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 18:30, 27 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: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]
    Hi @Memer15151: I'm seeing a lot of good work from you, but also a couple of odd mistakes. What makes you say Longcheng, Mongolia was excavated in a single day? I find the article Youth in the United Kingdom a slightly odd collection of statistics. Would you create something like that with your additional year of experience? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis of my contributions. You are correct that the article I created, Youth in the United Kingdom, does compile a lot of statistics. Many of the sources I found on the topic discussed statistics relating to youth unemployment, population distribution, etc., and it is true that I could have done some more paraphrasing to make it flow better without sounding like a bunch of numbers glued together in some parts. I will take this into consideration when I write further on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
    As for Longcheng, I do not have access to physical sources on the topic, but I am sure that there are enough. Relating to your specific point, about how the article states it was "excavated on 18 July 2020", that was indeed a misrepresentation of the source, where the archaeologist said they had "discovered and excavated the empire's capital". It is more likely that this excavation took place within the adjacent period, so I have modified the text to include this nuance.
    Throughout my future career, I will look more deeply into valid sources and ensure the information is an accurate representation of what is stated, while paraphrasing text extremely conflated with statistics and irrelevant jargon. Thank you! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done UserMemer. Neither of these two sources mention the data 18 July. It still implies it was done in a matter of days, rather than the start of a years long process. The 2023 source (which looks more reliable) seems to imply excavations are still ongoing: "Longcheng excavations so far have focused on a large building that may have hosted important gatherings.". Please be more careful with reading sources when writing articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I looked at the date of the AKI Press article, saw the expert's quote in the past tense, and assumed that was it, while the only thing I did for the 2023 Science News source was check for 'July'. I should have looked for broader clues in said source 'excavations so far,' and concluded that the conflict between the two sources means I should have been more broad in my wording. I failed to do this because my advanced synthesis of the 2023 source was absent, as I was focused on writing an arXiv paper, and, frankly, skipped over the fact that there was more to be found in the 2023 article. I will strive to be better in the future, and will wait until I show adequate improvement to submit another autopatrolled request. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:01, 25 September 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 [1], [2]). 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: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]

