This username matched "Promotional? 2" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames containing this string are often promotional in nature - check if this is the case -- DQB (owner / report) 19:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, so please be careful when blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 11:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This username matched "Used x instead of cks attempting to skip filter: prick. Violating string: sampricks" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 11:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
This username matched "communis(m|t)" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Note on file Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view may be in violation of the username policy due to creating a hostile editing environment. -- DQB (owner / report) 17:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Several edits in need of reversing, all made by unregistered and non-confirmed users. No constructive contributions by such users during the time span in question (since October 20). Trying to assume good faith, I suspect vandalism on some of these edits – please do have a look Rockfighterz M (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 22:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Requesting temporary semi-protection due to a spike in vandalism, likely from the same person hopping across IPs. Yue🌙 18:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Creation protection: All three of the pages have been repeatedly recreated by the same block-evading vandal. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding false awards to this yet-to-happen award ceremony. Doc Strange (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent vandalism and removal of sourced content (descriptor “poet”) by temporary and anonymous users. A vandalism report has been filed and warnings issued. Requesting semi-protection to prevent further disruption. Cannery Row (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 22:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Before posting a request for unprotection, please discuss it with the protecting administrator first. You can create a request below only if you receive no response from them.
To find out which administrator protected the page, go to the page's edit history and click on the "View logs for this page" link (located underneath the page's title). The protecting administrator is listed in the protection log entry, next to the words "protected", "changed protection level", or "configured pending changes". If there are a large number of log entries on the page, use the drop-down menu near the top of the page and select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" to filter the logs accordingly.
DO NOT request a reduction in protection if...
...you are being prevented from editing the page. A desire to change content is not a valid reason for unprotection. Instead:
If you can edit the article's talk page, use the WP:Edit Request Wizard to propose a change on the article's talk page. Include an explanation of the exact content that you want to change, and what the content will be afterward.
...your reasoning for reducing protection is that the article has not been vandalized. That simply means the protection is working as intended.
...your reasoning for reducing protection is basically "a long time has passed" without supporting details.
...you haven't contacted the protecting administrator.
You may request a protection reduction below if...
...you want to change the protection level of a template or module from full protection to template protection. You may add the request to this page without having to discuss it with the protecting administrator first.
...you need to remove creation protection from a location where no page exists (redlinked pages) after a draft version of the intended article is prepared beforehand and ready to be published.
...you are proposing a trial reduction in protection for a page that has been protected for several years, provided the proposal is supported by evidence such as talk page activity, page views, page traffic, number of watchers, frequency of edit requests, and prior history of vandalism.
...the protecting administrator is inactive or has not responded to you in several days.
If you cannot locate your request, make sure to check the request archives to see if it's been moved there. Only requests that have been recently answered will still be listed here.
Request a specific edit be made to a protected page Please add an edit request to the talk page of the protected page before adding an edit request here
Requests for specific edits should be made on the talk page of the protected article. You can create an edit request below only if the talk page is also protected, preventing you from adding a request there.
You may add the appropriate template ({{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}}) to the article's talk page if you would like to request an edit be made. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
Requests to move pages that are currently move-protected should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not on this page.
This page is not for holding discussions regarding content. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit that you wish to be performed.
Otherwise, this is the correct place to use in order to add an edit request if you are unable to add one to the article's talk page. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to properly add a request.
Protected by Mifter on 2017-03-25: "Considering the main page was unprotected by a compromised sysop semi recently, perhaps transcluding it to a cascade protected page will provide a small increase in protection"
Modified by Galobtter on 2019-03-07: "Highly visible template: 30000+ transclusions; while subpages are regularly edited by non-template editors, this does not appear to need so"
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBottalk 15:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
This RfC recently established that autopatrolled can be procedurally revoked from inactive contributors, but I don't think there was consensus that it could be procedurally reinstated upon request, so I would encourage the reviewing administrator (I'm not one) to consider this like any other request. @Sswonk: I had a couple of questions about the articles you recently created: what makes this website (on Loretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter) and this website (on Honky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics) reliable sources? Also, since IMDb is an unreliable source, is there another citation that could be used for the award on that first article? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to say: welcome back to the project! I realized my comments above could come across as trying to shoot you down after your wikibreak, but I did mean it as genuine questions/feedback. :) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks TS69, I did not realize that you had posted here before I went to your talk, I am copy-pasting that here so we can continue the conversation in one place. Below is re: Jeff Burger, will respond on other questions momentarily.
I added a second citation to the first paragraph of Loretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter. I think the first citation is fine, yes it is a self-published source by Jeff Burger however Burger is well-known (https://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/burger--jeff-contributor-301827.php) and the site serves as an archive of his previously published reviews. The page I cite is a reprint of a review first published in 1976, the publication is not specified, however the information about Burger suggests it satisfies "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." See also https://search.worldcat.org/search?q=au=%22Burger%2C%20Jeff%22 -- Burger should be considered reliable. Sswonk (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I did not realize IMDb was unreliable, I used that because it is the single source of the page 38th Golden Globe Awards. I added the actual Golden Globes as a source. Sswonk (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes — your point about Burger makes sense to me, so I'll remove the {{sps?}} tag, and citing the Golden Globes' website for that award looks appropriate. I'm less sure about the reliability of Chapter 16, but I think I'll leave this for an administrator to weigh whether or not that would be a significant blocker to granting the permission. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate that, thank you. Sswonk (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The question remaining from TechnoSquirrel69 asks for administrator input on the reliability of the Chapter 16 web outlet of the Tennessee Humanities organization. Links are provided a couple of paragraphs above. I am noting here that this morning I changed the previously existing citation link on the Honky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics page to a direct link rather than to the archived page, as I was able to find the current url for the review. The link TechnoSquirrel69 includes above in his initial post has been updated to a current page. So we are dealing with the WP:RS status of a current page on a site that supports a 51-year old Tennessee institution funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. I think Chapter 16 is entirely reliable and should be used on Wikipedia articles related to Tennessee culture and history as needed. However, I want to thank TechnoSquirrel69 for diligence in finding areas for improvement in these stubs. Like him, I strive for the best references available and had determined the Chapter 16 and Jeff Burger sites were satisfactory prior to opening this request for permission; however I have been away for over a decade and am prepared to face challenges with humility. Fifteen years ago I worked on Led Zeppelin which was at the time poorly organized but since I left has been promoted to GA status. My opinion is that Loretta Lynn is on a similar level as a significant performer and figure in popular music history, and naturally I want articles about her and her work to have
top-shelf reviews; even stubs should strive for high quality, especially references within them, to help other editors find further material, to set a tone of sincerity and professionalism. Thank you again TechnoSquirrel69. Sswonk (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts -- The notability rises from its mention in reliable sources as the first alliance between England and the Dutch Republic and as an initial policy forming act of Charles I. There was an existing maritime agreement, but the treaty went further and allied the two nations against Spain during a volatile period. To quote Anton Poot whose PhD thesis is one of the sources, "the maritime agreement had not mentioned Spain by name as the common enemy; the Treaty of Southampton left no doubt. It created an Anglo-Dutch partnership for a joint war against Spain, effectively meaning that England joined the Dutch in a war they had been waging already for decades." Charles was asserting England against Spain formally. The sources find it significant in the history of the Eighty Years War and of pre-civil war England. Sswonk (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
It seems like your ping didn't go through @Sswonk. Are there any sources other than the PhD dissertation that discuss the treaty in depth? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts yes, odd about the ping. Well, as you can see in the article I posted about a month ago, I was able to identify the three sources plus the "further reading" thesis as verification for the information in the article at the time I posted it. I did not find much more, at least not that well sourced. The timing, the fact that the king did not stick by the Dutch, may make Southampton more obscure, and conceivably it might be well-challenged as not WP:RSed enough, but why? What I posted might be merged with an article that treated (pun?) the entirety of pre-civil war relations, something like that "further reading", don't know. I mean, I simply decided to write that stub article because it (the subject) is an entity that exists in history, that was mentioned in timelines, had a "redlink" where I first saw the treaty mentioned in Wikipedia, and that has sourced material about it. The entire treaty, albeit in French, is available to follow leads from. So I think it is worth posting a brief article about. This project is really a good jumping off point for people to explore and edit articles about obscure history topics. What is your opinion, Voorts, isn't what is sourced and the quality of those sources sufficient? And, shouldn't the topic be part of the encyclopedia? I have less than 8K edits in over four years of active editing, maybe I am missing something; I fell as though Treaty of Southampton fills a gap in coverage, without relying on original research. I understand WP:OWN and basically, whether obvious or not, I stepped away from editing the article the day I started it, hoping others might follow up, it isn't anything I claim to know a lot about other than those sources. But someone, or a few someones, might be able to expand the article to have more sources in a way I can't grasp this morning, and I hope that they do. Sswonk (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Since it seems like this request is stalling out, I did a few more spot-checks on Lindsay Lou. The writing and sourcing are good for the most part, and notability is clearly established. However, there are citations to Local Spins, which appears to be self-published by one John Sinkevics, as he's the only editor mentioned on the about page, and this page advertising bios on request makes me pause when considering its reliability. On Me & Patsy Kickin' Up Dust, the summary is excessively long, with lots of potentially unencyclopedic detail that is only backed up by primary sources. There's only one review cited — Washington Independent Review of Books — and all of the other sources are interviews or other primary sources, so I'm not seeing how it passes the notability guideline for books.Sswonk, I think overall that you're doing good work with your article creations, but that it would help for NPP to continue looking over your work for the time being. Autopatrolled editors are expected to create articles that consistently meet community standards for writing, sourcing, and demonstration of notability, and I don't think the consistency is quite there yet. Practice makes perfect, though, and I'm sure an administrator wouldn't mind revisiting this in a few months if you can put together a solid handful of articles. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Not done, AP standards have ballooned in recent years and based on reading this discussion and looking at the examples I see small issues that I think would be worth a second look by NPP folks. Declining per that. Sohom (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I can't say that I agree much with your assessments or how you back them up, and am disappointed. There is no definition of "NPP people", but they decide that if Loretta Lynn writes a book it is "notable" enough to be included in an encyclopedia with dozens of articles about video game characters? Marginalized and coverage-gap prone subjects will eventually be treated with care. No more writing for a while guys, not worth the depression. Sswonk (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this conversation has turned you off of writing, Sswonk. I just wanted to clarify that that was not my intention; I chimed in here hoping my feedback would help you improve your work. And believe me, I understand the desire to improve our coverage of underrepresented topics (I've worked at Women in Red and coordinate the Developing Countries WikiContest), but a desire to fight systemic bias does not override our notability guidelines. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions, and I'd be happy to help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting Autopatrolled rights in order to reduce the backlog of articles awaiting review. I primarily create new articles on politics and law with a focus on biographies of notable individuals. I ensure that the content I add are verifiable and the articles comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My previous request was declined in March 2025. Since then, I have strived to improve the quality of my contributions and have made substantial improvements to several existing ones, upgrading them to B-grade, e.g., [2], [3] and [4]. Regards. QEnigma论 03:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I formally request the autopatrolled user right. I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, both in English and Spanish, and I consider that, after so many years and hundreds of articles created on both wikis, i am in the position to say that I know the rules and styles. I've never cared much about user rights, but now that I've started a personal project (ambassadors of Spain and all its lists) to expand diplomatic information about my country, Spain, I'd like to avoid the workload that comes with reviewing articles that comply with our rules. Thank you. TheRichic(Messages here) 11:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I formally request the Autopatrolled user right. I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, both in Turkish and English. I have contributed to the Turkish Wikipedia, particularly on the Tao-Klarjeti region. I have also started to transfer these contributions to the English Wikipedia. I think it would be good to reduce the workload involved in reviewing the items I have written. Thank you. --ႧႤႧႰႨ ႾႠႰႨ (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, have created numerous new articles, edited countless others, and am very familiar with its policies. Λeternus(talk) 12:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
User regularly creates articles relating to military history, biographies, and the US. User has created over 200 articles. SnowyRiver28(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) +1 agree and articles created are generally good in terms of standards. Agent007 (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Not done @Guylaen: RE Department of Propaganda in Enemy Countries: CART doesn't have a clear editorial policy and is a volunteer-run website. Why is it a reliable source? Clutch was "created by a team of parents who have or had children attending Emerson Valley Combined School, Milton Keynes" and is almost certainly unreliable. RE Military Intelligence (Research), Grey Dynamics is an independent intelligence company; they're not professional historians and there's no indication this was fact checked. RE Brickendonbury, Herts Memories is a local volunteer-run community history site. I'd like to see a better grasp of reliable sourcing before I grant AP. Courtesy ping @SnowyRiver28 & @Agent VII. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I will leave you to debate their reliability. I wouldn't have included them if I didn't trust them. I did not ask to be autopatrolled, but it felt like winning a prize when I found out what it meant. Genuinely honored to be considered, but I like being a part of the team and having editors. Guylaen (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
On the point of Clutch though, considering it is where I pulled the bulk of the content on that page: it is actually managed by Open University (note the URL). Guylaen (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
@Guylaen: it doesn't matter that it's managed by Open University. Universities host lots of web pages, some of which are reliable, some of which are not. In this case, it's written by a group of parents without independent fact checking. Reliable sources need to have an independent reputation for fact checking and self-published sources like this generally aren't reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Each CLUTCH project was overseen by a teacher for the local school district before being sent to the Open University, and reviewed by the staff of the local Living History Museum for factual accuracy before publication. Guylaen (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The staff at Open University who initiated the project were mainly from the Office for Students with Disabilities.
