Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFPE)
"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 00:50, 30 August 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): IP masking is coming to the English Wikipedia in September 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:CherryPie94

    I was granted a two month trial for this. Have created 100+ articles with 10K+ edits and will continue to do so. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user was granted temporary autopatrolled rights by Dr vulpes (expires 00:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 23:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing provided here does not appear to meet WP:NORG, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Can you provide sources that establish the notability of this organization? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree some of the sourcing used is WP:CORPTRIV — the foundation has extensive coverage in Korea. I've just added some stronger pieces. The pre/post interview text in this Forbes feature is one with significant secondary coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    {{not done}} NORG requires secondary coverage. Those are all primary news stories. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay without the role, or a trial if possible, but can't WP:SECONDARY sources rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them? Tech42 Donga demonstrate. I will admit this article is hard to find excellent secondary sources for because there just are so many about the organization. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts: The distinction between primary and secondary sources is sometimes debateable, but by the standards set out in WP:NORG, the news stories seem to fit -- that guideline explicitly says that an NYT article, a blog post and a Forbes profile would be considered secondary, while the text of a court filing would be primary. However, WP:ENDURING may apply regardless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't WP:ENDURING apply to persons and events? This is also a major nonprofit with a decade of history, WP:NONPROFIT applies for this. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can put it under WP:SUSTAINED if you prefer: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability ... New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION ... reproductions or close paraphrasing of press releases (aka churnalism) does not count as sustained coverage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nonprofit has sustained coverage that is not churnalism, with news stories that you said seem to fit?
    @Voorts and @UndercoverClassicist, note that the ANF can be considered with the alternate criteria for nonprofits to be considered notable, apart from just the primary criteria. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point RE the alternative criteria for nonprofits. I think this org is probably notable under that standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Done I was wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 29 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]

    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]

    User:GregariousMadness

    Hello! I've created a large number of My Little Pony and mathematics articles. I have over 6,700 edits and will continue to edit for as long as I can. I'm requesting autopatrol permissions so that the NPP backlog will be less cluttered with my articles. I believe I've demonstrated a solid understanding of the policies and guidelines with my articles, particularly with my coverage of various aspects of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Queenofboston

    I have created more than 25 articles, over several years. I learnt over time to understand the notability criteria well. My new pages do not require attention from patrollers. Only one page I created is marked as deleted (it was recreated under a slightly different name). I have overall over 1000 edits. Thank you for the consideration. Queenofboston (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Queenofboston: Thank you for your contributions. Spot-checking one of your creations at random, Michelle Meagher, indicated direct copying from a source (report) and non-neutral prose ("Meagher was confronted with a crisis of consciousness", also closely paraphrased from the source). I'll leave a message on your talk page with more information about copyright considerations on Wikipedia, and I would recommend reading about the encyclopedic tone that should be used in articles. For these reasons, I don't think autopatrolled would be appropriate for you at the moment. Please let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @TechnoSquirrel69 the article you singled out for copyright issues was published in 2024. The Michelle Meagher Wikipedia entry was created by me in 2023 with the contested phrase in it. So the 2024 article copied the 2023 Wikipedia page not the other way round. I did not infringe any copyright of the 2024 article as it did not exist at the time of the page creation. Queenofboston (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing a date on the Green European Journal page, although it was only archived in the Wayback Machine in 2024. Even leaving that aside, though, there remain the issues of neutrality and close paraphrasing.
    I looked at another one of your creations for more information. Your most recent one, Aline Blankertz, has statements without citations, and doesn't demonstrate the subject's notability — the existing sources are either primary sources, like interviews or podcast appearances, or don't have significant coverage of the subject. However, I will note that I found no copyright-related issues here. I maintain that it would be beneficial for your creations to get a once-over from new pages patrol. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The information you flagged as missing citation was contained in the sources cited immediately prior, I now double-cite them in the two instances you flagged.
    I am not saying that my pages cannot be improved but my pages bring additions to Wikipedia. I focus on women as it is an objective of Wikipedia to re-balance the coverage away from a bias favoring pages of men Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, I believe this is valuable contribution. There are profiles of Aline Blankertz in leading German media outlets, only one source is a podcast and it is produced by an established German media outlet, that is a valid source in my understanding, it is not a podcast produced by the subject. None of the sources in that article are authored by the subject of the article. My pages do not have copyrights issues, as now clarified. I use some sources in foreign languages but it is not the policy of Wikipedia to disregard or downgrade sources that are in foreign languages for purposes of notability. Queenofboston (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Queenofboston: why is Cecilia Rikap notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rikap has reliable substantial coverage independent from the subject, for example profile in El Pais, the leading Spanish news outlet, she also published three books. Queenofboston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why is Nai Lee Kalema notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The page as I set it up was modified by another editor that added sources that were not independent from the subject and deleted sources I have identified and listed. Other editors reversed parts of the page and I now added back some of the deleted references. There is coverage by expernal sources, 12 references are now listed on the page. I understand that Nai Lee Kalema is not a clearcut case in terms of notability, in part my objective is to support a Wikipedia initiative to reduce the imbalance between pages dedicated to men compared to pages dedicated to women, which bias also exists in external coverage. Queenofboston (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:OceanGunfish