    (Non-administrator comment) Courtesy link to prior temporary grant by @Femke after request by me: [3]. I reviewed Ojsyork's recent creations and they continue to be of high quality and coming at such a pace that his being autopatrolled would continue to benefit patrollers. I believe there was a concern about a lack of AfD participation and thus awareness of notability; I don't see any AfD participation since the AP trial, but I continue to believe that Ojsyork is creating articles on notable topics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe there was a concern about a lack of AfD participation and thus awareness of notability.
    Nobody has mentioned this to me before. Am I required to participate in AfD?
    My reason for being here, is primarily to create (263 so far) and update articles, involving both RNLI and Independent lifeboats, and maybe additions to related articles, typically philanthropy of donors, and links of articles of places. It takes all the spare time I have available, and all seem well received.
    I will defend any vandalism, although I'm not always sure how to take things further (i.e. blocking persistent violators etc), other than removing destructive additions.
    I try to be as thorough as possible with source citation, in difficult circumstances - it can be a niche subject, with often only one primary source. If it's noted on the organisation's home webpage, I have to assume its as reliable as one can find. Often, related information and news articles invariably lead back to that original homepage. I am also very good at spotting inconsistencies, so will not include detail if I have any doubts. I'd like to think that after 263 articles, I'm meeting the requirements to a high standard.
    Martin Ojsyork (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Hi Martin, I think Femke's concern (expressed here) was not that you had not participated in AfDs but rather that a single !vote in an AfD did not show a good understanding of [Notability] back then -- the idea being that further AfD participation might provide more evidence of your chops with notability. I for one think that the track record of quality work with no successful deletions by others speaks well enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Ojsyork: apologies for the slow reply. AfD participation is just one way to show you're familiar with notability guidelines. Could you explain in your own words what your minimum threshold is in terms of sourcing to start writing an article? In specific, if and how WP:AUDIENCE applies. The articles are all in good shape in all other aspects. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    HI @Femke
    My initial plan was just to make updates to lifeboat pages, my passion. I realise it maybe niche, but there is considerable general interest in Lifeboats in the UK.. There are a whole load of interested folks out there, ones who just visit, or take photos, or collect postcards, badges, whatever, or just like lifeboats, who all need some reference work.
    Finding there was already a directory List of RNLI stations full of red articles, I began to set about creating pages. I just wanted to make it fair for each station to be represented, there was no minimum threshold of source, just find what you can. Of course, some can be done in hours, while others have been held back for weeks, until enough information could be found. I do try!
    It can be difficult, as a lot of work, newspaper articles, books, etc, all ultimately reference back to the same RNLI records. In addition, one of the primary sources of information is work compiled by a chap, Jeff Morris, who his entire life, visited and recorded lifeboat stations, and produced a booklet for most. Of course, they are self-published, and have no ISBN, but in many cases, there is nothing else. I am very good at spotting inconsistencies, and will avoid using that material, but in the case of Jeff's work, there are very few inaccuracies, and his work within the RNLI is highly regarded.
    One early page (my 40th) which wasn't so great was Bamburgh Castle Lifeboat Station. There were three lifeboats, they were called only three times, only launched once, and never rescued anyone. Reference work is very sparce. One chap pulled it to bits within minutes of being published, and being relatively inexperienced with this behaviour, I objected strongly. His solution wasn't to listen or help resolve the difficulties, but just retaliate and list for deletion...which was ultimately rejected. With hindsight, he was maybe right, and I've made a point to do things much better since.
    I've since moved on to creating and nearly completing the List of former RNLI stations, and I am now trying to progress work for the Independent lifeboats in Britain and Ireland page. Some pages can be easy, with a reasonable number of sources clearly available before starting, but there are some that there is just not enough available, and then I won't even start. There usually needs to be some history, a list of boats, maybe some gallantry award history to make a start, but then it can be surprising what you discover on the way.
    For instance, Van Kook was just a name on a list of lifeboats. Looking deeper, you then find that artist Edward William Cooke funded a lifeboat for North Deal Lifeboat Station in 1864. He painted in a Dutch style, and was known (tongue in cheek) as "Van Kook", (ie aka..Van Gogh, Van Eyck etc). This then leads me to add info to his page too
    I don't have the time or the will to do more, and its not for me to get involved in AfD for other subjects. There isn't anything that I add which isn't referenced. I would just like to be judged on what I have created so far, the 263 new pages created, and the enormous number of re-edits on pages that really weren't too good as well.
    Martin Ojsyork (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you summarise in three sentences how many sources you consider enough to start an article, and what their characteristics are (around audience and primary/secondary). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @Femke I'm a bit puzzled as to what this request means. Sources aren't assessed by numbers per article, but as reliable substantiation of each piece of information in an article. What does "around audience" mean? I think Ojsyork should not perhaps be patronised? Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke
    If my work so far is not good enough, then there is no point me adding anything else, and I'll maybe just knock it all on the head. This is no way to be treating someone creating reasonable articles, that don't cause issues, are reasonably well cited,and I'dd like to think, well constructed.
    Martin Ojsyork (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning towards granting here, just to be clear. You're doing great work and I apologise I didn't make that clearer earlier. I'd like to know a bit more about your thought process on notability: how you decide something meets the threshold, given that many of the articles I sampled are a bit borderline (on the right side of it, and very neat). If this is stressful, I can go the long way around and take a bigger sample than normal. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke
    I'm usually very careful as to what I include. Of course, there are times when there is only one source, and there is no option.
    But when there's enough info that you can question, and verify, then that is what happens.
    Sometimes, everything is logical and fits into place, and you just know its correct. Other times, things just don't add up, and I start to question what I find.
    One RNLI article gave specific locations of three lifeboats named Quiver No.1, No.2 and No.3, which you would expect to take at face value. But when you search deeper, in this case, the numbers didn't match the locations, and was reported incorrectly, (they all swapped around). If I can check, I check!
    I do realise that sources close to the topic are not thought to be the best, but I find they're usually the most accurate source.
    I have found 'facts' from newspaper articles, which could be cited, but I don't, because I already know its wrong. I recently questioned an entry for an event on a certain date, highlighting a newspaper article 2 months earlier. It turns out that the British Newspaper Archive had wrongly dated the information. Its not a perfect world.
    I don't particularly trust facebook as a source, although lifeboat station homepages are dying off, and it is increasing their preferred method of communication. Which is why its important to create these pages now.
    I recently created a page for Haverigg Inshore Rescue Team. The date of the arrival of a new boat in 2013 conflicts with RNLI records of 2017. But after searching further, I found dated pictures on another website for 2013, so I've gone with that info. (It turns out, I now believe they actually have had two boats, but only one is recorded with the Haverigg homepage - a work in progress right now, awaiting email confirmation from source).
    So it is generally an educated considered option, as to which is right or wrong. If I have any doubts, it doesn't get added.
    Martin Ojsyork (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Ojsyork. The answer I was after relates to WP:notability, not how you do research, which I think it's excellent. To show notability for an organisation, you should typically follow WP:NCORP, which is a strict interpretation of the WP:general notability guidelines. WP:42 gives a simplified explanations: to show these stations meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria (notability) you need at least 2 or 3 secondary independent reliable sources: WP:SIRS. You can still use primary sources, of course, but they do not count towards the inclusion criteria. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a further look at your articles after I'm back, but if you're unfamiliar with WP:audience and WP:42, please do have a read. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I'd like to add my opinion that Ojsyork's work continues to be good quality, well-written and well-sourced. He seeks advice when he is unsure about anything. Permanent autopatrolled rights would seem to be a logical step to help reduce the workload of reviewers. Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:41, 11 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]

