Cannabis Ruderalis

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: No errors! Report generated at 12:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Permissions

Handled here

  • 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 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 toolbar. 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.

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

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

Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality.

Current requests

Account creator


Autopatrolled

User:Ppt91

My total page count is 39, with a "clean" page count likely falling below 25. However, I have a consistent record of both creating and substantially contributing to new English articles on topics related to Eastern Europe and Poland, with multiple "thanks" for recent articles received from other users. My total edit count is over 1,600 for 255 pages. I ensure that stubs and start-class articles I create are always supported by verifiable sources and would benefit from having the autopatrolled permission for the substantial amount of articles I plan to add/translate in the near future. Thank you very much for considering my request to grant autopatrolled permissions. Ppt91 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Automated comment This user has created roughly 8 articles.
 Not done As the bot points out, Ppt91, you are a long way away from the threshold. Autopatrolled makes sense only when editors are prolific and all of 8 articles doesn't fit that bill. Having had a very brief look at your last two articles, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with how the categorisation system works (especially, please read Wikipedia:Overcategorization) and also give MOS:DATERANGE a read. Schwede66 01:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MusikBot talk 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


AutoWikiBrowser


User:ScienceAdvisor

Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights: Looking for AWB access to help change ref urls to the new shorter version to avoid dead links. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ScienceAdvisor, could you give an example or two of what you mean? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was working on fixing a company's url links after they moved to a shorter domain but, 1) I found some helped me accomplish the feat much quicker than I thought, and 2) I work off a mac so this might not be viable for me anyway. There were about 2,000 links that needed to be fixed but they are all fixed now.. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done for now. Thanks for the explanation, if you do find yourself wanting/needing this in the future (for something more than just a single URLREQ) you are of course welcome to re-apply (though the Mac thing could be an issue...). Primefac (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Confirmed


Event coordinator


Extended confirmed

User:HackerKnownAs

I have been extensively contributing to 15.ai and reverting the persistent disruptive editing/vandalism on the article for several months, and the vandalism had gotten to the point where I requested that the article be extended-protected, which was granted yesterday. I then realized that I currently only have 250 edits out of the 500 required to be approved as an extended confirmed editor, meaning that I can no longer edit the article myself. I am requesting extended confirmed user access level in order to be able to clean up the article. HackerKnownAs (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done until 19 February Salvio giuliano 12:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrator note @HackerKnownAs: depending on certain counters once this expires it may not reactivate when you naturally qualify for it, if so please just drop a note here at that time. — xaosflux Talk 14:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I will keep this in mind. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Toby3360

I really want to help Wikipedia and be a good editor adding new content citing and stuff! Toby3360 (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done As of this writing, you have made 32 edits, the majority of which were to your own userpage. I think it is fairly clear that you did not take the time to be sure you even know what you are asking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File mover


Mass message sender



New page reviewer

User:Lauriswift911

Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights Lauriswift911 (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 296 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 08:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done due to not meeting the minimum requirements. signed, Rosguill talk 15:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Morekar

I am Morekar, I started contributing to Wikipedia three months ago, not as a job but as a hobby and for the purpose of imparting knowledge on different knowledge subjects of the world through English wikipedia. In the past, I have found many pages on Wikipedia that are eligible but remain unreviewed. I want this right so that I can contribute more to Wikipedia as a New page reviewer. Morekar (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had an account for 79 days. MusikBot talk 12:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page mover


User:Silikonz

Occasionally I patrol the pages feed and draftify in order to avoid clogging up NPP with detrimental, non-notable entries or those with minimal content and not yet ready for mainspace. This right would allow the elimination of the tedious step of tagging every mainspace draft redirect with R2, improving productivity by a great bunch. Thanks! Silikonz💬 01:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that all of your activity in this area appears to be within the last 10 days (and at least a few of the short set of draftifications have been reversed), I would like to see more experience before fulfilling this request. I will leave the request open for a second set of eyes, however. Dekimasuよ! 03:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dekimasu, some of the articles moved back to mainspace have been noticeably improved, from an absence of sources to meaningful content (e.g. Gou Tanabe). After all, draftification encourages content creation. Thanks. Silikonz💬 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Silikonz, if the only reason you need this permission is that R2 tagging is too tedious, you can just use User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft, which will draftify the article and tag the redirect for you automagically. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If possible, I'd wish to avoid userscripts when a native function exists already (please see main's rollback request). Page loading is slow for me when viewing diffs for example, because of my problematic internet connection and computer. In addition, tagging would create more work for admin patrollers in the R2 category. Hopefully I can, with this right, also avoid some page move restrictions as specified in the punctuation section of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I'm sure they have their purposes, but some of them are occasionally detrimental during draftification. Silikonz (alt)💬 17:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am on the fence, about halfway between declining per Dekimasu and granting a temporary/trial period. I do agree that asking for this right with such little experience (and only a hundred edits over our 3000 minimum) is problematic from an "experience" standpoint, but while the number of moves so far has been relatively low, they do seem to be reasonable. Primefac (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Primefac. If assigned, I'll put the right/trial to good use. Silikonz💬 14:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would be fine with a trial period. (I think the request came in at edit #3003. It may have seemed a bit like coming here because of reaching the minimum, but we should also avoid instruction creep.) Dekimasuよ! 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections to a trial period on my part either. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Primefac: what say you? Silikonz💬 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done for a trial period of one month Salvio giuliano 08:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

I'm requesting this user right so I can more easily move pages. I'm relatively experienced and understand policy and guidelines around moving from my experience with Request for Moves. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 05:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you give a bit more detail on your experience with Wikipedia:Requested moves? Also, I note that several of your recent moves listed no reason for the change, or had the edit summary "better name". Whether this permission is granted or not, I suggest conveying more information in the summary when moving pages. Dekimasuよ! 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use WP:BOLD when moving occasionally. I generally cite COMMONNAME. By experience with moves, I meant participation in RfM's by !voting and some closing. If this privilege is to be granted to me, I will be more careful to explain reasoning more. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 15:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any closes in the last 7 months, which is how far I went back so far. Similarly to my comments above, it looks like your comments on move discussions sometimes just say "Support". Having more reasoning in those cases would be helpful. Dekimasuよ! 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done. Coming at it from another angle (in addition to Dekimasu's reasons) I don't see a huge need for this permission at this point; there are hardly any moves in your history that required suppression of the redirect. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Tbf69

I wish to improve Wikipedia under the principles of WP:FIVEPILLARS, and this privilege will help me to do that. Tbf69 13:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 963 total edits. MusikBot talk 13:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done. At this time, the guidelines for granting the permission are not met; see Wikipedia:Page mover#Guidelines for granting. Best, Dekimasuよ! 16:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Eejit43

Hello!

I'd like to request an indefinite extension of the page mover right. I was previously granted the right on a one month probationary period, and the right expires in a bit over a week. In the past 3(ish) weeks I have handled dozens of requests at WP:RM/TR, and moved many pages outside of that. Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary page mover rights by Salvio giuliano (expires 00:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)). MusikBot talk 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eejit43: I am not going to decline your request on the basis of a single mistake (this move was not entirely uncontroversial, as the previous mover noted), even though in the subsequent discussion on your talk page your response wasn't really stellar, in my opinion. That said, I am going to make this user right permanent with a word of caution. In future, please be more careful and ensure that uncontroversial page move requests are really uncontroversial, before acting on them. And if an uncontroversial move is challenged, it's always best to self-revert, or alternatively to give a persuasive answer as to why the move actually was uncontroversial. So,  Done Salvio giuliano 09:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Panam2014

I would like to help the Community to close move requests. I have lots of free time to do it. Panam2014 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. Sorry, I see too many issues over the last 30 moves or so (which goes back about 18 months). Many were reverted, and while some were simply bold moves (e.g. Chile Podemos +, or October 2021 Sudanese coup d'état attempt which was reverted the next day after an RM), others are difficult to understand. For example:
  • In terms of the MOS, on January 22 you moved a page from AbdulWahab Raweh to Abdul Wahab Raweh, but the article text and sources indicate that the move should have been to Abdulwahab Raweh. Another example was moving an article to Strength is in Unity, which is a mix of title case and sentence case.
  • You have moved pages without sufficient explanation in some cases. On December 7 you moved a page to 2019–2026 Sudanese transition to democracy, but there is no mention of 2026 anywhere on the page except in the title, and no indication of where the addition of "2026" came from was given. (A previous move request for this page, started by you, ended as "not moved", so this was not a good candidate for a bold move anyway.) Likewise, you moved a page to 2024 Malian constitutional referendum, but the article says "A constitutional referendum was planned to be held in on Mali 31 October 2021. It was initially scheduled for 9 July 2017. However, in late June it was postponed with no date set, before being revived in mid April 2021. Due to the 2021 Malian coup d'état it was indefinitely postponed." Nothing is written about a referendum in 2024, and no reason was given for the move when it was performed.
  • A similar issue combines this with the problem of how to discuss moves with other editors. When you moved Deputy leaders of Israel to Deputy of the Prime Minister of Israel in 2021, that move was eventually reverted. Then you immediately reinstated your change. Your actions were characterized in the subsequent RM, for better or for worse, as "the editor who unilaterally moved it in 2021 & then reverted back to that move in 2022, appears to refuse to discuss the matter." If you argue that this had become the stable title, then we also have the opposite case: you reversed a move from 2023 Nigerian general election to 2023 Nigerian election after the article was at the new title for three months, but when that move was reinstated, you immediately moved to 2023 Nigerian general elections again with the summary "Per sources. Stop NOW". Most of this sort of back-and-forth should take place on the talk page, not in repeated page moves when there is an awareness that other editors object.
On balance, I would need move evidence to be convinced that adding this permission would not result in problems down the line. If you would like to be involved in closing move requests, I suggest practicing on easy discussions first in order to show evidence of how you would go about gauging consensus. Dekimasuよ! 06:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dekimasu: for Mali and Sudan, I have moved without uploading the article. For Israel, leaders is false. The article is about the deputies of the PM not of others leaders like President and Speaker. For Nigeria, the title was problematic because source call it general election. Panam2014 (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pending changes reviewer

User:Flamealpha123

Muhajir-related pages are not reviewed often (i have more than 1100 muhajir-related edits and created 8 muhajir-related pages), and WP:muhajir has no Pending changes reviewer and to expand the wikiproject I need additional rights. Muhajir (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 18:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done. @Flamealpha123: The rationale given is invalid, and sockpuppetry is incopatible with advanced user rights. Every reviewer is able to see every article that has a pending change. There is no need for a reviewer to have a focus on one topic. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do I have to wait for a certain period of time for the after-effects of my sockpuppetry ban to fade away? Muhajir (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Flamealpha123: You need to win back trust. Whether this will take 3 months or a year is up to you. You can win back trust by ensuring you follow policies and guidelines well. For isntance, your current signature needs to change as it breaks WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Good communication is another way to win back trust: for instance, the use of WP:edit summaries and responding when people post on your talk page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:John Yunshire

Hi, I have been editing on Wikipedia for more than a year now. Since then, I think I have gained good understanding of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I know the process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living individuals, copyright violations, or other obvious inappropriate content. I can help reduce this burden with this right. Thank you. John Yunshire (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I see you often don't warn vandals. Could you commit to doing this? It's easy to do with Twinkle. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@John Yunshire: maybe you missed my question? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Skynxnex

I have been spending a decent chunk of my Wikipedia time monitoring (and reverting/warning as needed) recent changes – as well as having several pages on my watch list that come and go from pending changes protection – so I think it'd be worthwhile for me to be able to approve pending changes that are acceptable per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes. Thanks and please ask me any questions that'd be helpful. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Rollback

User:EthanRossie2000

I've been a user and editing on Wikipedia since 2016 and never even knew that you could actually obtain different "roles" aside from being a moderator or admin, I was wondering if I could become a rollbacker? It would make some things easier for me in the future. Thank you. EthanRossie2000 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the request. This permission is usually given to recent changes patrollers—people who revert vandalism and other unconstructive edits. You don't seem to have any experience with that, so I'm marking this request  Not done; if you want to undo edits more quickly, I'd suggest using the Twinkle gadget, which is available for anyone to use. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zerbu

I revert vandalism in my spare time and am requesting Rollback rights to use tools like Huggle. With it, I hope to be able to catch more vandalism edits and revert them quicker. Zerbu 💬 00:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zerbu: I'm a little concerned by reverts like Special:Diff/1135154348 (author of a draft using it as a testing space), Special:Diff/1135154425 (possible BLP violations, but given that it's sourced it's more of a content dispute), Special:Diff/1135496729 (understandable for experienced users, but maybe not for the person who made the edit), where you did not provide an explanatory edit summary. Rollback is for obvious vandalism. Can you reserve rollback for clear-cut instances? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For cases like test edits and innapropriate external links, I use the appropriate warnings (like {{uw-test1}} and {{uw-spam1}}, instead of just going straight to vandalism accusations) but in the future, I'll include information in the edit summary as well, and only use normal rollback for obvious vandalism. As for the second diff you linked, the user had already been reverted multiple times by other users, and was adding content back without properly addressing the concerns. Zerbu 💬 04:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Regarding the issue at Craig Murray, use of rollback in a dispute that is not clearly covered by the edit-warring exceptions would be one of the easiest ways to lose the permission.  Done regardless; my standard advice when it comes to rollback is not use it when in doubt. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! And I'll avoid using Rollback for anything that isn't a clear violation. Zerbu 💬 16:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Harushiga

I've been patrolling related changes for pages linking to anime since last year, and reverting vandalism using Twinkle. Having rollback would make vandalism reverts relatively quicker without the delay that Twinkle has. Harushiga (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Harushiga: Thanks for requesting this permission. Looking through your reverts with the default edit summary, I'm a little concerned that there are some reversions that you are making that may make sense to you as a subject-area regular, but not for someone who is unfamiliar with the subject, such as Special:Diff/1132986302, Special:Diff/1135055974, and Special:Diff/1134920596. Use of rollback would not have been completely appropriate since it's for obvious vandalism. In situations like Special:Diff/1135193095, for example, I think that while it may be obvious to Wikipedians why such an edit is not appropriate, that may not be the case for the person you're reverting. Can you reserve rollback for clear-cut instances? Sdrqaz (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sdrqaz: Yes, I promise I would only use the right in cases of obvious vandalism. Harushiga (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.  Done. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Wiki97828

Hii, I am continuously active on Wikipedia since 2020. I have created more than 25 pages on Wikipedia and edited 1000+. Sometimes I feel the need of roll back function. please provide me । thanks Wiki97828 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Looking through your contributions, it doesn't seem like you have a measurable track record of reverting edits. Did you read WP:ROLLBACK? Tails Wx 21:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done per above: no experience with counter-vandalism/reverting edits. Anyone can use the undo button to reverse a change, and you can also enable the Twinkle gadget if you want to revert more quickly. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ppt91

Due to my areas of focus on Wikipedia (Eastern European history and visual culture, Stalinism, Soviet Union history and visual culture, art under totalitarian regimes, and topics related to World War II history, among others), I regularly contribute to heavily-edited articles and would benefit from the rollback permission. I'm now at over 1,600 edits on 254 pages with an average of 6.311 edits per each page. I have been an active member since 2020. Thank you very much for considering my request for rollback permission. Ppt91 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Ppt91 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. Rollback, at its very core, is about counter-vandalism. Many of your undos are reverting yourself, rather than reverting vandals. Your reverts of others are also reverts that need to be explained (which you have done), and not straightforward removals of expletives or childish vandalism. If you are interested in having this permission in the future, I would suggest looking at recent changes patrol and seeing if you find that work satisfying. Twinkle is available as a tool for all autoconfirmed users. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Eejit43

Hello!

I made a denied request for rollback a couple months ago, and wanted to be reconsidered for the user right. While recently I haven't done a ton of recent changes patrolling, I still find that I end up reverting at least a bunch of vandalism each day. With RB, I'd like to start using Huggle to patrol recent changes more often. I'm very well familiar with WP:AIV, WP:VANDAL, WP:PROMO, etc. guidelines, and know how to properly identify, remove, warn, and report (if needed) problematic edits. Thanks!! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 03:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ashleyknowsthings

I believe I now meet the criteria for Rollback user permissions, and as such I am requesting access. I've been working hard patrolling recent changes and I believe this permission accompanied with Twinkle can help me to be more proficient in the RCP. Ashleyknowsthings (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. Most of your anti-vandalism work has been concentrated on two days this month, and there are a few reverts you have made without edit summary (Special:Diff/1135635566, Special:Diff/1135636172, Special:Diff/1135635893, Special:Diff/1135668858) where it's not immediately clear why you have made those reverts. As standard rollback does not allow for adding edit summaries, quite a lot of an evaluation of someone's suitability for rollback is looking at the reverts made without explanation. I would therefore advise you to get greater experience in recent changes patrol, and also to add edit summaries when it isn't clearly vandalism (and also to look back at those comic-book ones and see if reverting was actually necessary in those instances). Sdrqaz (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Blaze Fire Wolf

This is the alt account of Blaze Wolf. I'm using this to test out UV while it's still in beta and not compatible with RW so as to not mess things up on my main accounts. I'm requesting rollback perms for this account so I can make use of the RCP script which requires rollback perms so that I don't have to dig through RC to figure out what should and shouldn't be reverted (I haven't used that script in a while tho so if it doesn't help me with testing out UV, let me know and tell me what I should be looking for instead). Blaze Fire Wolf (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Automated comment This user has 66 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 22:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Donek6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template editor

User:LlywelynII

Heya. Years and years of tons of responsible editing. DYKs and everything. Have only clicked the red button a couple of times. Seems like there are more of these pages. I can jump through the hoops of bugging people 5 times so that I won't have to bug them again in the future but it seems pretty needless when most of it will be small stuff like noting on the {{USA}} page that there's a redirect from {{US}} if people want to use it or adding a link to {{WikiProject United States}} for people who are looking for its shortcut for talk page headers. No, I won't be using this to fix the {{zh}} mess without a new consensus or to make US spelling the default for {{convert}} however helpful that would be for most pages xD. — LlywelynII 23:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)  — LlywelynII 23:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Done @LlywelynII here's what I'm going to do: grant you this with a 4 month expiration as "trial". Mostly because I'm IAR'ing some of the guidance because you have a long tenure and I think you will operate within your abilities (e.g. I trust you are not going to just jump in and start changing protected lua modules you don't understand.) When it gets close to renewal time, poke me on my talk (or just post again here), assuming you are actually making use of this and still need it. With templates that are protected due to any sort of content dispute, ensure that a good consensus has been formed first. For templates that are protected because they have huge visibility like Template:convert (just an example, that one is so high-vis it is admin-only) be warned that if due care isn't taken in changes you might not just get deflagged, but you could get blocked for site disruption. That being said, I don't think you are going to fall in to that case and I think you've learned from your old blocks on enwikisource and enwikt. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. Fwiw, I really didn't. Over 20ish years, you just run into some lousy power-trippy admins, people who take things the wrong way, or bored/unhappy people who go out of their way to take things the wrong way. That said, I'll keep being the same generally awesome me and keep any disruption to a minimum.

    This seems like a good halfway point: I can get the work done now done now without bothering people and, if there's still stuff to do later, I'll have that history of template editing to point back to. — LlywelynII 00:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leave a Reply