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, 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 03:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


    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.



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

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

    Other editors

    Requests for permissions is primarily intended for editors requesting a permission for their own account. Other editors are welcome to comment if they have specific information that is relevant to that request that a patrolling administrator is unlikely to discover for themselves. Otherwise, since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general comments or 'clerking' by other users are rarely helpful. Non-administrators cannot "decline" to grant a request, because they're not in a position to accept it.

    A limited exception to this is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, where third party nominations are encouraged. Other editors should still avoid offering general remarks on requests and leave the final decision to an administrator.

    Current requests

    Account creator



    I've created 110 undeleted articles so far, as you can see here. You may see some issues with a few of my older articles, but those were in my early days and it is very normal for a newbie. I can guarantee you that my recent 40-50 creations are absolutely fine, and no concerns have been raised by NPRs. I want this right to reduce the NPR backlog and to get my articles indexed quickly (as I create articles about current events). I don't think reviewers have anything to do on my articles except marking as reviewed. Thanks. RoboCric Let's chat 18:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Those are nice, clean articles. Good work. The only feedback that I have for you is that given you use WP:RATER to self-assess your work, you need to be aware that this tool generally results in a class rating that is higher than what it should be. I've looked through your last 10 articles and downrated something like 8 of them. But that's not an Autopatrolled issue anyway. Schwede66 21:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Joris Darlington Quarshie

    I've familiarized myself with AWB's functionalities through the English Wikipedia documentation and am confident it can significantly enhance my contributions. AWB automates repetitive tasks like adding citations, fixing formatting, and adding categories, freeing up my time to focus on higher-quality edits that require in-depth analysis and judgment. This will allow me to make more substantial contributions to English Wikipedia in a shorter timeframe.

    AWB minimizes the risk of errors introduced by manual editing during repetitive tasks. This will be particularly helpful for tasks where even minor inconsistencies can be distracting or disrupt reader flow (e.g., quotation mark styles, bullet point formatting).

    By granting me the rights to AWB, I will be able to dedicate more time and energy to utilizing tasks like improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of content, adding insightful references, and expanding on under-developed sections of articles.

    Lastly, once I gain experience with AWB, I can potentially mentor other editors on using the tool responsibly. This will foster a collaborative environment and empower others to make efficient and positive contributions to English Wikipedia. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This text appears to have been written by a large language model. Could you please explain in your own words why you want AWB access and what you plan to do with it? * Pppery * it has begun... 03:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done No response. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I have been helping out on Wikipedia for some time now, and I have become an active and trusted editor. I love helping out with "Wikignome" activities and have seen the features that AWB provides. After reading through the user manual, I feel that I could use it very effectively in order to do things such as fix common spelling mistakes and fix checkwiki errors.

    I would love to be able to use this to help to make the editing process more efficient. Thank you so much. MrBauer24 (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I used AWB a little bit several years ago before permissions were required. I will be using it again to do some quick maintenance on some templates I maintain or am working on, most immediately to update {{cite act}} and to restart work on related template projects discussed at WikiProject Law. I also have a request in at Commons, where I also do template maintenance. In addition, I do an awful lot of citation cleanup on articles, and while I apparently found AWB wasn't too helpful a tool years ago, it seems better now. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Automated copy-editing like cleaning up typos, broken wikitext like --> , improving articles to abide by WP:MOS for e.g. Chemistry formulas, updating dates to use 9 April 2024 template, replacing clumsy text with proper glyphs e.g. replacing --> → → Tonymetz 💬 22:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Users are rarely approved unless they have either 250 non-automated mainspace edits or 500 total mainspace edits -> you currently have 156 total mainspace edits and have given no reason why you should be approved early. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    After I write or expand an article (see my userpage for lists of such articles), another editor routinely comes along to clean up my typos and minor messes for me. I'd like to trial using AWB to see if it can help me avoid making typos and other small mistakes in the first place. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him☎️) 01:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Not sure this will actually work, but you seem to be experienced enough to qualify for this so I see no harm in letting you try. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    Reason for requesting confirmed rights, I've tried to recover my old account, because I accidentally clicked log out button and since then, I cannot no longer access it, even when I requested a new password. I've made 38 edits and It's more than 10 days old So then I created new account Could you someone please accept my reason to get permission to get Confirmed? Johnathen2004 (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you can login from Johnathen04 and confirm with an edit (using that account) that this request is indeed legitimate, then no we cannot do that. Fortunately for you (which you've also alluded to above), the threshold for obtaining the autoconfirmed right is very low. Closing as  Not done -Fastily 09:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Event coordinator

    Extended confirmed

    File mover

    Mass message sender

    New page reviewer


    I have been tagging and flagging new pages for a long time, but with a lot of infrequency. However, since I'm unable to mark a page as patrolled, I'm not able to help reduce the workload on the rest of the editors here. With this permission, whenever I'm looking into new pages, I'll be able to make more of a difference. Shashwat986talk 07:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has 372 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits are lower than the threshold of 500, but that is due to my work on New Pages. As a result of my work, I have over 1200 edits in User_talk pages (implying around 800 pages successfully deleted). If the 500 is still a hard-cutoff, I withdraw my request. Shashwat986talk 09:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shashwat986: It's flexiblish, but explicitly doesn't include deleted edits – we're looking for people with experience improving articles as well as deleting them. I can see that you were quite active in new page and CSD patrolling in 2010–13, but since then you've been almost completely inactive. Welcome back! The CSD are basically the same as they were then, but the kind of new pages we see has changed quite a lot, as have community expectations on sourcing, notability, etc.
    Based on your prior experience, I'd be willing to grant you the right despite not meeting the formal criteria (with the usual one-month trial period), but could you please first confirm that you've familiarised yourself with the current guidelines at WP:NPP? – Joe (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, though I have to say Moneyview gives me pause. Could you explain what prompted you to write that article and where you found the sources? – Joe (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working in the financial technology sector in India, and I've done a lot of research in the field. I was planning to start with Moneyview, since I've used the app a lot more, and there was a draft page to jump-off of. The plan was to write articles on many more companies in this space, since it seems underrepresented on Wikipedia. I'm realising, after creating the article, that it's coming off a lot as WP:PAID, which is understandable, but inaccurate. Shashwat986talk 04:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Requesting a trial period of a month or less (dealer's choice) to address the backlog. I was previously granted this permission last summer but resigned them after a request to do so stemming from my repeated draftification of articles on potentially notable subjects that were created by disruptive editors (a more detailed accounting of that can be found in the discussion that took place on my talk page). Essentially, I wouldn't do that again, instead following the current NPP best-practices of leaning on more procedural alternatives like PROD, AfD, and improvement tags. I have a good amount of experience in AfC, have participated in a decent number of AfDs, and have a strong track record with my own article creations. I can provide additional context or affirmations of understanding of the current NPP standards as requested. I would prefer a trial period of at least two week so that my use of the permission can be observed and critiqued with enough examples. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:14 novembre

    I meet the criteria with a very large margin, and have a significant experience in the areas requested. I had a request declined some time ago, but now I think I have done much experience and this User right could help me improve the effectiveness of my contributions. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 21:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 21:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    After hearing that there will be a new backlog drive in May, I would like to reduce the very high backlog drive. Although I am theoretically ineligible until June (I've had a 3mo partial block), the pblock is too unrelated to content editing, deletion processes and AfC, and my behavior has changed since then. If the pblock is still a red flag, please let me know. Thanks for considering my application. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 07:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I've got some experience at AfD, both participating and nominating. I have also written one article which was approved at AfC and got C-rated. I also have relevant experience in anti-vandalism, which shows I always try to be friendly to newcomers and I am always open to being corrected. I'd obviously be happy to have it granted on a trial basis. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I have over 4500 edits and created 114 articles in 1.5 years time on English Wikipedia. I want to reduce backlog at unreviewed sports articles. I am confident that I have good understanding of WP policies on what should be kept or deleted, since I've created a plenty of articles and reviewed a lot of drafts. RoboCric Let's chat 20:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) RoboCric Let's chat 20:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page mover


    I'm requesting page mover rights for myself. I plan on using it to address page move vandalism and for other non-controversial tasks, such as moving articles created in the wrong namespace or draftification. I'm familiar with the policies/guidelines around naming/moving and have some experience at WP:RM. gobonobo + c 07:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    My page mover rights were revoked due to my inactivity, and I applied to have them reinstated in February. I was asked to wait for a few weeks by Fastily, so here I am, back after nearly two months of activity, requesting to have this user right reinstated so I can continue using the tool to move pages when necessary. Thank you, GSS💬 06:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 1 request for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 07:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending changes reviewer


    Hi, I would like to request the Pending Changes Reviewer permission as I would like to help out with reviewing pages on my watchlist which are on pending changes protection. Thank you. WizardGamer775 (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask if there is any update regarding my application? WizardGamer775 (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @WizardGamer775 Really don't know. Other people who have come after and before me have become accepted, so I'm not sure. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 14:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok WizardGamer775 (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Here's the criteria I have for being a Pending Changes Reviewer:

    1. I have a account 3 years old (although I have started picking up editing beginning November 2023)

    2. I think I have a good editing history, and a good track record.

    3. I understand what's vandalism and what isn't (accidentally misspelling a word during your edit is in good faith, but doing things like changing the date of a movie from 2024 to 1956 is vandalism)

    4. I know the basic policies, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:!, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.

    5. I know that you cannot violate the Copyright policy. (WP:C)

    6.I understand the guidelines on reviewing.

    But, you may ask, why do I want this permission? My answer is, to help people out on Wikipedia. If someone makes a edit that might not be correct, I could correct them on their edit. And I would like to use this tool to help "implode vandals", as the cool kids say. :) Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 03:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a suggestion, but continually republishing your request will make your request go through slower, not faster. Also, if the bot is wrong, let it be wrong. TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 16:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, I'm requesting permissions to Review Pending Changes for a few reasons, and hope ya'll will consider me. First, I've made 600+ Edits, including many of signifigance to multiple pages on various different Social/Historical topics. Second, I've extremely rarely ever had my edits reverted and that's been due to someone feeling my citation was not the best, but I've not had any major compliants. Third, I vote in the Picture of the Year & Arbitration Committee Election, and I'm familiar with WP Guidelines and Copyright. And I just enjoy getting to help have accurate and up to date information on Wikipedia, considering how many folks use this for information. And I'd be more than willing to take on the responsiblity of helping to ensure that continues and is done well. And I'd just like to thank whoever is taking the time to read this and hope to hear back soon, and thank you work that you do, you're the reason Wikipedia is sucessful :). Sunnyboi18 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I care about our encyclopaedic purpose, and allowing newer users to contribute is important to ensure the longevity of the project and a productive participation by new editors.

    Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I regularly and actively used talk pages as well as projects and the RS noticeboard, and have shown an ability to understand and apply policy.

    I have actively edited in the past and intend to do so in the future.

    Receiving this right would allow me to assist in improving the project.

    Thank you in advance for taking the time! FortunateSons (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights

    I have been an active user for 17 years and have Rollback rights. I am mainly involved in the Songs project and often need to patrol a page where unsourced and incorrect information is often re-added. Having the ability to use Pending Changes would simplify this matter. Bigar (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I working since more than ten years for wikipedia. So I like to extend my activity and therefore I request the permission to work as reviewer at the english Wikipedia. I have read the rules for the review process and think I can apply the rule adequately. As reference: I have such permission in the german Wikipedia since long time and try to use it wisely. GodeNehler (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    I would like to obtain this role in order to be able to control ongoing changes, I could be very useful to the encyclopaedia for this as well. JacktheBrown (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done DanCherek (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    I have reverted vandalism from IPs and users who made tests, added unsourced content, and making purely disruptive edits to articles here. I have been doing this for about a month now. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you not consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t want it anymore. Please remove this request TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done For the bot. Sohom (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:14 novembre

    I meet the requirements, and I think that rollback rights could help me work more effectively on contrasting vandalism. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you are not consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 04:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily Yes, I try to do it as much as possible and I think rollback rights could improve my contributions. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 08:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it will, however rollback isn't going to help you leave notifications to editors when you revert their edits. Can you please comment on why you haven't been consistently warning editors and how you'll be improving on this? -Fastily 09:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily I sometimes thought mistakenly that notifying users was not that important. However, I have understood it is and I will be more careful in notifying users. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming. Admins use warnings for additional context and/or to track disruptive individuals, so it's very important to leave them for every revert you make.  Done -Fastily 20:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sink Cat

    I believe that I can more easily combat vandalism as I already have been doing (see Contribs) by having the access to this permission. Sink Cat (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you are not consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 08:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there,
    The first example you wasn't a case of vandalism, but a decision based on grammatical wording. If that too requires a talkpage notice, then I'd be happy to do so going forward :)
    The other two examples you give though are correct. Prior to March 26, I was spotty with my warning of users for their vandalism, or my notification of other matters. There's no excuse for skipping such actions, and will be more diligent going forward. If it would be better, should I make another request near the end of April when I have demonstrated a more consistent track record?
    Sink Cat (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sink Cat: Yes, it's important to leave a notice (or handwritten message), *especially* if the edit(s) you reverted were made in good faith. And there's no need, thanks for confirming; admins use warnings for additional context and/or to track disruptive individuals, so moving forward please be diligent with your notifications after reverting.  Done -Fastily 09:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, i've been patrolling vandalism for some time, on recent changes and filter log, and wanted to request rollback to use other tools like huggle or antivandal, as well as using my current tools better. Thanks! begocc questions? 10:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you are not consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 09:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that might be due to me accidentally going back to the previous page (recent changes) before the message saves from the UV menu. My mistake. begocc questions? 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks for confirming. Please ensure that you are consistently leaving warnings and/or notifications to editors when reverting.  Done -Fastily 20:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:The Master of Hedgehogs

    Hello! I am the Master of Hedgehogs, and I am requesting Rollback permissions on the English Wikipedia, because it will help with fighting vandals. I have made more than 200 mainspace edits, and I use Lupin's Anti-Vandal Tool, Real-Time Recent Changes, and normal recent changes patrol to look for vandalism edits and revert them using tools like Twinkle and RedWarn. After reverting, I make sure to warn the user properly. - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([3][4]). MusikBot talk 12:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done I'm concerned by these two complaints (1, 2) on your talk page with regards to these two reverts (1, 2) respectively. RC patrol isn't a race. Please slow down, be more careful, and *actually* ensure that what you're reverting is indeed vandalism. -Fastily 03:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but:
    1. Everybody makes mistakes. The Boss 429 Mustang one was because the filter picked up "enormous" as vandalism, and I don't know about the Priest Hole one.
    2. I never said that recent changes patrol was a race. You might have inferred this from how I try to be fast with vandal fighting.
    - Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hate that hedgehog!) 12:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but mistakes made during RC patrol have the potential to be significantly more damaging to the project than your average mistakes. Like I said, slow down and ensure that what you're reverting is *actually* vandalism. When in doubt, do not revert. -Fastily 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Improving the effectiveness of my counter-vandalism activities; opening of new tools. Link to CVUA trainer go-ahead for request. Thanks,NeuropolTalk 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Malinaccier (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi. I've been patrolling Special:RecentChanges and warning users on their talk page for a while now and decided to request rollback rights to deal with vandalism and disruptive editing easier using tools such as Huggle.

    I acknowledge that I have made some mistakes in the past and have been warned on my talk page. (Such as here) However, I have thoroughly read WP:NOTVANDAL and now believe that I can tell the difference between what is and isn't vandalism well.

    Thank you for considering my request, and I perfectly understand if you decide not to give me rollback rights for any reason. Again, thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Given how recently the edit warring was. Also there's *a lot* of complaints on your talk pager regarding issues/errors that highlight significant gaps in your policy/guideline knowledge and understanding of our beset practices. Please spend some time familiarizing yourself with how Wikipedia works first before seeking advanced permissions. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. -Fastily 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2003 LN6

    Hello, I would like to request for rollback rights to increase efficiency in reverting vandalism. I have been rather consistently doing anti-vandalism work in the past few months, starting from around January this year. With around four months of experience patrolling WP:RC (with some breaks), almost 7000 edits, about twenty reports to WP:AIV, a few WP:RFP reports, and around 800 user talk messages, I believe that I am ready to use the Rollback tool to continue my anti-vandalism work. Thank you. 2003 LN6 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that you are not consistently warning editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? Are you aware that we have tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet that make this extremely easy? -Fastily 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor


    See User talk:Numberguy6#Expand language. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Standard Guidelines review:
    1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: ~7.5)
    2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~41k)
    3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~1300)
    4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
    5. Red XN (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: 0)
    6. Red XN (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: 1 (+1 pending))
    Primefac (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am disinclined to grant this; it was suggested to you that you should have this permission but I don't really see any evidence of you needing it. While you have made more than the indicated two TPERs (I count 5-6), they are simple/trivial updates and thus I have not added them into the guideline count. In other words: are you simply making this request because someone said you should, or do you think you actually need this permission? Primefac (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand the fact that the request at Template talk:Expand French has languished for weeks suggests the edit request process is not working for those two requests and thus there is a need. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leave a Reply