    User:Meli thev

    Meli thev has created nearly a hundred astronomy articles over almost six years. I think they're ready for AP. Toadspike [Talk] 11:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:8rz

    Request to be reassigned the autopatrolled right. I was bestowed this right on my previous account-> (list of pages created on former account). 8rz (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome back! Is there any way in which I can confirm these accounts belong to the same person? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke:, see User talk:Xaosflux#Request data transfer and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#User:Renamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5. Also, here, especially, the comment just for curiosity, were you Qwerty284651 before? The way you phrase things and ideas you present kinda reminds me of them. To clarify User:Qwerty284651 is my former account's name pre-vanish. 8rz (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Automated comment This user has created roughly 1 article. — MusikBot talk 18:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's cute. I wouldn't be tackling all of this in my first week of Wiki editing if I were brand new. But bots being bots, they can't differentiate false positives from real ones. 8rz (talk) 19:05, 27 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: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]

    User:Red0ctober22

    I am requesting this permission to help speed up an ongoing process I am partaking in. I recently helped orchestrate the moving of the Delaware Valley page to Philadelphia metropolitan area, and there are over 1500 links to Delaware Valley, many of which are links to "Delaware Valley" but with the text showing "Philadelphia metropolitan area", so I want to speed up the process of making all these links directly to the page instead of redirects. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spiral6800

    This is my second request for AWB permissions. My first request was denied in July, citing a lack of editing experience. I made hundreds of edits in the mean time and have gained more experience with Wikipedia and its policies. So I'm requesting permission to perform batch edits via AWB, mainly for adding Rcat templates, as well as for fixing broken links using Regex, where the URL schema has changed (e.g. http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pressreleases/press-release-detail/detail/airbus-launches-a-new-systems-enhancement-package-for-in-service-a320-family-aircraft/ -> https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2007-09-airbus-launches-a-new-systems-enhancement-package-for-in-service)

    I asked a follow-up question in the last thread, but didn't get an answer. So if this request is denied, please answer my following questions: By which metrics do you measure experience, and how do you think could I enhance my editing skills and knowledge? What would be a good point in time to make another request? Spiral6800 (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([7]). — MusikBot talk 18:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:8rz

    Have already accumulated 1000+ edits over the past few days. I will be using AWB to mass fix typos, lint errors, regex for bigger edits where \n and \r aren't supported with the advanced replace option in source edit.

