Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-confirmed-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 02:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

    Permissions

    Handled here

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

    Handled elsewhere

    Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

    Review and removal of permissions

    The requests for permissions process is not used to review or remove user rights:

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

    Process

    Requestors

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

    Administrators

    Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

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

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

    Other editors

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

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

    Current requests

    Account creator

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

    Autopatrolled

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

    User:Iljhgtn

    I have been editing for several years now, have close to 89,000 edits, and have new page patrol which I regularly patrol new pages with. I also am a regular in AfD discussions, but I also make new pages, though less frequently than my other activities. I think my new articles pass the requirements of GNG and other guidelines in order to pass the patrol/review process. I've made at least 27 articles in the mainspace, and thousands of others which do not count for this (redirects or disambiguation). Ping me if there are any other questions. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Iljhgtn's most recent articles are for publications, such as books. Checks of those articles didn't raise any red flags. A minor note about AG1 (company), is that WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable. Articles on companies, as I'm sure @Iljhgtn will know as a fellow reviewer, are notoriously challenging to write in a manner that doesn't come across as WP:PROMO. I didn't come across this in the AG1 article, which is reassuring. I will remain neutral, but I think @Iljhgtn can be trusted with AP. Thank you for your contributions! 11WB (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you @11WB. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 02:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm seeing some WP:V and WP:OR issues. Several paragraphs in Swedenburg v. Kelly lack citations. Professional speech has a lot of direct citations to individual court cases rather than secondary sources that describe the law. Additionally, whole sections of the article lack citations.
    The Capitalist Manifesto (Norberg book) has a lot of long quotations. Aella (writer) also has an overly long quotation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of your points, such as Aella (writer), are articles which are multiple years old, long since reviewed, and have received hundreds of edits after the fact. Are you referring to the present state of the articles? Am I to be responsible for all edits that follow on any that I created? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok forget about the article on Aella. The long quotes from The Capitalist Manifesto has been there since the start: Special:Permalink/1187712008. As for the first two articles, you're the only major contributor. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Long quotes are more of a stylistic choice. One that I have since moved away from after receiving some feedback from others. See more recent book articles such as Mazel Tov (book) or Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, both have quotes, but much shorter snippets. I'm fine with going back and removing older, longer quotes for the record. I just haven't edited those in years in some cases. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any comments on the first two articles I looked at? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those articles do have sections that require sources for verification. I have applied the relevant banner to them both. I remained neutral regarding their request for AP, but this does unfortunately give me pause. The articles are good, but are missing something quite fundamental. 11WB (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts and @11WB I would hope that this addressed that, "One that I have since moved away from after receiving some feedback from others." More recent work has only improved, and the articles even that you mention on the whole are still deemed notable and worth keeping (I do lots of work at AfDs, having participated in thousands). As for articles I create nowadays, I think they almost no work, and AP should therefore not be a problem. That said, nothing is 100% perfect, and I am open to improvements and leaving changes in place on articles which I have since created, as I also respect that I do not WP:OWN them. I believe the fact that they have not been deleted, and most don't even have any banners for needing improvement is also a testament to my familiarity with what goes into a quality, WP:GNG-passing Wikipedia article. I hope for @11WB that my answer is satisfactory to you and that you do not have further cause for "pause", but please ping me if so. I did not check back here for several days and so my apologies for the delayed response. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn: a good grasp of the notability guidelines is one aspect of WP:APCRITERIA. The fact that you've written articles without adding citations to whole sections of articles is a problem. I'm going to decline AP at this time. Please focus on ensuring that all articles you write going forward comply with WP:V.  Not done voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts I was still answering your questions. Is it expected that every article from the beginning of joining Wikipedia with your first article onwards should be "perfect"? Or that a demonstrated track record of improvement and a full understanding and appreciation of Wikipedia's WP:PG is gained over time, over years, and eventually (been at this for years now), one's work gets to be good enough that AP could be potentially earned to make it easier on all volunteers in this project? I think this "Not done" is premature and I respectfully ask for you to reconsider and allow for me to fully answer any other questions that you or others may have. I've also pointed to more recent work which I don't think you had issues with, as well as others where I'd answered your question seemingly to satisfaction. Also, inline citations is not a required policy for every line or paragraph, but a best practice, and the content that I added, even when not cited, was still found WP:V with all the books which I had read and written articles about. Though admittedly it would have been beneficial to add inline citations with page numbers and I do more of that over the years. You're citing some of my earlier works. Thank you for your consideration. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the sections which may have otherwise been unsourced at present on Professional speech and Swedenburg v. Kelly (created in for example, I went back after @11WB tagged the articles and removed any unsourced sections. Thank you for your help @11WB. I'd ask though to consider the dates for when some of these were created when questioned, @Voorts you mentioned The Capitalist Manifesto (Norberg book) in one case, which was created in 2023. Others were more recent, but I believe there is a track record of improvement over time sufficient to warrant a granting of AP in my view. That said, I am happy to further address questions on any other sections or articles I've written. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again @Voorts, with respect and appreciation, and though I said that I was content to leave this be, I think given the conversation over here, it might be reasonable to tag in some of those other participants for additional perspective related to my being granted AP or not. Do you think this is reasonable? I did not want to ping anyone myself at the risk of being seen as potentially WP:CANVASSING, but some of them are very senior editors, dating back to the early 2000s, and seem to agree with my understanding of the WP:PG and WP:V. I think at the very least, even if not granted this permission by yourself at this time, that you may want to undo the "Not done" decline and leave it for another admin to decide for now. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, inline citations is not a required policy for every line or paragraph, but a best practice, .... That is incorrect. WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis in original). voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If challenged, then the content should be removed. Yes, that is correct and I agree. What I was saying was that the content had not been challenged, and since I'd written those often a bit after reading about the material that I was writing on, I sometimes admit that I intended to go back to some of those and might not have always done so. What I was saying is that I agree with WP:BURDEN, and "Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed [not must be]. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added.
    I fully agree and understand the policy here. I think we are on the same page. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I do also agree with the process here, and with @11WB's helpful tagging in parts, and since I do not at the moment have the time to go way back to these older articles, since the content has now been challenged, I felt it was appropriate to at least remove whichever sections then are presently unsourced, while retaining the remainder. Thank you @Voorts and @11WB both. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BURDEN refers to adding material, not just restoring it after being challenged. You are responsible for providing an inline citation when you add content, notwithstanding whether another editor contests the lack of citation. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to reply with a note regarding BURDEN, but @voorts beat me to it! 'All content must be verifiable.' 11WB (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I am in full agreement, "must be verifiable", it all was, and is, from the articles that I wrote. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:V, "All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment."
    How could it be that there is ever an instance where there is "no citation for it in the article at the moment" if we have a firm requirement that all added content always must have an inline citation added at the very moment the content is added and the editor clicks 'publish'? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, I stand by the fact that what I added was and is WP:Verifiable, meaning that it would be able to have a source/citation from a WP:RS substantiate the various content. It is just at the time I did not always add those, but we are not talking about contentious content here, but mundane facts of each of these articles, and non-BLPs. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am actually asking about that at the Teahouse just now, feel free to comment if you'd like. I do believe that editors are free to WP:BOLDly add to Wikipedia without the immediate source being always inserted inline, provided the author of an article knows such a source substantiating the added content exists, and is WP:Verifiable and a WP:RS, which in the case of what I wrote, I knew all such material existed, I just might not have always had it right at hand. In some of these examples I must have been busy and did not always get around to doing all the citation additions in one motion at the point of publication. That said, I do believe it is absolutely a best practice to follow and am aware that any such content being challenged could be removed promptly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BURDEN requires you to "demonstrate verifiability" when you "add" content. It is not sufficient for you to know that sources exist when you add content. You need to show our readers and other editors what those sources are. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is clear and helpful language, as you write it. I'd love to see where in WP:V or WP:BURDEN it says exactly that though. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @11WB and @Voorts here is the Teahouse thread that I started as a result of this permission request, just in case I am missing something here. I am always happy to learn something new regardless of the outcome of this RfP. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is filling up the requests page. It would be good to carry this on at your thread now. 11WB (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It'll get archived soon anyways. There are three threads here all of which have been declined. The bot will handle it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Voorts Would you give guidance to me on when it might be acceptable to reapply if we have truly met with an impasse, even for an editor editing Wikipedia since 2023 with 88,500 edits, and 28 reviewed articles. How many articles with every single line cited to an WP:RS would you want to see that I create before I reapply? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iljhgtn Autopatrolled is not a prestige award for creating a lot of articles nor can it be determined by asking a admin "What (do) you want to see". AP does not confer you any right besides the ability to (un)review your own articles. It is primarily a technical mechanism for NPP to say "I don't need to look at these other folks articles I've never found a fault with them". The fastest requests we handle on this board are when other NPPers nominate other people. My personal recommendation would be to continue creating good, well sourced articles and wait to see if NPPers will nominate you once they believe you have a good track record. Sohom (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I totally respect that as an NPPer myself. Thank you @Sohom Datta @Voorts and @11WB for the time in looking this over. I will no longer comment then on this discussion here and will let it auto-archive. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting of AP is not a consensus decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cypp0847

