This username matched "Promotional? 2" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 11:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 11:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. "Name at business" type usernames are, as I recall, not objected to. The BushrangerOne ping only 21:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The name plus business exception specifically listed in policy refers to idenfication as a specific individual("John of XYZ Corp"); this seems to refer to a position, suggesting the account can be handed to a successor to the current holder of the position. In any event, it's changed now. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Given a welcome-coi and the edit summary deleted as it contained an email address. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: People have re-ordered the ranking of Barbie versus The Super Mario Bros. Movie, adjusted the gross numbers for various movies so that they're inconsistent with all of:
The Numbers
Box Office Mojo
the mean of the two figures reported by those sources, and/or
the Wikipedia pages
and removed the Chinese movies from the list entirely.
Clearly this is vandalism. Vonvorx (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent introduction of references to a usermod of a popular videogame by fans (more often than not IPs or new SPAs) over an extended period of time. Ostalgia (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: High level of vandalism using outdated information. Every update made is revert back within 24-48 hours Psf3397 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I have tried that and Msport1005 keeps changing the page back to the outdated information. Can I request he be blocked from editing the page? Psf3397 (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I can see you've started this pre-emptively after I wrote this on my edit summary. This could've been solved via discussion – but you only seem to want a content dispute. My case: User:Psf3397 appears to be a WP:SPA that focuses on moving Virtuosi Racing to Invicta Racing. For those not familiar: Virtuosi is a 12-year-old car racing team that operates in Formula 2 and British F4. Invicta, a watch company, bought an ownership stake in *the former structure* (important: not the full team) in December 2023. Since then, the F2 team has raced as Invicta Racing, with nothing else changing. The [website https://www.virtuosiracing.com/] has kept the Virtuosi name, the British F4 team has kept the Virtuosi name and the holding company has kept its original name of Norfolk Racing Ltd. Virtuosi founders Paul Devlin, Andy Roche and Declan Lohan remain in charge of all this – Invicta only holding partial ownership of the Formula 2 side of things. Therefore, this is not "outdated information" – the team is still called Virtuosi Racing and a page move is short-sighted at best. MSport1005 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Extended (months+) edit-warring involving multiple IP addresses, potentially coordinated. I'm just coming across this now but see [2] --Richard Yin (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Protection is too high and it was for sockpuppetry in 2018. It's nearly 2025 now so if it needs protecting just do pending changes or semi-protection but unprotection would be better I think. 147.10.234.99 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: There is no criticism of this actress on the page. It is one-sided as well as sexist to the extreme, favouring women over men. 196.32.238.201 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The talk page isn't protected. Take your "criticism" there. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 05:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Not unprotected – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. Talk:Brie Larson is not protected. Favonian (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Very temporary unprotection of this redirect, so as a non-admin importer I can history-merge the 2001/2002 edits there in to userspace, where they arguably belong much better. I created a redirect at User:Jimbo Wales/old2 before running in to this problem. I'll ping the protecting admin when I'm done. Or indefinite extended confirm protection would arguably work here; that option certainly didn't exist when the protection was implemented in 2008. Graham87 (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Hayden Panettiere artricle: Joe Somebody (2001) with Tim Allen
Why have you unreverted my revision on the Hayden Panettiere artricle by removing Joe Somebody (2001) with Tim Allen? 86.130.33.243 (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I respectfully request autopatrol and patrol rights, based on my extensive experience and contributions to Wikipedia. With over 12 months of experience, I've created 60+ articles and improved 100+ others. Granting my request will streamline the New Page Patrol process. I previously requested these rights last month, which was denied. Since then, I've improved my contributions. I believe my dedication and improvement warrant reconsideration. Thank you for considering my request. Royalesignature (talk). 03:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([3]). — MusikBottalk 03:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I recently raised issues of close paraphrasing in one of your drafts Special:Permalink/1263547974, I am sure if I check more of your creations now, I will find similar issues. Your creations need a second eye and that is what NPP is for. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting autopatrolled rights mainly to streamline article creation so that my new articles would be reviewed faster. I have written around 40 articles, mostly about ants, and I would like to get this right to get the articles reviewed faster and reduce workload for new page patrollers. I have been an editor for four years, and my recent new articles have had no issues whatsoever from the reviewers. I will use this right responsibly, and it will be my pleasure to continue assisting my community in updating old articles and creating new content. 2003LN6 06:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@2003 LN6 Just to clarify, having autopatrolled means your articles wouldn't be reviewed, not that they would get reviewed faster. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Reducing workload on the NPPs and to not have to wait for my article to get reviewed are my top priorities, so this would help greatly. 2003LN6 15:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done Based on private concerns + too little content-creation. I see a bunch of auto-notable stubs and a few redirects (which are extremely easy for NPP to review and generally does not require reduction). Nothing that demonstrates long-term engagement with our notability policies or other areas of content guidelines that we look for among folks who are AP. Sohom (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I am writing to request for Autopatrolled right so as to ensure there is reduction in the workload of NPP process. Having created articles that conform to the content policies of Wikipedia and also learning from other experienced editors' suggestions to improve articles over the years, I believe this request is deserving, supported and this user right will be granted.
