Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

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 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


Handled here

  • 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 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 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 toolbar. 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.

The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags 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.

Any editor may comment on requests for permission.


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

Current requests

Account creator



I have created 57 articles so far. I would like to reduce the workload of NPP. I understand the higher risk given to articles involving live companies. Therefore I will take extra care as well the consultation of other more experiences editors when creating such articles. I withdrew last time to make sure the articles were cleaned up first. Imcdc (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 12:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Not done, sorry. There's nothing wrong with your creations per se, but as you say, articles on corporations are such a high risk topic that I would need to see a very compelling reason why they shouldn't be reviewed. – Joe (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As an additional note, please take a little extra care with potential copyright violations: 1 2 3. Seddon talk 15:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Dora the Axe-plorer

I've been a seasoned contributor for over a year and have started 106 articles within that time span. There hasn't been any major issues related to my contributions (with the exception of one and I would never repeat that again, I haven't had any problems recently). CactusTaron (Nopen't) 12:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Comment: So when looking to process this request I was initially confused by your signature in that in passing bares no relation to your actual username and it took a moment to clock they were the one and same user.
Currently the guidelines read A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username. Seddon talk 01:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dora the Axe-plorer: Which article is the exception? – Joe (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Joe Roe: 1941 Jabal Razih earthquake & noted on that username thing as well. Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, right. Sorry but copyright is something we have to be very careful about and, with that happening just a few months ago, I don't think I can grant you autopatrolled right now.   Not done. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I've started more than sixty articles, including twenty-five this calendar year, and I've recently been starting several articles about elections coming up next year in the UK. I'm going to continue making these kinds of articles in the coming months, in particular. If I'm suitable for the autopatrolled right, that would resultingly reduce the workload of new page patrollers. Ralbegen (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and this right will aid me as I regularly create articles on Wikipedia. I humbly request this right to reduce the workload of NPP. Thank you Robertjamal12 (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Robertjamal12:. Thank you for putting yourself forward, but since two of your articles have been deleted this year, I think they would continue to benefit from review for the time being.   Not done. – Joe (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


User has created almost 300 clean articles. There's no need for them to remain in the New Page Patrol queue. Mcampany (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Mcampany:   Done, thanks. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]





I've been fixing links to disambiguation pages on and off for a little while now, and just today stumbled into processing a move for The Batman (TV series) which left hundreds quite a few links to disambiguate. I don't mind using disamassist for this, but I would like to try out AWB's disambiguation feature for these cases where there are quite a few more links, as well as see what other uses I can find for it. I do not intend to do anything outside community-approved usage for AWB and will take care to review my edits prior to committing. Thank you! ASUKITE 18:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi, I request the grant to make my editing easier. I usually clean pages, fix typos and formats. I also add refereces and carry out other improvements in the pages. AWB would help me to carry out these activites. Advait (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]



I have always liked Wikipedia ever since I was a kid. I am 24 years old now, and would like to contribute. Hhappyduck (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 05:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  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! — JJMC89(T·C) 06:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


iam using wikipedia 15 years and created a page on 2007 (yubbe) but now I see that page has exposed to vandalism on yearly basis and also is on extended protection Jingo11 (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. MusikBot talk 06:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Event coordinator

User:Agnihothri Sharath

I am holding a training about wikipedia on 24 October 2021 (World Development Information Day) for Girls . I request for rights till date. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Are you using the P&E dashboard? Can you provide a link to your event info? — xaosflux Talk 15:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No Xaosflux, I'm not using P&E dashboard. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  Note: The bottom of may be relevant. Or may not be relevant. I'm not sure if it can be hat collection in this specific case as the requested permission is highly temporary. Perhaps it's just playing and experimenting with permissions. Whatever. I lack the experience to review EVC requests; I've learned about the dashboard today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  •   Request withdrawn, today is 24th. No need for the right anymore. --Agnihothri Sharath (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Extended confirmed

User:ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ

Hello, Is this title get permission for extended confirmed? Thank You! ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Already done (automated response) by ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ. MusikBot talk 12:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hello. I hope you're well. I would like to request extended confirmed rights, because I've requested specific changes on an article's talk page, which the admins have not yet responded to. The article page in question is Crypto art. I would like to add the changes and help improve this page overall, and find it would be easier if I was granted the requested rights. (I'm not a frequent Wikipedia contributor, so it would take several months to reach the 500 edits milestone.) I understand why the page has been locked, given the likelihood for abuse by individuals wishing to promote cryptocurrency projects. As I've already amended the Non-fungible token page, I believe I've proven my interests are not biased, but rather aimed at helping disseminate the full picture in this nascent space. DecentrallyConnected (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Not done @DecentrallyConnected: these limits are in place for reasons, if you think a page has more protection then needed, you can ask the protecting administrator or escalate to WP:RFPP. As far as your edit request, it was not tagged as a request, so only people following that specific page would have know about it. I've added it to the request queue where roving editors may review and process it more quickly (notice it now appears in Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests). To do this automatically next time use the "request an edit" button on the article page that is protected. — xaosflux Talk 17:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

OK, great. Thank you.