    @Cypp0847 has authored 198 articles, of which only 2 have been deleted. One of these was for WP:SYNTH, the AfD having taken place during October 2022. They primarily translate articles from the Chinese Wikipedia, recent examples contain no issues that require action by an NPR. I reviewed Ma Tau Wai Road building collapse and found no issues, other than adding the translation banner to the talk page. Chinese sources vary in reliability, but based on the articles I have reviewed from @Cypp0847, the sourcing appears consistent and without issue. BLPs such as John Clancey are well sourced and do not leave any information uncited. A recent AfD of their article John MacLennan resulted in a unanimous keep. Their talk page is mostly filled with automated messages regarding images, with little after April 2025. Based on what I've seen from @Cypp0847, I am quite confident the 2022 AfD SYNTH concerns were an anomaly, and doesn't appear to have been an ongoing issue, with no reoccurrences since. Thank you for your contributions and translations, @Cypp0847! 11WB (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @11WB: Thank you for your nomination and your kind words. Will do the best to keep up with the good work. ~~ J. Dann 10:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! This should be seen and reviewed by an administrator within the next 7 days or so! 11WB (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    AutoWikiBrowser

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

    User:Laura240406

    I want to use AWB to fix stuff like Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images or stray markup, which can be annoying to do by hand as you have to click each page, edit it manually and save it. Laura240406 (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Confirmed

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

    Event coordinator

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

    User:Geichel

    I will be on-site coordinator for Wikimedia Community Ireland events going forward. Will use the Programs and Events Dashboard but this will be a fall-back Geichel (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anuinhawaii

    I am an instructor using Wikipedia Education in my classes. Some students have issues making accounts. Being able to make accounts for them is helping a lot. Anuinhawaii (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated comment This user was granted temporary event coordinator rights by Guettarda (expires 17:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 20:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done for bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This was granted almost a year ago and is about to expire - is this intended to be a request for an extension? stwalkerster (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended confirmed

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

    File mover

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

    Mass message sender

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


    New page reviewer

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

    User:ArthurTheGardener

    Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights:

    I've created a number of articles, and wanted the opportunity to give something back by reviewing new pages from time to time. I was on the NPP for a month: I think I'm starting to gain confidence in this area, and would welcome the chance to learn more by extending my permission. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Widgetkid

    I'd like to help out with new page backlog.

    @HJ Mitchell: Per your feedback, I've been contributing to AfD the last several weeks. Do you think I'm ready to review new pages? Other feedback for my contributions? Or too soon still? Thanks! WidgetKid chat me 16:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 16:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Page mover

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

    User:Thilio

    I do a lot of NPP and often draftify unsuitable articles which leaves redirects behind. I am requesting this perm because it would help me handle these routine moves more cleanly and avoid redirect clutter. I understand WP:MOVE and WP:RM. Regards. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 22:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Pending changes reviewer

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

    User:Aakashnavindu

    Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights Aakashnavindu (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Good day, I would like to request pending changes reviewer rights as I regularly clear vandalism and warn users appropriately, and ensure edits meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards. I have been using Ultraviolet/RedWarn to do so, and would like Pending changes reviewer rights to help review edits on vandalism-prone pages. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aakashnavindu (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Seanwk

    Hello, I'm a regular recent changes and abuse log monitor who actively reverts unconstructive edits, and I think it would be nice to have this right to be able to fight vandalism more efficiently. I have been editing for about half an year, have ~1,500 edits, and have read WP:RPC and WP:PC. I also have some prior experience with Pending Changes from WP:RCP. Thank you for your consideration. Seanwk :) (Talk | Contribs) 23:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Rollback

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

    User:MetalBreaksAndBends

    I've been RC patrolling for far beyond a month, have over 300 edits, and access to rollback (and the tools it allows usage of) would be quite helpful in my patrol. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a good track record of good counter-vandalism work with a high edit count. I don’t see any reason not to grant rollback. 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 ZachH007 23:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 04:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:EvanTech10

    I am requesting rollback rights because I have recent experience of manually rolling back unconstructive edits in the iOS articles, and the rollback permission would be useful. I have over 500 edits. EvanTech10 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a very low percentage of automated edits and very few edits to user talk pages. Could you better elaborate why you think you need the rollback permission specifically rather than just using Twinkle? It might be good to enroll in WP:CVUA and try again in a few months. 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 ZachH007 23:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done per ZackH007. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:.sh1eldo7

    I am requesting the rollback right mainly to gain access to tools such as AntiVandal and Huggle so that I can revert vandalism much faster. I have been patrolling recent changes for about 6 months and almost all of my mainspace edits are antivandalism or recent changes related. Thank you. Shield \\ |T| - |C| \\ 01:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Prothe1st

    I have been a RCP for about 5 months now and can easily distinguish between constructive edits and vandalism or other disruptive edits. I think having rollback permissions will be useful for me as I also have plans on running other scripts in the future such as WikiShield, which requires rollback perms to run it. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 20:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Already done (automated response) by Oshwah. — MusikBot talk 02:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jcgaylor

    I've been a NPP, AfC, and pending changes reviewer for some time, and feel that I can help combat vandalism and other unhelpful edits more effectively with the rollback user right. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Template editor

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

    User:MikeVitale

    Hi! I'm requesting an extension to my currently-granted template editor rights, as I'm about a week out from my trial expiring. My original request was made here and granted at Special:PermaLink/1323646684#User:MikeVitale as a trial until the end of January. During this time, I've had User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable open as a tab, and used it to find and fulfill multiple template edit requests from other editors. Pinging @User:Sohom_Datta who granted my initial trial. MikeVitale 00:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated comment This user was granted temporary template editor rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 00:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Diff/1333056492 is the only TPER responded to since granting (and the only template-protected template full stop), and only 20 total edits (all but five to this template). Primefac (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's not correct.
    I don't have the time right this minute to comb through the last 2+ months of my edit history, but I have made far more TPER edits than simply 1. I'm not here to claim that I've made hundreds, but stating that I have only responded to one template edit request is simply factually incorrect. --MikeVitale 15:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like I made the time.
    Most of my TPER edit responses have been to the module namespace, not the template namespace, it turns out. --MikeVitale 15:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I was not thinking about the module space and the links above only include Template-space edits. I do note a dozen edits to Module:College_color/data, plus one other edit. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For any other passing admins, I'm leaning decline on this one, but I do recognise the repeated edits to the college color module; I wonder if it might be worth dropping protection to ECP similar to Module:Political party and its subpages since Mike clearly has an interest in helping out there. Primefac (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dropped Module:College color/data to ECP and have put it on my watchlist to monitor for a while to see how it goes. Based on the edits, I agree that I've struggling to justify a need for the userright due to the concentrated nature of the edits. Sohom (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems extremely unwise to me to reduce the protection of a module with that many uses. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair, though my rationale here is that most of the run-of-the-mill vandalism will not be able to reach it with ECP. If we can't keep the module open, giving Mike the rights seems like a generally low risk thing in this context since they do appear to be interested in contributing. Sohom (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in continuing to contribute in this area.
    That said, I might not always know the best route to take. In such cases, my default action is "don't break things." This might be why I don't have more edits in the template/module space since temporary rights were granted in November. (Honestly, I was surprised that I mainly only had edits to the one sports color module. I thought I had more than that, but I do trust the edit history.) --MikeVitale 00:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TechnoSquirrel69

    So I have a slightly unusual request. Right as I was recommended by Zackmann08 to apply for this permission, it was bestowed upon me by theleekycauldron so I could do DYK work (thank you, leeky). However, I think a review of my technical contributions is warranted to confirm whether I should be using this permission outside of DYK-space. I believe I meet all of the usual criteria, but if there's a preference that I gain more experience before editing templates independently, I will respect that and refrain from making changes through template protection. I've read through the guideline for this permission and will follow it in good faith to the best of my ability, and will exercise the high degree of caution expected in this area. I would also welcome any feedback about my previous template work — I'm always happy to learn more about it. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated comment This user was granted temporary template editor rights by Theleekycauldron (expires 00:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 21:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Standard Guidelines review:
    1. Green tickY (guideline: >1 year, applicant: 5)
    2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~34K)
    3. Green tickY (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~700, and I see a good number of edits outside DYK space)
    4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: 4y)
    5. Green tickY (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: >3)
    6. Green tickY (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: >5, not sure about major, but looking through the contributions, I'm pretty sure you know what you are doing)
    -- Sohom (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Theleekycauldron, any concerns with extending the grant from your end? From a normal template editor POV, I'm willing to extend the grant indefinitely, but I'm not sure if I'll be stepping on DYKs toes by doing so. -- Sohom (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why we should create a separate DYK queue editor perm ... * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And/or just remove DYK from the template space... Primefac (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is completely orthogonal to whether DYK pages are in template namespace; a page can be template-editor-protected but not in template namespace just fine. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this gets archived, users intending to use the TE right where much of the template editing is related to DYK, is done at WT:DYK. I did so via that process. There are also archives listed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Template editor nominations archive for users who requested access via WT:DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I remember we amended the general process to avoid the issues here with DYK-specific requests. I'm just saying that we really should find some way (as pppery suggests) to split out the perms or method so DYK folk who wouldn't ordinarily be granted TPE get granted TPE. This is not a subject to debate in this nomination, of course, so it's probably best to either move it to a better forum or drop it for now. Primefac (talk) 11:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @JuniperChill: I'm not sure what you mean? This is a permission request for non-DYK related template editing; TechnoSquirrel already had template editor rights for DYK purposes because I granted it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:57, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just pointing out that we recently established a separate process for those who need the TE right for DYK editing. But as Primefac says, I'm not going to respond here further. JuniperChill (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @JuniperChill: my indef grant here was for editing normal TE protected pages not DYK pages, leeky's previous time-limited grant was for editing DYK queues. TS69 still needs to check back at WT:DYK around the time the "DYK grant" would have expired to check if folks are okay with them retaining the ability to use TE on DYK queues indefinitely. There wasn't any process irregularity here outside of the confusion that is caused by the fact we have effectively invented ad-hoc polymorphism for userrights. (which is not a good thing) Sohom (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hence my comment above suggesting creating a new perm. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sohom Datta: no objections, I trust TechnoSquirrel to self-monitor and do a quick check-in when it would've originally expired :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Sohom (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Temporary account IP viewer

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

    User:Reconrabbit

    My work as a new page reviewer and in recent changes (mainly watched pages), especially in talk page conversations, is sometimes made more difficult when having to deal with users editing from the same IP with different temporary accounts. This permission could also make it easier to identify socking in the rare occasion I have to submit SPI reports. -- Reconrabbit 06:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1303932167"