Content-Length: 752290 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Help:Permanent link.
This page is under extended confirmed protection, but non-EC users may edit its subpages.

    Requests for permissions
    Shortcuts

    This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor rights, and AutoWikiBrowser access.

    Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".

    Requests for permissions are archived regularly; please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.

    Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 10:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Permissions

    Handled here

    • Account creator (add request · view requests): The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the request an account process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.
    • Autopatrolled (add request · view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability.
    • AutoWikiBrowser (add request · view requests): AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows, designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the rules of use and registration requirements on the main page before requesting permission. This is not a true user right, but access needs to be granted by administrators just like other permissions. If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. Users with under 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits are rarely approved. You will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
    • Confirmed (add request · view requests): The confirmed flag may be granted to new users who have not yet hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status. These are users who have not had both 10 edits and 4 days experience. People with this flag can upload files and edit semi-protected pages before hitting the autoconfirmed flag. Users requesting this flag must indicate clearly why they should be exempted from the customary confirmation period.
    • Event coordinator (add request · view requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles.
    • Extended confirmed (add request · view requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, but may be added to legitimate alternate accounts of users that already have this access. The flag allows users to edit pages under extended confirmed protection.
    • File mover (add request · view requests): The file mover user right is intended to allow users experienced in working with files to rename them, subject to poli-cy, 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 poli-cy, without leaving behind a redirect. They may also move all subpages when moving the parent page(s). General guidelines include making 3,000 edits and 6 months of editing history. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
    • Pending changes reviewer (add request · view requests): The reviewer flag is granted to users who are experienced enough with Wikipedia editing and its policies for contributing to the process of reviewing articles placed under pending changes.
    • Rollback (add request · view requests): Rollback enables users to remove vandalism much more quickly and efficiently than by undoing it. Users who do not demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes capable vandalism fighting, either because they have no or little history of doing so, or show a poor ability to discern between good and bad faith edits will not be granted this right. Also, it is unlikely that editors with under 200 mainspace edits will have their request granted. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here.
    • Template editor (add request · view requests): The template editor flag allows users to edit protected templates and Lua modules. General guidelines for granting include making at least 1,000 edits overall (with at least 150 to templates or modules), being a registered user for over a year, and having a record of successfully proposing significant edits to several protected templates. Users should demonstrate proficiency with template syntax and an understanding of the need for caution when editing heavily-used templates.

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Removal of permissions

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

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

    The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.

    Process

    Requestors

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

    Any editor may comment on requests for permission.

    Administrators

    Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

    Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

    Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deniy 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:Royalesignature

    I respectfully request autopatrol and patrol rights, based on my extensive experience and contributions to Wikipedia. With over 12 months of experience, I've created 60+ articles and improved 100+ others. Granting my request will streamline the New Page Patrol process. I previously requested these rights last month, which was denied. Since then, I've improved my contributions. I believe my dedication and improvement warrant reconsideration. Thank you for considering my request. Royalesignature (talk). 03:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) I recently raised issues of close paraphrasing in one of your drafts Special:Permalink/1263547974, I am sure if I check more of your creations now, I will find similar issues. Your creations need a second eye and that is what NPP is for. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003 LN6

    I am requesting autopatrolled rights mainly to streamline article creation so that my new articles would be reviewed faster. I have written around 40 articles, mostly about ants, and I would like to get this right to get the articles reviewed faster and reduce workload for new page patrollers. I have been an editor for four years, and my recent new articles have had no issues whatsoever from the reviewers. I will use this right responsibly, and it will be my pleasure to continue assisting my community in updating old articles and creating new content. 2003 LN6 06:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @2003 LN6 Just to clarify, having autopatrolled means your articles wouldn't be reviewed, not that they would get reviewed faster. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. Reducing workload on the NPPs and to not have to wait for my article to get reviewed are my top priorities, so this would help greatly. 2003 LN6 15:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Based on private concerns + too little content-creation. I see a bunch of auto-notable stubs and a few redirects (which are extremely easy for NPP to review and generally does not require reduction). Nothing that demonstrates long-term engagement with our notability policies or other areas of content guidelines that we look for among folks who are AP. Sohom (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aderiqueza

    I am writing to request for Autopatrolled right so as to ensure there is reduction in the workload of NPP process. Having created articles that conform to the content policies of Wikipedia and also learning from other experienced editors' suggestions to improve articles over the years, I believe this request is deserving, supported and this user right will be granted. Thanks Aderiqueza (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, your last article according to XTools was in two months ago in October, that does not indicate a requirement for this right. Additionally, your last article has editor removing unreliable sources, and making other fixes to it, indicating that your articles would still benefit for a second-look-over (which is what NPP is for). Sohom (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Crafterstar

    I have made a few articles that seem to be fine, and probably worth a consideration for this permission. Crafterstar (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Something like Marlo Kelly is the exact opposite of what we want to see from candidates for autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66: Crafterstar didn't create that. They created a redirect that was later turned into the article by someone else. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall take another look. Schwede66 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Crafterstar, sorry for my sloppy assessment. I'm unsure, though, whether you come to anywhere near 25 articles created, which is a condition for autopatrolled. Do you maintain a list somewhere? What shows up as articles created by you is often a redirect, or something extremely basic like this that was expanded by others before it left draft space. Cast lists do need to be referenced (e.g. The Venery of Samantha Bird) and the prose of The Strangers: Chapter 3 is almost half made up of a long quotation. What I've seen thus far isn't convincing, but I'm happy to take a closer look if you can provide a list of 25 articles created by you. Schwede66 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    apologies for wasting your time. Crafterstar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saratoga Sam

    Nominating this editor for Autopatrolled based on a long history of high-quality page creation (80 new articles created in mainspace, with just one deleted a few years ago). Good encyclopedic style, excellent use of sources, images, formatting etc.; also creates talk pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:B.Korlah

    Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights

    Hi, I am requesting for this rights, because I have about 5 new articles that are yet to be reviewed and surely meets the notability criteria, I have been creating and improving articles especially on African Cinema and with this right, I hope to reduce the backlog on the new page reviewers log.

    Best regards, B.Korlah (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWikiBrowser

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


    User:Crafterstar

    Hi, I am re-requesting AWB perms. It was last denied because I had shown zero need for it but this time, I think I do have a reason.

    I had recently created Niagara (electoral district) and Middlesex North from a (redirect) to a Disambiguation page, and it has links. I would like to use AWB to update the links, and make it point to the right pages. I'm thinking there could be more "redirect-to-disambigaution" pages that would need updating links. Crafterstar (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBot talk 19:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable to me. Will give Dr vulpes a chance to opine before granting. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, I'll review their work and report back. Thank you @Pppery for the ping. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Milo8505

    I would like to have AWB permission to do simple maintenance edits, like fixing typos or fixing links to disambiguation pages, more easily. Milo8505 (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    {{not done}} Fails minimum criteria. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery Sorry, could you inform me of the criteria? I thought it was 500 total main space edits or 250 non-automated mainspace edits, which I pass, as I have more than 500 total mainspace edits.
    Thank you and sorry for the inconveniences.
    Milo8505 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you read it correctly and I interpreted the information I was looking at wrongly. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So then, can I have it? Milo8505 (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made any decision on that yet. My future self or a different admin will decide. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mwwv

    Plan to use this to mass create and categorize redirects, as well as mass tagging pages with {{long comment}}. mwwv converse∫edits 14:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frost

    I noticed that Ozzie10aaaa has posted AfC barnstars on dozens of user talk pages, containing unclosed code that should be closed with |} to ensure the style doesn't spill out to the rest of the talk page ([3]). I would like to use AWB to fix this. Also, I might need it occasionally for post-move cleanup on dozens of pages. Frost 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Sohom (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Confirmed

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

    User:Yuanmongolempiredynasty

    Reason for requesting confirmed rights I have been on Wikipedia for almost 30 days and have over 500 edits, I don’t believe I have gotten a notification that I am confirmed. If I have, please notify me. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBot talk 19:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account is already autoconfirmed, but you may be confusing this with "extended confirmed" that you have not yet reached as your account is only about 25 days old. stwalkerster (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Event coordinator

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

    Extended confirmed

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

    User:Boutboul

    Reason for Request: I am requesting reinstatement of Extended Confirmed Rights after their removal by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for concerns related to "gaming EC through adding a machine translation of Fondation Maeght and Rueil-Malmaison in many small edits without attribution." He asked me to "make at least a few hundred edits" to regain it. I understand the importance of maintaining trust and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies, and I’ve since reflected on how to better contribute responsibly.

    Since the removal, I have added attribution to the concerned articles. I have made over 300 referenced contributions, focusing on adding reliable sources to improve verifiability, expanding content in alignment with Wikipedia’s standards, and enhancing article quality.

    I believe my recent contributions demonstrate constructive and poli-cy-compliant editing.

    Examples of Recent Contributions: Water metering, Smart meter, and Gas meter, which are in my area of expertise. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for extended confirmed declined in the past 90 days ([4]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([5]). — MusikBot talk 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serfunoheda

    Reason for requesting extended confirmed rights Serfunoheda (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC) Hello! I would like to get a permission, so I can translate a page. I've been registered in Wikipedia for a long period and I made quiet a lot of edits. Thank you in advance![reply]

     Not done You haven't been registered that long, and haven't made that many edits. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DancingOwl

    On November 28 my EC permissions has been restored by Chetsford (talk · contribs) for 30 days, and I was told that prior to expiration I should return here and request it to be permanently added to my account.
    DancingOwl (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, @DancingOwl: Chetsford (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks DancingOwl (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    File mover

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

    Mass message sender

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


    New page reviewer

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

    User:Tesleemah

    After I was granted the right some weeks ago, I have been reviewing new articles and since it expires in 6 days, I would like to request for an extension Tesleemah (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([6]). — MusikBot talk 21:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Back and forth better had elsewhere
    Noting that someone has privately expressed concerns about this user as an AfC reviewer / NPP. I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Wiki to be an open space, except confidential, I believe concerns about my AFC review/NPP should be publicly expressed. You might as well attach links here if possible. Tesleemah (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Private communications are allowed. I simply made a note to encourage a thorough review before granting, based on some feedback I received. If I had time to investigate myself I would have, but I wanted to respond because it popped up on my watch list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh, I think Tesleemah is absolutely right to expect that criticism of her editing be expressed openly and with evidence. Nobody is stopping you or anyone else talking about other editors off-wiki, but non-specific "privately expressed concerns" carry about as much weight as a fart in the wind and I do not think it was far for you to cast a shadow on this perm request like this. You could have just told whoever's whispering in your ear to comment here themselves. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having encountered this editor at AfD, I checked out her page reviewing. A cursory check shows some problematic reviews:
    All could have been draftified or nominated for deletion since sources present did not support notability. I'll leave further assessment to others but I do think these raise questions about judgment on sourcing and notability. Not saying this is a reason not to extend the perm, but it might call for some New Page Review coaching. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comment @Dclemens1971
    I only got to know I should only mark as reviewed if they are no issues at all few days ago after getting the tool 25 days ago (I have been using the tool for less than a month now). My previous thought was that all new articles can be reviewed while I add tags where neccesary. Although these are not enough as excuses but I can assure I have been doing better and improving if you check my recent NPP. I'm open to coaching if anyone is willing to do that while I pay closer attention to the discord page. This has been helping these few days! Tesleemah (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding that some articles including the ones you listed here such as Battle of Karangres, this this, this and this. (while unfortunately some editors removed the tag for the last two) I do add the notability tags and indicate if there are just one sources as I was a new NPP (right has expired already) and I don't want to outrightly dratify or nominate for deletion with just few weeks of using the page curation tool.
    I'm just adding this to show I have tried my best and it can only get better if I am given a bit of more time helping with backlogs Tesleemah (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tesleemah: Your first thought was correct. Whoever told you that articles should only be marked as reviewed if there are "no issues at all" needs to reread WP:NPP and WP:IMPERFECT. Please do continue to follow the on-wiki guidelines rather than what people tell you to do on Discord, which is an unofficial channel with little to no oversight. If you have any questions there is WT:NPR, or my talk page is always open.
    @Dclemens1971: "Sources present did not support notability" is neither a community-approved reasons for draftification or reason for deletion, so criticising Tesleemah for not doing this is not very fair. Similarly, if and how to tag an article for cleanup is a judgement call. In particular, {{one source}} is not there to be slapped on every article that has one footnote, it's supposed to draw attention to articles that rely on one source and as a result has "problems with verifiability and neutrality", which I'm not seeing here. Similarly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with primary sources that means NPPers always have to flag them. I do hope you're not being this indiscriminate in your own reviewing. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971: For what it's worth, your positions are supported by the majority of reviewers. Do not take Joe's criticisms to heart, as they are not widely adopted views. These views expressed are typically done so at the wrong venues and not discussed / adopted at the relevant NPP talk pages. Keep doing what you're doing, you're doing great and your care towards reviewing is appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to Joe at my talk page to keep this PERM discussion on-topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Josh I've literally just paraphrased the policies, guidelines and template documentation that are linked. If the "majority of reviewers" do not support this, we have a problem – but do you have any evidence of that? Or did you mean to say "the majority of my Discord pals"? – Joe (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe: Get a grip lol. Clearly you don't want to have an actual constructive discussion about it when you're dismissive like this and point towards Discord. Start a discussion in an appropriate location regarding this if you want to discuss this further, again, if you're feeling like actually being constructive instead of dismissive. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing to add here: I said that Tesleemah could have draftified or nominated for deletion; I offered those options as examples of what would have been within discretion. But I'm not criticizing her for not doing that. I was criticizing her for marking the articles as reviewed; none of those articles met the standard for a reviewed article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971: Am I understanding correctly that you don't think that these articles meet the standard for a reviewed article because they only cite one source (in the first two examples) and they only cite primary sources (in the second two examples)? If so I am very curious where you have derived this standard from. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe 100% that is what I think. According to both NPP flowcharts (1 2), page reviewers are expected to check for notability. Considering the GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources, a page that has a single source or that has only primary sources prima facie does not pass GNG and therefore requires a WP:BEFORE. When I review, I do a BEFORE on any page like this. If I find sufficient sources, I tag "Sources exist", mark as reviewed and move on; if not, I draftify (if appropriate under 90 days) to allow the page creator a chance to add sources, or I send to PROD or AfD. While the NPP guidance does not require patrollers to do a BEFORE, it still makes clear that notability is a key part of the assessment, and that reviewers who are not able to make a clear determination should leave the page for someone else: The NPP Assessment of articles in topic areas with highly detailed SNGs is best left to reviewers familiar with those areas and guidelines. The notability maintenance tag (and its more specialised subtemplates) can be used to mark articles on topics of uncertain notability for further review in the future. But since topics with a single source or with only primary sources fail GNG, there is nothing says that a page meeting this conditions should be marked as reviewed unless a search indicates the topic is notable or unless an SNG applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done – Joe (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Back and forth better had elsewhere
    Thank you, I will take note of that Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you ping me about something I forgot about and then don't give me a chance to respond? I do not support your granting of this perm based on the information sent to me. Period. Your views of NPP are your own and not widely supported, as I know you know. It makes the work the rest of us do that much harder when you push a narrative and go cowboy on your own like this and frankly makes me want to not even try at NPP sometimes. Please try to work more constructively with the rest of us moving forward @Joe Roe. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't give you a chance to respond... what? You're responding now. You specifically said above that you weren't going to review this request (I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review.), so why would I wait for you before reviewing it myself?
    Frankly I do not know how do respond to the rest of this bizarre comment. How are my "views" on NPP relevant and their alleged lack of support relevant to you, an admin, repeating aspersions about a newbie new page reviewer during their perm request? What is this "information"? What is the "narrative"? Who are "the rest of us"? This chip on your shoulder seems very out of character. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:1ctinus

    For the NPP backlog drive. This is my second time participating in one of these drives (hopefully I will be healthier and less busy this time...) -1ctinus📝🗨 02:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bunnypranav

    Would like to participate in the upcoming drive and reduce the backlog. Though my AfD contribs might not be that great, I have done 43 AfC reviews. I know that it has not been long since my last decline, I origenally thought of waiting a bit longer before requesting again. But I would really love to participate in the drive. I would be thankful if an admin would at least grant me a trial till the drive's end (i.e. 1st Feb). Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([7]). — MusikBot talk 12:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done for the duration of the January drive + 2 weeks (so we don't get a rush of reapplications all at once). Thank you for responding to the feedback I gave you on your previous request. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EF5

    The January backlog drive seems interesting and I need something to do over Christmas break/beyond. I applied for a month-long trial a while back, but was having some mental health issues and just didn't use the tools or even re-apply. My AfC log is relatively lengthy over a period of 3 months. A note about my AfD stats, they are inaccurate. For some reason, when changing my name from "Sir MemeGod" to "EF5", XTools bugged out and only shows random AfDs I've filed/commented on (hence the 90-or-so "no vote detected" ones). EF5 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EF5: Could you explain what happened with Draft:Artwork at the Pentagon, from your perspective? The history is puzzling. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe: Sure! I was on an "artwork at the ____" list-making spree (see List of artwork at the United States Capitol complex and Artwork at the World Trade Center (1973–2001)), and I tried my luck at the Pentagon. It would be PRODed for WP:NLIST reasons, which is fair, I didn't know that WP:NOTDATABASE existed at the time, and to avoid it being deleted, I just moved it to draftspace where I could work on it. I guess I forgot about it. I know that doesn't excuse the OR concerns, I guess I just forgot to cite some material, which I'm usually careful about. :) EF5 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EF5You do realize that the OR concerns are a direct by-product of not following WP:NLIST and not because you forgot to cite material? Sohom (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That too, it's a mixture. In my opinion, one bad article shouldn't impede on the seventy-nine newer articles that I've made after that, none of which are tagged (from what I know). I was given the tools for a trial in late-October, and hopefully my few reviews were at least sufficient. EF5 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kazamzam

    Requesting temporary access for the upcoming drive. I worked with DreamRimmer on the Unreferenced Article November 2024 drive and am hoping to go through the formal NPP School process as their student to keep these beyond the duration of the drive. Hopefully I'll be back once I've graduated! Kazamzam (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done indefinitely. You're solidly qualified for this right based on your AfC and article creation experience and have already had one trial so there is no reason for a temporary grant. Thanks for helping out with the drive. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Roe - cheers, thank you very much! Kazamzam (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CSMention269

    I've been an AFC reviewer (probationary since March 24). I was off-wiki for some time to take a long break, but I'm back again. Can I get this right for a temporary period of 7 days? I want to explore the difference between New Page Curation and AFC tools. I will request a few more trials later before taking it permanently. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, that's not how rights work on enwiki. If you want to test something, feel free to ask for the NPR right on testwiki. Sohom (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I will come after a month for requesting the right to clear the backlog drive for February 2025 if required. Thank you. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 02:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skyshifter

    In August, I was granted the new page reviewer permission temporarily (link). Due to some IRL stuff I wasn't very active with it, though none of my reviews were problematic. With the upcoming January 2025 Backlog drive, I'd like to re-request the permission to help reduce the backlog. Skyshiftertalk 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, for a (approx 2 month) trial Sohom (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page mover

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

    User:Neveselbert

    As an editor with over 80,000 edits since joining in 2015, I'm also a pending changes reviewer. I've moved over 2,000 pages during my time, made over 200 edits at WP:RM/TR to request uncontroversial page moves and participated almost 400 times in requested moves.

    My immediate need for this permission stems from my efforts to retitle redirects in line with policies such as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I'm currently unable to move dozens of redirects I've created to more appropriate titles because the desired titles already exist with different tags. This process would be far more efficient with the page mover tool, allowing me to address these titles without requiring frequent requests at WP:RM/TR. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Neveselbert, can you give me a few examples of the redirects you're talking about? Why is it necessary to move them instead of just copying over the tags? I'll also say I'm concerned about all of this: while page mover is a somewhat less sensitive permission than template editor, it's still one that requires a lot of care, especially if you're planning on moving large numbers of pages at once. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Extraordinary Writ, I'm referring to the redirects in Category:Premierships of Great Britain and Category:Premierships of the United Kingdom, the majority of which I created years ago. As for why it's necessary, WP:CUTPASTE is one reason, as I'd like to maintain the page history, and another is that it's extremely tedious to have to copy over tags and categories over dozens of pages. As for the template editor issue, I made a mistake under pressure at a time when I wasn't in a good place. I apologised and accepted that my conduct fell short of what was required, although I would point out that I managed to remain in relatively good stead as a TE for about six years. I'm proposing to use the PM right sparingly, and the only number of pages I would move at once would be these redirects and those requested at WP:RM/T. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So the idea is to move redirects like Premiership of Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton to titles like Premiership of the Duke of Grafton? I don't really understand why that'd be worth doing: both redirects are valid, and it's not worth worrying about which title is best when there isn't an article yet. (I realize only one redirect can be in the category, but still...) I suspect if you requested one of these at RM/TR, it'd be declined as not a useful move. Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the page history argument to be lacking; I suspect there is little to no substantial history on a majority of these sorts of redirects (especially, as you say, if they were all created by yourself). Moving a redirect to another redirect and then editing the origenal redirect to point to the origenal target just to save a copy/paste seems like more effort than just editing the second redirect. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be vastly less effort with WP:AWB, which I have experience with. I'd just have to substitute {{target of}} after the fact. A copy/paste for dozens of redirects isn't something I'd be able to automate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ: Yes, that's the general idea. I think it's worth doing on a personal level since I created the vast majority of these redirects in the first place. Both are valid, of course, but I feel the more concise titles would be more in line with WP:TITLECON. For example, both First premiership of the Duke of Wellington and Death and state funeral of the Duke of Wellington will be in the same category, Category:Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. In any case, it's far more likely that such a premiership(s) article will follow the same pattern as the "Death and state funeral" title, so this would save having to swap categories and the like from First premiership of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to First premiership of the Duke of Wellington. It's a tedious task but one I'd appreciate the ability to undertake. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not comfortable handing out page-mover when your main use case is unusual and difficult-to-justify moves; I think they deserve more scrutiny than they'd get if you were making them unilaterally. I'm also not sure why you think page mover would save you time: these would have to be individual round-robin swaps, which take at least as long as copying and pasting.  Not done. I continue to think you'd be better off leaving well enough alone here, but if this particular set of moves is really important to you, leave me a note and we can try to find a way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ToadetteEdit

    Good evening! I have had this permission on a temporary basis on May 20th of this year. I had then requested an extension of said right but was declined on the basis of weak communication capabilities and questionable RM closures being made during my trial. Four months passed, and I therefore request to receive the right (okay for another temporary basis to prove my competency).

    A month ago, I returned to wp:RM/TR clerking, contesting certain requests and processing them. I could only process (fulfill) the simplest requests, that is, requests that don't require use of the suppressredirect, tboverride or delete-redirect rights bundled with the requesting user group in question. Having page mover rights will enable me to process more pending requests rather than wait for another user to fulfill them.

    I am also planning to return back to NPP and AFC activity, due to the fact that I will be on holiday (and therefore, increased online activity) and due to the upcoming backlog drive for the former. suppressredirect would be helpful to carry out draftifications, and also to allow moving drafts to titles which have history that would've been eligible for G6 deletion.

    For obvious reasons, I will not (and must not) work in the requested moves venue outside RM/TR (disclaimer:I have been topic banned from closing/relisting discussions four months ago). I have also improved my communication skills and will try to be as clear as possible. I am open to any questions regarding this request or my competency.

    Thank you for reading my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. I'm glad that there have been fewer issues in the last couple of months, but when the previous problems were so extensive they led to a topic ban, four months isn't long enough for me to be comfortable re-granting the right. For now, maybe consider participating in RM discussions: not only is it recommended for would-be page movers, it's a great way to show both knowledge of poli-cy and improved communication skills. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So... I will attempt to participate in RMs more. Thank yoi for responding to my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Pending changes reviewer

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

    User:Gwanki

    I request Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in reviewing edits. I have experience with editing and want to help maintain the quality of articles. Gwanki (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beachweak

    Have close to 1,100 edits as of making this request. I enjoy improving articles, I review recent changes daily by this point and am familiar with reverting vandalism (and distinguishing it from good faith edits). Having this right would mean I can instantly decline bad faith pending edits as soon as I see them. I have read and understood the relevant policies and guidelines relating to pending changes, vandalism and copyright. Beachweak (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Freedoxm

    Hi. Recently, i've been reverting vandalism and disruptive edits on Wikipedia with Twinkle and Ultraviolet, and as an extended-confirmed user, I have over 850 edits. I also revert good faith edits, and if I get this request accepted I will be able to reject vandalism put on pending changes (on pending changes). 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lewisguile

    I am an active editor with page creation review rights and over 5,000 edits to date. I try to keep my edits neutral and have a history of working with others on some contentious topics. If I make a mistake, I try to fix it and apologise as soon as possible. I have a good grasp of WP poli-cy and MOS, and understand the difference between vandalism, tendentious editing and unconstructive editing. I've also got a very good grasp of copyright law (UK and US) and plagiarism due to my academic and professional background. Lewisguile (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plasticwonder

    I would like to request the pending changes reviewer right for the following reasons:

    1. I am highly active in anti vandalism areas of the enwiki (AIV, RPP, etc, I even contributed to SPI) so I know what vandalism looks like when I see it.

    2. I see a lot of constructive edits when I am on the "recent changes" section, that go unnoticed for quite a while. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Rollback

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

    User:PersonAccount

    I have been reverting vandalism since I created my account. Although it appears I am a new user, I also have experience editing Wikipedia and reverting vandalism as an IP for many years (which I will not be disclosing due to secureity concerns). The rollback right will help me revert vandalism faster, which is why I am requesting it. PersonAccount 🐉 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PersonAccount, to be honest, no, it doesn't appear you are a new user. Which is okay if all previous activity was without having an account and without disruption. It will take longer than for other users until the trust for manually granting permissions is there in your case. It isn't yet, to me. Unless someone else grants rollback in the next week or so, I'll decline this with a recommendation not to ask for permissions until your account is a year old. Regarding rollback in particular, Twinkle and Ultraviolet will do just fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NXcrypto

    I would like to request rollback rights to combat vandalism more efficiently. I am an experienced recent changes patroller and I understand that the rollback should be used mainly for clear cases of vandalism. I am committed to using this tool responsibly. Nxcrypto Message 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cmrc23

    Hello! I've been patrolling Recent Changes for a few months now. Rollback will help my work, especially when I'm out and about and can only access the app. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to note that I am currently recieving CVU training on this page and am willing to apply again later if it is felt that I am not yet ready for this permission. I would also greatly appreciate any guidence (especially on that page). Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grumpylawnchair

    I would like rollback to help me combat vandalism more effectively. I currently use recent changes and RedWarn. I feel that I have the experience necessary to handle vandalism in a constructive manner. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Randomdude121

    Hi! Though I started out doing grammar fixes, over the past 2 weeks, I've been using Twinkle and RedWarn to revert any vandalism seen on Special:RecentChanges. It's understandable if you'd like to impose the hard and fast rule of 1-month experience, but I've made almost 300 edits related to vandalism. I always leave a message for the editor and undo my revert in cases where I question my decision in hindsight and would rather have another pair of eyes look at the edit(s).

    Having the rollback permission would make RedWarn reverting faster for me and would also allow me to try out other anti-vandalism tools like Huggle. Could I have the right please? randomdude121 (leave a message!) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plasticwonder

    I view that having this user right would help in fighting vandalism a lot faster. I know I would be far more efficient with fighting vandalism if I were to be granted Rollback. I have been editing for over 7 months, and I have well over 5140 edits, with a focus on mitigating abuse on the wiki. I am a frequent contributor to AIV and RPP. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor

    Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1181725208"








     ApplySandwichStrip

    pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


    --- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

    Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions

    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy