Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

• 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.

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

• Administrator and bureaucrat access: Requests for administrator or bureaucrat access need to be posted at requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratship, respectively.
• Bots: Request for bot flags should be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Edit filter: Requests for access to the edit filter manager group and the edit filter helper group should be made at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard.
• Interface administrator: Requests for interface administrator access should be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Only current administrators may become interface administrators.
• IP-block-exempt: While the IP-block-exempt right can be granted by administrators, this flag is not handled here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be submitted via the Unblock Ticket Request System or, if there are significant privacy concerns, email the checkuser team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org or contact a CheckUser directly.
• CheckUser and Oversight: These rights are only granted by the Arbitration Committee, and only after strict scrutiny. More information can be found here.
• AfC reviewer: This access is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
• Redirect autopatrol list: Addition to the list is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list.
• Steward permissions can only be granted in yearly elections, and are rarely given.
• Global permissions such as global renamer, sysop, IP block exempt, rollback, etc. should be made at meta:Steward requests/Global permissions.

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

• If you wish to have any of your permissions removed, contact an administrator
• To request a review of another editor's use of a permission, use administrative action review
• If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission, raise your concern at the administrator's noticeboard

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.

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

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

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

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.

• CherryPie94 (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

New page reviewer who has made over 90 articles including 1 good article and quite familiar with content guidelines, I may also as well not clutter the backlog for other reviewers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that immediately jumped out at me is some biographical articles created (e.g. Kim Na and Son Se-bin) have unsourced biographical information, such as the date of birth. This information should be sourced to ensure compliance with WP:DOB. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered adding references directly next to DOB, which I did at my two most recent BLPs: Mike Kim and Lee Joon-ho. If birth information is not 100% verifiable, I play it safe (eg. Lee Seung-yoon). Per WP:DOB, links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted so I included Kim Na's personal website which states birth year as 1986 in the external links section. I created Son Se-bin over 5 years ago when I was much less experienced, so I don't quite recall which exact source I used for DOB (birth year seems to have been present in Star Today), so I've just amended that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I've misinterpreted that personal website policy, though it does fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've now also directly sourced it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kjansen86 (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I am autopatrolled and an NPP reviewer; I would actually like to nominate User:Kjansen86 to be autopatrolled. I just reviewed and cheerfully accepted almost a dozen perfectly-formulated articles on Zoroastrian texts, and they have made more than 25 overall. Looking at their talk page, this appears to be an experienced and effective editor. Checking their AfD stats, I find one (successful) AfD that they initiated, indicating an awareness of notability. We may as well take them out of the NPP backlog. (This is my first time nominating someone else so if I did it wrong, please let me know!) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoreviewer" user right. — MusikBot ^talk 21:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: I went ahead and adjusted the nomination so it reflects who's actually being discussed, hope you don't mind! For future reference, you can use the "add request" link at the top of this page and replace the {{subst:REVISIONUSER}} with whichever user you're nominating. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate your fix for this nomination and your tip for next time! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Thank you very much for the positive evaluation of my work on Wikipedia. I really appreciate it. Kjansen86 (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• -Verso- (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

78 live articles, (64 of which is start class, 5 Cs, 8 Stubs). Only one was deleted which is from 2018. All of the articles are well-sourced. I think this user is good enough for Autopatrolled Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Seconded. These are well-sourced, well-written, clean articles (with talk pages) being created at a sufficient pace that having the AP flag would help reduce the burden for patrollers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hteiktinhein (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello, I have created over 30 articles, none of which have been deleted. I am well-versed in Wikipedia's notability guidelines and currently assist new Burmese editors. I focus on creating articles related to Myanmar that need to be written, including those covering current events. Granting me autopatrolled rights would help reduce the backlog of articles awaiting review. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) At the pace this editor is creating, I would expect granting the flag to help reduce the backlog. These are solid articles; talk pages are created, which helps as well. I am AGF'ing on the Burmese language sources but have no concerns. @Hteiktinhein, a couple nits: on Padein Prince rebellion, the section of "Members" with an unexplained bulleted list is a bit confusing, and on Thetpan Mibaya, the "see also" section should go above the references section per MOS:LAYOUT. But these are just small things to keep in mind for the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Thank you very much for your kind comment on my contributions. I plan to continue creating more content related to Burmese history, especially topics that are still missing from the English Wikipedia.

Although access to Wikipedia has been banned in Myanmar across all language versions, I am able to contribute using the ipblock-exempt right.

Please don't worry about the Burmese-language sources — I have substantial knowledge of Burmese history, particularly the Konbaung era, and I have access to both online and offline versions of the Konbaung Chronicle and other historical texts. I appreciate your helpful notes regarding some minor issues in my articles, such as the structuring of See also sections and now fixed, and I'll certainly keep them in mind going forward. Best regards. Hteiktinhein (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fade258 (requesting Autopatrolled, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello Admin! I have been regularly creating articles and I'm also familiar with WP:AUTOPAT and Wikipedia policies. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hello fellow New Page Patroller @Fade258! One question I have is: are you going to boost your article creation? I see only one new actual article created since October 2023, so at that pace adding the AP flag wouldn't do much to reduce the backlog. You do seem more active in creating redirects, so once you get to 100 uncontroversial redirects created, you could apply for the pseudo-right at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list, which I would endorse you for and which would autopatrol your redirects and reduce the backlog there. As for your one recent creation, a couple notes. On Saumya Saraswat, the article subject should be bolded at the beginning of the first sentence. Two of your sources are unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources ([1], [2]), which are of questionable reliability. Hope this helps! Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dclemens1971, Thank you for reviewing my request and for the feedback! I appreciate your suggestions and I will aim to increase my article creation rate moving forward. Currently, I have some articles on my plate to create but due to my personal reason I am not doing that. In the meantime, I will also focus on creating uncontroversial redirects to reach the 100 mark and apply for the redirect autopatrol pseudo-right as advised. I will also take care to bold article titles properly and be more selective with sourcing and avoiding unbylined or questionable sources. In future , I will also select those references considering the NEWSORGINDIA. Thanks again for the helpful guidance and your offer to endorse! Fade258 (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MerlinVtwelve (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hallo! I've created 46 articles, and have been editing Wikipedia since 2010. How time flies! merlinVtwelve (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Reviewed the last several articles, and while your grasp of notability is strong, I did find an instance of WP:CLOP on your most recent creation that is very close to the line of copyvio if not over it. See Copyvio Detector results. This article is otherwise very well done! Two other things to consider when creating articles: create talk pages (the WP:RATER tool is helpful here) and make sure at least one other page links to yours. If you were to be autopatrolled, orphaned pages would likely stay orphaned longer. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Phantomdj (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hi, I have created 118 pages and would like to have autopatrol rights, please. Thanks. Phantomdj (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I reviewed @Phantomdj's last 10 article creations, and they are overall quite good. Well-formatted, clean copy. They all appear to be compliant with WP:NASTRO. It would be helpful if they could create talk pages for their creations (the WP:RATER tool is helpful for this) but otherwise I think the project would benefit from Phantomdj being autopatrolled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Owais Al Qarni (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for the past five years and have created over 150 articles. I strive to produce well-sourced, high-quality content on topics such as Bayan al-Quran, Mamunul Haque, and Deobandi fiqh, and I have also improved existing articles like the one on Zakariyya Kandhlawi. While I understand that the Autopatrolled user right is not necessary for editing, I have noticed that the page review process can be significantly delayed, with some of my pages taking 6–12 months to be reviewed. As a New Page Reviewer for the past two years, I actively participate in wiki forums, including AfD, and none of my articles have been deleted in the past three years, which I believe demonstrates my understanding of notability and other relevant guidelines. I believe I am eligible for the Autopatrolled right, which would help reduce the backlog of unreviewed pages. Additionally, I have held the Autopatrolled right on Bengali Wikipedia for the past five years. Thanks. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I spot-checked several recent pages, and they are in good shape: notable topics, in-line citations, MOS-compliant, talk pages created, etc. Eight pages deleted, but the most recent one was nearly three years ago; knowledge of notability appears to have improved as makes sense for a New Page Reviewer. My one suggestion to @Owais Al Qarni: since you seem to create pages with multiple smaller edits, I recommend creating in your user sandbox or in a draft and then moving to mainspace once the page is largely complete. But that's not a requirement and I would support granting this perm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done please review the notes left by @Dclemens1971:, if you run into any problems feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Huligan0 (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

This user has created a huge number of articles, mostly to do with football in Switzerland. A cursory review shows that the articles often need copyediting and could use more inline citations, but the subjects are consistently notable and the articles are generally well-researched and -referenced, so I don't see much for NPP to do here. Toadspike [Talk] 15:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done When you sayarticles often need copyediting and could use more inline citations, that's the exact opposite of what autopatrolled is for, especially the latter issue. Schwede66 21:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 I'm not going to push you to reconsider, but if you don't mind, I'm going to rant a bit. I realize it's been discussed elsewhere and there's no clear community consensus on what "clean" articles means, but I think this is a very clear case where the core functions of NPP are unnecessary and our AP standards reveal themselves to be a romantic fantasy of how patrolling should work. The articles are notable, there are no two ways about it, and they contain a huge number of sources. Take their most recent article, 1961–62_Swiss_Cup, which has 26 sources in various locations; this seems about average for this user. They are not a native English speaker and they put their refs in weird places – so what? An NPPer would, at most, slap on one or two useless tags that will take years to get fixed, if ever; more likely they will punch the review button as fast as they can, while sighing in relief that for once they aren't reviewing AI-generated UPE garbage, and move on without taking any action. These articles even have categories, (auto-generated) shortdescs, and aren't orphans. What more do you expect an NPPer to do here? Toadspike [Talk] 00:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prose of the first two sections of 1961–62 Swiss Cup is completely unreferenced. I would prefer a reviewer to tag that, Toadspike. Not so much so that some random editor fixes that over the next few years, but to communicate to the article creator that unsourced prose isn't ok, so that hopefully they will change their practices. Huligan0, would you mind adding inline referencing to your articles so that there aren't unreferenced sections? Schwede66 00:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The unfortunate reality is that tagging is not a mandatory part of the NPP process, which nowadays means it basically isn't part of the NPP process, especially when inline citations are generally not required. I clicked on three of these cup articles at random earlier, each of which was marked as patrolled by a different reviewer without any edits or tags. (I don't remember which articles they were but I'm sure you can replicate the experiment.) I think our best bet is to encourage editors like Huligan, as you have now done, to make specific improvements to their creation habits, but then to accept that NPP isn't serving any purpose here. Toadspike [Talk] 01:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huligan0, could you please comment? Schwede66 03:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, sorry, but I have only just noticed this conversation a couple of hours ago. In the meantime I have read your conversation and all the notes concerning autopatrolled. I notice some critic in this discussion and would, therefore, like to clear a fact or two before I start: I was born and breed on the south coast of England, attended school there and studied Business Studies in college there and completed my appenticeship there, so I am indeed a native English speaker, and yes I have lived in Switzerland for about 50 years, so perhaps my English does not always reach the highest level any more. However, further in the critic you state that I put refs in weird places. I do not understand this remark, please explain. To my feelings; my aim is (and been since 15 years) to improve the coverage of Swiss football in the English Wiki. I have writen all the FC Basel seasons, have added some 500 or 600 FC Basel players in this time. I have added all the Swiss 1. Liga seasons and modified all the Nationalliga seasons as well. I am now completing the Swiss Cup seasons. I have always added as many sources as possible and think I have done pretty well. But, I do not want to become an admin. No nothing like that. I am too old for that, how much longer may I live? I am pround to think that someone nominated me to become an autopatrolled editor. However, I would not be disappointed if this was not accepted. All I want to do is continue my project and improve the coverage of Swiss football in the English Wiki. If you have a suggestion or two on how I could improve my edits, then please let me know, any suggestion would be welcomed. I send you friendly greetings from Basel --Huligan0 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from New Zealand to Basel. Thanks for your note, Huligan0. You asked for suggested improvements. Sticking with the example discussed here, i.e. the 1961–62 Swiss Cup, no article should have unreferenced paragraphs. The best improvement you could provide is to add references that confirm the prose that is currently unreferenced. Do you think you could do that? And keep doing that going forward?

