This username matched "Promotional? 1" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Used x instead of cks attempting to skip filter: fu*c+k. Violating string: emizybankfcks" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. "I help give tours at the castle" doesn't rise to the level of violating the username policy. The BushrangerOne ping only 05:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. The editor is not promoting either Skibidi Toilet or Sean Combs. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 20 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.
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. And not enough nexus to the current conflict. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: The Wikipedia page for Bleona is protected to prevent vandalism, ensure accuracy, and maintain the integrity of the information presented. As a well-known international artist, performer, and public figure, Bleona has garnered a significant fan base and media attention, which makes her Wikipedia page a target for frequent edits, including those driven by individuals with promotional, biased, or malicious intentions.
Protection of the page is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, misleading edits, and potential attacks on her reputation. Without this protection, the page could be subjected to unauthorized changes that may distort the portrayal of her career, achievements, and public image. Given her high-profile status in the entertainment industry, any inaccuracies or false claims could have a significant impact on her professional standing and public perception.
Furthermore, as a prominent artist, Bleona's name and career are closely associated with her personal brand. It is essential to ensure that her Wikipedia page reflects accurate and verifiable information, in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality, reliable sourcing, and factual representation. The protection also prevents attempts by individuals to misuse her name, spread rumors, or engage in self-promotion that does not meet Wikipedia’s strict content standards.
The protection allows editors to maintain the high quality of the article while minimizing disruption from users who might attempt to manipulate the page for personal, promotional, or other inappropriate reasons. By safeguarding the page, it is ensured that Bleona's Wikipedia entry remains a trustworthy, unbiased resource for the public, accurately reflecting her contributions to music and entertainment. Brajen shkembi (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Several various IPs have been adding unrelated info since 9 July. Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 20 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.
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.
The place to request this edit is Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox. I will note that while the VOA article does seem to have the civilian death toll in May, it does not have the November death toll (as it was written in May) Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 16:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for account creator.
Account creator
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.
Dear Wikipedia admins, at User:Pbritti's kind suggestion I'm requesting autopatrol rights to help reduce the NPP backlog a little. I've been a Wikipedia editor for almost 20 years, and although dormant most of that time, have been involved in the WikiProject Plants stub-to-start drive for most of this year and have also created around 40 new Start-quality articles for species in the Aquilegia genus (plus a couple of related articles) in that time. Jacketpocket (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
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 ([1]). — 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)
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)
I have reverted so many vandal edits and I am doing a good job at contributing. Thank you for the request. Sergiogriffiths (talk) 20:18, 19 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)
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)
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 ([2]). — 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)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.
Confirmed
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.
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 ([3]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([4]). — MusikBottalk 12:30, 14 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.
I will be needing this for a physical training event this Saturday and for other subsequent trainings. See here. Comr Melody Idoghor(talk) 22:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
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 ([5]). — 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)
My rights as new page reviewer are set to expire next week as I was granted them for only two months (link). I'd like to participate in next month's backlog reduction drive and believe I've done decent work in patrolling the new pages feed, though I have been overly cautious at times. Reconrabbit 16:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBottalk 16:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Great work so far, though I would encourage you to seek deletion (WP:CSD#G11) of blatant promotionalism like Draft:Raydium (DeFi) or Draft:CoinGecko, rather than letting it fester in draftspace. – Joe (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I would love to help reduce the massive backlog of unreviewed articles. Although I do not currently have NPP rights, I frequently go through the New Page Feed, to view unreviewed articles and enhance them if/where possible before they are reviewed. I have experience creating articles, participating in Articles for Deletion discussions, and I am familiar with Wikipedia's core content policies, including notability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Done for the usual two month trial. If you would like to continue after that, please make a new request. Thank you for volunteering. – Joe (talk) 10:13, 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 ([6]). — 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)
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)
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.
I monitor recent edits to combat vandalism and improve articles, I also act on drafts, I have a good knowledge of Wikipedia rules. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC) SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights: I am an active patroller of recent changes and quite often see awaiting pending changes; I would like to receive the permission to accept/deny changes. I also have a track record of reverting vandalism. jolielover♥talk 06:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
While I do not usually seek out new or pending changes, I do occasionally bumble into them and I could relatively easily clear them when I find them. ✶Quxyz✶ 16:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 am requesting for a Rollback right in other to help curb and prevent vandalism in English Wikipedia articles Abike25 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done You have only used rollback 4 times. Applicants generally need to have a history of patrolling Special:RecentChanges for at least a month; I looked at the other wikis that you have edits on and didn't see any use of undo there either, so am reluctant to grant this at this time. I'd recommend Twinkle for the time being. Once you have more of a track-record, feel free to re-request here or reach out to me on my talk page. --TheSandDoctorTalk 06:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I monitor Special:RecentChanges and revert vandalism and having rollback rights would assist me in removing vandalism. Thank you. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:17, 18 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)
Reason for requesting rollback rights: I have been on Wikipedia for a while now, and when my last rollback request was declined, I began to work on other sections on Wikipedia such as XFD, CSD and more. I now feel like I have a more in-depth understanding of the Wikipedia Guidelines and know what to do in specific vandalism scenarios. Cooldudeseven7join in on the tea talk 15:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([7][8]). — MusikBottalk 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been reverting vandalism for a while, and I often monitor the recent changes page. Rollback would help me combat vandalism easier. Please note that I might be inactive after a few months of editing. I'm currently hyperfixated on Wikipedia and it might go away.
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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Calmer Waters.