    Returning AWB user (with previous experience) on my previous account User:Renamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5. 8rz (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2025 (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:W00zles

    I am trying to add onion links to pages that have reliable x-onion-locations. I am trying to narrow down what the issue could be as I run into Special:AbuseFilter/231 even after it has been edited.

    I am currently WP:EXEMPT and edit over Tor which means I don't fall under the typical "low bar" for autoconfirm.

    I'd like to have my account confirmed to allow for the scope of issues to be reduced for my helpful edits. W00zles (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBot talk 11:43, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this is accurate. On the page Wikipedia:User_groups#Confirmed_and_autoconfirmed_accounts I see a red "Your account is not autoconfirmed." Also when I got to my Special:Preferences I don't see autoconfirmed or confirmed as a group I am a part of. W00zles (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, MusikBot is hallucinating (and so is XTools and a bunch of others). I think you are falling into the esoteric 90 day + 100 edits criteria for Tor users. Sohom (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The MediaWiki API itself says you're autoconfirmed; I don't think this is the fault of bots and tools given MediaWiki itself says you are. I agree that I think it's the Tor overrides that non-Tor users won't see that's causing you to not be autoconfirmed while connected via Tor, yet everyone else not on Tor sees you as autoconfirmed.
    I'm not going to make a call on this right now, but my instinct here is to decline with the usual Unless your account is a legitimate alternative account of an account that is already autoconfirmed, we generally avoid granting the confirmed permission early reply, with the caveat that you should be able to take autoconfirmed-locked actions if you don't route your edits via Tor. stwalkerster (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A thing to note, is that due to the way we currently block Tor exit nodes, you now you need IPBE to even start editing using Tor exit nodes (i.e. convince a admin that you will edit constructively, which is a much higher bar than typical autoconfirmed) it feels counter-intuitive to also add the software defined larger auto-confirmed period on top of that. Sohom (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a good opportunity to gain consensus for a configuration change to MediaWiki. stwalkerster (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Event coordinator

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

    Extended confirmed

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

    File mover

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

    Mass message sender

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


    New page reviewer

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

    User:Red0ctober22

    I believe that I have the adequate experience necessary for this permission. I myself have experience in creating pages, and have created many more redirect pages as well, and I welcome and learn from any feedback that reviewers provide me when making these articles. I have also been well-versed in WP:NOTABILITY, and feel I have a good understanding of how any new article can meet such criteria to stay on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have experience in initiating or participating in AfD discussions, and interacting with editors to take the best next steps forward with them. Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. Upon reviewing your AfD track record, however, I don't think you have demonstrated a sufficient understanding of notability guidelines, which are central to this permission. I would recommend getting additional experience there (and/or consider volunteering at WP:AFC) before reapplying here.  Not done for now. signed, Rosguill talk 15:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AllCatsAreGrey

    I have thoroughly read and understood the procedures listed at WP:NPP and am now requesting the right to help combat the large backlog. During my time as an active AfC reviewer I have became very familiar with content policies and guidelines. My edits show I can communicate effectively while remaining civil and that I have no history of blocks or other sanctions. – AllCatsAreGrey (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment). My observation only. AllCatsAreGrey's AfD, AfC and CSD work looks solid to me. User's talk page seems good to me as well. I am happy to give permanent NPP right but I left this to administrator to decide whether to grant or not. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Fade258,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Electricmemory

    Requesting renewal of my temporary right which expires 5 days from now. Electricmemory (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 18:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment). Just my observation only. Some of the articles created by Electricmemory has been tagged as notability concern which is concerned for me. Electric's AfD participation is good but willing to see more frequent active in the AfD's before granting the permanent NPP right. But happy to give a trial run again. Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, extending trial run for another month, as this month's track record appears to mostly be redirects and articles tagged for AfD. Regarding the notability tags on articles, those are from rather early in Electricmemory's editing career so I'm less concerned about them given the largely consistent work since then. signed, Rosguill talk 15:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antoine le Deuxième