The insinuation that this is some sort of self published source is kind of insulting to the time and work that these people dedicated to their projects. I have every confidence in this source. Guylaen (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
However, I did delete the grey dynamics source. I forgot I had that in there. I had four sources on the same sentence anyways so it didn't do much to remove it.
As for Herts, you are absolutely correct. Despite the fact that the word "community" in itself does not mean unreliable, it does state on their about page that the County Council does not review for accuracy. Thank you for catching that. I will rectify that as soon as possible.
This is why I like the team approach. I like having people double check my work. I'm sorry that I produce so much for the NPP, but I think the review process makes the articles better. Guylaen (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
But CLUTCH is reliable and I will go to bat for it. Guylaen (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
And yes, CART is also a reliable source. They are referenced by nearly every professional historian in the field, and have done many events with History UK, HistoryHit, the County archaeology, British MOD, and so on.
Stories about the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team (I did not realize they even have their own article until you made me question this source):
"It was not until the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team (CART) successfully lobbied for veterans and relatives to take part in the annual Cenotaph Remembrance Sunday March Past in 2013, that there was any form of official recognition of the huge sacrifice they were willing to make in the country’s darkest hours." Guylaen (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I've periodically patrolled Michelangelo1992's articles, and consistently found them to be in good shape. Focused on books as a topic area and very clear familiarity with WP:NBOOK. He's created 135 articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback! I’ve always trended toward direct quotes to avoid concerns for original research, but I can make an effort to paraphrase more in the future while still citing the original source. I’ll also try to be more mindful of WP:SAID. I thought I was doing fairly well with this, but I am always open to feedback particularly if you have specific suggestions relating to recent articles. Thank you! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2025 (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.
Some helpful editors over at the Wiki Discord suggested I apply for this, as I am a new page reviewer and have to draftify articles on a near-daily basis. Page mover perms would be massively helpful so that I'm not leaving redirect pages, which others would then have to delete for me.
I will be fully transparent and say that I have not participated regularly in WP:RM or WP:MR, mostly because I've never given them much thought -- I really only require page mover perms to help with the cleanup process as part of NPP. I understand involvement in those 2 areas isn't a prerequisite for receiving permissions, but I feel it's important to be up front! Thanks for your consideration. Aesurias (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Aesurias I meant to suggest that you request pagemover after gaining some experience with RM/TR and RMs. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. I personally would not grant the permission in this case. However, as I have weighed in on this already, I will leave your request for another admin to review. Toadspike[Talk] 13:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike This is why I was given PM, myself, so I don't really see an issue with it. asilvering (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Awesome, TIL. Thanks for taking care of this! Toadspike[Talk] 17:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks both and I appreciate your honesty :) Aesurias (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Would be useful for my work as an AFC reviewer, recently got in a small disagreement (See: here) where having page mover rights could have avoided the whole thing, I've been dragging my feet on applying for them on a while but decided to bite the bullet after it. Olliefant (she/her) 15:33, 4 November 2025 (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 spam and vandalism on Special:RecentChanges, and I'd like pending changes reviewer to review pending edits as they show up there. Yerlo (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia for about 7 months now, and made just under 500 edits. While sometimes I make mistakes, I learn from them and try to be as understanding as possible. I've merged one article, and recently split several. I think this permission would help me improve Wikipedia,and help take some pressure of other reviewers. Tactical Falcon (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I already make a habit of keeping an eye on Special:PendingChanges when I'm spending time on Wikipedia, and it would be great to be able to accept edits that meet the requirements rather than just reverting those that don't, especially when the backlog fills up with acceptable edits waiting for a reviewer. If I could do with any constructive criticism, please let me know. Seercat3160 (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights
I have been on here for six months now, and recently also joined the simple Wikipedia. Have had 2 declined rollback requests in July and August but have since then, I now officially fully understand the basics of Wikipedia and how to edit, only issue I have had with my editing lately was an accidental page blanking I did due to page-move vandalism and failed move-back about a month ago, but have 2000 additional edits since then (4,100 total). I recently came across one article I was editing (Seth Curry) where the issue of not being a PC-reviewer took full effect, so I am requesting to be a PC reviewer, especially as some "Likely Have Problems" pending edits I have seen in the recent changes have actually been good. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I have made over 500 edits and currently hold the extended confirmed user status. I would like to help reduce the backlog by reviewing pending changes. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I have patrolled hundreds of edits for vandalism via recent changes, I am well-versed in what is vandalism and what isn't (among other reasons to deny a pending change). And would like to help with pending changes reviewing. CocaPopsRather 19:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi CocaPopsRather, I've left a couple questions on your talk page that I'd appreciate answers to before granting or denying this. Many thanks! Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 04:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I'd like pending changes reviewer rights so I can do something else other than just recent changes patrolling. I have over 3,000 edits as of this comment, and while I have only been in the community for 2 months, I'm more than familiar with the relevant policies. Cheers! monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I have been editing on Wikipedia for quite a while now. I have nearly a 1000 edits on the English Wikipedia and 1500+ sitewide edits. I think recieving this right will help me improve Wikipedia since many articles that i regularly edit are protected. Shubhsamant09 (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I would like to become a pending changes reviewer to help make the process of reviewing pending changes as quick as possible. I believe I meet the requirements for the permission as I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2023, haveI have over 3 thousand edits with over 850 mainspace edits and I am familiar with the required policies including on what Vandalism is and is not and on BLP. I have also read the guideline on reviewing.GothicGolem29(Talk) 04:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I spend a lot of time on recent changes, mostly using Twinkle because I find it's a much more efficient way of warning disruptive editors or vandals. With the filters I use I mostly encounter disruptive changes, unsourced BLP vios, and the like, but rollback would be helpful for the most obvious vandals. I always send editors I revert a warning, though I sometimes prefer integrated warning/welcome templates like {{welcome-unregistered-test}}. Though I occasionally make mistakes, I learn from them and tend not to repeat them, and I would only use rollback for the clear-cut cases. lp0 on fire() 21:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Had requested a while back, but was told I needed some more experience. I believe since then I have obtained a better understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, and this permission would be useful for me as I could use tools such as antivandal etc. I am aware of all guidelines and always warn users with reverts. I am also a pending changes reviewer and temporary account viewer and my edit history hopefully shows how I have put them to good use. Pr0m37h3u$ 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([5]). — MusikBottalk 15:40, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
I have been active in AV'ing for around 2 months now. I've gained experience about guidelines, know what is and what isn't vandalism, when to revert, and when not to. I am requesting Rollback to use other tools like Huggle to make RC patrolling easier. Thanks for considering. x2step (lets talk 💌) 02:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I have been reverting vandalism edits and monitoring recent changes via redwarn patrol for quite a while now. I have a track record of notifying editors when i revert their edits. Rollback rights
would help me to do counter-vandalism tasks more efficiently. Scoria (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2025 (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 been making improvements to templates when I see the opportunity, and having this permission will help me to make more of these edits. I will also begin monitoring WP:TPER, and handle requests which I am confident I am able to do. Phuzion (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Guidelines more or less met. I think 3/4 sandboxes weren't for template protected pages, but all the same. Done initially for 3 months. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 20:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
