Open main menu

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PERM)

Administrator instructions

Requests for permissions

This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, 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 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Handled here

User groups

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

Handled elsewhere

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

Removal of permissions

If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat.

This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard.

Note: The bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.



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

Any editor may comment on requests for permission.


Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, 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.

Current requests


Account creator


User:Shahidul Hasan Roman

I'm fairly experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, i created 80+ articles to date. Most of my past work has been reviewed and passed successfully. I also have Autopatrolled, Rollbracker, New Page reviewer right in Bangla Wikipedia. I try to edit or create in both English and Bangla wikipedia. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  Not done. I am concerned that many of your creations are stubs and recreations and that your level of English is not sufficient for you articles to be accepted without review at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I have created over 45 articles. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policy especially on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Beeblebrox (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


The creator of nearly 150 articles. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Zingarese talk · contribs 02:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind suggestion! But I'm not sure that's a good idea, as I prefer that others add categories that I might not think of, and check for my occasional typos. If that would still happen (lots of NPP's make great additions to my stubs), then autopatrol is OK. Thanks! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Over 160 creations, with a single deletion (last October, and I can't find out the reason). Has created articles mostly to do with NRHP properties. Understands notability, properly referenced, no copyvio issues. While they don't have a high volume, they do have consistent content creation, so would help reduce the NPP backlog. Onel5969 TT me 22:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
onel5969, The deletion was an expired PROD. Cabayi (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


I've created +35 articles so far, almost all of which have been revied and positively assessed. I specialize in articles about living office holders and music albums. I am also editor on Polish Wikipedia. Niegodzisie (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done 'Almost all' - for Autopatrolled, none of your creations should need to be tagged for any issues. Some of your recent articles have bee deleted for reasons you will need to understand before your creations do not need to be reviewed at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)



Now I find I want to start doing edits that go beyond my manual abilities. Note: I will be using WP:JWB. Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
UnitedStatesian, edits such as...? Primefac (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
As a result of the Portalspace cleanup efforts, many subpages such as Portal:Martial arts/WikiProjects have been refunded and need need to have the text notice removed from them. This is a task that is challenging to do manually, I am sure there are a bunch of my ~62,000 other edits to the project that would have also benefited from JWB. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to approve this request. I'm sure UnitedStatesian will take it easy to start off and ask if unsure about anything. --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Already done (automated response): This user already has AutoWikiBrowser access. MusikBot talk 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


To help get unassessed articles for WikiProject College Basketball assessed faster and easier. Brian (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Brian, genuinely out of curiosity, how do you plan on doing that with AWB? I do a lot of the assessing for WP:AST and I've never found AWB to be useful. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Primefac, according to WP:VG/A, the Kingbotk plugin that can be added to AWB can help speed up the process, considering there are almost 3,000 pages that need assessing in WP:CBBALL. Brian (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to approve this. Let us know how you get on with that plugin, Brian. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Already done (automated response): This user already has AutoWikiBrowser access. MusikBot talk 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


To speed up maintaining pages for WP:Curling such as adding pages that should be covered by the WP, assessing pages for the WP, fixing links to disambig pages A202985 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([1]) and has approximately 346 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 06:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


I'd like to request AWB rights for my other account User:LittlerPuppers, mostly for use in typo/grammatical-type corrections. I will also probably be using JWB for a significant portion of these. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


Lately I've been manually fixing a lot of broken library proxy urls, which have predictable unwanted elements like I would like permission to start using JWB on pages with proxy urls. Cheers, gnu57 14:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:John M Wolfson

I've been working on an article where I need to repeatedly change things within the article (more specifically, it's an FAC where I've needed to change citation formats) and I think I could make great use of the Find and replace feature, both in that specific case and in similar subsequent cases. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC) John M Wolfson (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Without prejudice to your request, John M Wolfson, have you tried using an external editor to do 'find and replace' in a single article? Something as simple as notepad++ on Windows (or almost any text editor on Linux) will do that job for you. AWB's power lies in its ability to do similar edits on a whole list of related articles, and perhaps you would find that useful as well. --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
RexxS, I actually tried it on Microsoft Word, and it went much better than I expected. However, I have learned much about citation expectations and parameters from my FAC experience, and perhaps I could use AWB to automate some citation improvements (such as adding "|url-access=subscription" to all my refs coming from across all the articles I have created/contributed to, if you feel AWB is necessary and sufficient for such a task. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


User:Decepti Brine

I want it so that I can use it to revert some edits on pages, upload images, change some integral things in some protected pages. I swear not to misuse my rights and I only mean good faith.