    I would like to obtain reviewer rights to help reduce the queue and minimize the wait time for editors to have their pages reviewed. I am familiar with the rules for creating pages, GNG, citation rules, and other guidelines. I will be happy to respond to questions in a timely manner. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment). My observation only. Just created one article only. I reviewed Antoine's recent work and found good. I see some AfD participation record which contains only 12 votes which comes from July only. I want to see him in AfD discussion to know about the understanding level of notability guidelines. I continue to believe that Antoine is aware about notability guidelines considering his involvement in AfD discussion. In my opinion, We need to give a trial NPP right. Fade258 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply. signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JesusisGreat7

    While doing daily AFD work, I often come across pages that don’t really seem suitable for mainspace, see [8][9] [10] as well as many schools and colleges that don’t meet notability criteria. A lot of these pages haven’t been reviewed yet and contains a lot of promotional content. Having NPP rights would let me help patrol these pages more effectively and cut down the backlog, while also giving me some hands-on experience in the role. Jesus isGreat7 12:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([11]). — MusikBot talk 12:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. This is at least your fifth time requesting this right. MusikBot is going to tell on you every time. I strongly, strongly recommend that you do not apply for any more perms for at least 90 days. I'm glad that you now have a month of AfD experience; that's good to see. Please get three more. -- asilvering (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dionysodorus

    I was granted the new page reviewer right about a month ago, and have been notified that my trial will expire at the end of the month. I hope I have made a good contribution: I have patrolled a significant number of pages, paying careful attention to notability. The AfDs that I have started have mostly resulted in deletion. In the cases that haven't, this is sometimes due to my inexperience with the deletion rules, but I have learned a good deal, and would like to continue to contribute in this way from time to time, if an admin is prepared to grant the permission on a longer-term basis. Dionysodorus (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 20:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, trial run looks good, will follow up with some notes on user talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 15:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noxoug1

    Continue to contribute to the new page patrol. Focusing on Central Europe articles and STEM articles. Noxoug1 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 08:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noxoug1, could you comment on your decision to mark Chinese Christian Tribune reviewed? signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rosguill@Rosguill Reading through the article and some of the sources,. If you see something that I could improve on, I can let me know Noxoug1 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noxoug1 specifically, I was hoping that you could identify how you assessed its notability. signed, Rosguill talk 16:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Austiñobobbiño

    I'm looking for new ways to be useful on Wikipedia and considered requesting these permissions after I've gotten several notifications from editors reviewing my own new articles and making helpful suggestions. austiñobobbiño (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, for lack of anything much to go by (only on AfD !vote, no AFC stats, no patrol logs). But @Austiñobobbiño, would you please consider applying for WP:AFC/P? -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Endrabcwizart

    Since I have been an AFC reviewer on English Wikipedia, I would like to contribute to clearing the backlog of unreviewed pages. I have been a registered user since 2021 and have always used the tools responsibly, without any misuse at any time. I kindly request permission to access this tool. Thank you. Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your interest in this permission. Unfortunately, I'm concerned by your rather low match-rate at AfD--while many of those discussions are old, I'm not seeing sufficient recent experience that would demonstrate that your understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines has improved since then. Additionally, I'm concerned that you appear to have engaged in puzzling archiving habits on your user talk page. While users are allowed to blank their own talk pages, it's misleading to call that "archived". Editors with advanced permissions have higher expectations of accountability to the community and the public, and I would strongly encourage that you set up a proper archive if you intend to seek new page reviewer or other advanced permissions in the future. For now,  Not done. signed, Rosguill talk 15:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mariamnei

    Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights

    Good morning! I have been editing for a while, and I successfully nominated 12 DYKs and brought 3 articles to GA status. I believe that I have the requisite skills for carrying out this task, and I would like to help with the backlog. Mariamnei (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Three-month trial. asilvering (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aydoh8

    My NPR rights expire in about 5 days and I would like to renew them. I am active in the AfC sphere (see my AfC log). Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC) Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 14:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Koko Essien has enough significant coverage, but that's one quibble in a sizable track record that is otherwise consistent.  Done signed, Rosguill talk 15:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shocksingularity

    I'd like to help review articles, because there's a large backup. Per the qualifications:

    1. I have over 4,000 edits over the 140 days my account has been active, most of which are in mainspace.

    2. I am an AfC reviewer and also sometimes participate in AFD. I have also written 10 articles myself, none of which have been proposed for deletion (in PROD, CSD or AFD) and only one of which has a cleanup tag.