To have written 500 to 600 bios is quite some achievement. Well done! Schwede66 05:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kimikel (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Recommending Kimikel for autopatrolled. A little over the threshold with 27 articles created, but they are all clean, polished, notable, well-sourced -- and do not require the attention of patrollers. No deletions. Three GAs in the mix, which is where I first encountered this editor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thank you @Dclemens1971: for the notes. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• VortexPhantom (requesting AutoWikiBrowser) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (edit CheckPage)

Requesting the AWB to perform repetitive tasks. I will mainly use it for adding categories to AFd debates, fixing grammatical error, fixing abuse of tags. Thanks for considering my request. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grapesurgeon (requesting AutoWikiBrowser) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (edit CheckPage)

Not sure if right place to post this; I already had awb permissions under the username "seefooddiet", but my account was recently renamed to "grapesurgeon". My username needs to be updated in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON to "grapesurgeon". grapesurgeon (formerly seefooddiet) (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done For the record, there's an adminbot that patrols the list and follows renames, which would have got this in two days. Since you've brought it up here, though, I updated the page manually. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bransonphan239& (requesting Confirmed) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

Reason for requesting confirmed rights Nickeldeon Bransonphan239& (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done – Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you are used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5 percent of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that more than 95 percent of the articles can use your help right now! stwalkerster (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tashmetu (requesting Extended confirmed) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

I had my EC revoked last year by the arbitration committee. I have since completed the required 500 substantial edits to the best of my knowledge. I applied about a month ago and was refused because I didn't clearly understand the requirements. But hopefully this time I got it correctly. Tashmetu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for extended confirmed declined in the past 90 days ([3]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([4]). — MusikBot ^talk 14:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux hey, sorry for tagging you. I just noticed you are the only active admin on this thread and I was wondering if you can look into my request or let me know who I can contact to have it looked at. Tashmetu (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tashmetu, the ArbCom remedy requires thatTashmetu shows that they have made 500 substantive edits; all I can see is a statement that you did. While I think it doesn't mean you have to provide a list of all the contributions (that would be hard to review and pointlessly redundant to the full list), I personally think you should explain at least in some detail how you improved the encyclopedia since the revocation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, I assumed there would be some process for this but I will do my best to explian. So I have worked mostly on the history side of Wikipedia, contributing to the "years in France" series and "years in Iraq " series, writing articles, adding details, events, and references. I have a huge library of history books so I thought that's the best use of my resources. I also try to create and enrich pages of notable Iraqi figures, though not as often because it's harder to find reliable sources for these. One of the issues I ran into while editing Iraqi history pages, because they are more recent, is the continuous topics keep coming up, like it's hard to talk about Iraq in the 90s without mentioning Kurdistan! This one of the reasons I would appreciate having my confirmation reinstated. Tashmetu (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reviewed the last 500 edits and they seemed mostly substantive enough to meet the relevant criterion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But please be careful. Don't jump headfirst into controversial areas, even if you now technically can because you're extendedconfirmed. This does not immunize you from sanctions for any future misconduct. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tashmetu (talk) 06:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Truth Layer 123 (requesting Extended confirmed) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

I was on Wikipedia for around 6 months, why is my account not yet marked as Extended confirmed? Truth Layer 123 (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be automatically marked as extended confirmed once your account is both at least 30 days old (you already meet this) and you have 500 edits. stwalkerster (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done you have not yet met the requirements. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FarmerUpbeat (requesting Mass message sender) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I believe that I should have Mass Message Sender permissions as I am WP:X’s newsletter (Ichthus)’s chief editor, and I will be sending various newsletters to the people of WP:X, as I have already done. Having this permission will help me fulfill my duties. Thank you! Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FarmerUpbeat have you requested any mass messages be sent out yet? It's generally expected you have a few successful requests at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#MassMessage Delivery Requests before requesting the permission yourself. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli I have :) Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've made one request two months ago, which was processed eleven minutes later. Sorry, I'm not seeing a convincing need for this yet, hence  Not done for now but would be more willing to grant if you make a few more requests and they are fulfilled. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Scaledish (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I'm requesting preliminary new page reviewer to help with the backlog drive. Preliminary because I'm not perfect—I've definitely fallen victim to WP:AKON before with my own creations, but I also have created a number of articles that stuck, and edited up articles quite a bit. Importantly each process I've learned and grown. I plan to start small and grow over time as I become more and more confident with the process. Just recently attempted to review a draft with obvious advertising and realized the permissions would be good. Thanks,

Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 03:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Iljhgtn (requesting Page mover) (t · th · c ^{(RM/TR · RMs)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

There are some categories that might warrant moving that I cannot currently without this permission. For tangentially related details, I have a 98.9% AfD match rate, have made 63,500+ edits, and have been editing for a couple years now and am familiar with the page move policy and guidelines. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn even though the permission gives you the technical ability to move categories, category moves should still go through WP:CFD/WP:CFDS. Do you have uses for the permission other than moving categories? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, for helping draftify of new articles etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The scripts: User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft and User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify both look like they would be particularly useful. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Seal F1 (requesting Pending changes reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello. I would like to request this permission. I'm reviewing the Special:Recentchanges, & I often see articles protected by the pending changes protection. I've read the both necessary articles about this feature and am familiar with the most important policies, including WP:BLP, obviously. Besides, I got the rollback a couple of weeks ago, so I can use it if necessary. The Seal F1 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 23:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Destinyokhiria (requesting Pending changes reviewer, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello, I would like to help reduce the pending changes backlog. Destinyokhiria (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now. You have been editing actively for a little over a month, and the limited number of reverts don't have helpful edit summaries. I'd suggest doing a bit more recent changes patrolling to establish more of a track record of responding to vandalism and other content issues. — Wug·a·po·des 00:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chippla360 (requesting Pending changes reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Holla, It’s been over a month since I last requested for Pending changes right, I’m sure I meet the requirements now, I actively patrol the recent changes feed and I want to help. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 21:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([5]). — MusikBot ^talk 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} I appreciate your recent changes patrolling, but I think you should still get more experience. Femke said last time that you need to give user talk warnings after reverting vandalism, and this still is not happening consistently. I also checked some of your reverts and I think you could use more experience. For example, you made this revert saying it's "spammy" but the real issue seems to be WP:BLP vandalism, not spam. — Wug·a·po·des 00:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes It’s been over a month, which is the requirements I met after my last decline, I had Minimal reverts as of then. I had to wait for a month. so I gained the experience already and I’m experienced, the checklist says there should be an explanation for reverting edits and I some warn editors also on there talk page , you can further check that, @User:The Seal F1 Has spent equal duration on the platform with me. Here Warning, I have others I’ve warned, I can’t possibly warn all the user I revert there edits on talk page, that should be very stressful. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 09:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chippla360:  Done You're right that you've improved a lot. I checked more of your reverts and they are generally good even if you could be more specific and consistent in your edit summaries and warnings. As a note, you should be warning everyone, especially IPs, and using warning templates like {{uw-vandalism1}} for even simple reverts of potential vandalism. It's helpful for admins and other editors keeping track of issues. You can do this automatically with Twinkle. That aside, I think you'll do a fine job reviewing pending changes. Thanks for following up. — Wug·a·po·des 01:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SKAG123 (requesting Pending changes reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I have been editing Wikipedia for over 2 years and have made over 5,700 edits. I’ve also been reverting vandalism using twinkle for a while so I am familiar with the guidelines. SKAG123 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 00:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lionel Cristiano (requesting Pending changes reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello, my first request was not done a year ago, I am reapplying today. I have read the review guide. Sometimes I look at the pending changes but I cannot accept good edits. Leo^talk 16:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Not done You only have 17 reverts since your unblock, and after the previous decline, I would want to see much more of a track record before granting. I suggest doing more recent changes patrolling and using appropriate edit summaries to build a stronger record and show you understand the policies well. — Wug·a·po·des 05:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yovt (requesting Pending changes reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello editors, I request permission to review pending changes to help out the community on pages needing the RPC verification; I want to verify good content on the platform and this is one part that I would really appreciate access to. I would be reviewing and approving edits per Wiki guidelines, and I have read all policies on vandalism, copyright, BLP, etc. thanks! 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 02:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 05:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Như Gây Mê (requesting Pending changes reviewer, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hi, I'm a long-time user on Wikipedia (have experience with rollback rights on my home Wiki and here), recently I'm actively using support tools to prevent cross-wiki vandalism (including enwiki). I'd like to be granted Pending changes reviewer rights on enwiki to make it easier to anti-vandalism here (aside from rollback right). Thanks! Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AllCatsAreGrey (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello, I am requesting rollback permissions as I would like to utilize tools such as Huggle, which require this permission. I have been actively patrolling recent changes using a custom filter and have consistently notified users whose edits I have reverted. Thanks, – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 20:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fneskljvnl (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hi, I have been on wikipedia for a few years & I've made over 1600 edits on the english wikipedia, and I've made over 7700 edits on wikimedia commons. I have reverted many vandalizing edits on a varierty of articles, and I've left many notices of these reverts on their talk pages. I've also made a few pages, mostly redirects, but I've also created other articles, including List of Agriotes species, Choristostreptus, and 1854 in Mexico. Having rollback privileges would make it much more efficient for me when undoing vandalism. No matter the decision, thanks so much! -‪Fneskljvnl🪱 (Contributions, Talk) (stay silly forever) 02:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 05:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Như Gây Mê (requesting Pending changes reviewer, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hi, I'm a long-time user on Wikipedia (have experience with rollback rights on my home Wiki), recently I'm actively using support tools to prevent cross-wiki vandalism (including enwiki). I'd like to be granted rollback rights on enwiki to make it more convenient to rollback here. Thanks! Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} 10:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nahida (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Reapplying. When I applied around 2 weeks ago I didn't have that many mainspace edits and was declined based on that (but given PCR) - [[6]]. I haven't used PCR that much, but I've made contributions elsewhere with CSD, AfC and files. I still believe Rollback will improve my ability to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I'm fine with waiting longer though if I need a bit more experience elsewhere. Nahida 🌷 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([7]). — MusikBot ^talk 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Nahida 🌷 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des 05:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Faster than Thunder (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've been fighting vandalism a lot, and would like to make the process more efficient in the case of obvious vandalism so that I will not need an edit summary to revert many disruptive edits by a single user. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a similar feature with Twinkle, but am prompted to add an edit summary. "Vandalism" doesn't require a summary, but only affects the most recent revision. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 15:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively canvassing for your RfRollback in an ill-fated RfA nom that you then transcluded against policy does not speak well to your suitability. While that doesn't directly go to rollback-related policies, the main thing we worry about with rollback is people rushing into things without understanding what's going on, and this sure seems like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say much the same thing. FTT seems to be rushing things already; we don't need to enable them to go even faster. I'm also unimpressed with the lack of acknowledging recent errors, and worry that there will be a similar lack of concern if they roll something back with no edit summary incorrectly. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per concerns expressed above. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Destinyokhiria (requesting Pending changes reviewer, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hello admins, I’m requesting rollback rights so that I may contribute more efficiently to counter-vandalism work using Twinkle. Destinyokhiria (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Too little recent anti-vandalism work. Spend some time patrolling vandalism with Twinkle first (Twinkle rollback doesn't require this permission despite the name), and only then request rollback. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fade258 (requesting Autopatrolled, Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hi. I would like to request for rollback rights to fight and detect the vandalism and revert unconstructive edits more easily. I am familier with the relevant policies related to vandalism and also with WP:Rollback. Thank You ! Fade258 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rahmatula786 (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hello 🙏 My temporary rollback rights is expiring soon. I’ve used rollback right responsibly to revert vandalism. Would kindly like to request permanent rollback permission to continue this work. Thank you. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by ToBeFree (expires 17:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 08:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ExplorerofSpace (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I am request this right because lately, there has been a lot of vandalism during the evening to night hours. I could not revert all of it because I had to click the article, go to view history, and undo. With this, I could much more easily revert vandalism. Please note that my account is pretty new, but I had an account before with around 1 year experience; that account was when I lived in Chicago, the reason I cannot access the account is because I forgot the username and password (it was a created a while ago). Thank you for your consideration of this request. ExplorerofSpace (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you administrators see this? ExplorerofSpace (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permission requests appear to be currently backlogged. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, administrators have seen this. I'm not confident enough to grant rollback myself so am letting another admin handle, but I assure you this request isn't lost. And it's only been 3 days - patience is a virtue. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Not enough experience patrolling recent changes. — Wug·a·po·des 06:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Skratata69 (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Reason for requesting rollback rights. Have undone multiple vandalism attempts on K. Chandrashekar Rao and Revanth Reddy. Having the rollback permission will be helpful to quickly revert multiple edits. Skratata69 (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JesusisGreat7 (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I would like to request rollback rights for my account in order to prevent pages from vandalism etc, Thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 17:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([8][9]). — MusikBot ^talk 17:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Like you were told in the last declined request, you need experience reverting vandalism. — Wug·a·po·des 06:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]