This Is the Reason for requesting confirmed rights Decepti Brine (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. MusikBot talk 18:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


CrazyHaimo (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 16:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done - Not done as there has been no reason given. Please reread the text at the top of this page and submit another request only if appropriate. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Reason for requesting confirmed rights Renjish619 (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Event coordinator


Am holding a training about wikipedia on 25th april for Girls ICT day. I request for rights for that day Erina Mukuta 21:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done until 28th stwalkerster (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

File mover


I am requesting file mover rights because I have ample experience with both uploading images and moving pages. This would be a real time saver when I upload an image under the wrong title once in a blue moon, and I can assist other people who may need files moved. NØ 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, Since it has been about 17 days, I think it is appropriate to tag an admin here to evaluate this request.—NØ 14:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: you are sporting a large is no longer active on Wikipedia banner on your userpage - is this out of date? Have you had any {{rename media}} requests processed? (Can you provide a link to a few of them?) — xaosflux Talk 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The retirement template is out of date, I’m still editing daily. I haven’t used that specific template but I have uploaded a lot of files, and would say I have ample experience with uploading (and choosing correct titles for) images.—NØ 14:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Had this right previously, I took a break from wiki for a while. I'm back to contribute to wiki. I request for grant of this right. Vin09 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done You've only made handful of renames previously and none since September 2016. I can consider granting this again if/when you can demonstrate that you have actual use for it. Widr (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Mass message sender

New page reviewer

User:Nihar POPS

Fairly active recently. I think I have a decent track record of being civil and working with other editors. I should have over 1,000+ edits. I create an article every now and then. I believe articles should be well-sourced. I have read the rules/guidelines, and I believe I can abide by them.--Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Nihar POPS (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done Just looking through, I immediately found Marutheeram Thedi which fails many parts related to NPP experience. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I have been helping with AFC's backlog and I have also being patrolling through new pages. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Though I wouldn't mind seeing a little more help provided to newbies on your talkpage. That said, I think the work you do will still be great. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I have been on Wikipedia for a while now. After a recent break I decided to come back. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Most of my edits are on anime and manga related articles. I was wondering if you could let me use the page curation toolbar. I would like to help with this project. I think I can cut down the number of unpatrolled pages. Sincerely, Masum Reza 08:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 08:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done Given the previous decline, you have either been mostly inactive since, or adding to your account with WP:TWA. I would like to see that additional time and effort put in before we consider this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
About WP:TWA, I was kinda bored so I played the game. Is it wrong to play the game more than one time? Sincerely, Masum Reza 21:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
No, but it does stack your edit count, making things harder to review your contributions and get an accurate perspective of legitimate helpful edits. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hold on a second, The edits I made during WP:TWA is within my userspace. So you can count the mainspace edits just fine. So how long you want me to wait to reapply? Sincerely, Masum Reza 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't only look at the mainspace when I evaluate applicants. Normally, I don't give a timeline, but because your previous request cited a time, I'm looking for another month of active editing from the decline date. Beyond that, I recommend looking at what I've mentioned to other applicants and make sure you have the relevant experience so you can be accepted next time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Page mover


I have been closing discussions at WP:RM, however as many of the destinations are occupied, there are many discussions that I cannot close. The page mover right would allow me to close more of the discussions. Danski454 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: @Danski454: Is there any reason why you're not relisting some of the things you're closing? This and this had only one participant each. Usually we want to relist them in those situations. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at the no minimum participation is required bit of WP:RMCI, although, thinking about it again, that may only apply after a relisting. Danski454 (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


