Page template-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Requests for permissions

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, 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:
1 error as of 17:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
  • FATAL: User:Mstrojny not found! There may be a typo or the account was renamed.


Handled here

User groups

  • Account creator (add requestview 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 requestview 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 requestview 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 quick guide 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 requestview 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.
  • Extended confirmed (add requestview 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.
  • Event coordinator (add requestview 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.
  • File mover (add requestview 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 requestview requests): Mass message sender enables users to send messages to multiple users at once. This flag is given to users who have had made requests for delivery in the past, clearly showing an understanding of the guidance for use.
  • New page reviewer (add requestview requests): The new page reviewer user right allows users to mark pages as patrolled and use the page curation hoverbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
  • Page mover (add requestview 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 requestview 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 requestview 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 requestview requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates.

Handled elsewhere

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

Removal of permissions

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

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

Note: The bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at 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.



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

Any editor may comment on requests for permission.


Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, 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.

Current requests

Account creator


User:Shahidul Hasan Roman

I'm fairly experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, i created 80+ articles to date. Most of my past work has been reviewed and passed successfully. I also have Autopatrolled, Rollbracker, New Page reviewer right in Bangla Wikipedia. I try to edit or create in both English and Bangla wikipedia. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


I have created over 45 articles. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policy especially on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


The creator of nearly 150 articles. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Zingarese talk · contribs 02:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind suggestion! But I'm not sure that's a good idea, as I prefer that others add categories that I might not think of, and check for my occasional typos. If that would still happen (lots of NPP's make great additions to my stubs), then autopatrol is OK. Thanks! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Over 160 creations, with a single deletion (last October, and I can't find out the reason). Has created articles mostly to do with NRHP properties. Understands notability, properly referenced, no copyvio issues. While they don't have a high volume, they do have consistent content creation, so would help reduce the NPP backlog. Onel5969 TT me 22:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)



Now I find I want to start doing edits that go beyond my manual abilities. Note: I will be using WP:JWB. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
UnitedStatesian, edits such as...? Primefac (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
As a result of the Portalspace cleanup efforts, many subpages such as Portal:Martial arts/WikiProjects have been refunded and need need to have the text notice removed from them. This is a task that is challenging to do manually, I am sure there are a bunch of my ~62,000 other edits to the project that would have also benefited from JWB. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


To help get unassessed articles for WikiProject College Basketball assessed faster and easier. Brian (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Brian, genuinely out of curiosity, how do you plan on doing that with AWB? I do a lot of the assessing for WP:AST and I've never found AWB to be useful. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, according to WP:VG/A, the Kingbotk plugin that can be added to AWB can help speed up the process, considering there are almost 3,000 pages that need assessing in WP:CBBALL. Brian (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi, I'm staff of Wikimedia UK and we are running a skillshare session to help editors understand AWB. I would like permission to start using the tool before the event we are having so that I can understand it and help other participants. --Jwslubbock (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Jwslubbock (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Already done (automated response): This user already has AutoWikiBrowser access. MusikBot talk 12:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) )Fast bot!). Over 2,000 edits: more than half to mainspace. Trusted user with a sensible reason for the request. I've added John to the approved list. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


To speed up maintaining pages for WP:Curling such as adding pages that should be covered by the WP, assessing pages for the WP, fixing links to disambig pages A202985 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([1]) and has approximately 340 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 07:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I'd like to request AWB rights for my other account User:LittlerPuppers, mostly for use in typo/grammatical-type corrections. I will also probably be using JWB for a significant portion of these. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Lately I've been manually fixing a lot of broken library proxy urls, which have predictable unwanted elements like I would like permission to start using JWB on pages with proxy urls. Cheers, gnu57 14:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Mathlete1 (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 19:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has approximately 44 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 19:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done No reason given; does not meet the requirements. Schwede66 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)



