| | Requests for permissions | - This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify rollback, account creator, confirmed, and autoreviewer rights.
- Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Processed requests are automatically archived.
| Permissions - Rollback: 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. For a more detailed explanation of rollback and information about when it is appropriate to use the tool, see Wikipedia:Rollback feature. For information about the technical details of the feature, see here.
- Account creator: The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the account request 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.
- Autoreviewer: The autoreviewer 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 Autoreviewer, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and WP:Notability.
- Confirmed: The confirmed flag is granted to new users who have not hit the threshold for autoconfirmed status of yet. 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 without hitting the autoconfirmed flag. A user requesting this flag must demonstrate a reason for requiring the flag.
- AutoWikiBrowser: AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change. Please read the quick guide on the main page before requesting permission. In applying for AWB access, you indicate that you will abide by that agreement. Also, this page is for requesting AWB Access for this wiki (English Wikipedia) only. Other projects have their own check pages and you should ask local sysops to add you there. Note that users with under 500 mainspace edits are RARELY approved. Also, you only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you have fewer than 500 mainspace edits! If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage.
- NewPageWatcher: NPWatcher is a Wikipedia tool, which allows users to perform new page patrol easily, with a graphical interface for the attachment of appropriate deletion tags, as well as a prodding interface and an AfD feature. As a guideline, you should have at least 500 edits and a clear understanding of the policy before requesting NPW. Any administrator can approve users (and himself/herself) for NPWatcher: just add the user name(s) to this protected page in alphabetical order, inform the user(s) that the application has been processed (better with User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Approval template).
Note: While the IP-block-exempt right can also be granted by admins, this should not be requested here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be sent to the unblock-en mailing list or, if there are significant privacy concerns, to the CheckUser list. Removal of permissions If you wish to have any of your permission flags removed, you should contact an administrator. This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard. Note: The administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at m:Steward requests/permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they come from members of the Arbitration Committee or a user who is requesting their own access be removed. Process Requestors To make a request for a permission, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and add the following code: *{{subst:rfp|Your Username|Short reason for wanting permission}} ~~~~
Do not simply edit this page and add your request, or it may be removed. Any editor may comment on requests for permission. -
- Jump to: Rollback · Account creator · Autoreviewer · Confirmed · Other
Administrators Administrators are permitted to grant rollback and/or account creator flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). They should review a user's contributions (i.e. reversion history) or account creation 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. The request will then be archived automatically: approved requests for this month will be placed here. Declined requests for this month will go here. Current requests | | Before using Rollback | | Editors requesting Rollback should read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed. |
- I've been doing a ton of vandalism fighting lately, and it would be nice to have the official rollback along side Twinkle. neko-chan :3 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 Y Done. Don't see any major problems. Thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - To fight vandalism. Syjytg (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 N Not done Way too premature. You were unblocked 10 days ago after socking, and in your less than 50 edits since March have done no vandalism fighting. Show the community you can stand by your unblocking for a while first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - To help deal with vandalism G
ainLine ♠ ♥ 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - Y Done Acalamari 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rights removed by an admin with a conflict of interest with me, without any discussion, without mentioning it to me, and whilst arguing with me. A blatant abuse of administrator rights ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Resolve this at WP:ANI as you were recommended to do at the helpdesk. this was not clear cut vandalism. Pedro : Chat 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've recently returned to using my free time reverting vandalism off the recent changes page and would appreciate making the process slightly more efficient. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 18:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am active on Wikipedia since 2005, a lot of disruptive user were banned with my help, i would love to help Wikipedia in best possible way, so this will help me a lot. For more about me see here! Tadija (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your block log is a bit concerning. Can you please explain the circumstances surrounding your blocks and why you feel you have learned from them? Tiptoety talk 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, all of that came in one line. I did broke 3rr, and create sock, in order to deal with highly disruptive (all blocked indef. now) users User:Kreshnik25, User:Turkish Flame... And second block is because i didn't know that i cannot use IP adress while my main account is blocked. I just tried to explain why i breach wiki rules. "Wiki rules are per user, not per account.." After all, i really turn next page, as you can see from my work, i just wont to contribute in good way, i am writing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture), just trying to find some good administrator to fix WP:MOSKOS that we need a lot here. So, i am asking for a second chance. I was reacting passionately. There will be no way for you to have problems with me again. (P.S. Can we delete that block log?) :)) All best, Tadija (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- This really isn't the place to discuss this, maybe you could bring it to one of your Talk pages ? Frozen4322 : Chat 22:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I bring it to my talk page. Tadija (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this. I don't really have an opinion though. It is true that the block log has rather fresh entries, but the user promises to play fair from now on. Giving them the button might actually contribute to that sense of responsibility, because they will then have something to lose (it should be understood that any further sockpuppetry will result in a long block and the loss of the rollback button). --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - Certainly the initial 3rr block I should perhaps, in retrospect, have undone, because the user was genuinely reverting the sock of a banned user. Moreschi (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for viewing whole sitation, you may be absolutely sure that i will never ever have sock again. I just really was not introduced to the wiki rules, and was trying to stop those users... What ever your decision is, i will agree to it, but i will be so happy to have this permission, that i will never abuse it! Trust me. I really want to contribute to good and useful wikipedia! All best, Tadija (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I first crossed paths with Tadija in September, 2009, where I handled a 3RR complaint about Prizren. The result was that both editors were warned. When I looked at the edit history of Prizren, a city that has historically been contested between Serbians and Albanians, I got the impression that Tadija was a warrior for the Serbian cause and was not very attentive to Wikipedia norms for article referencing. I am aware that he's made some good contributions lately. For rollback purposes, we want to be very sure that the person understands the definition of vandalism. I'm not convinced that Tadija is there yet. In the box I cite three edits from late November where he is reverting things that are not actual vandalism in my opinion:
-
-
- For this reason I'd oppose rollback at this time, but suggest he reapply in the first quarter of 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to explain edits a bit.
| Three non-vandalisms that he reverted without proper edit summary (Explanation) | | http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prizren&diff=next&oldid=327847448 Removed a citation to Procopius for a possible etymology of the city name, from 'Petrizen'. His removal of this possible etymology is a controversial change, and is certainly not a vandalism revert. His use of WP:UNDO for this with no comment added is not appropriate, in my opinion. - (This was not vandalism, i really didn't explain, just removed different explanation from sourced sentence.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adem_Jashari&diff=prev&oldid=328467692 Probably not vandalism, could be a good-faith misunderstanding by the IP editor. (What matters for Wikipedia purposes is the the political term for Kosovo at the time the article subject was born there, not its current status, but the IP may not have realized that). Tadija's edit summary, "(Reverted 2 edits by 213.149.99.32 identified as vandalism to last revision by Tadija. (TW))" - (This was not vandalism, but my mistake. It is good-faith, and IP-s only edit. My mistake! I thought that i know that IP. Will not happen again! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Kosovo_topics&diff=prev&oldid=328567234 Actually a content dispute about how the template should be organized, Tadija's edit summary on 29 November, "Reverted 1 edit by Turkish Flame identified as vandalism to last revision by Cinéma C. (TW)" - (This is vandalism, Turkish Flame was a sock of disruptive user, and well explained about this edit. We have consensus about. All he did there was just disruptive. Turkish Flame is block indef now.)
| -
-
-
- No matter what, i suppose that there can be wound few more similar situation, i didn't fill all edit summary's for all this years, but that time is behind now! As i say, what ever you decide, i will be OK with it. All best, Tadija (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done for now per the concerns raised above. Tiptoety talk 19:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- wrong information Suma182 (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- N Not done. Hi, Suma182. Rollback is a tool given to experienced users to quickly revert vandalism. We welcome all contributors to correct wrong information, as long as the corrections are supported by reliable sources (see also how to cite sources). See Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:Getting started for more details on how to edit Wikipedia, as well as our 'five pillars'. Welcome to Wikipedia; I hope you stick around! PeterSymonds (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do a lot of reverting vandalism. Samwb123T-C-@ 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Pedro : Chat 08:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to also try WP:Huggle. Thank you! HappyInGeneral (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done upstateNYer 01:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keen to try out igloo ;) I do a fair bit of recent change 'watching', and frequent the types of controversial articles which tend to attract vandalism, but often find myself slow to the punch so to speak, I am on a relatively slow connection so I believe I would be a bit more effective with the efficiency suggested by igloo. Thanks! Unomi (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Y Done - While I do not see a whole lot of anti-vandalism work, I do see intelligent edits that lead me to believe you would not misuse or abuse the flag. Just remember, rollback is only to be used in clear cases of vandalism. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to fight vandalism more efficently Justinsane15 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- While you've been a very consistent user for a while, I didn't see any evidence of using templates to warn vandals after reverting them. How about you give it another 3 weeks or so, and be sure to warn after reverting? Then come back here or to my talk and we can discuss permissions again. Granted if I missed something, you can always feel free to point me in the direction of the evidence. Best, :) upstateNYer 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done, not because of not warning users for vandalism, as that isn't relevant to knowing when to use rollback correctly, but because some of your most recent reverts didn't look like reverting vandalism to me: [1][2][3][4][5]. As rollback doesn't leave a helpful edit summary, rollback would have been inappropriate to revert those edits, just like the blank undos were. Read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Rollback, learn when and when not to use rollback (and also when to change the default reason for undo to a more informative edit summary when reverting things that aren't vandalism), and come back in a week or two. Feel free to ask for help or information. Best. Acalamari 19:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to be able to revert vandalism easier and better. Guerillero (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Not enough edits. Give it about 2 or 3 weeks at Special:RecentChanges reverting vandalism and be sure to use appropriate warnings with vandals. upstateNYer 07:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am consistently monitoring pages and reverting vandalism. It would make it easier if I could use this. Austin de Rossi (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- editing image Lightazt9 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Not enough edits. Give it about 2 or 3 weeks at Special:RecentChanges reverting vandalism and be sure to use appropriate warnings with vandals. upstateNYer 07:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I want to have rollback, because that would help undo multiple vandalistic edits at once. Recently in the article Limiting Factor, I tried to undo multiple vandalisms, but when undoing the first one, the undo got reverted, so I had to do the revert the hard way. Also, when I scan recent edits, undoing multiple edits seem too slow, so rollback will help me speed up. Though my record is not perfect, (sometimes I conflict with myself) I would really like to have rollback. Jerry Zhang 00:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just a heads up, WP:TWINKLE would do what you want and not require special permissions. Rollback is extremely limited, and is really only useful if you are doing vandalism patrols with WP:HUGGLE. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Additionally, you vandalism fighting history, while copious in the last few days, is very short. You should continue fighting vandalism for a few months, with Twinkle if it helps, and make sure to include informative edit summaries in any case which is not 100% clear vandalism. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 00:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done You've only been reverting vandalism for 48 hours. Give it a few weeks, and make sure to only revert with "vandalism" in the edit summary for obvious cases of vandalism (WP:AGF). Also, try warning people with the appropriate templates. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I want to revert vandalism more effectively. Tlork squish! 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Please remember to use rollback only for clear cases of vandalism. Tiptoety talk 06:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been actively fighting vandalism for a couple of months now. In fact, most of my edits are from fighting vandalism. I have at least 200 edits, although, I have to be honest, not flawless. I do my best to warn all users about their edits. Rollback would be extremely helpful for me to fight vandalism. Thank you for your time and I respect any decision that is made. Я£ΙИӺΘЯСΣĐᴙᶕᵻᴎᵮᴓᴚᴐᶒᵯɘᴎᴛᶊTalk 01:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Please remember to use rollback only for clear cases of vandalism. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Requested rollback permission last month and was DENIED!!! Didn't cry. I took the suggestions that were offered and have been editing using Twinkle to revert vandalism since Thanksgiving (not a long time, but long enough to become even more familiar with Wiki's policy on vandalism). Now I'm back. You can see from my recent edits that I do not have that many over the last couple of days. This is because I work full time and go to school full time (only get about 30 minutes a day on Wiki). Would like rollback permissions to do more with the time that I have. Morning277 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I revert vandalism of various kinds for several months, especially last two weeks. Usual undo isn't always handy (one of the numerous instances). My first RfR failed since I wasn't experienced in WP:WARN and had merely 130 edits. By now I have 475 edits, including 75 deleted, have learnt most common warning templates and thus I think the flag will make my work more efficient. Of course, If I see something strange, I will use standard undo with the explanation of my action. Microcell (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Want to be confirmed to post new picture for Shanghai, CHINA HLBB75 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, you've been confirmed. For future reference, this is the area to request rollback rights, not confirmed status (see here). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- therefore rollback N Not done per not being a request for rollback (however Arbitrarily0 has granted confirmed status). Valley2city‽ 17:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've got 1200 pages in my watchlist. Periodically I go on RC patrol. I currently use both pop-ups and Twinkle, but I find Twinkle a little clunky. Josh Parris 11:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wish to fight vandalism more easily. I have also been subject of vandalism on my talk page on the Ed, Edd n Eddy Wiki and do NOT want that to happen with my talk page here on Wikipedia. Rcmero (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done You have 27 edits total, three in the past three months, and I see no evidence of vandal fighting. Please take some time to familiarize yourself with enWiki and perform some antivandal reversions, then come back. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Current event seaking large unsolicit information occouring Watchover (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Im un-experienced on wiki. Please fiew the following articles: Nathan Rees, Kristina Keneally and Premier of New South Wales. - Those articles are not being subjected to much vandalism at present and the rollback function is not a temporary tool suitable for use in dealing with spikes of vandalism anyway. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Per Nick-D and no evidence of antivandalism efforts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- My secondary account ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- (Verify) Fear Itself (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done (X! · talk) · @288 · 05:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wish to be able to more efficiently revert vandalism.
 Lord of Bats 10:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC) - Y Done - Will drop a note regarding the image in the sig. Pedro : Chat 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I want to use Huggle to fight vandalism. I have had issues in the past with inappropriate warnings, but I am now using the standard warning templates. Most of my reverts are of obvious vandalism and my use of the rollback feature would be no different. Thanks. Keegscee (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looking over your talk page, there appear to be a number of recent issues with your warnings / behavior in general. At this time, I think declining this request would be the best course of action. That said, before I mark this as not done I would like another administrator to comment. Tiptoety talk 05:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- After looking this over I am inclined to agree with the conclusions of Tiptoety. You have done an impressive amount of vandalism-fighting over the past few days and I hope you continue to keep up the good work. That being said, I cannot ignore the issues that have been brought up at The Administrators' Noticeboard regarding your custom warnings. The granting of the rollback bit is a token of trust that I cannot give you at this time. Please continue to fight vandalism using other methods such as Twinkle and please reapply for rollback in a few weeks. N Not done for now. Valley2city‽ 06:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, i have been reverting pages for months now. I requested before but i was denied because i did not have enough experience. I do understand the concepts of wikipedia vandalism. You will notice on my block log that i was blocked by an accident beacuse someone pretended to be me. Please look into that case so you will understand. Dwayneflanders (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- This concerns me a great deal. Can you please explain. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- In October, I blocked Dwayne for apparently creating a sockpuppet account DwayneF22 (talk · contribs), whose first edit was to revert my decline of a previous rollback request. I asked a checkuser privately to look into it, and because of the location of the IP, I was told that there wasn't any way to prove it either way. Thinking nobody think to impersonate somebody like Dwayne maliciously, I blocked him. He consulted me privately about this later on. Knowing the checkuser had also uncovered a sleeper account belonging to this user, I questioned him about that, and Dwayne denied he had ever created it (despite it being confirmed as Dwayne). Because of the dishonesty shown with this other account, I let the block stand. After expiry, another checkuser ran the check, and it was decided that the account was an impersonator after all. So my block was technically incorrect, and should not be regarded in future discussions (I will make a note in the block log to this effect, if you think it's really necessary). PeterSymonds (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, well someone created an account named DwayneF22 and pretended to be me. And wikipedia admins thought it was me.The person also put a badge on the userpage of DwayneF22 saying that it was a secondary account for Dwayneflanders which it wasnt. So thats what made the admins think it was me. For more information please see DwayneF22's talk page. And also view block log for DwayneF22. Also the person who created this account was blocked forever.-- Dwayneflanders (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done - Per Peter's explanation above the block does not bother me, and you now appear to have sufficient experience. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now lets see you use it properly, please. --Deskana (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem i will! -- Dwayneflanders (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been editing for three years, principally in Disney-related and theme-park related articles. The former are prime targets for vandals, not the least of which being BambiFan101, while the latter is ripe for fanboys to add non-encyclopedic information. Currently, I use Twinkle to revert problem edits, and try and provide adequate edit summaries where appropriate. I rarely use Twinkle's VANDAL rollback button, simply because so few edits qualify in that regard. That said, access to any tools that help defend the project would be appreciated. McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done, thanks for your work! :) JamieS93 18:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have been reverting vandalism for 2 years now, esp. on children's television articles. I have Twinkle, but I want to use rollback on IE. Dalekusa (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Nja247 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I like to watch Recent Changes for instances of vandalism on high school and college pages (very fertile territory for rvvin'). This type of vandalism often comes rapidly with multiple edits. After three sequential uses of Undo, the process gets tedious. Rollback would just make it easier. Thanks! Biglovinb (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. -- Mentifisto 07:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am requesting the rollback feature because I want to join in fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. Nascarfans (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Far too little edit history. Use WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE for vandal fighting for a few months and a few hundred edits, then reapply. You don't need rollback to fight vandalism unless you're doing it en masse. P.S. This should have been added at the top of the page. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I also notice you nominated yourself for adminship a couple weeks back. You know you don't need any special permissions (aside from maybe being autoconfirmed) to do a lot of useful work here? Heck, admins are frequently hamstrung by the power they wield; they get constantly badgered for doing their job, and they are constantly drawn into disputes not of their making. Don't just collect permissions for the sake of having them. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done As ShadowRanger noted, there is still too little edit history at this point. Skier Dude (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I rollbacker in Wikipedia in spanish this is my second request for this flag i knwon in a first I made mistakes
 drei†men 04:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) - N Not done - Too few edits at this time. Tiptoety talk 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm hereby requesting the Reviewer right <sic>. I've been reading up on flagged revisions and WP:FPPR related meta activity and noticed that a two month trial has been approved, even though there is no defined policy as to how WP:Reviewers are chosen, just proposals. Since the cart's already before the horse, I thought I'd try to make a horrific crash less likely by making the trial more realistic by actually making a request for the Reviewer right. Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewers doesn't exist, and WP:PERM is of marginal help, but after reading it, this seems the most appropriate place to post a trial request for the Reviewer bit. Getting the cart in gear should help. I'm hoping this trial ballon doesn't get popped as the ball gets rolling. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor humor interlude.) For the purposes of the trial, I ask that the reviewer of this request act as if the bit can be granted, and the trial has begun, and approve (or reject) it as (like in a disaster preparedness drill) a normal/real request, by considering whether I should have it (and because this is a test, please also be loquacious about how you go about deciding whether to grant it -e.g. what policy pages you look at or for, what you think about, and why you do or don't grant it - your feedback should help the needed policy develop.) Please DO feel encouraged to edit policy pages you look at or for. But, I think it's best if the reviewer isn't involved in the WP:FPPR project, and that we should inform the WP:FPPR community after the review is complete, and point from here to a place where we can have a follow-up discussion of the test. Please don't tell me this is premature or I'm asking in the wrong place. Please consider this my rationale for requesting the right: I've been editing and using my watchlist to keep wikipedia free from vandalism for a while, but I think this will help with that effort. With any luck, this'll help put the cart before the horse! Yes, I'm serious. -- Elvey (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Flagged revisions isn't even enabled yet, and admins nor stewards can grant the Reviewer right as it would be useless, and the group does not exist. While a steward could indeed create the group for you there are no rights related to FR enabled yet so there would be no purpose. GrooveDog FOREVER 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done as there is no "reviewer" right. There is autoreviewer, which is something entirely different. Thanks for your interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Before making a change *
- here, be sure to notify *
- Soxred93, so he can *
- change the bot to the *
- new template. *
--> - Although the recommended amount of articles is 75, I have 53. Please consider it. Thank you. Btilm 18:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done That's good enough for me. Acalamari 18:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- (optional statement) - Urashima Tarō (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Skier Dude (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have created 34 articles so far. I have lots of experience at AfD (not for my articles:) and have done some new page patrolling so I know what not to do. I also have some experience with GA so I know what to do - Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 16:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've created 55 articles, not including redirects, and have experience doing new-page patrol and GA reviews/noms.
- Y Done Acalamari 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- 30 articles and templates created (less than 75, I know) plus AfD experience and over 6k total edits; anything to ease the burden on the patrollers. - Cocytus [»talk«] 02:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done for now; doesn't seem like you really need it for the few articles you've created. No offense, obviously; just doesn't seem necessary. upstateNYer 03:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have 250+ articles. User:7 noticed that at NPP and suggested this to me. - Blargh29 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 15:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am currently embarking on expanding and creating new articles in preparation for the 2010 Winter Olympics as part of the WikiProject Vancouver and the FA Team (part of the Wikipedia Featured Articles project. I have extensive FA and GA experience as well as new page patrol. Thanks for your consideration. - Mkdwtalk 08:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- N Not done I don't really see the need as of right now. upstateNYer 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mkdw left a message on my talk page about this regarding a re-review: Mkdw has 79 article creations according to the page count tool. That easily meets the page creation guidelines. Is there any reason why he can't have the tool now that he has that many creations? Thanks. Acalamari 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have noticed that Soxred93's tool for page creations (the basis it seems for this request process) some times incorrectly comes back with incomplete reports. A moment ago I clicked the link and it showed only 63 page creations, but refreshing the tool reveals 79. If this was a factor in the rejection process, then I hope a reevaluation will conclude with a different result. However, if I have not met other requirements, please inform me of these faults so that I may either explain or address them to make my application viable. Thank you. Mkdwtalk 03:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say it's OK to grant the right. Will defer to NYer though. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC) - Sorry for that misunderstanding, Mkdw. You're right; when I checked the the tool, it told me you had created something in the low 20s of articles. Naturally, with the number of articles you have actually created, this is a no brainer. Sorry for the confusion; I can only make a decision that's as good as the data. :) upstateNYer 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Have created 67 articles to date, and will be creating a number more on women's cricket, generally created as short stubs and then built up to start-class - Harrias (talk) 09:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done upstateNYer 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Has created over 300 plant species articles in the last month. - TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have been around long enough to know how to be helpful - about 300 articles created in all, 25+ at DYK, on a wide range of topics. - Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done
by User:Pedro Skier Dude (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC) - Huh? They want autoreviewer, not rollback. Tim Song (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done - got it, my bad, read wrong checkbox :( Skier Dude (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Has been here since 2006 and has created 84 articles about Estonia ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 16:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Has been here for years and created at least 100 articles) - ϢereSpielChequers 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- (will be creating zoo related articles over the coming months/year to improve WikiProject Zoo and remove all red linked Australian and New Zealand Zoo's, Will also be creating Animal Related articles for WikiProject Animals, No Problem if not granted.) - ZooPro 06:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done - Too few article creations as of right now. Tiptoety talk 00:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Only 44 articles so far but has featured content and has been here 18 months) ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have created 300+ articles on music and opera. - Kleinzach 06:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Skier Dude (talk) 07:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't created any articles but I don't do vandalisms - just adding interwiki links and sometimes correcting some mistakes. --Djuneyt tr (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done - autoreviewer rights won't help you with this, but you're welcome to request again when you have had some experience creating articles. Maybe you were looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed? Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, not a problem. I will try after creaating some articles. But Is it obligatory to create articles for autoreviewer rights? Can I not be autoreviewer only with expanding articles (because I can write about everything - maybe most about bulgarian things) and adding interwikis? --Djuneyt tr (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, autoreviewer rights allow a user to create a page that is automatically patrolled. Therefore, unless you're creating new pages, autoreviewer rights wouldn't be applicable for you. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I see. Thank you. --Djuneyt tr (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have created over 100+ Olympic swimming related articles and I will continue to expand and eventually move on to athletics. Philipmj24 (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done - no doubt! Keep it up, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- (I have several thousand edits and have created more than 80 articles in a variety of fields to date.) - Hellno2 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Acalamari 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- - Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- (To continue working on the article on Jose Mujica that I've been improving all day but sadly had to be semi-protected due to some vandalism) - Martin Hausen 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- To add images to the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory page Seuss01 (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is my alternate account for use on public computers. Would like to be able to edit semi-protected pages and move pages etc. - Footyfanatic3000 (talk · contribs) 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! --Footyfanatic3000 (talk · contribs) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was autoconfirmed for a very long time but then recently I cannot do any stuff that autoconfirmed users do anymore (like editing semi-protected pages, moving a page, etc.). In short, I have lost my autoconfirmed status. I could not use Twinkle or even edit my own user page (semi-protected; currently requesting for unprotection)! The user rights log for me did not show any removal of privileges and I am never blocked. When I checked the members of groups in the preferences section, the "Autoconfirmed" users is missing, just "Rollbackers and Users" - Merlion 444 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weird. Y Done in any case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I restored autoconfirmed via Special:AbuseFilter/tools, so I have removed the redundant userright. Regards, NW (Talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm Katerenka's account for public computers that she is going to need to use tomorrow and would be appreciative if I didn't have to wait four days to edit semiprotected pages (as many of the pages on my watchlist are). Thanks, GwenNovak talk to my master 05:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done - Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wanting to contribute to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/FPSChart.svg C0mputar123 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done –xenotalk 16:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Would like to be able to post photos when necessary.) - Heyazzo (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. NW (Talk) 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The entry on Yeoman's Guard Moira Cameron has some inaccuracies which I am unable to edit - under the section about the current bullying allegations, it states "While living at the historic site along with 34 male workers, her uniform was allegedly tampered with and bullying notes were left in her locker." whereas in The Times article it says "Sources at the Tower say that these details are inaccurate — warders do not have lockers, as they live at the Tower, and her uniform was not defaced." so this information is not so clear cut as presented in the current wikipedia entry Halfcaked (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done NW (Talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I also do not edit many pages, but I'm knowledgeable in matters of musicians and music albums and therefore do most of my edits there. A specific page I'm looking to have a hand in is the Jason Mraz page. The main pictures are outdated, and I have myself taken many that I feel would better suit the page. I also would like the opportunity to be able to add any new information to the page that I may find elsewhere, via interviews/blogs/etc. Sashasweety (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. NW (Talk) 03:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am the founder of the project http://www.discoverkosovo.eu whereby I try to stimulate tourism to Kosovo by presenting as much neutral information as possible about the country and thus showing its true image to the world. As part of my mission I'm also surfing the internet in search for information on Kosovo and I try to add or correct (neutral) information about the country where possible. I've been adding some info about tourism to Kosovo on the Dutch Wikipedia-page (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo) and I would like to do the same on the English Kosovo-page. - Peterfox006 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not a major contributor, but often help by cleaning up language, punctuation, and spelling errors. Unable to fix a found spelling error on the United Kingdom page, request permissions to do so. Clifsportland (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. NW (Talk) 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Am new to Wikipedia but have discovered significant vandalism and inappropriate content that does not even approach encyclopedic standards. Would like confirmation to edit semi-locked articles to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Specifically, would like to edit the Cyprus section under Black People, which is flawed in numerous ways and lacks any credible sourcing. Coasterby (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done You're already autoconfirmed. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I want to add my company's name to the endorsement section of LeBron James page, which is protected. LoriKB (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
- Some edits i'd like to be able to make to some semi-protected articles, and i'm a bit impatient, heh - Thewtfchronicles (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Please state why you feel you need autoconfirmed rights and which articles you intend to edit. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Account run by Addihockey - Dr.UserBox (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Confirmation that this account is run by me. --Addihockey (t/c) 17:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done. NW (Talk) 03:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've been around for ages, made contributions to Catsuits and other sewing pages, and to Spotted Hyenas. I wanted to fix the language on the Final Destination 3 page, having just seen the DVD, but it seems I've not been confirmed despite apparently being qualified for autoconfirmation. SleekWeasel (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done. You're already autoconfirmed. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I need to edit a semi-protected page which has incorrect information and as far as I have been able to tell I am not autoconfirmed. The particular entry is the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 entry. HardcorePooka (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done –xenotalk 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- I want to add Google's purchase of Teracent to the Google Acquisitions section of the Google page, which is semi-protected. Omer Shachnai (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Coincidentally, with this request I believe you have surpassed the threshold for autoconfirmed. Please try to edit the page and report back if not and I will add 'confirmed' for you. –xenotalk 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Many pages I come to visit and think I can make a valuable contribution to are semi-protected. I would like to edit these pages where necessary. I am a trusted member of Wikpedia, and are a new page patroller and a mamber of many task forces in the military history section.Diddy29 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done You should be autoconfirmed already. –xenotalk 22:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Pretty sure I wasn't before, but I am now, so thankyou. --Diddy29 (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 | Attention to all users interested in using New Page Watcher: | | This tool is currently not working due to a recent MediaWiki update. When the tool is updated, your requests for permissions will be reviewed. Thank you for your patience. | | The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. | |
- Gaelen S. (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
I am currently specialize in removing vandalism on English Wikipedia. I have rollback permissions and use huggle to do most of my work. However, I would like to expand my area of expertise and do have a good understanding of the speedy delete policy. My main purpose for this tool would be to find pages that do not meet with WP:CSD standards and mark them for deletion. Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC) - I would like to see a little more CSD tagging. In looking at your deleted edits (which, oddly enough, is something you can't do), I didn't see any tags to speedily delete a page. Spend some time watching new pages without this tool and see where you can help improve new pages, help users wikify references or tag as needed. Thanks. I'll check back on this request in a few days or so. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Kubek15 (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
Hello, I have patrolled more than 1,000 pages, and I still patrol them, but it's not easy. If I'd use the script, I'd have the opportunity to patrol faster. I know all the CSD standards by heart :-). Please, give me the right to use the script. Kubek15T CS 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC) - I was looking you up and you were approved last week (I didn't notice the timestamp). I was going to approve you. Anyway, you do great work but I would just like to suggest being a little more careful in the particular CSD tag that you use. There are existing CSD reasons and you don't always need to create your own. I think you're going to do a great job. Valley2city‽ 22:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- SuperHamster (talk • contribs • count • total • block log).
- Hello, I've recently gained interest in new page patrolling and have had some experience marking pages for speedy deletion, mainly by scanning this page, and also scanning this page for speedy deletion requests that were removed. This tool will help me out (well, obviously, since I'm requesting it) ;) Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Belinrahs (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- Hi there, I'm an editor experienced in XFD and CSD criteria and would like a tool like NPWatcher to help me more easily and quickly patrol new articles on the wiki. Thanks! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- You probably want to log in, just saying...Tim Song (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, I didn't notice that I hadn't logged in when I did that. Yes, that was me. Changed sig as well. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- NoseNuggets (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- I need to have edit-semiprotection for both the WordGirl and List of characters in WordGirl pages because of excessive vandalism by non-registered users from IP addresses in the 173.168.2XX.XX range (Road Runner Communications) which includes cruft from of all things Rocko's Modern Life. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:36 PM US EDT Oct 12 2009
- THIS isn't the right place to request for page protection. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is the link that you are looking for. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Odie5533 (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- I would like to use the tool to more easily patrol new pages. I have been doing so with Twinkle and the New Pages list, but hope I can work more efficiently with this. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Btilm (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- I monitor the new page patrol often. I am currently using friendly and twinkle. I have rollback permissions. I would like an easier way to patrol new pages. Btilm 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Dwayneflanders (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)Hello, i have been patrolling the recent changes section for a while now and i have ben fighting vandalism with a tool called Twinkle and i enjoy doing that. I also think i would enjoy doing this also --dwayneflanders (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC) - I realize the tool is broken but I'm applying anyway. I currently have experience in fighting vandalism (I have rollback) and I also have experience in patrolling. I don't use any tools to patrol at the moment and using this would expedite the process. Pyho T / C 03:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Presidentman (talk • contribs • count • total • block log) I would like to try again. - Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC) DylanIloveYou (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- I would like to become more active in csd and afd proposals as I wish to be an admin in the future and this will help. --Addihockey (t/c) 23:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ilyushka88 (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- Hello. I am continuously patrolling Special:Contributions/newbies, and I have become very familiar with tagging for speedy deletion. At the moment I am using Twinkle and Huggle, and I feel that this application would possibly make it easier for me to patrol new pages. I know that NPW isn't working at the moment, but I still decided to request for approval. Ilyushka88 talk 20:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Laurinavicius (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)
- Hi there! I'm an experienced editor (a little more than a year-and-a-half on WP) and have been patrolling new pages for nearly a year now. I already use Twinkle and Huggle and I have rollback permission, but I feel that this application would make it even easier for me to patrol new pages and allow me to become more productive at it. I do realize that this application isn't currently working, but I have decided to request for approval regardless. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have been a long time editor on Wikipedia. I spend a large portion of my time reverting vandalism and fixing structure related problems. I currently use Twinkle religiously and am also a Rollback Rights user. I would like to try out this tool as soon as you get it back up. Best wishes, - Mkdwtalk 08:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- When it's fixed, I intend to use it as a faster and more efficient tool for patrolling, something I do a lot but with with Twinkle. - fetchcomms☛ 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I've patrolled over a 100 pages and would like to have this tool to make patrolling easier. I'm more involved in vandalism-fighting(I have rollback and also use Twinkle) but would like to get back to active patrolling again. I am also experienced with the CSD policy. Thanks. - BejinhanTalk 12:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Abce2 (talk • contribs • count • total • block log)I would like to request it because I do alot of my work patrolling new pages and CSD the ones that are certainly not notable, as in "Bob is cool." It would help me alot.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC) - I wish to replace the exisiting image shown on Gilead Sher's profile page with another image
| Users - Y Done Rodhullandemu 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Rodhullandemu 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Rodhullandemu 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Rodhullandemu 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- N Not done Sorry, not with such a recent block for breach of policy. I'd let some water flow under the bridge before reapplying. Rodhullandemu 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Bots
Purge this page |
