Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

Administrator instructions

Requests for permissions
This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, template editor rights and AutoWikiBrowser access.
Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".
Requests for permissions are archived regularly, please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.
Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 20:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Permissions

Handled here

User groups

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

Handled elsewhere

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

Removal of permissions

If you wish to have any of your permission flags (except administrator) removed, you should contact an administrator. If you want your administrator flag removed, you should contact a bureaucrat.

This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard.

Note: The bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at Steward requests/permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they come from members of the Arbitration Committee or a user who is requesting their own access be removed.

Process

Requestors

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

Any editor may comment on requests for permission.

Administrators

Administrators are permitted to grant account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, mass message sender, 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). For convenience, a bot will automatically comment with relevant data if the user does not meet configurable qualifications. Even if the bot does not comment, administrators should review the user's contributions and logs to ensure the tools will be used appropriately and check for any indication of potential misuse.

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

Current requests

Account creator

User:Kharkiv07

Removed for inactivity, I'm back to Wikipedia and have been reactivated on the tool. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 21:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 21:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Confirming ACC account re-activation. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Donexaosflux Talk 23:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

User:TheMagnificentist

Could use this right to avoid getting the blue notifications of people reviewing pages I create. - TheMagnificentist 12:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I think you can turn those of in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo "Page review" (in the event this is not completed). — xaosflux Talk 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Davidlofgren1996

102 articles created, of which five have been deleted. The last 53 seem to have done just fine. None of the recent stubs appear to have major issues in formatting, include categories, and all appear to include at least one citation. TimothyJosephWood 19:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done formatting and everything is well done, but I'm concerned that so many of the recent articles are based on one particular website, that I am not at all sure is what we could consider a reliable source. I can't find any kind of "about us" page there that would explain how the content is generated. There was also a recent block for adding unsourced material to existing articles, and the fact that they never create talk pages for their creations. Any one of those things is not too concerning, but put together I think these articles could still benefit form being patrolled. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what website you are referring to. The recent articles seemed to have a pretty diverse selection of sources, at least for stubs and at least among themselves. Meh. Oh well. TimothyJosephWood 20:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't know about the talk pages, thought they were done automatically by bots. Also I thought seeing as bdfutbol had it's own template, it was a reliable source (as is Soccerway). My other recent articles about non-Spanish players use more varied sources. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Davidlofgren1996: Ideally, users should assign relevant Wikiprojects to an article so that it gets "on their radar". Usually this would probably be Wikiprojects Biography, Football, and probably whatever country the person is from. But I encourage you to keep this page in mind and reapply if you continue to make articles that stand little to no chance of being nominated for deletion, and don't require significant cleanup. As to bdfutbol, I really have no idea. That might be a better discussion for WP:RSN. TimothyJosephWood 21:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, taken by itself lack of talk pages wouldn't disqualify someone, it was only in combination with the other issues. Your articles aren't bad, I just think they could benefit form being patrolled. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

User:Redhat101

I planning to update School district related articles and India geography stubs, AWB will be helpful in copying Template data to pages. Redhat101 Talk 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redhat101: Could you provide some diffs demonstrating the edits you want to make with AWB? ~ Rob13Talk 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Ok, Morrisville-Eaton Central School District , Kaland, India.Redhat101 Talk 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Redhat101: How do you believe AWB will help you make such edits? AWB is only good for edits that are highly similar. It can't fill in fields like that for you. ~ Rob13Talk 04:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I'll manually fill the data later on, i just want to copy the template data to multiple pages,as there are large number of pages in India geography stubs.Redhat101 Talk 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done This would result in many pages with empty infoboxes in the short term. Instead, copy-paste the empty template into a notepad file, save it, and then open as necessary to copy/paste. That's more efficient and doesn't introduce errors. ~ Rob13Talk 01:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:Sorry for poorly wording, I wasn't trying to copy empty infoboxes, see there are dozen of villages in that India geography stubs, which belongs to same state and have similar attributes so i was trying to copy a rudimentary infobox with bare necessary info, which i'll manually update with more info like Coord etc., which takes time.Redhat101 Talk 02:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Other admins can feel free to comment and weigh in, but I just don't see that as being a good use of AWB. You'd be adding a mostly empty infobox and then making an additional manual edit for every one semi-automated edit. Why not just copy/paste instead and fill in as you go? That cuts your number of edits in half, sounds like it would be faster, and it saves on using AWB for a task it isn't really suited for. ~ Rob13Talk 02:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:Problem is that there are just hundreds of almost empty stubs in that category Ex. Gidemi,Gogolá,Gorariya and not just infoboxes, AWB will be helpful in fixing any possible unintentional WP:MOS errors in those pages.Redhat101 Talk 03:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Rollingcontributor

I believe it will help me better contribute to Wikipedia. RoCo(talk) 10:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has approximately 276 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 10:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 Request withdrawn Upon further consideration, now may be too soon to use this. RoCo(talk) 11:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jn045

Hi, I need to use the software to rectify the typo errors on some of the pages. I have read and understood the terms of usage regarding the same. - Jn045 (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC) Jn045 (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:EditorRob