    I have created 38 articles in the last year and a half, with 0 deletions. I have brought two of my most recent five creations to GA status. I am very careful to make sure every statement in my creations is properly sourced and I hope to help reduce the workload at NPP. OceanGunfish (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 (Non-administrator comment) Spot-checked. Seems a good candidate. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MallardTV

    I have, in my time on Wikipedia, created numerous new articles. I do admit that a decent number of them have been species articles, but I make sure that they are all expanded from a stub if possible. I have waited for a while to request this, and I do think that it is finally time. MallardTV Talk to me! 15:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    {{not done}} As you note, you mostly create species articles. Autopatrolled is used to decrease the NPP workload, and species articles are easy to review. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @MallardTV. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense! MallardTV Talk to me! 02:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:voorts: I don't think this is a policy-based reason to decline a request. NPP is always overburdened, so even a small reduction of effort can be worth it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen other admins decline on these grounds. NPP even lists species articlds on an easy review page and they're often dealt with quickly. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen it before as an additional reason to soften the 'blow' of a decline, but I don't remember seeing a decline on this ground alone before. I still don't believe there is a reason in policy to decline here (I've not yet checked their creations). If I do check and don't find MallardTV meets the requirements, would you be okay with me granting AP? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I'll withdraw my not done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done MallardTV. Having had a closer look, I don't think it's quite the time quite yet. I notice that, while I found no uncited text in your last 15 creations, multiple 2025 articles have uncited content: Bremen Tower, Freeman's Mill, Double comparative. Furthermore, when you use non-English sources, it's usually best to add a translated title (not a requirement for AP however, articles don't have to be perfect). I'm quite strict as to close paraphrasing, but I feel you've not paraphrased enough from the original source in Manning Gin Farm (from a public ___domain source??). Keep up the good work with the species articles, and sorry to mess you around. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke All good! This is a learning experience and I’m all for it! MallardTV Talk to me! 18:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Masohpotato

    I am requesting autopatrolled rights to decrease NPP backlog. I have created 400+ articles, and have demonstrated knowledge of notability guidelines throughout 3 and a half years editing. I have not edited for about a month, but plan to get back into Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Masohpotato (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done The only source cited in 114th Tennessee General Assembly is a law firm website, which does not appear to be reliable. The only source cited in Kanteh is forebears.io, which does not appear to be reliable. The main citation for Randy Miller (politician) is a lobbying firm, also not reliable. I urge you to go through all of your articles to check for sourcing issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masohpotato. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 29 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:Greenleader(2)