Thanks Aderiqueza (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done, your last article according to XTools was in two months ago in October, that does not indicate a requirement for this right. Additionally, your last article has editor removing unreliable sources, and making other fixes to it, indicating that your articles would still benefit for a second-look-over (which is what NPP is for). Sohom (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I have made a few articles that seem to be fine, and probably worth a consideration for this permission. Crafterstar (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done Something like Marlo Kelly is the exact opposite of what we want to see from candidates for autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Crafterstar didn't create that. They created a redirect that was later turned into the article by someone else. – Joe (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I shall take another look. Schwede66 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Crafterstar, sorry for my sloppy assessment. I'm unsure, though, whether you come to anywhere near 25 articles created, which is a condition for autopatrolled. Do you maintain a list somewhere? What shows up as articles created by you is often a redirect, or something extremely basic like this that was expanded by others before it left draft space. Cast lists do need to be referenced (e.g. The Venery of Samantha Bird) and the prose of The Strangers: Chapter 3 is almost half made up of a long quotation. What I've seen thus far isn't convincing, but I'm happy to take a closer look if you can provide a list of 25 articles created by you. Schwede66 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
apologies for wasting your time. Crafterstar (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Nominating this editor for Autopatrolled based on a long history of high-quality page creation (80 new articles created in mainspace, with just one deleted a few years ago). Good encyclopedic style, excellent use of sources, images, formatting etc.; also creates talk pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting for this rights, because I have about 5 new articles that are yet to be reviewed and surely meets the notability criteria, I have been creating and improving articles especially on African Cinema and with this right, I hope to reduce the backlog on the new page reviewers log.
Best regards, B.Korlah (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hi, I am re-requesting AWB perms. It was last denied because I had shown zero need for it but this time, I think I do have a reason.
I had recently created Niagara (electoral district) and Middlesex North from a (redirect) to a Disambiguation page, and it has links. I would like to use AWB to update the links, and make it point to the right pages. I'm thinking there could be more "redirect-to-disambigaution" pages that would need updating links. Crafterstar (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autowikibrowser declined in the past 90 days ([4]). — MusikBottalk 19:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to have AWB permission to do simple maintenance edits, like fixing typos or fixing links to disambiguation pages, more easily. Milo8505(talk) 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
@Pppery Sorry, could you inform me of the criteria? I thought it was 500 total main space edits or 250 non-automated mainspace edits, which I pass, as I have more than 500 total mainspace edits.
Plan to use this to mass create and categorize redirects, as well as mass tagging pages with {{long comment}}. mwwvconverse∫edits 14:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that Ozzie10aaaa has posted AfC barnstars on dozens of user talk pages, containing unclosed code that should be closed with |} to ensure the style doesn't spill out to the rest of the talk page ([5]). I would like to use AWB to fix this. Also, I might need it occasionally for post-move cleanup on dozens of pages. Frost 18:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Reason for requesting confirmed rights
I have been on Wikipedia for almost 30 days and have over 500 edits, I don’t believe I have gotten a notification that I am confirmed. If I have, please notify me. Yuanmongolempiredynasty (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBottalk 19:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Your account is already autoconfirmed, but you may be confusing this with "extended confirmed" that you have not yet reached as your account is only about 25 days old. stwalkerster (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Reason for Request:
I am requesting reinstatement of Extended Confirmed Rights after their removal by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for concerns related to "gaming EC through adding a machine translation of Fondation Maeght and Rueil-Malmaison in many small edits without attribution." He asked me to "make at least a few hundred edits" to regain it. I understand the importance of maintaining trust and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies, and I’ve since reflected on how to better contribute responsibly.
Since the removal, I have added attribution to the concerned articles. I have made over 300 referenced contributions, focusing on adding reliable sources to improve verifiability, expanding content in alignment with Wikipedia’s standards, and enhancing article quality.
I believe my recent contributions demonstrate constructive and policy-compliant editing.
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for extended confirmed declined in the past 90 days ([6]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([7]). — MusikBottalk 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason for requesting extended confirmed rights Serfunoheda (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to get a permission, so I can translate a page. I've been registered in Wikipedia for a long period and I made quiet a lot of edits. Thank you in advance!
Not done You haven't been registered that long, and haven't made that many edits. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
On November 28 my EC permissions has been restored by Chetsford (talk·contribs) for 30 days, and I was told that prior to expiration I should return here and request it to be permanently added to my account. DancingOwl (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag.
Event coordinator
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
There are no outstanding requests for the file mover flag.
File mover
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
After I was granted the right some weeks ago, I have been reviewing new articles and since it expires in 6 days, I would like to request for an extension Tesleemah (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([8]). — MusikBottalk 21:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Back and forth better had elsewhere
Noting that someone has privately expressed concerns about this user as an AfC reviewer / NPP. I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I know Wiki to be an open space, except confidential, I believe concerns about my AFC review/NPP should be publicly expressed. You might as well attach links here if possible. Tesleemah (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Private communications are allowed. I simply made a note to encourage a thorough review before granting, based on some feedback I received. If I had time to investigate myself I would have, but I wanted to respond because it popped up on my watch list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Josh, I think Tesleemah is absolutely right to expect that criticism of her editing be expressed openly and with evidence. Nobody is stopping you or anyone else talking about other editors off-wiki, but non-specific "privately expressed concerns" carry about as much weight as a fart in the wind and I do not think it was far for you to cast a shadow on this perm request like this. You could have just told whoever's whispering in your ear to comment here themselves. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Having encountered this editor at AfD, I checked out her page reviewing. A cursory check shows some problematic reviews:
EastLink WA, marked as reviewed, a planned road with a single source (which is a primary source government document).
First Battle of Colenso, marked as reviewed, but the only two sources are hosted on Wikisource (without locking to prevent alteration), one of which (the Churchill memoir) is a primary source.
All could have been draftified or nominated for deletion since sources present did not support notability. I'll leave further assessment to others but I do think these raise questions about judgment on sourcing and notability. Not saying this is a reason not to extend the perm, but it might call for some New Page Review coaching. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I only got to know I should only mark as reviewed if they are no issues at all few days ago after getting the tool 25 days ago (I have been using the tool for less than a month now). My previous thought was that all new articles can be reviewed while I add tags where neccesary. Although these are not enough as excuses but I can assure I have been doing better and improving if you check my recent NPP. I'm open to coaching if anyone is willing to do that while I pay closer attention to the discord page. This has been helping these few days! Tesleemah (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Also adding that some articles including the ones you listed here such as Battle of Karangres, thisthis, this and this. (while unfortunately some editors removed the tag for the last two) I do add the notability tags and indicate if there are just one sources as I was a new NPP (right has expired already) and I don't want to outrightly dratify or nominate for deletion with just few weeks of using the page curation tool.
I'm just adding this to show I have tried my best and it can only get better if I am given a bit of more time helping with backlogs Tesleemah (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@Tesleemah: Your first thought was correct. Whoever told you that articles should only be marked as reviewed if there are "no issues at all" needs to reread WP:NPP and WP:IMPERFECT. Please do continue to follow the on-wiki guidelines rather than what people tell you to do on Discord, which is an unofficial channel with little to no oversight. If you have any questions there is WT:NPR, or my talk page is always open.
@Dclemens1971: "Sources present did not support notability" is neither a community-approved reasons for draftification or reason for deletion, so criticising Tesleemah for not doing this is not very fair. Similarly, if and how to tag an article for cleanup is a judgement call. In particular, {{one source}} is not there to be slapped on every article that has one footnote, it's supposed to draw attention to articles that rely on one source and as a result has "problems with verifiability and neutrality", which I'm not seeing here. Similarly, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with primary sources that means NPPers always have to flag them. I do hope you're not being this indiscriminate in your own reviewing. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: For what it's worth, your positions are supported by the majority of reviewers. Do not take Joe's criticisms to heart, as they are not widely adopted views. These views expressed are typically done so at the wrong venues and not discussed / adopted at the relevant NPP talk pages. Keep doing what you're doing, you're doing great and your care towards reviewing is appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I've responded to Joe at my talk page to keep this PERM discussion on-topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Josh I've literally just paraphrased the policies, guidelines and template documentation that are linked. If the "majority of reviewers" do not support this, we have a problem – but do you have any evidence of that? Or did you mean to say "the majority of my Discord pals"? – Joe (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Get a grip lol. Clearly you don't want to have an actual constructive discussion about it when you're dismissive like this and point towards Discord. Start a discussion in an appropriate location regarding this if you want to discuss this further, again, if you're feeling like actually being constructive instead of dismissive. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
One thing to add here: I said that Tesleemah could have draftified or nominated for deletion; I offered those options as examples of what would have been within discretion. But I'm not criticizing her for not doing that. I was criticizing her for marking the articles as reviewed; none of those articles met the standard for a reviewed article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Dclemens1971: Am I understanding correctly that you don't think that these articles meet the standard for a reviewed article because they only cite one source (in the first two examples) and they only cite primary sources (in the second two examples)? If so I am very curious where you have derived this standard from. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe 100% that is what I think. According to both NPP flowcharts (12), page reviewers are expected to check for notability. Considering the GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary, reliable sources, a page that has a single source or that has only primary sources prima facie does not pass GNG and therefore requires a WP:BEFORE. When I review, I do a BEFORE on any page like this. If I find sufficient sources, I tag "Sources exist", mark as reviewed and move on; if not, I draftify (if appropriate under 90 days) to allow the page creator a chance to add sources, or I send to PROD or AfD. While the NPP guidance does not require patrollers to do a BEFORE, it still makes clear that notability is a key part of the assessment, and that reviewers who are not able to make a clear determination should leave the page for someone else: The NPP Assessment of articles in topic areas with highly detailed SNGs is best left to reviewers familiar with those areas and guidelines. The notability maintenance tag (and its more specialised subtemplates) can be used to mark articles on topics of uncertain notability for further review in the future. But since topics with a single source or with only primary sources fail GNG, there is nothing says that a page meeting this conditions should be marked as reviewed unless a search indicates the topic is notable or unless an SNG applies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I will take note of that Tesleemah (talk) 10:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
So you ping me about something I forgot about and then don't give me a chance to respond? I do not support your granting of this perm based on the information sent to me. Period. Your views of NPP are your own and not widely supported, as I know you know. It makes the work the rest of us do that much harder when you push a narrative and go cowboy on your own like this and frankly makes me want to not even try at NPP sometimes. Please try to work more constructively with the rest of us moving forward @Joe Roe. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Don't give you a chance to respond... what? You're responding now. You specifically said above that you weren't going to review this request (I'm not personally up for a deep dive at the moment, but I wanted to mention it so that the processing admin can make sure to be thorough with a review.), so why would I wait for you before reviewing it myself?
Frankly I do not know how do respond to the rest of this bizarre comment. How are my "views" on NPP relevant and their alleged lack of support relevant to you, an admin, repeating aspersions about a newbie new page reviewer during their perm request? What is this "information"? What is the "narrative"? Who are "the rest of us"? This chip on your shoulder seems very out of character. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Conversation continued elsewhere. Collapsing section. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
For the NPP backlog drive. This is my second time participating in one of these drives (hopefully I will be healthier and less busy this time...) -1ctinus📝🗨 02:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Would like to participate in the upcoming drive and reduce the backlog. Though my AfD contribs might not be that great, I have done 43 AfC reviews. I know that it has not been long since my last decline, I originally thought of waiting a bit longer before requesting again. But I would really love to participate in the drive. I would be thankful if an admin would at least grant me a trial till the drive's end (i.e. 1st Feb). Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([9]). — MusikBottalk 12:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Done for the duration of the January drive + 2 weeks (so we don't get a rush of reapplications all at once). Thank you for responding to the feedback I gave you on your previous request. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The January backlog drive seems interesting and I need something to do over Christmas break/beyond. I applied for a month-long trial a while back, but was having some mental health issues and just didn't use the tools or even re-apply. My AfC log is relatively lengthy over a period of 3 months. A note about my AfD stats, they are inaccurate. For some reason, when changing my name from "Sir MemeGod" to "EF5", XTools bugged out and only shows random AfDs I've filed/commented on (hence the 90-or-so "no vote detected" ones). EF5 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@EF5: Could you explain what happened with Draft:Artwork at the Pentagon, from your perspective? The history is puzzling. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Sure! I was on an "artwork at the ____" list-making spree (see List of artwork at the United States Capitol complex and Artwork at the World Trade Center (1973–2001)), and I tried my luck at the Pentagon. It would be PRODed for WP:NLIST reasons, which is fair, I didn't know that WP:NOTDATABASE existed at the time, and to avoid it being deleted, I just moved it to draftspace where I could work on it. I guess I forgot about it. I know that doesn't excuse the OR concerns, I guess I just forgot to cite some material, which I'm usually careful about. :) EF5 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@EF5You do realize that the OR concerns are a direct by-product of not following WP:NLIST and not because you forgot to cite material? Sohom (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
That too, it's a mixture. In my opinion, one bad article shouldn't impede on the seventy-nine newer articles that I've made after that, none of which are tagged (from what I know). I was given the tools for a trial in late-October, and hopefully my few reviews were at least sufficient. EF5 02:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Requesting temporary access for the upcoming drive. I worked with DreamRimmer on the Unreferenced Article November 2024 drive and am hoping to go through the formal NPP School process as their student to keep these beyond the duration of the drive. Hopefully I'll be back once I've graduated! Kazamzam (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Done indefinitely. You're solidly qualified for this right based on your AfC and article creation experience and have already had one trial so there is no reason for a temporary grant. Thanks for helping out with the drive. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Joe Roe - cheers, thank you very much! Kazamzam (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I've been an AFC reviewer (probationary since March 24). I was off-wiki for some time to take a long break, but I'm back again. Can I get this right for a temporary period of 7 days? I want to explore the difference between New Page Curation and AFC tools. I will request a few more trials later before taking it permanently. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done, that's not how rights work on enwiki. If you want to test something, feel free to ask for the NPR right on testwiki. Sohom (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Then I will come after a month for requesting the right to clear the backlog drive for February 2025 if required. Thank you. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 02:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
In August, I was granted the new page reviewer permission temporarily (link). Due to some IRL stuff I wasn't very active with it, though none of my reviews were problematic. With the upcoming January 2025 Backlog drive, I'd like to re-request the permission to help reduce the backlog. Skyshiftertalk 15:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Done, for a (approx 2 month) trial Sohom (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
As an editor with over 80,000 edits since joining in 2015, I'm also a pending changes reviewer. I've moved over 2,000 pages during my time, made over 200 edits at WP:RM/TR to request uncontroversial page moves and participated almost 400 times in requested moves.
My immediate need for this permission stems from my efforts to retitle redirects in line with policies such as WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I'm currently unable to move dozens of redirects I've created to more appropriate titles because the desired titles already exist with different tags. This process would be far more efficient with the page mover tool, allowing me to address these titles without requiring frequent requests at WP:RM/TR. Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Neveselbert, can you give me a few examples of the redirects you're talking about? Why is it necessary to move them instead of just copying over the tags? I'll also say I'm concerned about all of this: while page mover is a somewhat less sensitive permission than template editor, it's still one that requires a lot of care, especially if you're planning on moving large numbers of pages at once. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Extraordinary Writ, I'm referring to the redirects in Category:Premierships of Great Britain and Category:Premierships of the United Kingdom, the majority of which I created years ago. As for why it's necessary, WP:CUTPASTE is one reason, as I'd like to maintain the page history, and another is that it's extremely tedious to have to copy over tags and categories over dozens of pages. As for the template editor issue, I made a mistake under pressure at a time when I wasn't in a good place. I apologised and accepted that my conduct fell short of what was required, although I would point out that I managed to remain in relatively good stead as a TE for about six years. I'm proposing to use the PM right sparingly, and the only number of pages I would move at once would be these redirects and those requested at WP:RM/T. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
So the idea is to move redirects like Premiership of Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton to titles like Premiership of the Duke of Grafton? I don't really understand why that'd be worth doing: both redirects are valid, and it's not worth worrying about which title is best when there isn't an article yet. (I realize only one redirect can be in the category, but still...) I suspect if you requested one of these at RM/TR, it'd be declined as not a useful move. Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I find the page history argument to be lacking; I suspect there is little to no substantial history on a majority of these sorts of redirects (especially, as you say, if they were all created by yourself). Moving a redirect to another redirect and then editing the original redirect to point to the original target just to save a copy/paste seems like more effort than just editing the second redirect. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It would be vastly less effort with WP:AWB, which I have experience with. I'd just have to substitute {{target of}} after the fact. A copy/paste for dozens of redirects isn't something I'd be able to automate. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk·contribs·email) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not comfortable handing out page-mover when your main use case is unusual and difficult-to-justify moves; I think they deserve more scrutiny than they'd get if you were making them unilaterally. I'm also not sure why you think page mover would save you time: these would have to be individual round-robin swaps, which take at least as long as copying and pasting. Not done. I continue to think you'd be better off leaving well enough alone here, but if this particular set of moves is really important to you, leave me a note and we can try to find a way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Good evening! I have had this permission on a temporary basis on May 20th of this year. I had then requested an extension of said right but was declined on the basis of weak communication capabilities and questionable RM closures being made during my trial. Four months passed, and I therefore request to receive the right (okay for another temporary basis to prove my competency).
A month ago, I returned to wp:RM/TR clerking, contesting certain requests and processing them. I could only process (fulfill) the simplest requests, that is, requests that don't require use of the suppressredirect, tboverride or delete-redirect rights bundled with the requesting user group in question. Having page mover rights will enable me to process more pending requests rather than wait for another user to fulfill them.
I am also planning to return back to NPP and AFC activity, due to the fact that I will be on holiday (and therefore, increased online activity) and due to the upcoming backlog drive for the former. suppressredirect would be helpful to carry out draftifications, and also to allow moving drafts to titles which have history that would've been eligible for G6 deletion.
For obvious reasons, I will not (and must not) work in the requested moves venue outside RM/TR (disclaimer:I have been topic banned from closing/relisting discussions four months ago). I have also improved my communication skills and will try to be as clear as possible. I am open to any questions regarding this request or my competency.
Thank you for reading my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done. I'm glad that there have been fewer issues in the last couple of months, but when the previous problems were so extensive they led to a topic ban, four months isn't long enough for me to be comfortable re-granting the right. For now, maybe consider participating in RM discussions: not only is it recommended for would-be page movers, it's a great way to show both knowledge of policy and improved communication skills. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
So... I will attempt to participate in RMs more. Thank yoi for responding to my request. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I request Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in reviewing edits. I have experience with editing and want to help maintain the quality of articles. Gwanki (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Have close to 1,100 edits as of making this request. I enjoy improving articles, I review recent changes daily by this point and am familiar with reverting vandalism (and distinguishing it from good faith edits). Having this right would mean I can instantly decline bad faith pending edits as soon as I see them. I have read and understood the relevant policies and guidelines relating to pending changes, vandalism and copyright. Beachweak(talk) 14:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Recently, i've been reverting vandalism and disruptive edits on Wikipedia with Twinkle and Ultraviolet, and as an extended-confirmed user, I have over 850 edits. I also revert good faith edits, and if I get this request accepted I will be able to reject vandalism put on pending changes (on pending changes). 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I am an active editor with page creation review rights and over 5,000 edits to date. I try to keep my edits neutral and have a history of working with others on some contentious topics. If I make a mistake, I try to fix it and apologise as soon as possible. I have a good grasp of WP policy and MOS, and understand the difference between vandalism, tendentious editing and unconstructive editing. I've also got a very good grasp of copyright law (UK and US) and plagiarism due to my academic and professional background. Lewisguile (talk) 09:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the pending changes reviewer right for the following reasons:
1. I am highly active in anti vandalism areas of the enwiki (AIV, RPP, etc, I even contributed to SPI) so I know what vandalism looks like when I see it.
2. I see a lot of constructive edits when I am on the "recent changes" section, that go unnoticed for quite a while. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I have been reverting vandalism since I created my account. Although it appears I am a new user, I also have experience editing Wikipedia and reverting vandalism as an IP for many years (which I will not be disclosing due to security concerns). The rollback right will help me revert vandalism faster, which is why I am requesting it. PersonAccount 🐉 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
PersonAccount, to be honest, no, it doesn't appear you are a new user. Which is okay if all previous activity was without having an account and without disruption. It will take longer than for other users until the trust for manually granting permissions is there in your case. It isn't yet, to me. Unless someone else grants rollback in the next week or so, I'll decline this with a recommendation not to ask for permissions until your account is a year old. Regarding rollback in particular, Twinkle and Ultraviolet will do just fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request rollback rights to combat vandalism more efficiently. I am an experienced recent changes patroller and I understand that the rollback should be used mainly for clear cases of vandalism. I am committed to using this tool responsibly. NxcryptoMessage 12:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I've been patrolling Recent Changes for a few months now. Rollback will help my work, especially when I'm out and about and can only access the app. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to note that I am currently recieving CVU training on this page and am willing to apply again later if it is felt that I am not yet ready for this permission. I would also greatly appreciate any guidence (especially on that page). Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like rollback to help me combat vandalism more effectively. I currently use recent changes and RedWarn. I feel that I have the experience necessary to handle vandalism in a constructive manner. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Though I started out doing grammar fixes, over the past 2 weeks, I've been using Twinkle and RedWarn to revert any vandalism seen on Special:RecentChanges. It's understandable if you'd like to impose the hard and fast rule of 1-month experience, but I've made almost 300 edits related to vandalism. I always leave a message for the editor and undo my revert in cases where I question my decision in hindsight and would rather have another pair of eyes look at the edit(s).
Having the rollback permission would make RedWarn reverting faster for me and would also allow me to try out other anti-vandalism tools like Huggle. Could I have the right please? randomdude121 (leave a message!) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I view that having this user right would help in fighting vandalism a lot faster. I know I would be far more efficient with fighting vandalism if I were to be granted Rollback. I have been editing for over 7 months, and I have well over 5140 edits, with a focus on mitigating abuse on the wiki. I am a frequent contributor to AIV and RPP. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at Waters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calmer Waters.