    3. See my Talk page.

    4. No behavioral blocks or 3RR violations.

    5. No COI, I don't mind reviewing pages for free Shocksingularity (talk) 22:13, 27 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]

    User:Викидим

    I am hereby requesting the page mover privilege. On multiple occasions I had to request uncontroversial moves, as I was not able to move the page myself. Most of these requests were due to WP:NPP and requested after reverting the WP:CUTNPASTE moves by other editors and re-doing the moves properly. Usually I helped the editors to request the move themselves, see, for example User talk:Worvandae#Renaming the page, but on few occasions I had requested the move myself to assist the original editor (see, for example, Talk:Spotsylvania Courthouse, Virginia). Sometimes I needed the move to unscramble the situation in the article I was working on, see, for example, Talk:Iron oxide red#Requested move 13 May 2023. I also create articles in my user space and occasionally need to move them over a redirect, the latest one was User:Викидим/Mikogami.

    I do have the corresponding right in Russian Wikipedia. Викидим (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Veko

    I've recently been helping out in closing RMs and have also participated in some as well. I'm also a NPP, and do a decent amount of draftifying through that process. Having the page move right won't just make closing RMs that require a tech move easier, but it will also allow me to help clear the WP:RMTR backlog. Also, when draftifying, I can reduce the workload on administrators for CSD R2. I'm okay with going on trial if it is found to be necessary. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 16:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gommeh

    I am requesting page mover rights because I am currently involved in the creation of several standalone articles that currently redirect to lists. It would be a lot easier for me to use the page mover ability to move the drafts to mainspace over redirects than copying and pasting the draft contents. These moves are uncontroversial, e.g. moving Draft:Arlecchino (Genshin Impact) to Arlecchino (Genshin Impact). Arlecchino (Genshin Impact) currently redirects to List of Genshin Impact characters#Arlecchino. If the drafts are accepted, I'd need to request deletion of the redirects under WP:G6 which can take unnecessary time. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([12]). — MusikBot talk 19:30, 26 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]

    User:Ludus56

    I've been editing Wikipedia on and off for 3 years (!) at this point, often undertaking anti-vandalism activities. Being a pending changes reviewer would allow me to expand my service to the community. In addition to anti-vandalism, I'm also familiar with the NPOV, copyright, Verifiability, etc. policies. Ludus56 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LuniZunie

    I have been doing counter-vandalism on the recent changes tab a lot and have seen many pending revisions edits go by without being accepted for a while. I would love to be able to accept / deny the revisions to help speed up the process. LuniZunie (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SeanBeans1981

    I have edited Wikipedia for one year and am close to 2000 edits. Mostly I do editing on Irish articles like well-known Irish personalities and colleges. I have made good contributions to many Irish scientists, writers, poets and physicists. I am trying to help make some of these articles as Good Article (GA) status, and have asked other editors for their help.

    I have never been blocked or banned, and am very friendly with other users. With the Pending Changes Reviewer permission, I will be able to work with newer users to make better articles.

    I am also familiar with all of the rules listed in the requirements, and always learn from any mistakes. I will be a beneficial addition to the volunteers who have this permission. SeanBeans1981 (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pr0m37h3u$

    I have over 500 edits patrolling Recent Changes for vandalism. This permission would be great as I would love to help the process of reviewing pending changes. I am familiar with all policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT etc.

    Thanks, Pr0m37h3u$ 12:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Austiñobobbiño

    I'd like permission so that I can help out when things come up. I tend to use Wikipedia in relation to current events, so I may be able to offer some assistance related to these issues. austiñobobbiño (talk) 12:02, 24 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: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:Krsnaquli

    Hello, I've been doing recent changes patrolling on a regular basis, and asking for rollbacking rights to increase my effeciency on my counter-vandalism efforts. I meet all the prerequisites mentioned in the instructions. Krsnaquli (🙏) 17:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Somepinkdude

    I have been patrolling Special:RecentChanges and Special:AbuseLog for about 40-50 days, definitely more than a month, and have collected over 610 edits, most of which are reverts of vandalism. I have only been given one warning regarding my editing, a contentious topics BLP alert, and have never engaged in edit warring or been blocked. Although I was more careless about warning users earlier, I always place {{uw}}s when I revert edits, except in the most minor and routine reversions. As everything moves very quickly at Special:RecentChanges, rollback would help me revert obviously bad-faith edits quicker and also possibly use AntiVandal and Huggle. Somepinkdude (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SeanBeans1981

    I would like to request for Rollback permission, so that I can help tackle vandalism in Wikipedia articles. I am reaching 2000 edits and have never been involved in any edit warring or any fights at any point. I work well with other users and consistently give proper edit summary for most changes I make. The only suggested requirement I don't currently meet is to notify other users on their Talk Page when reverting an edit (I have only reverted a few obvious vandalism), but I will definitely do it from now on.

    I will follow all the rules listed on this page, and am familiar with the editing guidelines. I will be a good addition to the Wikipedia community and will help prevent vandalism with this rollback permission. SeanBeans1981 (talk) 07:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello SeanBeans1981, you have never used the "undo" link next to someone else's edit yet ([13]), and your list of manual reverts is very short. I'm very open to granting this permission to an experienced editor like you, but you'd need to have the required track record of countervandalism, for example by using the links here on my dashboard to find and undo vandalism without the rollback tool for a while. See Help:Reverting for ways to undo multiple contributions at once, see WP:UWARN for templates to be used on the reverted users' talk pages. Please notify me on my talk page (or re-request here) when you have built the track record of recent changes patrolling experience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saltymagnolia

    I am a (semi) long-time content writer on Wikipedia, active since 2017, with over 20,000 edits under my belt. On multiple occasions, I have needed to deal with unconstructive edits to articles, where a direct revert is not possible, requiring a manual revert instead. This isn't exactly the most practical solution, and could potentially result in accidental damage a page, which I am keen to avoid. ✦ Saltymagnolia ✦ 20:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:51, 28 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:Dandorid

    I am the author of {{Ref RFC}} (with its many subpages) and {{Sum RFC}}, which now effectively have been replaced by Module:RFC. I have made one edit there, but now I am locked out since the module is deemed to be 'high risk'. I would like to continue my efforts for standardisation using templates and modules, especially for RFCs. — DandoriD (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Salvio giuliano 10:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder why Pppery put template protection on Module:RFC, which has only 1,100 transclusions. It doesn't seem to match the template protection criteria. The above editor would not need template editor rights if the template's protection matched its usage. I'm probably missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected it because {{IETF RFC}}, which uses the module, is protected. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also 1,100 transclusions, but it appears to have been protected before the adoption of the current numerical thresholds in 2018 and 2021. I see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably best if both pages have protection lowered — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to that; I was merely trying to enforce the rule that a module that a template uses must have at least as high a protection level as the template. But you should probably ask The Anome first. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Poketape

    Earlier this year I had attempted to obtain this permission, which ultimately triggered action on my template edit requests. I am once again asking for the permission, only this time I've waited a month to see if my request would be acted upon. I am particularly interested in sports-related templates. poketape (talk) 04:06, 26 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:ARandomName123

    Hi, I'm semi-active at NPP where this would be helpful, I have a couple of pages I keep an eye on for SPI and I also do some patrolling for AI edits. This permission would also just be helpful for day-to-day editing if I come across anything disruptive. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:59, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done asilvering (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that was fast, thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:02, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very easy to hand out when you know the folks who are asking! We edit-conflict over it a lot, actually. -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1303932167"