    I have created 46 pages currently, and in my more recent Wikipedia editing experience have focused largely on creating high quality and well sourced pages on politicians who automatically pass WP:NPOL, as well as having created pages on political parties, figures, and elections that clearly meet other or general notability guidelines. Having this permission would therefore help free up the workload of new page reviewers. Greenleader(2) (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done Politicians who pass NPOL are easy to review and don't clog up the backlog much. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greenleader(2) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of my articles do not pass WP:NPOL, I was just commenting that the bulk of more recent ones do. Also this perception that they are quick to review is simply not true - and some of these articles have taken a while to be reviewed, and I have others that don't automatically pass that have taken much longer to be reviewed. The majority of my articles have not automatically passed WP:NPOL and rely on general notability or other criteria - I find it disappointing that this has not been engaged with. I am a major supporter of women in red, and want to be able to help more with this, and I have frequently contributed to AfD discussions with a strong understanding of the policies and guidelines. If there is any justification for not granting this permission other than simply the fact it is allegedly very quick to review some NPOL pages (in spite of the fact this has not always been true in my experience), I would be grateful for further feedback because otherwise I am extremely unclear on what more I can do to earn autopatrol permissions, even on a trial or temporary basis. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify I've realised actually due to creating a lot recently, to correct the record a slight majority of my pages created now do fall under WP:NPOL, but there are at least 20 or so that do not. I also have a lot of drafts (not on Wikipedia yet) that do not fall under NPOL either (for various elections, political parties, and Women in Red pages) and I am very well versed on the notability guidelines so would be grateful for a temporary period to have these permissions and alleviate the load on the new page log. If this is not granted, once again I'd be very grateful for feedback and advice in order to understand the main areas for improvement and learning. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in a similar case above, I don't think this was a policy-based argument to decline. I've looked at 4 articles, and found a problem with two, FUTURO, where some of the text seemed uncited. Which source supports the 13% vote share? Similarly, Else-Merete Ross doesn't contain a citation for the personal life section. I'd be happy to reassess in a couple of months when articles are consistently fully cited. Feel free to ping me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this feedback, really appreciate it, especially as this is my first time going through this process. The referenced sources for Merete-Ross do contain that information so I will ensure the citation formatting fully reflects this, and with FUTURO while the vote and seat result is in the sources, the percentage is only cited and sourced in the linked Wiki election page, so I must have forgotten to add the relevant source on this detail to the FUTURO page too. I will fix these promptly, thank you for drawing my attention to these issues. Very grateful for the advice, I will be even more careful in ensuring everything is consistently fully cited going forwards, and will hopefully have a strong track record to show when I reapply here in the future! Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:41, 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:B33tleMania12

    This user was discovered through the New Pages Feed. They are an editor who has learned a lot about good practices in creating articles and are consistent in working within the bounds of the notability guideline for species. The only mark against them is that many of these pages are created without a talk page. The vast majority are stubs, but that is to be expected for many of the subject species, and enough information is provided in most cases to allow for identification. -- Reconrabbit 13:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([4]). — MusikBot talk 13:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) User has created over 2k articles, but these articles are short, some are single-sentence, some are double, in a nutshell, they're too short for them to really be able to demonstrate that they could write up a full-fledge article without issues like copy vio or close paraphrasing–which requires an editor to write, say start article, or even stubs that are over 90% rating (10% remaining to become a start-class); this is just my analysis. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done per @Vanderwaalforces. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 29 August 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:Thilio

    Most of my edits are fixing typos, cleaning up citations improving short descriptions and fixing bare URLs. I also spend time watching recent changes and reverting vandalism. Having AWB will help me make these small, routine edits faster and more consistent. I will always check my edits before saving and use the tool responsibly. Thank you. 🐍 Thilio🤖 04:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cscott

    Wikitext content migration (linting, replacing wikitext errors, etc) as part of the mw:Parsoid/Parser Unification project. C. Scott Ananian (he/him) (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done Sohom (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cssiitcic

    Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights: patrolling new pages Cssiitcic (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had their access to AutoWikiBrowser automatically revoked ([5]). — MusikBot talk 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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: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]

    User:PersusjCP

    Mostly for maintenance tasks, streamlining repairing and bettering redirects, links, etc, and cleaning up citations as I work on rewriting articles in my topic area. Using AWB will hopefully allow me to work on these smaller edits more easily and consistently without having to go through and do it all by hand. Thanks :) PersusjCP (talk) 04:54, 30 August 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:KawaiiMadeline3

    Have information about Shadow the Hedgehog’s conception from the anime expo convention held last year. KawaiiMadeline3 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBot talk 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gammelgul

    I have had this account for many years and also more than 10 edits, but am somehow not confirmed - could this be because I have so far only used it on the German wikipedia? Gammelgul (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done. You are correct here - only the account creation time and edit count on the English Wikipedia counts for this. You can see the stats for all your accounts at Special:CentralAuth/Gammelgul which shows your English Wikipedia account was created yesterday. Give it another 72 hours and you shoud become autoconfirmed automatically. stwalkerster (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Explorerr7

    Hello I'd like to request confirmed permissions as I am a real and legitimate user but very infrequent and do not make many edits Explorerr7 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done. In general, we do not grant confirmed permissions early to new accounts—your account will become confirmed automatically after it has made 10 edits in total. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 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.