Want to edit Windows 10 version history Windows10VersionHistory (talk) 04:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done - Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you're used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5% of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that 95% of the articles can use your help right now! — JJMC89(T·C) 04:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sumit singh bhadauriya (agnivanshi)

Sumit singh bhadauriya (agnivanshi) (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done - Not done as there has been no reason given. Please reread the text at the top of this page and submit another request only if appropriate. — JJMC89(T·C) 09:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Event coordinator


The Medical Library Association is hosting its annual meeting in Chicago from May 3-8, 2019. We are hosting a health-focused Edit-a-thon at the conference on Monday, May 6, 2019. Because this is a large conference and we are anticipating a high number of attendees who are new to Wikipedia at our session, we would like to request event coordinator rights for three accounts: Librarianaimee, miscellanye, and Alillich all-day on May 6, 2019. The Edit-a-thon will take place from 2:00-3:25pm CT, but we will be promoting the event throughout the morning and helping meeting attendees sign-up for accounts ahead of the event. Librarianaimee (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done We don't have control over the time it starts, so I'll ask you to request it about a week before the actual event, and also please add the rfplinks template for all users you wish the right to be granted to. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

File mover


I am requesting file mover rights because I have ample experience with both uploading images and moving pages. This would be a real time saver when I upload an image under the wrong title once in a blue moon, and I can assist other people who may need files moved. NØ 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, Since it has been about 17 days, I think it is appropriate to tag an admin here to evaluate this request.—NØ 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: you are sporting a large is no longer active on Wikipedia banner on your userpage - is this out of date? Have you had any {{rename media}} requests processed? (Can you provide a link to a few of them?) — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The retirement template is out of date, I’m still editing daily. I haven’t used that specific template but I have uploaded a lot of files, and would say I have ample experience with uploading (and choosing correct titles for) images.—NØ 14:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer


I have made several PROD and a few CSD tags on new articles over the last year or so, in addition to regular AfD activity, and have recently been monitoring the New Pages Feed. I see new page patrolling and reviewing as a natural extension of my AfD service (really a pre-emptive version). Being able to formally mark new articles that I review will help the large backlog.
Thanks for taking the time to read and process this! — MarkH21 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Not done You only have three CSDs, and we need people who are very familiar with deletion to a "near-admin level" (WP:NPP). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Perhaps I totally misunderstood the criteria here so I'm asking for a bit more clarification. Aren't the basic criteria 500 Mainspace edits and 90 days tenure? I understand that granting rights is also up to admin discretion, but RfA-level requirements would mean that the backlog will continue growing well past the 6000 articles it has now. Here are my AfD stats which should provide evidence for my familiarity with deletion, plus I've seen multiple successful requests here with fewer than 3 CSD tags. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
That is (some of) the minimum requirements that you need to have a chance of getting the right. (It's not worded the best to be honest.) At the bottom of the paragraph, it also says "For more details, please see New pages patrol". My instructions also include more requirements in the section below. But because this allows pages to be indexed by google, you understand that we have to be careful about where it's handed out. There are some very subtle ways that people can make articles look real, but they could be attacking the person.
Where I got the near admin level from was this sentence at WP:NPP "Reviewing needs a near-admin knowledge of deletion and notability policies." Also anyone can nominate something for AfD and it won't affect much, whereas nominating very new articles has a particularly big impact on new editor retention. So AfD while it's good showing you know one part of the deletion process, I'd be more comfortable with being able to review at least 30 CSD nominations, with some A7 and G11 included (the ones that can be most easily abused). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @DeltaQuad: Sure, I understood that the five criteria that I have met are minimum requirements, but my point was that using "near-admin knowledge of deletion and notability policies" and "at least 30 CSD nominations" deviates from the typical experience required in NPP requests here: e.g. February (although both were eventually blocked), January 24, January 19. Note that I am not arguing against these criteria (and I accept the decline) but I am pointing out that the granting of requests by different admins here is inconsistent. Maybe this belongs in the discussion page though. (@Swarm, Oshwah, Amorymeltzer, and Kudpung: courtesy ping because I mentioned their actions)MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I definitely don't deny there is inconsistency, and I'd be happy to join any talkpage discussion, but given the potential consequences is why I have my mark so high. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Replying since I was pinged, but I'd agree that the bare minimum are too low in my book. I, like DQ, am looking for proof of understanding of appropriate content policies; lack of experience in one area but stellar in another can be sufficient as long it's clear there is an understanding of the policies. I'm less interested in counts but rather look for the right sense of policy. I don't mean to put words in DeltaQuad's mouth, but this decline seems not to be about not being qualified but rather not having enough of a track record that we can review. ~ Amory (utc) 23:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that. I'm not hardlining any numbers, nor am I saying that the user is not qualified, just there is not enough for me to review in the area that is most critical to NPP. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Endorsing both Amorymeltzer and DeltaQuad's comments. The 500/90 rule was adopted to prevent totally inappropriate requests, but also so that at least the RfC to create the user right stood a chance of passing. Thus 500/90 is not a passport for immediately obtaining the right. I have worked at PERM for years and created this user right; while other admins come and go, I find that there is generally fairly good consistency among the admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I've been a Wikipedia editor for while now and would like to expand my work and start tackling the large backlog of new articles. 9H48F (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done Not familiar with deletion process (No CSD, AFD all after request) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Nihar POPS

Fairly active recently. I think I have a decent track record of being civil and working with other editors. I should have over 1,000+ edits. I create an article every now and then. I believe articles should be well-sourced. I have read the rules/guidelines, and I believe I can abide by them.--Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


Re-applying after nearly two months. Have been active on Wikipedia since 2008 (mostly as an IP in the past and more recently with this account I created some years ago). Have been involved in page creation, modifying main space articles, including moving pages, counter vandalism and disruptive editing. Looking to expand contributions and interested in new page reviewing, particularly those related to extended biomedical field, biographies of notable scientists, etc. It would be lovely to help with marking new pages as reviewed when they are notable and not candidates for deletion as I monitor the new pages feed. Spyder212 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 00:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If your monitoring the new pages feed, why have we only seen 2 CSD requests in 2019? Also, New page reviewing is not something to just dive into, as it requires a specific skillset, one which has yet to be shown here. With no AFC/Draft space expirience, I'm going to say Not done. My recommendation is work with PCR for now, eventually go for rollback, then dab into AFC/CSD, then come here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Part of my anti-vandalism work, I frequently patrol new pages. Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I have been helping with AFC's backlog and I have also being patrolling through new pages. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover

User:Iveagh Gardens

I would like to propose myself for page mover rights. This would have been useful for a recent change after a discussion on the relevant talk page on which version of duplicate pages to keep. I requested a deletion of the version of the page I had created, so that the other could be renamed to that space, where a swap would have been the easier route. This discussion itself showed a familiarity with the move process, as I referenced a previous move proposal in which I had been outvoted at Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2002#Requested move 19 December 2017. I have also previously proposed moves which have been accepted, such as at Talk:Athlone–Longford (Dáil constituency) and Talk:Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1958#Requested move 22 August 2018. I also participated in Wikipedia-wide naming convention discussions, see at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)/Archive 2#For articles relating to the holding of nationwide elections in a specific part of a country. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 DoneEdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I have been closing discussions at WP:RM, however as many of the destinations are occupied, there are many discussions that I cannot close. The page mover right would allow me to close more of the discussions. Danski454 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: @Danski454: Is there any reason why you're not relisting some of the things you're closing? This and this had only one participant each. Usually we want to relist them in those situations. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at the no minimum participation is required bit of WP:RMCI, although, thinking about it again, that may only apply after a relisting. Danski454 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


I'm applying for the page mover user right, primarily for technical moves in geography topics in line with naming conventions such as WP:NCRIVER. I'm an experienced editor, familiar with WP:Requested moves, and would not use page mover rights for possibly controversial moves. Markussep Talk 07:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Markussep, is there a reason you would need to suppress the creation of a redirect in these circumstances? Primefac (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, for round robin moves. Often the logical target is occupied by a redirect with history, see for instance Someșul Mare and Crișul Repede. Usually the only reason these redirects have history is that the incorrect diacritic ş was replaced by ș some years ago in Wikipedia for Romanian language names. Markussep Talk 05:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done Primefac (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I requested this user right a while back in this diff but was denied on the basis that I seldom performed subpage moves, which is what I requested the right for, or made technical move requests. I hadn't considered the instances when I needed to move a page to a title which is blocked by a redirect with a nontrivial history when I requested this the last time. In any event, I'm requesting it this time since I need to move many pages that are blocked by redirects (either as a round robin page move if this right is granted, or a technical move request if not):
  • SLC14A2Urea transporter 2
  • SLC14A1Urea transporter 1
  • SLC32A1Vesicular inhibitory amino acid transporter
  • SGLT2Sodium/glucose cotransporter 2
  • SLC1A1Excitatory amino acid transporter 3
  • SLC1A2Excitatory amino acid transporter 2
  • Glutamate aspartate transporterExcitatory amino acid transporter 1 (the reason for these moves is MOS:MCB and the targets are their UniProt names)
FWIW, it also would've been helpful to have this user right in the past when I created redirect pages containing a typo for which I subsequently had to request speedy deletion (e.g., dynavel vs dyanavel, reuptake inhibiton vs reuptake inhibition, etc.); I tend to create a lot of redirects, so having the capacity to move a page while suppressing a redirect would probably be useful when it happens again.

Edit: after looking at my page move log, I remembered that there were several other instances where redirect suppression would've been useful option to have (most of these are Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page moves and corrections to moves to the wrong namespace): academic doping, Talk:Academic doping, User:Eoxin, User talk:Eoxin, Talk:Effects of MDMA on the human body, Diabetes and testosterone, Talk:Diabetes and testosterone, User:Template:Phenylalanine biosynthesis, Talk:Hypericum perforatum/archive 1, and Taar4, as well as a handful of moves from pages in my userspace for which I subsequently requested deletion to the article or template namespaces.
Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: I'm pinging you as a courtesy since you denied my prior request. Seppi333 (Insert ) 10:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I would support giving the page mover permission to Seppi333, but would like to hear from User:Primefac. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I find it's always easier to review an applicant when they do the majority of the work in finding diffs and making a good explanation. At the time I declined the last request, I did not see enough to merit the right, but there seems to be a reasonable need now. I have no strong opposition. Primefac (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done – Thanks to User:Primefac for the follow-up. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer


I would like to request for the pending changes reviewer user right. I have been reverting vandalism for the past few months. I currently have rollback rights. Having this right would allow me to expand on what I currently do and determine whether the pending changes are reasonable. I have read WP:RPC multiple times so that I understand how I can and cannot use this right. I appreciate your consideration. Mstrojny (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done CVU course graduate, good track record and evidence of asking for help when needed. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Wing gundam

I've been editing Wikipedia for about a decade, and I'd like to help with the pending changes backlog. I believe I have an appropriate grasp of the general criteria (re. examining for obvious vandalism, copyright infringement, copy-pastes, threats, libel, BLP issues, etc). Thank you. —wing gundam 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Given you only have some 200 edits in the past two years, I had to go a bit back, but I find this edit extremely concerning, especially given you did not respond to an inquiry about it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wing gundam: Direct ping to make sure user is aware of comment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the direct ping. I did respond at first but I never saw Marbe166's second post. I've replied again, "Wasn't me. I can only speculate it was made from one of my computers left unattended (unlikely but possible), or else from a login session I left active somewhere (very unlikely, but possible). Thank you for catching it!"
I would guess the former, but I genuinely have no idea. It was done without my permission, it's the extreme outlier among my edits, and I'm glad it was noticed and fixed. —wing gundam 20:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wing gundam: What have you done to increase your account security since that incident if you didn't make the edit? As a holder of advanced permissions, people can cause a lot more damage with your account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


I've edited on here for five years, have been editing more often lately (though I do have a good track record over the past years), understand that malicious, inappropriate, attacking, bad-faith edits are vandalism and that edit warring, while inappropriate, is not vandalism because it is good faith. I am familiar with BLP, it's necessary so that defamatory, incorrect statements aren't added onto articles. Wikipedia needs a neutral point of view so articles stay unbiased. Original research is inappropriate because it can be unverifiable and reliable sources are required. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not censored, a forum, or a collection of trivial information. Copyrighted material should be avoided unless its in fair use, but free material is preferred. I have read the reviewing policy, and I feel I am qualified to hold this right. I have occasionally reverted vandalism when I have seen it, and I feel that this will give me something to do here to help out on Wikipedia. It'll make me more knowledgeable as well, because I will be reviewing revisions of articles on many topics, learning about them, and seeing if it qualifies to be accepted and published. Thank you so much for considering my offering of services. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide a brief summary of what happened with this block? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: Somewhat long story so please bear with me: Back in 2010, at the age of nine, I created an account, called Pixiemasters (now renamed to obscurity here, see the talk page for information: {1} ). I repeatedly attempted making BLP pages that weren't bad-faith or vandalism, but rather incomplete, nonsense, and incoherent (For instance, an entire article would go "Jane Doe (born ) is"). I got indef blocked by Materialscientist, and at the time, my young immature self couldn't understand what was being asked of me to get unblocked, and then in the middle of 2012 talk access was revoked for a year. A year later, when I felt I had matured and met WP:CIR, I made an unblock request after the access was restored, but my talk page access was almost instantly revoked again by Beeblebrox, that time indefinitely. Eventually, in April 2014, I created this account in an act of block evasion so I could improperly WP:CLEANSTART, because I was desperate to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Over time, I began growing up more and maturing more and more, and by the time I entered high school a year later in 2015, I was beginning to become tired of editing dishonestly. I was happy to make good contributions to Wikipedia, but was unhappy at how I got that account. For 3 more years, though, I didn't confess, because I was afraid to get blocked again, at the time believing that no mercy would be shown. Eventually, at the beginning of my senior year in August 2018, I decided that it was time for me to come clean, realizing that Wikipedia listens to reasoning and assumes good faith. I admitted to my sins over at the Teahouse (link to the exchange on August 19 here, at the bottom of the page under the section "Question regarding handling of past behavior: {2}"). Teahouse host Cullen328 blocked this account following my confession, and restored talk page access on Pixiemasters for me to appeal. (Jim [aka Cullen] and I have since formed a friendship). I logged on there and made my appeal (refer to Vanished User talk page linked at the beginning of this paragraph). There, after community consensus was requested by Cullen via the Admin Noticeboard, I managed to earn near-unanimous support for an unblock on this account, with the reasoning that at this point, CIR has been long met and that a block would be purely punitive and not preventative of the actions I made when I was nine years old. Pixiemasters was renamed to obscurity, and I was allowed to continue on this account once it was unblocked by Cyberpower678. As you can see in the block log, Cyberpower put the reason for unblock as "Block evasion forgiven per community consensus". Now, I will be 18 years of age in a week. That's what happened with that block. I hope my childhood past won't bite me when it comes to applying for Reviewer status here on Wikipedia. At least I'm applying for it after this fact and not before the confession, as I am presenting myself as myself and not hiding my past. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It is true that I have had a few friendly interchanges with DrewieStewie. I have learned more about him and wish him the best. He lives fairly near where my family lives. I believe that it is very likely that this editor has abandoned disruptive behavior and is here now to build the encyclopedia. I hope so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Jim, thank you for your comment, apologies in case I disrupted your schedule or Wikisession at all bringing you here. Elaborating on what he said, I have always shunned vandalizing behavior, and refraining from disruptive behavior is a strong conviction of mine. This account has never been intended for that, and while I made an uncivil speech at Village Pump before (which I extremely regret, I wasn't in a great mood at all when I typed that, I instantly apologized and have refrained from doing such a thing ever since), I have a great track record on here, and most of my edits have come on pages in the pro wrestling Wikiproject. I'm not exclusive there though, as I do edit on other articles and other Wiki pages too. The help and support I have received from fellow Wikipedians has been highly uplifting, and because of them I am interested in expanding my role further and doing more for Wikipedia, and I feel that this will give me something more to do. I feel I have made enough necessary edits, vandal protection to an extent, and been on long enough to qualify for this right. If you choose to grant the permission, great, thanks! If not, then I understand and will come back when you feel I would be ready to. Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I haven't got the energy to dive into this tonight, and any other admin can feel free to review in the meantime. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi there. I've been running into issues with pending changes over at Mueller Report and I'd like to help reduce the backlog. I currently have extendedconfirmed and rollbacker rights and have been editing at Wikipedia for quite some time. I'm generally familliar with the required guidelines/policies and I'm confident I can use the new permission to benefit the project. Thanks.  - PaulT+/C 01:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I am requesting the reviewer flag to help revert vandalism. I currently use Huggle and Twinkle to revert vandalism. I have a righteous understanding in what is vandalism and what is not, shown by the CV patrolling, and the rollback rights. I use the AIV noticeboard (and others) correctly, and I feel like I can use this flag to benefit the encyclopedia. Gangster8192 02:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I would like to contribute to the community by being able to approve or help improve suggested changes to protected articles. I've found that grabbing random diffs from 'recent changes' has been too rapid fire for my taste, and the orderly submitted que of 'pending changes' will be a good fit for me to review the changes in a timely fashion. The vast majority of my edits have been for Typo Team/moss thus far, but that has still exposed me to the various types of issues I'm likely to see with this permission. Thank you for the consideration. Elfabet (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe i'm reading them wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned about your level of tact in this edit summary and these two edits. Considering your in a vandalism reverting job, facing new comers, is there any reassurance you can give about how you will handle new users after declining their edit? (Please note, i'm not at the point of declining it, and this seems like a minor point, but leaves me queasy nonetheless.) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


I will like to have pending changes permissions because I am currently a very-large contributor at Mueller Report and since unregistered users from time to time make edits, it impedes other edits from registered users going through. Another reason is that I revert vandalism if I want to go on vandalism patrol and it would be nice to regulate and monitor pending changes and such. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies among other things. Thank you. Aviartm (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)



I occasionally stumble on articles where it would be convenient to rollback rather than revert each edit manually. I am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and believe i can differentiate between vandalism and good edits. I hope to be of help to the community with this right. Lapablo (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done No measurable track record of counter-vandalism. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:EDG 543

EDG 543 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)

I think this would be a helpful feature to have at my disposal and I believe I meet the qualifications. I have 1350-ish edits.-EDG 543 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done No measurable track record of counter-vandalism. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Gronk Oz

I have been using Twinkle for a couple of years to manage occasional vandalism when I come across it, which includes some limited Rollback-like functions. It would be more efficient to have official Rollback permission. I am not sure what information I can give you to help in your deliberations: I have over 20,000 mainspace edits over more than 5 years, never been blocked, used several tools with no problems (Twinkle, AWB, Refill). If there is anything you want to know, please ask. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done Yes, you do have over 20k mainspace edits, but 66% of your edits are automated, and only 0.6% or 148 edits are reverts. When I your reverting I don't see any track record where I can establish you've been fighting vandalism. Also most of your recent twinkle edits are page tagging, which is not vandalism reverting, so I'm struggling to find the track record. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for taking the time to explain your reasons. Smile.gif --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Template editor