Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFR)
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or Help:Permanent link.
This page is under extended confirmed protection, but non-EC users may edit its subpages.
Requests for permissions
Shortcuts

This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, and template editor rights, and AutoWikiBrowser access.

Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".

Requests for permissions are archived regularly; please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.

Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 11:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)

Permissions

Handled here

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

Handled elsewhere

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

Review and removal of permissions

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

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

Process

Requestors

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

Administrators

Full instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions

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

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

Other editors

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

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

Current requests

Account creator

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

Autopatrolled

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

User:Dionysodorus

I have created a range of articles in the past (mostly short biographies of scholars and clergy, along with a few conversions from the National Dictionary of Biography). These have not given rise to any substantial issues, and it occurs to me that it is probably not a good use of patrollers' time to have to review any articles I may write in future, given the backlog. I am a longstanding editor, and as a reasonably experienced NPP reviewer I am thoroughly familiar with the BLP and notability policies. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Hey Dionysodorus, thanks for applying! I think there are a few things you could work on before you're ready for autopatrolled. I found a few uses of unreliable sources, which I've since removed or tagged, in Andrew Braddock (priest) and Lee Batson (you might find a citation highlighter useful for catching these ahead of time). And while Christopher Collard almost certainly meets the notability criteria for academics, the article is far too reliant on primary sources. Particularly in a BLP, these need to be treated with more care; for example, the claim "Collard is also known for his collaborations with Martin Cropp", cited to two books published by the pair, borders on original research in the way it overstates this fact. I'm going to call this  not done for now — please let me know if you have any questions! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@TechnoSquirrel69: I think some of that is debatable. As it says at WP:WHOSWHO, Who's Who is treated as a self-published source, which means that it's not reliable in general, but it's still reliable for information about the subject themself under WP:ABOUTSELF. I would like to put that back in to the articles on Batson and Braddock, because taking it out just leaves appropriately self-sourced information appearing to be without a reliable source when this is not actually the case, since Who's Who is reliable for this purpose under our guidelines.
As for Collard, he's clearly notable under WP:AUTHOR (multiple books with multiple reviews, which don't have to be cited in the article to contribute towards notability...) as well as WP:ACADEMIC. Almost all biographies about academics who aren't dead yet are based on primary sources to a large extent: after all, the whole premise of WP:ACADEMIC is that – as it says in the note at the top of the page – "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". I agree that it would have been better to have said "have collaborated" rather than "are known for their collaborations", but it seems rather debatable whether it's actually OR to say that two scholars are known for their collaborations when they have published four widely reviewed volumes together in well-established series and when these volumes represent a large portion of both scholars' work.
Therefore, although I can see why you have formed the views that you express above, I still think that these articles are in the spirit of our policies and are appropriately sourced, and would not be a good use of an NPP reviewer's time, which ought rather to be spent looking for substantively unsourced BLPs, promo, AI use, and so forth. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 12:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
The standards for autopatrolled are somewhat higher than just the bar for clearing NPP. As Wikipedia:Autopatrolled states, the permission is for "prolific creators of clean articles" — as an administrator, I need to be confident that your creations are going to be in line with all of our core content policies (i.e. "clean"), including things like neutrality and reliable sourcing, which aren't strictly within NPP's purview. As I mentioned, I think you're on your way there, but the issues I brought up give me enough pause to hold off for the time being. I would encourage you to read the RfCs linked at the Who's Who RSP listing; I don't think the ABOUTSELF argument works here, since the source has been known to publish verifiably incorrect information, so they would run into the fourth and fifth caveats listed in that policy. With Collard, I was not questioning his notability, but the excessive reliance on primary sources in a BLP, and some of the knock-on effects of that decision. I would encourage you to take another look at your creations with this feedback in mind and reapply in a few months when you have new work to show that you've made improvements in these areas. —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
@TechnoSquirrel69: As far as I can see, the discussions listed at WP:WHOSWHO broadly say that it should be treated as a self-published source that is no more or less accurate than the quality of the information that is provided by the person in question: that view is correctly reflected in the perennial sources table. The objections are to the fact that Who's Who doesn't check the information, and therefore reproduces inaccurate information when the information provided to them is inaccurate; there's nothing at all to suggest that they misrepresent the information provided, or that they are less reliable than other SPS. There's also nothing in the discussions that excludes using Who's Who entries for uncontroversial information under WP:ABOUTSELF, and some commenters in those discussions specifically allow for that. The same is implied by WP:GUNREL, which explicitly says that generally unreliable sources can often be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions.
Also, surely it's not helpful to remove the actual sources from which material is drawn and replace them with citation needed tags. I've never understood why people do this, since if the info is to be included the source must also be included, or the information is effectively plagiarised. If you really think that these Who's Who entries cannot be relied upon and the accuracy of the information is therefore in doubt, I think you should remove the information as well; if not, I don't see how it makes sense to remove the source.
I am not sure what you expect people to do with subjects such as Collard, short of not writing the article in the first place.
The idea that I should improve my approach to sourcing and come back in a few months presupposes that I agree with you that the sourcing practices that I adopted in these articles are inadequate. But in my view this isn't really the position: rather, we have both read and thought about the guidelines in question, and have reached reasonable but different interpretations of them. Of course that doesn't mean that you have to grant me the flag, and I respect your right as an admin taking on the task of monitoring this page to proceed as you think best. Dionysodorus (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

AutoWikiBrowser

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

User:Ikan

I plan to replace archive.today or other deprecated archives with web.archive.org, for which AWB would be more than useful. 🐠 formerly U.T. 08:34, 14 September 2026 (UTC)reply

i’m not a permission granter person, but what makes AWB better for that task? — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 10:11, 17 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Ikan, are you familiar with the stand alone tool mentioned in Wikipedia talk:Archive.today guidance#Links to other discussions and advice? If that doesn't meet your needs maybe open a topic on that page, I might be willing to enhance it. Dw31415 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Very honestly: it doesn't fit my needs. I wish that I would be able to hunt for archive.today external links on other wikis; also, at many occasions it cannot find an alt, despite the alt exists (at another location, redirected). 🐠 formerly U.T. 02:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Note that this page is only for the right to use AWB on enwiki. Some other wikis let anyone use it, others have their own separate whitelists. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Score Beethoven

I plan to semi-automate some typo fixes that I have already been making manually. I have completed several hundred of these edits, mainly removing incorrect spaces between the last word and the following punctuation mark.

I would like to request AWB/JWB access, as these tools would be very useful for handling this type of repetitive maintenance work more efficiently. My intended workflow is to identify the relevant cases, apply the correction, review the result, and save the edit.

I understand that I remain responsible for reviewing every edit and for following the AWB/JWB guidelines. I am still building my editing experience and intend to use JWB carefully and only for appropriate repetitive maintenance tasks. Score Beethoven (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Script7921

I want to use AutoWikiBrowser to speed up my deorphaning process as well as for general maintenance tasks. Script7921 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Peter NYC

I'd like to use the script mainly for deduping refs because after installing duplicate-references.js it seems Wikipedia is lousy with them.  == Peter NYC 20:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:3vw5

Reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights for Janes citation issue. Issue description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Janes_citation_zotero_issue 3vw5 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Confirmed

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

Event coordinator

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

User:Longmermaidhair

Hello, I would like to request Event Coordinator status for the UCSC Wiki-a-thon to support BIPOC Scientists and Engineers. It will be on Thursday, October 22nd, 2026 from 2pm - 5pm PT. Here is a link to the event: https://events.ucsc.edu/event/wiki-a-thon-to-support-bipoc-scientists-and-engineers/ Please let me know if there's any more information you need from me. Thank you! Longmermaidhair (talk) 00:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done temporarily, until October 23. Thanks for hosting these events every year, and good luck with this instalment! —⁠TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Extended confirmed

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

File mover

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

User:Haoreima

Have contributed to the Wikimedia Commons community for a long time in moving files of all types, and now wishing to contribute to English Wikipedia for local community! Regards! :-) Sanguis Nobilissimus 🩸👑 (Tibi loqui licet! 💬 — "Speak!") 01:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Mass message sender

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

New page reviewer

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

User:Equivalent-Text2598

I have now done quite a lot on AFC and reviewed quite a few articles, showing that I understand content policies. Furthermore, if you look at my interactions, you can see that I have always acted civilly and resolved any disputes. From my Counter Vandalism Work, you can see that I always inform a user when I revert their edit; the same happens with AFC (through the AFC helper).

I would primarily like this role as a counter-vandalism tool so that I can remove pages that are obviously vandalism, as I think that this is an important thing to do. I would also review other pages in order to help ease the backlog.

I would finally like to thank anyone who reviews this request.

Cheers,
Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot talk 07:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply
based on your AFC track record, conferring for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply  Done signed, Rosguill talk 14:37, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@RosguillThank you very much. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Rosguill I am very sorry to disturb you. I am just re-reading your message, I would just like to clarify one thing. When you say based on my AFC track record, have I made any mistakes there (just in the context of the wording) and if so, could you please tell me where in order for me to improve?
Thanks so much and I really appreciate the time. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
It wasn’t in response to any mistake, but I would normally expect more AFD or article creation experience from applicants. Your AFC experience made up for that. signed, Rosguill talk 02:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
OK thank you so much for your reply.
I really appreciate it. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Haggis MacHaggis

hi, I would like to renew my NPP rights witch are about to expire. Different articles were reviewed over the last month, often after I added additional refs, images, or added/rephrased some text. After my adjustments, a few articles also got reviewed... by others :o) _regards Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Dclemens1971 (expires 00:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot talk 18:30, 28 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Haggis MacHaggis, can you comment on your reviews of 418 (film), Sleepwalk (album), The Legend (2005 film), The Tank Man (2004), Dead Company, Sky Scrappers? signed, Rosguill talk 14:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply
hi, regarding my reviews, in hindsight...
• 418 is based entirely on trailer coverage/promotional sites, not the film -> independent reviews/critics should be added, among others.
• Sleepwalk lacks extra independent sources + 3 of the 6 refs all link to AllMusic... -> Again, extra reviews (that discuss the album) should be added here -if available...
• The Legend and The Tank Man both have production company sources: not neutral. The Legend also lacks extra reliable independent sources.
To my opinion :o)
• Dead Company and Sky Scrappers were already reviewed in August. The first one was discussed earlier: too many sources based on the same press release, yet the "reviewed" status was not removed afterwards... Sky Scrappers appears notable, but the article needs expanding.
In summary, most articles should have had additional neutral sources ...
regards, Haggis MacHaggis (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Ok, while your assessments now are reasonable, this doesn't explain why you marked any of these reviewed at the time. I'm also a bit concerned by the way you have written "neutral" several times where the correct term is "independent". Taken together, I'm going to mark this request  Not done, but do consider applying again in the future. signed, Rosguill talk 13:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Lynngol

Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I have been editing since January 2025 and have over 1600 edits, among them 16 new articles that I wrote. I have also contributed to AfDs and DYKs and am familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I would like to help new editors improve their newly added content to Wikipedia and reduce the backlog of new articles. Lynngol (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Thank you for your contributions and your interest in this permission. Unfortunately, I see that you have received repeat warnings related to copyright use in the past 6 months, so I think conferring new page reviewer status would be premature. There also appear to be some machine-generate text concerns that at first you accepted but which you later disputed; be sure to remain above board with respect to the use of AI tools.  Not done for now, but consider reapplying in the future. signed, Rosguill talk 13:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:WikipediholicRat

I am currently a temporary new page reviewer, but it seems this is about to run out. I am looking to extend for longer (hopefully indefinitely). WikipediholicRat (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 22 October 2026 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot talk 14:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
WikipediholicRat, can you comment on your review of Tarahne Provincial Park? signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Sharkeston


Hello,

I believe I am eligible to obtain reviewer status. My account is over the minimum of 90 days old (been here since December), and has a history of I believe at least 500 undeleted edits (reaching around 6000 edits in general in total). I have also not engaged in incivil behavior to others, and I understand WP's policies in regarding matters.

One mistake I made prior to submitting a request here, was that I declined one draft myself without knowing you needed to apply first until now. Will this exempt me now from being able to review?

Please let me know. Thank you for taking your time. Sharkeston (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply signed, Rosguill talk 14:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:TNM101

My trial rights are about to expire, and I would like to request them either on another trial or on a permanent basis. I think I have done well for my first few weeks as a NPP reviewer, making a few errors here and there but overall, I believe I have grasped the essence of patrolling. A slight error of judgement that I made along the way was also kindly corrected by Thilsebatti TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 17:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 17:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Track record looks good,  Done signed, Rosguill talk 14:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:AriuCH

My temporary New Pages Reviewer access is due to expire at 00:00 on 18 October 2026. If I am eligible, I would like to request permanent access before it expires, so that there is no break in my NPP workflow. Thank you. AriuCH (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 18 October 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 01:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
AriuCH, can you comment on your review of Remmie Milner? signed, Rosguill talk 14:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Emmanbotan

Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: i make articles of flora of vegatation zones, and i did my first good article Flora of Samoa Emmanbotan (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done for 1 month as a trial run, after which you may reapply signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Page mover

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

User:CROIX

I usually edit low-to-mid traffic mainspace articles relating to Antigua and Barbuda. According to XTools, I have moved 447 pages across all namespaces. I have been moving pages since June 2021 and I have experience with both requested moves and technical requests. Given the nature of this topic (virtually always involving low-impact requests) and my multiple years of experience with page moving, having this permission would speed up my work. CROIXtalk 01:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Pending changes reviewer

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

User:EzYop

Hello I would like to have pending changes reviewer rights, I routinely edit on my account with 500 edits in the past 3 weeks. I also have never participated in vandalism and routinely make productive edits. I have read Policy On Vandalism, Policy On Copyright, and I understand that I must obtain a neutral point of view and the guideline on reviewing. I request these services to help me expand my reach and find new ways of editing and helping Wikipedia. My limited services right now mainly include linking articles and welcoming new users. Thank you for your time and generosity! EzYop (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:PeterCooperJr

I sometimes run into articles with pending changes while monitoring recent changes, and it could be helpful to be able to accept or decline them. I already have Rollback rights. Thanks. PeterCooperJr (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Ivebeenhacked

Hello, I'm Ivebeenhacked. I have about 16,900+ edits and am familiar with the Wikipedia policies highlighted in WP:PCCRITERIA. I edit almost everyday in Wikipedia by correctly reverting vandalism, disruptive edits, and am competent in correcting incorrect information in articles. I'm confident I can be a great reviewer. Thank you. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Rollback

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

User:Jabba550

Reason for requesting rollback rights: I would like to use huggle to revert vandalism in a quicker manner as i find wp:twinkle a bit too slow sometimes and would like too see if I would prefer huggle or other similar editing tools. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 13:52, 18 September 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done​ — Newslinger talk 19:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Baberoothless

Reason for requesting rollback rights: I’ve been an RC patroller for better part of a year now. Rollback rights will help me counter vandalism more effectively, especially when I have to undo contributions of editors with a disruptive editing history, editors with single-purpose COI accounts, and editors who have been blocked. I’d also like to use the suite of tools that rollback rights come with including CVPI and Huggle. I will not use rollback rights to settle content disputes (I don’t get into many either way). I hope that my main space contributions so far, and my experience with the platform + RC patrol will attest to my intentions. Thanks! Baberoothless (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hi Baberoothless, you meet all of the criteria listed in the green notice at the top of the section, except for "A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits." While your reverts are sometimes accompanied by user talk page notices, some of your recent reverts were not: . Based on this, I am declining your request at this time, but if you can demonstrate a track record of properly warning editors after reverting unconstructive edits (which is most easily done with Twinkle, which you have been using, or with Ultraviolet), then your next request for this permission would be stronger.  Not done for now. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Celjski Grad

I'd like rollback rights in order to make recent change patrolling easier with tools such as Interceptor. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:16dvnk

I am planning to use WP:Interceptor and I believe rollback would make reverting vandalism more efficient. I believe that I meet the recommended (edited) criteria listed above. Thank you for processing my request! 16dvnk (talk) 05:20, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Hi 16dvnk, because you have recently added LLM-generated content to an article (see Special:Diff/1371919576 at Cognitive robotic abstract machine, which added two LLM-generated citations, including an invalid URL in #7 and invalid DOI in #8), I am unable to accept your request because LLM misuse is disqualifying for permission requests. Please ensure that your future edits follow the WP:LLM guideline and the other AI-related policies and guidelines listed at WP:AIPOLICY.  Not done for now. — Newslinger talk 13:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for telling me. It was a while ago so I do not really recall everything. In that diff, I think I used some sort of LLM, but then only checked for AI minutes after I applied the diff (which was fixed after). Currently the article is free of AI content, but I apologize if even that was a violation of AI policy. Thanks for telling me, and in the future I will ensure something like that will not happen again. Thanks for your time. 16dvnk (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Sksatsuma

Previously had this as a temporary right for fighting vandalism with Huggle. Had a bit of a wiki-break but keen to revisit this. Thanks! sksatsuma 14:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done​ — Newslinger talk 13:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Strongshorts

Reason for requesting rollback rights Hi, I would like the rollbacker right to more efficiently fight vandalism. As it is required for many counter-vandalism tools such as Huggle. I have experience in Recent Changes patrol. I also have moderation experience elsewhere. Thank you, Strongshorts (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC) Strongshorts (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user has 199 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 08:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
This bot is outdated, while I did have 199 edits I now have over 200 Strongshorts (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:CharlieRidesRollerCoasters

I am requesting rollback rights So that AI Model articles can be as high quality as possible CharlieRidesRollerCoasters (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

(non-administrator comment) Rollback is for more efficiently reverting vandalism and access to more advanced anti-vandalism tools. It is not for improving articles, nor any "AI Model articles". Thanks. 16dvnk (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:DocLG

I would like rollback to handle obvious vandalism more efficiently. I enjoy monitoring for spam, unconstructive edits, and talking to/notifying newer editors . I have read WP:ROLLBACK and will not use the default rollback summary on good-faith or disputed edits. Thanks. DocLG (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:LuigiMcpe4549

Hello again! My name is LuigiMcpe4549. I would like to request rollback rights. That is because I have done some good edits and revert some vandalism on Wikipedia. I think that it is useful in case of crazy vandalism. It's ok if my application is denied again like last time. Cheers! :) LuigiMcpe4549 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Justcgi

I'd like to have rollback permissions so I can utilize tools like AntiVandal to help out with recent changes patrol. Justcgi (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user has 169 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

User:TobyKohlhagen

I would like to have rollback permissions to use Interceptor while out and about :) TobyKohlhagen (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Automated comment This user has 188 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 08:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Template editor

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

Temporary account IP viewer

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

User:MathMan4

I do a good amount of vandalism reverting, which some of the vandals that I deal with are multiple different temporary accounts vandalising pages in short periods of time. It would be nice to know if they are using the same IP address, so that why I can appropriately report the vandals to AIV. I promise that I will not inappropriately use the tool. MathMan4 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)reply

User:Eyesnore

I'm an established vandalism fighter patrolling recent changes and reporting temporary accounts to WP:AIV. I've been dealing with an incident of a user possibly using multiple temporary accounts to disrupt Wikipedia, so I would like to see the information of what IP addresses they have been using. Eyesnore talk💬 16:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply

 Done​ — Newslinger talk 19:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=1303932167"