    User:De-Invincible

    I need this right to create and manage registration-enabled events for the Wikimedia Fulfulde Community’s upcoming projects (e.g., capacity building workshops, campaigns), and to securely manage participant registration and event data.

    Thank you. De-Invincible (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Helle @De-Invincible. I notice you're still finding your feet in terms of WP:notability. Could you talk about what kind of capacity building you're planning and when? Will there be more experienced Wikipedia editors involved? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Femke. Thanks for pointing that out. Our upcoming capacity-building workshops will begin from October 2025 and will specifically cover core policies like WP:Notability, reliable sources, and verifiability. We’re also involving more experienced editors and trainers who will help review drafts and mentor newer contributors, so participants get hands-on practice and guidance to avoid common mistakes. De-Invincible (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Great initiative! Is there an end date? With your limited experience on enwiki I won't be granting this permission permanently. Which other experienced editors are participating?
    I'm slightly worried that your experience around notability is not quite there yet to be teaching this, given your history of deleted articles. Your more recent creations have a much lower deletion rate than older creations, but one of your last 10 articles still got deleted. Have you received the 'train the trainer' training after this? Or is there other evidence you now understand notability well enough, like participation in AfD? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is part of our 6 monthly activities. Thank you for the feedback and for raising these concerns. I’d like to clarify that the deletion of some of my earlier articles was not because I lacked an understanding of notability, but rather because I initially limited myself to citing only English-language sources. This sometimes made the subjects appear less notable than they actually were.
    More recently, through discussions in the Wikimedia General chat Telegram group, I learned that reliable sources in other languages can and should be used on English Wikipedia. As Asaf Bartov (one of the admins) explained: “there is no such restriction. English-language sources are naturally preferred on English Wikipedia, for ease of citation and for ease of reference for our readers to look up and verify, but certainly not at the expense of the latest verifiable factual information, so where reputable sources exist in languages other than English that complement or improve what can be established via English-language sources alone, one is encouraged to make use of them.”
    Since then, I have applied this understanding in my recent editing and mentoring work, which has resulted in a much lower deletion rate. This has strengthened my confidence that I now have a solid grasp of notability requirements and reliable sourcing standards. De-Invincible (talk) 10:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right know, I am planning on working again on those deleted articles because I believe with the addition of sources from other languages, it would make the admins understand that the topics really deserve to stay on the Wikipedia. De-Invincible (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    User:SecretName101

    I occasionally upload files, and would appreciate being able to remedy any errant titles on my own in the instances that a mis-spelling might occur. I do not intend to make overly-broad use of this right; rather plan to use it sparely to quickly-repair any such necessary issues as they might errantly occur. SecretName101 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @SecretName101: Have you made any other rename requests than this one? ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's the only one I found. Seeing no correction,   Not done per lack of demonstrated need. (As the banner notes, "Successful applicants will usually have a measurable track record of making high quality rename requests".) I'd recommend (since you do otherwise have experience working in the file namespace) requesting after making at least 5 good rename requests. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    User:Dmartin969

    Want to participate in the backlog drive. –DMartin 22:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done through the end of September as a trial run, after which you may reapply. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jkudlick

    I had temporary rights for the last NPR drive, and I would like to participate in this one as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that you reviewed relatively few pages last time, I'm conferring this as a second trial run through the end of September   Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ophyrius

    I'm participating in the upcoming drive. My right expires right in the middle of the drive. Please extend my right by a month. Thanks! Ophyrius (he/him
    T • C • G    ) 17:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 17:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, extended through end of September. Reviews thus far look good for the most part, although the relative lack of article reviews makes your track record a bit harder to assess, as redirects are typically considered to be easier to review. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cssiitcic

    I have been an editor on this Wikipedia for over 15 years and have been a pending changes reviewer as well. Requesting the right to review new pages. Cssiitcic (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Not done I don't see a track record demonstrating understanding of quality control and deletion processes, and tagging pages as you did here is completely inappropriate (none of the four criteria you named were valid). Your last 500 edits go back to 2011 and page curation has become rather more sophisticated between then and now; I suggest you brush up on WP:NPP and WP:SD and gain experience correctly marking pages for deletion before re-requesting this permission. Complex/Rational 03:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1ctinus

    Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I want to partcipate in the NPP backlog drive. I have already participated in it twice before. -1ctinus📝🗨 10:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    past track record looks good,   Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gheus

    I'd like to continue and would like to participate in the upcoming Backlog Drive. I've a fair understanding of P&G of Wikipedia and have already reviewed above one thousand AfC drafts and a lot of new articles. I'll continue to play my part in keeping the project clean. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    track record looks good,   Done signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I oppose this advanced user rights assignment, @Rosguill. @Gheus had declined a draft of mine without properly reading it, and nominated for deletion with incorrect claims that it was not changed since last nomination, in spite of very significant efforts since then. (The deletion discussion ended with no consensus). Then the user did not respond to my talk page request inquiring about all these, what is worse, simply deleted the unresponded talk page message, not even archiving it. These are not expected behavior from a Wikipedian who can be trusted with such an important role, which involves mentoring others, or at least being a role model for others. Tagging some other admins as well: @Asilvering @Liz @Significa liberdade TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, it was closed as no consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alinur Velidedeoğlu (3rd nomination)). You have been following me around for some time as if you want to take revenge for the decline. I haven't reacted yet but you have to stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I have already given you enough WP:ROPE, and further pursuing this could result in a WP:BOOMERANG. Gheus (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if you took this personally, but I believe AfC is important for newcomers to the project, that's why I care. If you had shown the smallest acknowledgement about what I wrote on your talk page, I would't have felt obliged to write this. That is a waste of time on my part, as well. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TheJoyfulTentmaker, this forum isn't conducive to discussion, please bring your concerns to WP:AN, and more clearly identify diffs demonstrating the lack of care you are describing. signed, Rosguill talk 02:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pagers

    Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights is to take part in New Pages Patrol backlog drive Pagers (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and your interest in this permission. Unfortunately, I'm not quite seeing enough of a track record of engagement with deletion processes to demonstrate a strong understanding of the relevant guidelines. I'm also a bit concerned that you had an article draftified about a month ago (Repealing and Amending Act, 2001) for entirely lacking sources at the time, and your recent article contributions do not clearly convey a strong understanding of primary vs. secondary sources or notability guidelines.   Not done for now, please continue to gain experience editing before reapplying, with participation at WP:AFD being particularly encouraged. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Noxoug1

    I'd like to request NPR rights to participate in the upcoming September 2025 drive and help reduce the backlog. I plan to focus on STEM area. Noxoug1 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done through the end of September as a trial run, after which you may reapply. signed, Rosguill talk 18:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lollipoplollipoplollipop

    Hello 👋 I participated in the May 2025 backlog drive, and I would love to participate again in the upcoming September 2025 drive. Last request for NPR was here. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:13, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done till 28 Nov Sohom (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chippla360

    I’m requesting the new page reviewer rights to help contribute to the backlog and assist in reviewing new pages. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 22:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([6][7]). — MusikBot talk 22:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moritoriko

    I didn't realize the right was going to run out, I'd like to keep helping out and the drive this (next) month. Moritoriko (talk) 07:19, 29 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 07:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Butlerblog

    I had been invited to apply back in 2023. At the time, I did apply but then withdrew the request before it was reviewed simply because I did not have the time to put into it. I'm circling back around to it now. I'm familiar with article standards having gotten an article to GA status, and having done article assessment (participating in an assessment backlog drive last year). I'm also teachable when it comes to new things. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:11wallisb

    Hi! Before I continue I'll preface by saying this request isn't for permanent NPP. I am a probationary AfC reviewer since Aug 4, am currently enrolled at NPP/S and I also pass the WP:NPPCRITERIA (though point 2 is always ongoing for learning!).
    I've admittedly made some mistakes this month. I am willing to answer any questions about my conduct on Wikipedia.
    I didn't plan on requesting NPP until being reviewed at AfC after 3 months, completing NPP/S and then waiting another month just to be sure I was ready (my timeline would place that at December or January next year). I would really like to participate in the NPP backlog drive as this will provide the opportunity for an incredibly intense practical experience at NPP! Would it be possible to receive NPP for only the duration of the drive? I understand if I'm not yet qualified enough for this, and will happily carry on conducting reviews at AfC during the backlog if so. Cheers! 11WB (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am really not 100% confident in this request. I feel it's necessary to provide some links to some discussions of things I've been involved in this month, these highlight some of the mistakes I've made. I'm also acting on the advice I received from Utopes. I appreciate this a lot, thank you!
    AfC talk page discussion - Aug 29 (Got some really helpful information here, this was really appreciated, thank you!)
    Potential AfC acceptance made too early - Aug 28 (Currently at AfD.)
    Bludgeoning at AfD - Aug 23 (This was an accident. Resolved.)
    Admin disapproval of AfC acceptance - Aug 16 (Sergecross73 disapproved of my acceptance of this article. I spent the next few days working with the authors to copyedit the article to make it acceptable for mainspace. Sergecross approved of this - Aug 19.)
    Gave incorrect information at AfD - Aug 13 (This was an error I made and later corrected which was part of a much larger, now resolved, situation.)
    There are a few others which are minor compared to those. I posted this because it would feel wrong not to disclose them. These have all been valuable learning experiences and I aim to continue improving. Participating in the NPP backlog would also help me focus a bit more, as I feel I've tried to run before I can walk this month. (I'm very hard on myself, but on WP I feel the obligation to hold myself to the highest possible standard.) Thank you! 11WB (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EarthDude

    I would like to request NPR rights to participate in the upcoming September 2025 drive. I want to help reduce the backlog. Thanks! EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:39, 30 August 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:CNMall41

    I fight a lot of SPAM, UPE, and SOCKS which often leads me to move pages to draft space from main space. Having page mover will help me suppress the redirect and save admins time. I am not sure if this will help with accepting drafts which have a redirect title occupying the main space, but I have reviewed over 4,000 page at AfC so it would be helpful with that as well. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This would be useful for publishing drafts via round-robin swap rather than {{db-afc-move}} (and for draftification). However, WP:PMCRITERIA#4 isn't satisfied due to a 36hr EW pblock (not for 3RR).
    ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilverLocust:, Thanks for the question. I did review and know there was a 3RR in the last six months and won't give my opinion on it other than it was correct on its face. Only block in my 11 years here and I took the last line of PMCRITERIA to mean you have the right to grant it despite, and also have the right to deny even if I met all those requirements. If you would prefer me to wait until that period has ended I can do so. Was just trying to help save others some time. Ether way, thanks for consideration. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When seeking an exception, you should disclose that you don't meet the guidelines. (That you didn't disclose that, along with your uncertainty that this would help with accepting drafts, made me question whether you had read relevant parts of the page.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. I should not have assumed that you would assume. Definitely was not hiding anything but I should have pointed it out since it was one of the criteria. That is 100% on me. The question I had about whether or not it would be relevant was to do with moves to the mainspace where a redirect already occupies the title. My understanding is that I would still need an administrator to delete that redirect so I can move. Is that correct? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as I tried to explain in my first sentence, a page mover can swap a draft with a redirect. See, for example, Draft:Ben Mayes (cricketer)Draft:Ben Mayes (cricketer) (revision history), which was swapped with Ben Mayes (cricketer). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I read it a few times and for some reason the wires in my brain are not lining up. I think it would be best to withdraw this request as I do not want a tool that I do not fully understand. For some reason I cannot even get my head around the example you provided. I apologize for wasting your time here. Maybe in the future it will click and I will be back. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. I was still considering the request, depending on Inanvector not expressing objections.   Request withdrawn for the bot. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I do appreciate that. I also hope there's no hard feelings for wasting your time. I just had to self-reflect on it a bit and realized I may not understand it as much as I initially thought. Nothing to do with the block. I wasn't happy about the whole circumstance surrounding it, but it is what it is and I would agree that it was a bright line block. I just think that it is better to not have a tool until I fully understand it. I'll likely be back. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I missed the window of usefulness for feedback here but since I was pinged, no I would not have concerns for pagemover regarding the pblock. The article was a clusterfuck, and anyway I don't really see the connection between the userright and an edit warring pblock anyway. I haven't taken the time to understand the IP viewer right (silly thing for a checkuser to say, I know) so I won't comment; it seems to have been separately requested and granted anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not pinged but will reply about the IP viewer right. My understanding is that it really isn't a special privilege outside of what everyone has now. In September, Wikipedia will start masking IP addresses so the tool will just allow editors to see the IP address that is masked. So...........it basically just allows what everyone is able to do now but will be restricted for those who do not have the new permission starting in September. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 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:Krsnaquli

    Hello, I've been doing recent changes patrolling for a while, and for multiple times I've encountered with constructive pending edits that I couldn't have approved. I believe rights to approve constructive pending edits would help me further contribute the encyclopedia. I'm also eager to use pending changes list to review pending changes. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 16:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abhinav Walker

    Hello, I have been patrolling recent changes for some time, and on several occasions I have come across constructive pending edits that I was unable to approve. I believe having the rights to approve such edits would allow me to contribute more effectively to the encyclopedia. I am also keen to make use of the pending changes queue to help review edits. Abhinav Walker (talk) 07:59, 30 August 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:Thilio

    Reasons why I am requesting rollback rights: Some registered editors or some IP editors know what they are doing is wrong, but they are still doing it adding wrong information about BLPs, changing names or birth years, months or days from right to wrong, and adding nonsensical contents just to hurt Wikipedia. I am against all of that. I'm requesting rollback rights because I am fighting vandalism and I won't stop not now not ever. The rollback tool will help me fight vandalism with confidence because some editors know what they are doing is 100% wrong (vandalism) but they just keep adding and adding. With the rollback tool rights, I can undo that in the blink of an eye. I understand that rollback is only for obvious vandalism or disruptive edits and not for content disputes. I will make sure I use the tool responsibly in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance. 🐍 Thilio🤖 13:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MakaylaHippo1998

    I have made many mainspace edits and have started using the "Twinkle" feature regularly since my last request about two months ago. Feel more confident in this request. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([8]). — MusikBot talk 06:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JohnDavies9612

    Hello, I have read about Wikipedia:Rollback. I have understood many things. There are many vandalism activities that are done every day. I want to fight against vandalism and monitor every movement. I will try to do my best for everything. Thank you JohnDavies9612 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([9]). — MusikBot talk 12:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GlorpK4

    Been doing a bit of anti-vandalism work in my spare time and I want to try out AV. Thx ✦GLORPK4✦  | 📡 03:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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) Rht bd (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haaayzey

    I have been growing very active on Wikipedia, and it it becoming something of a daily routine for me to view, edit, and create pages. Having the permission to protect pages and rollback vandalism would be awesome for me, as I continue to grow as a Wikipedia editor. I have made over 200 edits, as well as having accumulated more than 200k views on pages i've created/edited. Yours truly, Kenzie! <3 (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has 88 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GregariousMadness

    Hello! I am requesting rollback rights because a large number of My Little Pony articles that I have created have been getting vandalized by bot accounts lately, and I would like to help fight vandalism as much as I can. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 August 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:DimiDimi

    I would like to replace on a specific template PNGs with SVGs, because I uploaded them recently. DimiDimi (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has 678 total edits and has 51 edits in the template and module namespaces. — MusikBot talk 13:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done per the above. Primefac (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is just one template, please could you raise a request using {{tper}}? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. DimiDimi (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zackmann08

    I previously had this permission but took an extended vacation from Wikipedia. Would like to resume my work! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done. Primefac (talk) 21:28, 29 August 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:Rusty Cat

    I previously was active in anti-vandalism work and plan to get into anti-vandalism efforts again. ~ Rusty meow ~ 22:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     14:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Callitropsis

    I'm not especially active these days, but I do some copyright cleanup and antivandal work now and again. Being able to see IP addresses once IP masking is rolled out is definitely going to be useful to me. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Done Sohom (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Znyadzi (OFWA)

    I am the Technical coordinator for Open Foundation West Africa where we occasionally organize workshops for Librarians, communities and introduce enthusiasts to the Wikimedia movement. Also, our office is open to Wikipedia community editors. Because of the occasional account creation, we are sometimes required to create several accounts at a time on the same network. Znyadzi (OFWA) (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Automated comment This user has had an account for 167 days and has 8 total edits. — MusikBot talk 15:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Not done Znyadzi (OFWA), you've requested the wrong perm! You want WP:PERM/EVC. -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1303932167"