Hello, I would like to use AWB for general typo fixes and ref formatting - EditorRob (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has approximately 138 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 17:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@MusikBot: I have 761 total edits. I guess all of my vandalism undos are counted as non-automated edits? - EditorRob (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed

User:Dr.PhilisMontRobert

Reason for requesting I have some new found info on tigers that I would like to share with the people of the internet Dr.PhilisMontRobert (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you're used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5% of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that 95% of the articles can use your help right now! MusikAnimal talk 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed


File mover


Mass message sender


New page reviewer

User:Bennyaha

I been an editor for Wikipedia for a while now and I have made allot of articles and made allot of edits

I enjoy doing this as this my hobby and while doing this I learn more about how to do things and what is and is not notable I want to continue helping Wikipedia and do more for Wikipedia Bennyaha (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. This is not what new page reviewer is for. This right is only given to experienced editors with clear knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't being a page reviewer about better quality of new pages, stopping spam, copyvios and nonsense, and also to encourage good faith new users? I generally focus purely on new Zealand and boxing articles but I want to become a page reviewer to improve and get rid of crap and staying within wiki guidelines I done about over 3700 edits, made over 70 articles And I learnt the rules in wiki the hard way when I first started creating I want to make sure not onlyare wikipages are good quality but encourage people to make them good quality Isn't that what page reviewers are about? --Bennyaha (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

    • Bennyaha looks to have an unusually large number of contributions for someone rejected here. My guess for a reason is a lack of participation at AfD. See https://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=Bennyaha. AfD is, I think, a much better place to begin and gain experience in reviewing others' work with respect to inclusion policy, as it is a group activity with discussion. NPP on the other hand relies on one persons judgement, rarely reviewed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • SmokeyJoe Thank you i guess i will start being more active in AfD :) However I have done a couple more votes then what the link have suggested I wonder why it didnt come up --Bennyaha (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:MassiveYR

I had recently got the rollback rights a few weeks ago and I have been actively involved in the new pages feed and recent changes. I meet all 4 requirements listed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers. Thank you! MassiveYR 13:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 13:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07

Finally back after some personal issues, would love to get back to my old work :) Kharkiv07 (T) 21:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kharkiv07:, pls confirm that you have read and understood the tutorial.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Yes check.svg Done Kharkiv07 (T) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, permissions assigned--Ymblanter (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Page mover

User:Launchballer

I realize I move very few articles but most of the articles I do move are either obvious, uncontroversial typos where a trailing redirect is unnecessary, or moving userspace drafts to mainspace, in which case a trailing redirect is unwanted. I intend to write quite a few more Wikipedia articles once my exams are over, so I would appreciate being able to move a page without having to create a trailing redirect. Launchballer 18:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:PsychoticSpartan123

I'm a fairly active user, and I'm usually working on history articles. It is often that Romans have the same name as each other and not everyone knows the correct way to disambiguate a new article, i.e. they might make the title "Lucius Furius Medullinus (consul of 474 BC)" when it should be "Lucius Furius Medullinus (consul 474 BC)" to distinguish him from any of the others with that name, such as Lucius Furius Medullinus (consular tribune). Having this right will allow me to correct article titles in a swift manner and without disruption. I will use the right responsibly. Psychotic Spartan 123 14:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 2459 total edits. MusikBot talk 14:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Mduvekot

I am a requesting page mover rights to help with my contributions as a new page reviewer and a facilitator at edit-a-thons. I frequently encounter articles that should not exist in article space, but have too much potential to be deleted outright. I would like to be able to propose to their authors that I move them into Draft: or User: space so that they can work on them until they are ready. Our efforts to recruit new editors at edit-a-thons would be greatly helped if we would have more editors who can offer a friendlier alternative to deletion for those article that are just not ready. I am acutely aware that moving an article without leaving a redirect could pose a problem for a new user, since they may have difficulties finding the articles they worked on again. I am committed to guiding those users whose articles I have userfied or moved to draft with the AfC process. I am also an AfC reviewer. Mduvekot (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneTom Morris (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


Pending changes reviewer

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania

I have been actively involved in the counter vandalism unit and have been patrolling recent changes for a while. I have stumbled upon many pending changes protected pages while checking recent changes and have made reverts of obvious vandalism and welcomed users who have made constructive edits. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:TheMagnificentist

I could use this additional right to help accept or deny pending changes on electronic music-related articles. - TheMagnificentist 12:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ~ Rob13Talk 02:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

User:ToolWiki23

I have 200 Edit To Userpage And Talk Page request rollback revert vandalism MasterChiefToolWiki23 (Talk|Contrib) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([3][4]) and has 53 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 11:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This user shows no understanding of what vandalism is [5].--Jetstreamer Talk 13:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Disagree only 53 mainspace edits, but the problem is that as Jetstreamer said, this user shows no understanding of what vandalism is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Disagree At the time you requested, you only had 53 edits in the mainspace and when you hit request, it says that if you have under 200 edits, you wouldn't be a likely choice. Most of the edits are on userpages so I don't think you have enough experience with editing articles.IExistToHelp (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Per above. In simplified English: @ToolWiki23: Your English is not very good, which is a problem. Looking at your SUL, I'm guessing your native language is Indonesian. I would recommend working on Indonesian wikis. Here you must be good at English if you want to fight vandalism, because new users will ask you questions and you will need to respond understandably. So if you could, please stop patrolling the English Wikipedia for the time being. Thank you for understanding MusikAnimal talk 19:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you i declined request rollback if using Twinkle. --MasterChiefToolWiki23 (Talk|Contrib) 08:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting to suspect this user is trying to use machine translation to edit here. That's not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer, Kostas20142, and IExistToHelp: "Clerking" requests for permissions is unnecessary. Administrators are more than capable of reviewing contributions and determining whether an editor is qualified for a user right. Permissions are not accorded based on a !vote, and community input is only helpful on some of the more advanced ones (such as template editor, where experienced template editors may be able to make helpful comments). ~ Rob13Talk 03:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I expressed my opinion. It was the first one for this request and was not meant to start a poll. I don't see anything wrong in doing it and will continue doing so anytime I consider it is worth to.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:  I also expressed my opinion, this isnt a poll. I don't see anything wrong in doing it either and will continue doing so anytime I consider it is worth to as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talkcontribs) 16:43, March 19, 2017 (UTC)
@Jetstreamer and Kostas20142: With respect to both of you, I think what Rob means is that this isn't really a discussion either; this is merely a page where users can post requests for administrators. Unless there is something truly exceptional, it's unnecessary for other editors to add their input. (I'm saying this as a former non-admin who once did the exact same thing.) This case wasn't particularly exceptional: an admin would have quickly seen that the user fell short of the 200 mainspace edits guideline. It's not that your input isn't welcome – I certainly appreciate it – rather, your time would be better spent elsewhere. Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Mz7: I know, I was just making sure that they went and looked at my contributions. IExistToHelp (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jackdude101

I am requesting rollback functionality in order to maintain the quality of the Walt Disney World Railroad and Disneyland Railroad articles. I successfully rewrote both, got the former to good article status, and am in the process of getting the latter to good article status, but I have been having problems with unregistered editors making multiple back-to-back edits that are either unsourced, poorly written, or both. Rollback functionality will make it easier to clean up these bad edits. As far as credentials are concerned, I have been a registered user on the English Wikipedia for almost 10 years and have made over 9,200 edits to the English Wikipedia so far. Jackdude101 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jackdude101: Excellent work on those articles! I just wanted to note that the rollback tool has the disadvantage of not being able to leave an edit summary, so it should be reserved only to revert blatant vandalism or other kinds of obvious disruptive editing. Consequently, any revert where someone might reasonably expect an explanation in the edit summary – especially with reverting good-faith edits that may have been unsourced or poorly written – should still be reverted manually or with a tool like Twinkle. For this reason, I'm not sure if rollback would be particularly helpful at Disneyland Railroad, unless you are convinced that the editor is here to deliberately vandalize or disrupt the encyclopedia. With this in mind, would you still like the permission? Mz7 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Yes, please. Because these are articles about high-profile attractions, vandalism, in addition to poorly-executed good faith edits (which I will not use the rollback function for), can occur at any time. Jackdude101 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Mz7 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:IVORK

G'day! I've recently gotten back into editing full time, mostly pursuing edit requests but also watching for and reverting vandalism in my steadily growing list via Twinkle. I have had multiple instances where rollback rights would be useful and always leave comments on talk pages whether for vandalism, test or good faith edits. Thanks! — IVORK Discuss 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Topcipher

At the moment, I use Twinkle to rollback vandalism that I come across using Lupin's anti-vandal tool, but I intend to use Huggle as I understand that it not only gives the flexibility to quickly revert the unconstructive edits but also assists with swift identification. Using Lupin's tools is a bit inconvenient because -
1. It takes more clicks to arrive at where I want to be; by when, vandals make more than 1 unnecessary edit (refer edits as described here)
2. The flexibility to view diffs gets out of hand a bit (or so it happens on Chrome) which further increases the response time.
I understand that Huggle would further not allow for a summary to be placed while reverting an edit but that is exactly the kind of edits I would be working upon while reverting vandalism. Here are a few diffs that I've worked upon for reference -
Shadowless Kick, Cubs–White Sox rivalry, Rotation around a fixed axis, New Democrats, Malala Yousafzai
Was also able to successfully block an IP user with help from an admin via Administrator intervention against vandalism
I have documented a few more diffs in case it is required for me to provide here and I have also read through what is and what is not vandalism, so as to take appropriate actions and reframe from doing otherwise. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania

I have been actively fighting vandalism on wikipedia this year. I am a member of the counter vandalism unit and the subtle vandalism taskforce of the unit. I have been wrong in very few cases and have always issued warning to the appropriate user. This will help me increase my efficiency and help remove more vandalism! Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template editor

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=750447383"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requests for permissions"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA