewer process and had some minor success with it. Then (maybe due to inactivity?) I was removed from the AFC reviewer list. My goal in requesting the 'patrol' right is to make it easier for me to encourage those who are new to creating Wikipedia articles, in particular encouraging them to believe that yes, anyone can do it. I managed to get a friend to write a bio of a famous economist (recently deceased) that they had known and admired. They did a reasonably good job of it, using the WP:Article wizard process and then following up with the AfC-submit-wizard. Their request was declined, by a user who has since been banned indefinitely from enwiki. Sigh.

    The Wikipedia community would be improved if we trusted more long-time editors (18 years in my case) with 'patrol.' (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 11:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - you've got the perm until the end of the backlog drive. asilvering (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epsilon.Prota

    Applying to renew new page reviewer rights - previously held for one month on trial basis. Epsilon.Prota talk 21:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 21:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, until December 9th, don't have a lot of activity, but I don't see red flags as well. Sohom (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Loytra

    I'd like to be granted reviewer rights primarily to review redirects. I have experience in creating redirects, having made over 100 of them in my time as an editor, and so far none have been deleted (barring one I accidentally created as a typo). All of those (apart from ones made when I was new to editing) additionally have proper rcat documentation and whatnot.

    Granted, I've never written an article, and the vast majority of my 6000+ edits are minor ones mostly dealing with formatting alterations. However, I've never been blocked, nor have I had any complaints about my behaviour towards other users, so I'd like to think that I could be trusted to use these permissions responsibly. I've also began several successful AfD discussions, showing that I have knowledge in article guidelines, particularly notability.

    Thank you for your consideration :D Loytra (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2025 (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:Red0ctober22

    I am applying for the permission of page mover so that I will be able to carry out page moves without worrying about being blocked due to the target page already having a redirect, which then requires me to make a technical request and fill up the backlog. This particularly would help when the grammar or spacing of an article title is changed, and if there are subordinate articles relating to the main article, I will be able to change them as well en masse. I believe I meet all of the basic requirements, and I do have significant experience in page moving, and especially in initiating and participating in move discussions. A few examples of successful page moves I initiated and discussed in were: Sirius XM → SiriusXM, American Athletic Conference → American Conference (NCAA), and Delaware Valley → Philadelphia metropolitan area. I also participated a lot in the discussion to ultimately have the Stanley Cup Finals page changed to Stanley Cup Final.

    Using the example of SiriusXM, when the title was changed to reflect the official branding and common usage by removing the space, this required the titles of all of the pages for SiriusXM channels to be changed as well. I was able to change some, but not all, and this required me to have to fill up a backlog on the WP:RM page, which obviously have been more efficient with this permission. Red0ctober22 (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2025 (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:Jcgaylor

    I have been editing and patrolling for some time, and feel like I could be of greater help to the site with these permissions. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2025 (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:Rht bd

    Will use it for fighting obvious vandalism in the recent changes. My account is old enough and I have made significant amounts of edits, I know the rules and policies of Wikipedia. - Rht bd (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VSankeerthSai1609

    Vandalism is one of the serious problems that Wikipedia faces. Having patrolled less frequented pages a lot, few of such vandal edits persist for weeks if not for months. These vandals carry personal grudges against such pages and do not mass-vandal numerous pages, but just the one page and do not make further edits as such. This makes identifying and reverting such edits very difficult. If rollback rights are granted to me, cleaning such pages would be of great help and would result in efficient dealing of such vandals. Also, many less frequented pages are edited by IP addresses with no experience of Wiki editing and often make changes which are against Wiki policies. Such edits being multiple at times require to be rollbacked altogether and reverting each edit makes it tedious. Thus, I request the rollback rights for efficient and effective patrolling of pages and cleaning any vandalized or unintentional edits. Thank you and Good day! VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcgaylor

    After editing and patrolling edits on a variety of pages, I feel confident in my ability to spot harmful and meritless edits, and that I can positively contribute to the site with rollback permissions. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BalaM314

    I've been RC patrolling for a few years now, requesting rollback right so I can fight vandalism more effectively and use the anti-vandal tools that require it. 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 13:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HurricaneZeta

    I was active in fighting vandalism from 2022-2023 before I had to take a break for personal reasons. Now I am back on Wikipedia and I have been patrolling recent changes and reverting vandalism for a few days. I'm also a pending changes reviewer and have done some work including reverting unconstructive edits on that front. I would like rollback as it would help me fight vandalism better and faster. Vamsi20 (ask me questions) (see what I've edited) 18:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SnowyRiver28

    I recently started patrolling recent changes to help counter vandalism on Wikipedia. I'm now familiar with tools like RedWarn, and would like to be able to try out other tools like Huggle and RC Patrol, so I can be more efficient at countering vandalism and protecting Wikipedia's content. The rollback user group would allow me to reverse multiple vandal edits easily, ensuring vandalised content doesn't reach Wikipedia's readers. Thanks! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has 199 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 06:10, 9 September 2025 (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:CharlesEditor23

    I would like to request the template editor right again so I may be able to update the URL source references over at Module:College color/data and Module:Gridiron color/data. I believe I previously possessed this right, and I would like the privilege to possess this right again to help the Wikipedia editor community. I know that I have learned from my past editing discussions with other editors, and I know that I can be responsibly trusted to possess this right, should it be re-granted to me. I hereby thoroughly promise not to unilaterally impose my proposed changes to protected templates without first engaging with other editors to reach WP:CONSENSUS. I am also here to listen to other editors and to respect established WP:CONSENSUS and not try to impose my changes if they go against the established WP:CONSENSUS, should I be re-granted the template editor right again. I know that part of being a responsible template editor is to first test proposed changes in the sandbox first and then get feedback from other editors before implementing changes to protected templates. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, please see [7] for background — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last time this editor re-applied for this permission it was recommended that, at a bare minimum, they meet the requirements of WP:TPEGRANT since the permissions were last revoked. It's still been less than a year since the last revocation, so I'm not inclined to trust this editor when they say they they're here to listen to other editors and to respect established WP:CONSENSUS. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     19:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I understand your skepticism, so I ask: what may I do to change your mind and to get you to trust me when I say that I'm here to listen to other editors and to respect established WP:CONSENSUS? I'm simply trying to prove not only that I've changed and my editing habits and tendencies have changed, but I'm also trying to demonstrate that I have a need for the WP:TPE right. I'd also like the opportunity to prove and demonstrate that I won't simply revert to my old ways that got me in trouble and got the right revoked from me in the past. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done * Pppery * it has begun... 20:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Do I simply need to wait a little longer? What must I do to get approved to have the WP:TPE right again? CharlesEditor23 (talk) CharlesEditor23 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Waddie96

    Good day. I've always had a keen interest in templates, and recently have been making many adjustments. I have made many successful template edit requests over the years, and particularly recently both on en-wiki and on Commons. I am taking an interest in accessibility (specifically applying my knowledge of W3C ARIA which seems is not so common on en-wiki) and dark mode compatibility. I've reach the point where there's certian edits I could do myself safer than via edit requests, as sometimes things can get lost in translation. I hope my editing history is reflective of this. I am trustworthy, long-time editor who has slowly built their knowledge of en-wiki. I'd be so glad to be part of the template-editor team. waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Guidelines review:
    1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: ~8)
    2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~14.5k)
    3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~1700)
    4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
    5. Green tickY (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: >10)
    6. ? (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: see below)
    For #6, I did find ~5 edit requests that had been fulfilled, but I also found nearly three times that many that had been declined, both trivial and non-, for not having consensus. From a quick glance some of these appear to be unnecessarily bureaucratic, but others do have some merit. That being said, the declines appear to be only based on a lack of consensus or test-casing the changes, so from a technical standpoint I think competence has been demonstrated; my main hesitation is in the non-technical aspect of being able to edit protected templates. Primefac (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary account IP viewer

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

    User:Kalpesh Manna 2002

    Reason for requesting temporary account ip viewer rights Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you mean to put something else here? — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done, no evidence of counter-vandalism work. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sable232

    I encounter a fair number of LTA vandals evading their blocks, and the ability to view IP addresses is needed to be able to accurately report them to AIV (or SPI, depending on the situation). Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done asilvering (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Codename AD

    Would be helpful for anti-vandalism, and since I patrol RC from time to time, and the ability to be able to see IPs, would help with knowing if a IP has been previously used for block evasion, and for general vandalism cleanup. Codename AD talk 23:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done asilvering (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TarnishedPath

    Semi-active at AfC and NPP. This right would be useful in that work for identifying disruption over different temporary accounts. TarnishedPathtalk 11:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1303932167"