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

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

• Administrator and bureaucrat access: Requests for administrator or bureaucrat access need to be posted at requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratship, respectively.
• Bots: Request for bot flags should be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Edit filter: Requests for access to the edit filter manager group and the edit filter helper group should be made at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard.
• Interface administrator: Requests for interface administrator access should be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Only current administrators may become interface administrators.
• IP-block-exempt: While the IP-block-exempt right can be granted by administrators, this flag is not handled here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be submitted via email to the checkuser team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org or contact a CheckUser directly.
• CheckUser and Oversight: These rights are only granted by the Arbitration Committee, and only after strict scrutiny. More information can be found here.
• AfC reviewer: This access is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants.
• Redirect autopatrol list: Addition to the list is granted by administrators at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list.
• Steward permissions can only be granted in yearly elections, and are rarely given.
• Election clerk has no process for requesting it; admins can grant it to themselves or other admins at any time.
• Global permissions such as global renamer, sysop, IP block exempt, rollback, etc. should be made at meta:Steward requests/Global permissions.

The requests for permissions process is not used to review or remove user rights:

• If you wish to have any of your permissions removed, contact an administrator
• To request a review of another editor's use of a permission, use administrative action review
• If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission, raise your concern at the administrator's noticeboard

The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight permissions are removed at meta:Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.

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

Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, event coordinator, file mover, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback and template editor flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

Once an administrator has granted a permission or decided to deny a request, they should add {{done}} or {{not done}} respectively under the request with their comments. If a user already has the requested permission, or is autoconfirmed and requesting confirmed, {{already done}} should be used. N hours after the last comment was made (as specified by the config), the request will be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here. See User:MusikBot/PermClerk#Archiving for more information on archiving functionality.

Requests for permissions is primarily intended for editors requesting a permission for their own account. Other editors are welcome to comment if they have specific information that is relevant to that request that a patrolling administrator is unlikely to discover for themselves. Otherwise, since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general comments or 'clerking' by other users are rarely helpful. Non-administrators cannot "decline" to grant a request, because they're not in a position to accept it.

A limited exception to this is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, where third party nominations are encouraged. Other editors should still avoid offering general remarks on requests and leave the final decision to an administrator.

---

• Javajourney (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I came across Javajourney while reviewing new pages and was impressed with their clean pages on music subjects. They have created 106 undeleted mainspace pages since late 2024. (There are three deleted articles, all from early on in their Wikipedia career, plus a recently deleted inadvertently created redirect. A number of articles created in 2024 were redirected or merged at AfD, and Javajourney appears to have taken Bastun's advice to bone up on notability to heart.) I reviewed the last 10 created pages in depth. Notability is always clearly demonstrated, whether through chart performance, reviews or some other WP:NMUSIC criterion. (NMUSIC is one of the harder SNGs to master and Javajourney appears to understand how to strongly demonstrate notability for the benefit of a reviewer.) Pages are all highly presentable, NPOV is maintained, and talk pages are created. Sourcing is strong and primary sources are used appropriately (e.g. for chart performance). At the pace Javajourney is creating new articles, granting them autopatrolled will reduce the queue for reviewers without compromising on the quality of the encyclopedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Arcticocean ■ 20:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Arcticocean any reason? HurricaneZeta^C 23:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna echo Zeta here, I'm unsure why this was declined ? Sohom (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Other than some over-reliance on WP:YOUTUBE, I am not seeing any major issues with their article output. Not seeing any red flags on their talk page. They demonstrate knowledge of WP:MOS, which is always good to see. I think I can support them getting AP. 11WB (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Indeed, a brief rationale would be helpful @Arcticocean. I've nominated several editors for AP and this is the first one to be declined; to know what you viewed as lacking will help me nominate more effectively in the future. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale was provided in the edit summary. Kelob2678 (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't specify exactly what. Those concerns could be anything... If @Arcticocean was referring to their talk page, September's was a mild NPOV issue and December was human error. The rationale should have been put here, not as an edit summary, as when archiving it means editors in the future will have to go digging for a reason and may not think to look in the edit history. As for the reasons, if the talk page concerns are indeed the reasons for the decline, they are definitely not something I would hold against @Javajourney. I agree with @Dclemens1971, I am not one to criticise an administrator, but a reason provided in their decline would have been good, with specific details provided beyond just naming months in an edit history editors may not think to check... 11WB (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that from not done due to concerns in September and December 2025, the editor being nominated will understand which concerns I am referring to. I had intentionally set the reasons out only in an edit summary, and not in full here, because the editor being nominated has not asked for any of this. They have been nominated by Dclemens and while I was not prepared to grant the permission, it should go no further than that unless the nominated editor wishes to have more detailed reasons, which in effect is uninvited criticism of matters which have already been resolved and forgotten. Putting it very briefly: the permission was not granted primarily due to copyright and page creation concerns in December 2025; these together with earlier-dated concerns made me consider that the editor may not yet meet the first bullet point criterion for granting the permission. Arcticocean ■ 19:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page creation was a typo which @Javajourney themself requested to delete. The actual article is here: This Is What Christmas Feels Like. That is a good article by the way, @Javajourney. As for the copyright issue you cited, that was likely a mistake in rationale and is definitely not evidence for not knowing policy. I'm sorry @Arcticocean, but I don't think your reasoning for not giving AP are very fair. An obvious article typo and a minor copyright rationale error are not reasons to withhold AP in my opinion. I advised @Javajourney to re-request in a few months, at which time I would be happy to request AP on their behalf myself, if nobody else does it before then. 11WB (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the copyright issue you cited, that was likely a mistake in rationale and is definitely not evidence for not knowing policy – this isn't correct. Javajourney themself requested to delete – They didn't request deletion of the page. The deletion log explicitly notes that they didn't, so I'm not sure why you think that. Arcticocean ■ 23:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point getting into a long discussion about this. I've expressed my disagreement with your decision, this is a closed matter from my perspective now. They can choose to re-request in a few months or not at all. If their article output remains at the current quality, I will likely request it for them myself. 11WB (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Before the topic is closed entirely, I suppose that I should offer my own two cents here. @Arcticocean, you believe that I "will understand which concerns" it is that you had mentioned in the edit summary; I am afraid that I am just about as clueless as the rest of the editors here. Some further elaboration would be helpful. If the reasons are exclusive to the two instances that you mentioned here, then I should justy them both. Firstly, regarding the copyright violation: that was a mistake, and I have learned from it—this is the only instance of such violations occurring. Furthermore, one singular error is hardly representitive of my knoweldege of these policies.

The second issue you mentioned is the article This Is What Christmas Feels Liike. As @11WB speculated, this is only a typo of 'This Is What Christmas Feels Like'. I did not request it be deleted, but I did create a redirect to the correct article after I realized my mistake. This is mentioned in the deletion summary. Simailar to the previously mentioned topic, I don't think this singular error should be considered entirely representative of my knowledge of these policies. —JavaJourney (talk | contribs) 03:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I've reached out to @Arcticocean on their talk page.) 11WB (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Javajourney: Uploading that file did breach the copyright policy. Thank you for acknowledging that. Redirecting that article didn't comply with our redirect guideline – moving the page and requesting speedy deletion was appropriate, and the patroller in effect had to come along and do it for you. For this permission, applicants should regularly demonstrate familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on… copyrights. The concerns are dated recently enough to give me pause that your page creations do still need to be patrolled. If some time passes without more concerns, I think the situation would be different, as it would then be clear that these problems were isolated ones. You're welcome (not required!) to contact me directly to apply for the permission once any problems are out of the recent past. Arcticocean ■ 11:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to clog up the requests page, any further responses should be made on respective talk pages (such as the one I linked above). 11WB (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• VirreFriberg (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

@VirreFriberg has created 71 articles since 2019, of which none have been deleted. They have 12 GAs and 1 FL. I had the pleasure of reviewing Each and Every Day, which they turned from a redirect into a high-quality, well researched article! I was surprised to see that they aren't already autopatrolled, as their articles are devoid of any issues! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! 11WB (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @11WB! Somehow (and embarrassingly) I've been unaware of the concept of autopatrolling during my almost 7 years editing on Wiki. Thanks for bringing it to light. Thanks for the compliment, I've found that my articles have increased in quality after The Wikipedia Library granted me access to various repositories and my grasp on the English language improved VirreFriberg (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! AP just means article creations skip the new page feed, meaning reviewers such as myself don't need to mark them as reviewed, at which point they would be visible on search engines such as Google. TWL is a great resource! Your articles are very well researched, I specialise in music myself offwiki, so it is always nice to see articles such as those you have authored! Keep it up! 11WB (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have voluntarily requested my reviewer permissions be revoked since making this request. I considered withdrawing this, however I've decided against doing that. This will likely be the last AP request I make for the foreseeable future. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Umais Bin Sajjad (requesting Autopatrolled) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I have created over 150 mainspace articles (primarily in the area of Film and TV). While some of my earlier creations were deleted, the majority of my recent articles remain live, and I have refined my sourcing and notability assessment standards over time. I am familiar with WP:N, WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS and I ensure that all new articles meet notability and sourcing standards prior to creation. As I continue to create new articles...I believe autopatrolled would help reduce workload for NPP, as my pages generally require minimal follow-up. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Robloxguest3 (requesting AutoWikiBrowser) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) ()

It would greatly help my duties of patrolling articles, but especially for tagging articles that don't have sources. Robloxguest3 (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done fails minimum criteria. And please fix the broken template subst in your signature too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

---

• SLSTSL (requesting Extended confirmed) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

am requesting Extended Confirmed permission. I understand that this permission was previously revoked within the past 180 days. Since then, I have focused on making constructive edits, following Wikipedia’s content and conduct policies more carefully, and avoiding the issues that led to the prior removal.

I am requesting Extended Confirmed so that I can contribute to pages that are under extended-confirmed protection, particularly in areas where I have been editing constructively. I understand the responsibility that comes with this permission and will continue to adhere to consensus, sourcing standards, and dispute resolution processes.

Thank you for your consideration. My previous removal was related to gaming of the system. Since then, I have avoided disputes, improved sourcing, sought consensus and legitamitley edited.

(Non-administrator comment) SLSTSL, you will almost certainly need to provide an explanation of why you want XC and other relevant information. A blank request probably won't work. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the request was malformed and the bot removed it. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I’ve now resubmitted the request in the proper format with an explanation. SLSTSL (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance. I’ve now added an explanation outlining why I’m requesting Extended Confirmed. SLSTSL (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). — MusikBot ^talk 04:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Senapatiji (requesting Extended confirmed) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)

I had joined Wikipedia a year ago and started editing with enthusiasm, however my edits were regarded as gaming by an administrator which was nothing but a misunderstanding. Since then I lost motivation and left Wikipedia. After months of break and self-reflaction I've been able to recover from this and regain the interest in meaningful editing on Wikipedia. I want to edit many articles which I have edited previously and now under EC protection. I am aware of the reasons for which these restrictions were put on them and I will make sure that my edits adhere to editing guidelines. It would be really encouraging if you can grant me Extended Confirmed User status as I met specified criteria. I assure you that I will be more careful with my edits and will positively contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you. Senapatiji (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBot ^talk 08:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There are over 7 million articles. The vast majority are not covered by extendedconfirmed restrictions. It would probably help your case if you explained why you care about this particular privilege given that it is not preventing you from editing the vast majority of pages. If it is so that you can edit the Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha page again or other pages covered by EC restrictions, why not just say so? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely yes, I am interested in editing many such pages including that one you just mentioned and many more which I have edited previously and now covered under EC restrictions. However I understand that this restrictions are there to prevent vandalism and edit wars, I will take extra care while editing these pages. Senapatiji (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Your extended confirmed being revoked is not a misunderstanding. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Agent VII (requesting File mover) (t · th · c ^{(file space)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I'm requesting the file mover right to help reducing the backlogs at here. I am a file mover at Commons and familiar with most of the policies listed at WP:FMV/W. Thank you. Agent 007 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

• Antoine le Deuxième (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

My temporary New Page Reviewer rights are set to expire tomorrow. I would like to request an extension, as I intend to continue contributing to this area. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 19:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine le Deuxième, could you comment on your review of Jacob van Lennep Canal? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the article was translated from the Dutch Wikipedia. I verified the subject’s notability, but I believe the article should be improved with additional sources. Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine le Deuxième could you provide a little more detail as to how you verified the subject's notability? What steps did you take? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled it. This canal is mentioned in tourist guides; it is a landmark:

[2][3][4][5]

There are also no problems with significant coverage:

[6] Antoine le Deuxième (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I2Overcome (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

My continuous (once-renewed) trial since November is set to expire in a few days, and I would like to retain this right permanently if possible. Outside of future NPP and AfC backlog drives, I mostly hope to continue reviewing new geology articles and whatever else stands out to me. I₂Overcome ^talk 00:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 00:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nighfidelity (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

As an AFC reviewer and TWL user, I'd like to help address the NPP backlog. Nighfidelity (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Loytra (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Back in September I was granted a one-month page reviewer trial. Though it's been a few months, I'd like to reapply.

The reasons and caveats of my application are essentially the same as last time, so I don't really have much else to add, unfortunately. Loytra^✨ 11:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hurricane Wind and Fire (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I have been reviewing drafts for AfC since early November (see my AfC log) and I normally leave comments that explain why I declined a draft, if that was the outcome. Over the past few days I have been using the MoveToDraft script and I have draftified a few articles (see my my draftify log). I am always civil to other users and I am opening to answering the questions of others. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 15:43, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowmanonahoe (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I'd like to try something new, and I think I should be qualified for this. My AFD !votes were all a long time ago, but I like to think that they do a particularly good job at demonstrating my familiarity with the deletion policy.^[a] Note also that in terms of article creation, I technically have none, but I'd argue Instrumental play basically is one – I blew up almost everything that was originally there (including the previous title), and the article was even unreviewed by an NPPer (and then reviewed by another one). Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:27, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Metallurgist (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I previously received a temporary grant, and have reviewed a few articles, and the bot reminded me it is expiring soon. I have only reviewed a few articles and hoped to do more by now, but have not had the chance. I do regularly review and verify citations of already reviewed articles. Should I work on reviewing more before extending the right or am I at a sufficient point for extension? Thanks. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 06:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Dinitrify (requesting New page reviewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · curation log · patrol log · AFD stats · AFC stats · CSD log · PROD log · Draftify log · Mainspace edits · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

There are so many pages that are not reviewed, I am determined and willing to review many pages as much as I can. Dinitrify (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([7][8]). — MusikBot ^talk 08:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Vestrian24Bio (requesting Page mover) (t · th · c ^{(RM/TR · RMs)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Hi! I was granted temporary page mover last December, which is to expire in 2 weeks; posting to either extend it or make it permanent; Thanks! Vestrian24Bio 13:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user was granted temporary page mover rights by Toadspike (expires 00:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 13:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WildComet (requesting Page mover) (t · th · c ^{(RM/TR · RMs)} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · CSD log · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Hello, I was previously granted this permission for a three-month trial period at the end of November last year and would like to have this added as a permanent permission. I have supported uncontroversial requested moves, and I have used it when cleaning up articles related to Canadian politics, particularly when ministerial titles change following cabinet shuffles. —WildComet ^talk 07:55, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user was granted temporary page mover rights by Toadspike (expires 00:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 08:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

• Camilasdandelions (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

To rollback vandalisms. There's huge vadalism in Zara Larsson article as the singer mentioned her Wikipedia page. As the page was protected, vadalisers started to edit her other related articles (e.g. Stateside (song), Midnight Sun (Zara Larsson album)). Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Rollback is primarily a counter-vandalism tool, and you don't have much experience in that, only reverting when there's vandalism on pages in your topic area. The Zara Larsson edits are short-term and will subside; for rollback you need a track record of reverting vandalism. HurricaneZeta^C 01:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per HurricaneZeta. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:01, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Phlogiston Enthusiast (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

This isn't actually a request, but I think I might have accidentally been given rollback. When I go to a user's contribs, I have a functioning rollback option. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([9]). — MusikBot ^talk 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Phlogiston Enthusiast Did you enable Twinkle or install another script, like RedWarn? See File:Rollback and Twinkle rollback.png - the [rollback: 2 edits] is how rollback looks. Your account doesn't have rollback. HurricaneZeta^C 19:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, judging from Special:Diff/1339474798, you're looking at the Twinkle rollback feature, which is basically just as good as standard rollback but available to everyone who's autoconfirmed. Marking  Not done for the bot since you're not making a request. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• PolishHamster (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Hi. I'm requesting the Rollback user group so I can have tools like AntiVandal and RedWarn for recent changes. I'm a recent changes patroller using Twinkle, and I have a noticeable track on fighting and reverting vandalism, and welcoming editors on recent changes. I also watch the edit filter log to catch vandals too.

Here are my stats for rollback:

• Over 200 mainspace edits
• Over one month of patrolling recent changes
• No edit wars for over 6 months
• I notify editors that make bad-faith edits

• I have read and understood all sections and parts of WP:ROLLBACK
• Member of the CVU

NOTE: I'm going away for 2 and 1/2 days, so I may not respond to messages about this.

Thank you. If I am granted this tool, I will use the right responsibly.   ~ DatPolishHamster  19:33, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done insufficient experience with recent changes patrol to qualify for rollback. I see two stints on February 3 and 17 only, which is nowhere close to a month. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• TrueMoriarty (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Hi. I meet all the requirements for rollback rights. I made over 5,000 edits and I always try to notify users when reverting their edits (except when they are IPs). I also have a firm knowledge of rollback policies. I have reviewed pending changes for over a year and I won multiple barnstar for that (verify). In fact, I currently rank pretty high on the leaderboard (verify). The main reason for requesting this right is to try out new tools to combat vandalism and making Wikipedia a better place.

My application was denied once in the past due to a mistake of mine, and I was advised to reapply in a month or so.

Thank you! TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 15:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([10]). — MusikBot ^talk 16:00, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedrunz (requesting Rollback) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I would like this right to help me more effectively and efficiently revert vandalism, as tools like Antivandal and WikiShield require it. I have been patrolling recent changes for around 3 months, and have over 1000 edits. Speedrunz (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([11]). — MusikBot ^talk 18:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Newbzy (requesting Template editor) (t · th · c ^{(templates · (talk) · modules · (talk))} · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · templates created · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

Hi, requesting template editor access to help fix dark mode problems which are sadly quite common in template-protected pages. For example, many of the WikiProject templates, such as {{WikiProject Mythology}}, and also some of the article editnotices, where dark mode functionality is often overlooked. I've worked with templates quite a lot in my time here, and made quite a few edit requests, so having the permission would be great. Cheers, Newbzy (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Guidelines review:

1. Y (guideline: >1 year, applicant: ~2)
2. Y (guideline: >1000 edits, applicant: ~3k)
3. Y (guideline: >150 template edits, applicant: ~540)
4. Y (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
5. Y (guideline: 3 sandboxes, applicant: ~4)
6. N (guideline: 5 requests, applicant: ~2)

Primefac (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, I'm not sure Guideline 6's count is accurate. See here and here, here, here, and here for five template-protected edit requests that I have had successfully implemented. I guess they could be considered insignificant, but then again I only really like making small additions/fixes to templates. Newbzy (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the "significance" aspect of the guideline is what I failed to find in the majority of your edit requests. Points 5 and 6 are there primarily as the subjective demonstrations that a TPE candidate has the skills and ability to successfully implement edit requests. Primefac (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Primefac. Having looked at your requests I'm inclined to agree they aren't significant enough to qualify you for TPE; I would prefer to see more requests that actually involved template code, as opposed to pure text as many of those are (and for Guideline 6 purposes I'd at best count the first two as one request ...) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Are you sure you're not being a little harsh? A relatively recent request by MikeVitale for this permission took place here. Mike had 1 significant edit request noted, and only had 1 sandbox instead of 3 per the guideline. He also didn't really detail a plan for what he would do with TPE. Despite this, Sohom Datta gave him a trial period which was later extended. I know this wasn't you who granted him the permission, but I do think the evaluation should be applied fairly for each editor.

No offence to Mike, I'm happy for him and I'm glad he's joined the template editor crew, I'm only mentioning him to make a comparison I think is valid.

Also to elaborate on why I'm seeking TPE... per a discussion on my talk page, I'm specifically collaborating with MSGJ to bring optimized dark mode support to the WikiProject templates. Per the discussion, after some changes have been made to the templates' module, the problematic templates will need to be edited to use this new feature. I'm hoping to help out with this, to take some of the burden off MSGJ and make some of the edits myself (I've put together a list of templates that need to be addressed). Newbzy (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TPE is a big deal; if you make an error on a template-protected page, the issue could muck up thousands of pages (ask me how I know...). While I (and I suspect pppery as well) have no doubt you are a cautious editor who will do their best not to mess up, it does happen, and this is why we ask for a proven track record of requesting edits like the ones you'll be making as a TPE. If you're really wanting to help out with the dark mode stuff, make some successful edit requests, and then request this perm. I would have no issue granting if that happens.

As a minor/personal note regarding Mike, I personally don't think the initial trial period should have been granted, but some admins are more willing to "take a chance" as they say, which is why when it's a borderline case (such as his and yours) I tend to wait until another admin opines on the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, understood. Thank you for going into more detail. Newbzy (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Jak86 (requesting Temporary account IP viewer) (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)⁽⁾

I would like this permission for dealing with long-term vandals. When I notice vandalism I often check the user's previous edits to see if there are more edits on other pages that need to be reverted. Frequently there are such edits which haven't been caught. Prior to the introduction of temporary accounts I had noticed several IP addresses or IP ranges which would return over a period of weeks or months to make disruptive edits across multiple pages. Having this permission would help me keep an eye on such accounts.

I have read Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer and foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy and will follow the guidelines. Jak86 (talk)(contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]