I would like to request page mover rights for myself. I have over 87K edits, many related to film articles, and having these rights would enable me to make uncontroversial technical moves. For example, I wanted to move See You Yesterday (film) to See You Yesterday but could not. Please let me know if you need further reasons for my requesting these rights. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done Mz7 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

User:Wing gundam

I've been editing Wikipedia for about a decade, and I'd like to help with the pending changes backlog. I believe I have an appropriate grasp of the general criteria (re. examining for obvious vandalism, copyright infringement, copy-pastes, threats, libel, BLP issues, etc). Thank you. —wing gundam 03:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Given you only have some 200 edits in the past two years, I had to go a bit back, but I find this edit extremely concerning, especially given you did not respond to an inquiry about it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wing gundam: Direct ping to make sure user is aware of comment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the direct ping. I did respond at first but I never saw Marbe166's second post. I've replied again, "Wasn't me. I can only speculate it was made from one of my computers left unattended (unlikely but possible), or else from a login session I left active somewhere (very unlikely, but possible). Thank you for catching it!"
I would guess the former, but I genuinely have no idea. It was done without my permission, it's the extreme outlier among my edits, and I'm glad it was noticed and fixed. —wing gundam 20:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Wing gundam: What have you done to increase your account security since that incident if you didn't make the edit? As a holder of advanced permissions, people can cause a lot more damage with your account. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually in the past year, I've since switched to mandatory password entry on all my devices. Previously my primary laptop and phone could be unlocked without a password if I'd recently authenticated them with a fingerprint, but no longer. (This was primarily for work reasons, related to obtaining a US security clearance.) —wing gundam 02:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done for one month. Please reapply after that time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I've edited on here for five years, have been editing more often lately (though I do have a good track record over the past years), understand that malicious, inappropriate, attacking, bad-faith edits are vandalism and that edit warring, while inappropriate, is not vandalism because it is good faith. I am familiar with BLP, it's necessary so that defamatory, incorrect statements aren't added onto articles. Wikipedia needs a neutral point of view so articles stay unbiased. Original research is inappropriate because it can be unverifiable and reliable sources are required. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not censored, a forum, or a collection of trivial information. Copyrighted material should be avoided unless its in fair use, but free material is preferred. I have read the reviewing policy, and I feel I am qualified to hold this right. I have occasionally reverted vandalism when I have seen it, and I feel that this will give me something to do here to help out on Wikipedia. It'll make me more knowledgeable as well, because I will be reviewing revisions of articles on many topics, learning about them, and seeing if it qualifies to be accepted and published. Thank you so much for considering my offering of services. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 19:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you provide a brief summary of what happened with this block? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad: Somewhat long story so please bear with me: Back in 2010, at the age of nine, I created an account, called Pixiemasters (now renamed to obscurity here, see the talk page for information: {1} ). I repeatedly attempted making BLP pages that weren't bad-faith or vandalism, but rather incomplete, nonsense, and incoherent (For instance, an entire article would go "Jane Doe (born ) is"). I got indef blocked by Materialscientist, and at the time, my young immature self couldn't understand what was being asked of me to get unblocked, and then in the middle of 2012 talk access was revoked for a year. A year later, when I felt I had matured and met WP:CIR, I made an unblock request after the access was restored, but my talk page access was almost instantly revoked again by Beeblebrox, that time indefinitely. Eventually, in April 2014, I created this account in an act of block evasion so I could improperly WP:CLEANSTART, because I was desperate to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Over time, I began growing up more and maturing more and more, and by the time I entered high school a year later in 2015, I was beginning to become tired of editing dishonestly. I was happy to make good contributions to Wikipedia, but was unhappy at how I got that account. For 3 more years, though, I didn't confess, because I was afraid to get blocked again, at the time believing that no mercy would be shown. Eventually, at the beginning of my senior year in August 2018, I decided that it was time for me to come clean, realizing that Wikipedia listens to reasoning and assumes good faith. I admitted to my sins over at the Teahouse (link to the exchange on August 19 here, at the bottom of the page under the section "Question regarding handling of past behavior: {2}"). Teahouse host Cullen328 blocked this account following my confession, and restored talk page access on Pixiemasters for me to appeal. (Jim [aka Cullen] and I have since formed a friendship). I logged on there and made my appeal (refer to Vanished User talk page linked at the beginning of this paragraph). There, after community consensus was requested by Cullen via the Admin Noticeboard, I managed to earn near-unanimous support for an unblock on this account, with the reasoning that at this point, CIR has been long met and that a block would be purely punitive and not preventative of the actions I made when I was nine years old. Pixiemasters was renamed to obscurity, and I was allowed to continue on this account once it was unblocked by Cyberpower678. As you can see in the block log, Cyberpower put the reason for unblock as "Block evasion forgiven per community consensus". Now, I will be 18 years of age in a week. That's what happened with that block. I hope my childhood past won't bite me when it comes to applying for Reviewer status here on Wikipedia. At least I'm applying for it after this fact and not before the confession, as I am presenting myself as myself and not hiding my past. :) DrewieStewie (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It is true that I have had a few friendly interchanges with DrewieStewie. I have learned more about him and wish him the best. He lives fairly near where my family lives. I believe that it is very likely that this editor has abandoned disruptive behavior and is here now to build the encyclopedia. I hope so. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Jim, thank you for your comment, apologies in case I disrupted your schedule or Wikisession at all bringing you here. Elaborating on what he said, I have always shunned vandalizing behavior, and refraining from disruptive behavior is a strong conviction of mine. This account has never been intended for that, and while I made an uncivil speech at Village Pump before (which I extremely regret, I wasn't in a great mood at all when I typed that, I instantly apologized and have refrained from doing such a thing ever since), I have a great track record on here, and most of my edits have come on pages in the pro wrestling Wikiproject. I'm not exclusive there though, as I do edit on other articles and other Wiki pages too. The help and support I have received from fellow Wikipedians has been highly uplifting, and because of them I am interested in expanding my role further and doing more for Wikipedia, and I feel that this will give me something more to do. I feel I have made enough necessary edits, vandal protection to an extent, and been on long enough to qualify for this right. If you choose to grant the permission, great, thanks! If not, then I understand and will come back when you feel I would be ready to. Cheers DrewieStewie (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I haven't got the energy to dive into this tonight, and any other admin can feel free to review in the meantime. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@DrewieStewie: I'm pretty satisfied with most of the explanation, I just can't find this mysterious AN/ANI thread you speak of that I looked for even before you mentioned it. Do you have a link? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad:Ive got it right here: {1} Dated August 20, its under a thread titled "Input requested" by Cullen, with Alex Shih commenting. DrewieStewie (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, the reason I struggled to find it is it got taken out of the archives. So, I don't view the unblock discussion as exonerating as you do. Frankly, you were editing for a majority of the time you were still under block. And you only admitted this issue last August. If this were a request for any other permission, I'd be declining it, citing the block log. But this is PCR, you can't do that much damage with it. So today is your lucky day, and I will grant this request. I suggest in future permission requests that 1) You are forthcoming about the block, even if you just give a sentence and link a thread 2) That you wait a considerable time before applying for others (I'm thinking one year the block date. Me granting you this permission should help with that down the road as long as you remain within policy, and I wish you the best of luck.   Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad, thank you so much, for granting this, not sugarcoating anything, and for the advice given. However, at the moment, while this may change depending on future experience, even if I wanted to now, I am not ready for further permissions. I feel good as is with PCR. I feel like I'll get things done for the encyclopedia with it. I'm ready to put this to good use. Also, thanks for the friendly reminder that I can still be considered under a probationary cloud because of the past childhood actions, especially if I'm not forthcoming and don't disclose them when, like say, applying for things. The only reason I didn't mention it on the initial request was because I was waiting to be asked, in which I have the info readily available. However, from now on, I'll disclose before being asked. I know this will help me though, and I'm grateful. Thanks again! :) DrewieStewie (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I would like to contribute to the community by being able to approve or help improve suggested changes to protected articles. I've found that grabbing random diffs from 'recent changes' has been too rapid fire for my taste, and the orderly submitted que of 'pending changes' will be a good fit for me to review the changes in a timely fashion. The vast majority of my edits have been for Typo Team/moss thus far, but that has still exposed me to the various types of issues I'm likely to see with this permission. Thank you for the consideration. Elfabet (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe i'm reading them wrong, but I'm a little bit concerned about your level of tact in this edit summary and these two edits. Considering your in a vandalism reverting job, facing new comers, is there any reassurance you can give about how you will handle new users after declining their edit? (Please note, i'm not at the point of declining it, and this seems like a minor point, but leaves me queasy nonetheless.) -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
To the first, it was meant to be in a silly a voice - inspired by the article subject - something that (in hindsight) doesn't translate very well. I'll take it to mind to remember that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To "Two" I didn't understand the edit they made as it appeared to go against policy, so I was requesting information about their thought process. That question was posted entirely in good faith and innocence. Is there some other process I should have followed to get more information about a change? To "Edits" I considered the user my friend. I saw, through TPS and shared Watched Pages that they were having a bit a rough time. I left them the equivalent of a 'Hey, take it easy, you're valued here, have some tea, etc. (Except I knew/know they don't like tea, so I used the template for beer instead). It may not have been recieved in entirely the way I imagined it, but it seemed the message got through... (whether it was followed or helped at all is up to interpretation.)
New users are important to this project, and, to be honest, I'm still probably one myself. I think the ability to be a bit lighter and less serious, to interject some humour into what could otherwise be a very (unnecessarily) stern affair to be valuable. If still granted this permission I'll strive to work on my empathy in understanding where the requestor and their thoughts are coming from. If it is felt to be necessary, I can be convinced to use only templates via Twinkle for my revisions, as it is (apparantly) when I attempt to interject my humanity into my responses that I raise concern.
If you find these explanations to be unsatisfactory, I'll take time to reflect on that and would like to rescind my nomination. At the very least I'll be pleased to know the throughoness with which potential users are vetted. Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done That I can work with. I've granted it for one month to see how things go, and if all is good, we can grant permanently. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


I will like to have pending changes permissions because I am currently a very-large contributor at Mueller Report and since unregistered users from time to time make edits, it impedes other edits from registered users going through. Another reason is that I revert vandalism if I want to go on vandalism patrol and it would be nice to regulate and monitor pending changes and such. I have a good understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies among other things. Thank you. Aviartm (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
DeltaQuad Thank you! :) Aviartm (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


Ever since I reverted an edit by a vandal by the first time (of course, having in mind that I should be careful and try not bite newcomers), I wanted to contribute more by stopping vandals (without starting an edit war). But over a short amount of time, I became bored by stopping vandals this way, and looked for alternative ways to contribute. Soon, I discovered that one could review pending changes as a way to prevent vandalism. Because of the amount of experience I realized it requires, I decided to take some time to study how Wikipedia works more and edited my user page plenty as another way learn more how Wikipedia works. I know it might seem as if I am out of my mind because of the low amount of edits I have, but I remember reading here that the edit count of a wikipedian is not a reliable way to judge users as it only measures participation and not quality. If I am rejected and thought to be too inexperienced, I will respect that, and return another day (when I am thought to be better) to apply again.   ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  04:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  Automated comment This user has 41 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks MusikBot.  ⠀—‌‌  Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  04:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  Not done I'm not someone to play WP:EDITCOUNTIS, and never will be. That said, you need to show that you have the experience though quality of edits, and persistently over time. You only started seriously editing a week ago, and I can't judge if you know the intricacies of the BLP policy and reliable sourcing, nor can I tell how your interactions with new users are. So I definitely need more time, more solid policy driven edits to be able to consider your request. Please also see the basic criteria for becoming a PCR. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


Template editor