File mover

Mass message sender

New page reviewer


Hi, I have been active in the mainspace, AfD discussions and the general backlog and would like to continue reducing the backlog with this additional permission. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
{{done}} for a two month period. At the conclusion of the period, if you wish to renew the tool, please add a request and ping me to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually, I'm going to reverse myself and leave this for someone else. I don't think I'm as familiar with the standards for granting in this space and this might be tricker than I thought. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 23:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for putting yourself forward, but   Not done for the time being because I'm not seeing any experience with speedy deletion, which is an essential part of the job. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I was granted NPR for a limited time, which expires soon. Haven't been the most active but I'd still want to continue. Thanks! ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)). MusikBot talk 11:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done, track record looks decent signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Idoghor Melody

I've been working with AFC recently and I'd also like to help with page curation. Here is my AfC stats although my AfD stats might be poor because I tend to focus more on New pages feed. I'm familiar with content guidelines and policies and I believe I'll be able to perform well if given this permission. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, unfortunately I cannot approve this request as some of the editing patterns of your account are consistent with what we see from UPE editors. I'm not going to into further detail at this time per WP:BEANS.   Not done signed, Rosguill talk 17:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Wow @Rosguill: all of a sudden my editing patterns are consistent with that of UPE editors. Do you know this is a strong allegation? Why didn't you leave it for someone else to also take a look at it? You just looked at my edits and they were like that of a UPE editor and you declined, no citing of instances, no show of anything to back up what you're saying. And you think I would be allowed in AFC if my edits looks like that of a UPE? I'm seriously trying to understand you, but he'll no!! I'm really not happy with this decision and I wish to contest it. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm happy to explain my reasoning to an uninvolved admin for review. We need to be very careful with handing out these permissions if there is any possibility for abuse. If you are genuinely here in good faith, you should be able to understand that. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Rosguill:I am taking the discussion to Administration notice board, you should explain there, and if that's not the right place, I'll definitely find the right place, I can't stand allegations like that. --Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think Rosguill has made the correct call here, given your response. Polyamorph (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I'm looking to become more active in patrolling recent changes and new pages, and I feel like I'm less focused on deletionism than I was, say, five years ago (which my Talk Page reflects). I'm really interested in being able to more efficiently parse through new content on the wiki in addition to the tools I already use, like RTRC, Lupins, and Twinkle. ɯɐɔ 💬 04:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi, I wish to contribute in the new page reviews and contribute in reduction of queue backlog. Advait (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Oppose given the distinct lack of competence in submitting nearly 2 dozen college/university articles to AfD with an invalid WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES justification. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Polyamorph Thanks for your comments. However, I request you to kindly check and let me knw if any of these articles meet notability guidelines. I had nominated the articles after checking them after a user requested me to validate those. However, please note not all requests have invalid tagging.
    I feel one should not be denied the opportunity just because he had nominated some pages. Also, if there there is count beyond which one should not raise the request, then either we can put a system constraint or some notification to the user.
    Nonetheless, if I have done something wrong, I shall correct myself. May be one can guide me on more appropriate category Advait (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    We always need people to help at NPP. But your mass submissions to AfD with little evidence of WP:BEFORE and flimsy rationale do not suggest you are ready for the task. Polyamorph (talk) 14:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks for your feedback. Advait (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]


Hi, I have previously held this right here but it timed out. I am mostly working on WP:AFC and want to continue working in the NPP Padavalam🌂  ►  11:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Page mover

User:Super Dromaeosaurus

Hello. I am an editor who frequently requests RMs and RMTs. I would like to have this permission simply for the sake of making my editing easier. I am not a person who usually check requests or very involved in the pages that make Wikipedia "work" (if I am explaining myself correctly), I usually focus on my interests and make move requests when I stumble upon a page that could have a better title in my opinion. I've had in the past a few controversial undiscussed moves in the past, such as Kishinev pogrom and Synod of Jassy (both from February of this year), but right now I almost never move by myself pages unless I am completely sure it will improve the article, and if I am not sure, I do a RM (sometimes they fail, but I'd say most are sucessful). The last example of a situation in which I could have benefited from having this permission was yesterday when I requested that Bird's wing be moved to Bird wing through a RMT which was successful. I've seen that some users have frequently been given this permission provisionally for 3 months, so I guess that could work for me for now. Super Ψ Dro 09:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Not seeing anything strongly against, not seeing anything strongly for. Main thing is a good agreement of RM and RM/TR requests with the end result. Leaning towards a temporary grant, will leave this open for further comment. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I've checked past requests of other people and I've seen it has been asked to users in what situations would they have benefited from having had the power to supress redirects. I'll give a few examples: Draft:Basarabka and Moldovanka (moved to main space, then to Saryqobda, I requested the deletion of both), Draft:Democracy and Solidarity Party (I didn't notice it still exists), The Sub Carpathians (moved to remove "The", I was too lazy to request deletion of the still-remaining redirect) and Russian occupation of Gotland 1808 (moved to Russian occupation of Gotland). I note that I only mentioned cases from moves that I did less than 3 months ago. Super Ψ Dro 19:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pending changes reviewer


  • TrangaBellam (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · reviews · logs (blocks • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)
  • Help manage the queue. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      Administrator note @TrangaBellam: You seem to have a undeniable point of view about India-Pakistan and similar relations. I'm afraid this may affect your reviewing process, as you have used the undo button various times to re-add possibly biased or controversial text. @ToBeFree: I've pinged ping the admin that granted you rollback for another opinion in case I'm being overly cautious. Anarchyte (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Pinging @RegentsPark:, as an admin patrolling ARBIPA. You seem to have a undeniable point of view about India-Pakistan and similar relations is an irrelevant observation - editors can have their POV as long their content is NPOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    TrangaBellam's editing is neutral as far as I can see so pending changes should not be a big deal. I did notice, however, this open SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan involving them. I have no idea how valid the accusation is but perhaps it is better to wait till that is resolved. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    There should be no action until that SPI is resolved, yeah. I can also see Anarchyte's concern. Rollback is used for reverting pure vandalism only; pending changes reviews apply to good faith contributions as well. I have no opinion in this specific case, I'd just like to request that noone makes any decision based on my granting of rollback. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thanks to both of you. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    On some retrospection, the situation is surreal. Here Anarchyte is indirectly accusing me of an anti-Pak (or pro-India) POV while the SPI accuses me of the very contrary! TrangaBellam (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Having a perceived POV is hardly an irrelevant observation when discussing content permissions. I didn't claim you had either a pro or anti-Pakistan bias, just that you had used the tools you already had to re-add possibly controversial text. Anarchyte (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I have only become familiar with TrangaBellam's edits today, but I am already extremely concerned by the examples I see of extreme and seemingly POV deletions of large bodies of content, see here and here, followed by bouts of edit warring to defend their highly contentious deletions with only the briefest of explanations in the edit comments and on the talk pages. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    In your first example, I was cleaning a bunch of pages that were orbited by the same sock-farm. My edit was reverted very soon, and an admin reverted to my version. The page was eventually protected. Same for the second example - you can see my note at the talk-page, a lot of blocked socks, and an admin reverting to my version before protection.
    Nonetheless, you can dispute my edits but at the talk-page rather than here, having stalked me from the AfD. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yes, your vociferous and slightly combative tone in the AfD peaked my interest as to your editing trends. Just because a page has been sock-farmed does not automatically make that content incorrect or its removal correct. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Multiple other editors (incl. admins) have repeated my edits — please ping all of us, and start a discussion at the proper venue. Additionally, I had nowhere suggested that I was removing content because a page has been sock-farmed. I won't engage with your bad-faith arguments any further. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Anarchyte: The SPI has been closed by a CU as unsuccessful with not a single established editor being convinced of the claims. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @TrangaBellam: As I have obviously formed an opinion, I'll let another uninvolved admin close this to give you every benefit of the doubt. Anarchyte (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Anarchyte: I really don't see TrangaBellam misusing this tool so I'm going to grant them the permission. I don't see having or not having pending changes reviewer permissions a big deal so, since I've commented here, I'll wait a bit to see if you have any objections. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Done--RegentsPark (comment) 12:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Lazy Maniik

  • Lazy Maniik (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma· non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · reviews · logs (blocks • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) (assign permissions)(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)
  • I'm Currently extended confirmed , Rollbackers , IP Block Exemption Rights and have about 2,568+ edits, so that ought to qualify as a verifiable editing track record. I've been rather active since joining Wikipedia, and I spend a lot of time fighting vandalism, so I have experience to see what it looks like. I'm also familiar with AIV if it comes to that. Giving me this permission would help me fight vandalism, promote good editing, and save time for other editors.and I'm Currently Member of CUVA. Best Regards. Maniik 🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me. 13:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Lazy Maniik: Hello, and thanks for stepping up to volunteer in this role. I immediately noticed that both in this request and in talk page messages (example) your talk page messages contain frequent typos and are sometimes difficult to comprehend, especially for newer users asking about your reverts. Are you able to commit to working on the clarity and grammar of those talk page messages?
    Additionally, could you explain the following reverts: Special:Diff/1050993049, Special:Diff/1050708485? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@L235: Yes, you are right, there are many mistakes, but I did not say bad to that User, I only told him that the parameter was marked for removal, I am trying to improve myself I am trying, yes or no because I don't understand British English much, but I have answered them in my own language, sometimes I have to resort to google translation too, but I will try to answer as soon as possible. I am unable to explain, and 1-the reason for deleting the revert was removed from my mistakes but when I wanted to revert the edit, then someone anonymous made the edit, so I could not remove your edit 2-second The reason for the revert is that when one file already exists there was no need to add another, so removed that too with the name of that actress, I've come to wikipedia to make good edits. Best Regards. ---✨LazyManiik✨ 04:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:SeanJ 2007


I want to be a PCR to reviewing some of these obsolete review pages. sjh (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I am a Rollbacker and have a good experience with counter vandalism and Wikipedia policy. I have read the guidance on reviewing pending changes and feel that I meet the criteria. Thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I wish to have PCR access and contribute to the review process. Thanks. Advait (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I have concerns about misuse. In particular this user accepted a request by an IP user (via their talk page) to nominate nearly 2 dozen college/university articles (with an invalid rationale) without discussing the matter with the IP user, which is suspicious. Seems to be hat collecting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]


User:Wretchskull (alt)

I only have <100 edits on this alt account, however, my main one has almost 4000 edits and with rollback & PC reviewer rights. I need this to accept constructive edits. (Proof that this is indeed my main account: here) ~ Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user has 64 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 09:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I sincerely believe, I will be able to contribute more as a Pending changes reviewer. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[]


User:Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!

I have been an editor for several years and have noticed on several recent occasions that when I need to revert uncited additions or promotional additions, that I need to revert each change separately. The same is true with confronting vandalism. I think with the article reversions I did today, that I would benefit from having the Rollback tool as it will make my reversions less time consuming. Thank you for your time. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl!: How would you respond to the following edits?
  1. Helianthus petiolaris
  2. Richard Frank (actor)
  3. Illuminati Hotties
  4. Josh Lambo
  5. Mauricio Balter
(@Enterprisey: side ping) Anarchyte (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the question User:Anarchyte. The first edit is vandalism, so I would remove it. As it is an IP address with no further edits, and there is no similar history of vandalism on the page, that would be my final step. As for the second edit, as the page is entirely unsourced, this edit would catch my eye if I were watching the page. Then again, if I were watching the page, I would have tried to add sources to the pre-existing content, but in this case the edit can be adjusted for promotional language and I could add a source like this one [4] to it. I'd likely check the IP address for past edits, and see they made previous edits promoting conspiracy theories, and address those by reverting them if the content is still there. This page is under restriction though, so today such an edit wouldn't be possible. For the third edit, it looks like there is an argument it is supported by the existing source at the end of the sentence, so there is nothing to do here in my mind, but if someone else reverted it I wouldn't protest if they felt there was some issue with it. The fourth edit represents an IP address that has vandalized the page three times, so I'd revert and give a level one warning to the IP on their page - but it got reverted within one second by another editor, so at my editing pace, they'd have gotten to it before me. In terms of the final edit, I do not read Hebrew, so would not be able to comment on whether the source supports the first part of the edit. As the page is related to religion, it is also very unlikely that I would choose to get involved, but if I somehow came upon it - the IP was blocked due to some internal mechanism leading to a block, so would assume that whoever blocked it, was watching the page and I wouldn't step on their toes. That said, this is clearly a second batch of edits from the sock IP that has yet to be reverted, so I would not have an issue with someone else reverting it. Of course if it was somehow my responsibility - I'd revert the batch of edits. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I want to help Wikipedia more with reverting vandalism and disruptive edits. I think using Rollback and Huggle will help me do so more efficiently. LightPirate (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

User:ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ

Hello, I've decided to get rollback rights about this title. Thank you! ਰਵੀ ਸਹਿਗਲ (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 07:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I have been fighting vandalism at Wikipedia, I was able to find few sockpuppet accounts who were continuosly indulging in vandalism and they were blocked on my submission. I wish to have this right to use Huggle for making better contribution. Advait (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]


To able to rollback unnecessary edits and help fighting vandalism like other users vandalising created articles 444metaphor (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 03:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user has 18 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 03:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 18 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. — JJMC89(T·C) 07:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I have been fighting against vandalism especially in Indian caste & related articles for years. I am now using Twinkle in order perform reverts more effectively, but Twinkle is a bit slow. Pinging senior admins Bishonen & RegentsPark, who are aware of my work here for their comments, if any. I am ready to withdraw this request, if advised. Thanks & Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 13:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([5]). MusikBot talk 13:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]


I want to improve Wikipedia articles by rolling back vandalism and disruptive edits. I want to improve Wikipedia articles by rolling back vandalism and disruptive edits. This will also save time. Regards N1234567 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Template editor