Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

May I request for permission? --Ftsw (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you are a blocked sockpuppet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 (talk · contribs) had his Twinkle rights removed from lack of knowledge of the different uses of it. Instead of giving him the large set of tools in Twinkle, I believe he is ready for the rollback permissions. I was going to put this request on the main page, but a person cannot nominate another person. So I, Intelati, as Inka 888's mentor, believe he is ready for Rollback.--Talktome^(Intelati) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominating another editor is allowed, but it's not common with the exception of autopatrolled requests. I'm afraid I'm going to have decline this request, though, unless Inka is willing to undertake to avoid using Huggle, Igloo or any other powerful script without your approval. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr.K. (talk · contribs) and I believe he is ready to use the tools.--Talktome^(Intelati) 20:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have deep reservations about giving this editor access to such powerful tools without a broad consensus from editors (particularly admins) who have been involved with them previously. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately this way we undercut the mentorship process. If Inka is properly supervised by Intelati, in a suitable mentorship program, we shouldn't have to seek the advice of the community for Inka's progress every step of the way. In addition, as I discussed with Intelati, a restriction of five bad reverts for the rollback feature before it gets rescinded would provide sufficient safeguards for the safety of the community. If, however, we have to seek the community's approval or the approval of other admins for each of Inka's rehabilitative stages then this effectively means that the mentorship process is insufficient and should not proceed. In other words let the broader admin corps become Inka's mentors if Intelati's informed judgment is not deemed sufficient. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks --Talktome^(Intelati) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Many thanks to Intelati and HJM. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Helpful-Administrator(s)-or-Other-Users-Who-May-Be-Reading-This:

I am interested in viewing certain deleted text available only to "administrators" and "researchers." What is involved in getting the "researcher" permission? How does one go about that. I'm a relatively new editor, but did do some IP-work before joining, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the policies. Have consulted WP:RESEARCHER and that didn't answer all my questions. Not sure where to turn even for more information, much less to request the permission itself. I would appreciate any help from anyone who can point me in the correct direction. Thanks very much for your time. Saebvn (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the researcher permission does not enable you to see the text of deleted pages, just the timestamps and usernames. It was approved for a single project at the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation and, as far as I know, cannot be assigned by anyone other than them. —Soap— 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Some users have been informally clerking. I say informally, because obviously WP:PERM does not have formal clerks like Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks, for example, and of course, being an administrator is paramount to actually closing a request for the same reason that an administrator without checkuser cannot execute a request for it at WP:SPI. More often than not, those clerking have disambiguated that they are not an admin, at least. Anyone got any comment on this? WilliamH (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as the user does not close the request, it should be fine if they just comment. I also routinely act as an (informal) clerk at WP:RFPE. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Should a note be given at the top of the page explaining that move or edit requests can be made by adding the appropriate template to the article talk page?

Anyone know why requests are not being archived. Anyone know what is the problem is? ➜GƒoleyFour (GSV) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether it makes sense to require such a large number of previously created articles is being discussed at WP:VPP#Autopatrolled - reduce number of qualifying articles. You are invited to join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussion has agreed that the old standard of creating 75 or more articles is too high. The recommended level of experience was 10 to 25 articles, excluding newbies who are creating a bunch of cookie-cutter articles, and a reaffirmation of the admins' duty to use their best judgment.

Accordingly, I have changed WP:Autopatrolled to reduce the suggested standard to 50, and I encourage the admins here to keep in mind the strong support for a much lower standard when they are reviewing requests about editors whose contributions are of high quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I try to add a request but every time I do so, my text comes up in some latin looking language after I click preview. Im not sure why, anyone know what Im doing wrong? Creation7689 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured out the problem. Creation7689 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Per this discussion at the village pump, a list of potential candidates for Autopatrol has been requested here. It is hoped that giving Autopatrol to these candidates will help reduce the burden at WP:NPP. The list is likely to be several hundred users long, so I am proposing that the list be placed on several sub-pages of this talk page in the form of Autopatrol candidates X where X is a number like this "Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Autopatrol candidates 1" and that each page contains some number (50, 100, whatever) of candidates. The list will be formated with the standard {{RfP}} template and look similar to this. Then, reviewing Admins could go through the list as they have time and assign Autopatrol to the these candidates if they meet the requirements. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thanks. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Decided to be bold and created the page. I put the list at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1 and will be adding candidates to it. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Below are the lists. I will be adding to this as I have time and when the new report is ready.

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1
• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 2

Thanks HJ Mitchell for the reviews. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 3

Thanks HJ Mitchell and Acalamari for doing these reviews. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 4

Worked through the list to get one more page. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 02:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm working my way through 3, but in a slightly chaotic manner so other admins might be best to start on 4 rather than try to figure out my eccentricity! Btw, you can notify folks with {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/Autorev}} or it's handy shortcut {{subst:User:HJ/A}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Note to reviewing Admins, this is a low priority task and can be done at your leisure. Thanks to HJ Mitchell and Acalamari, the most prodcutive article creators have already been reviewed. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 5

Page 5 is the last from the old list of 05 March 2010. The next page will be from a new list that I requested at Wikipedia talk:Database reports. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that this is a low priority task and can be done as free time is available. Thank you.

I am starting to post a new list of 2,000+ users in batches of 50. There are a couple of changes. First, this list has the {{RfC}} template substituted instead of transcluded, so you can click the edit link next to the username instead of having to edit the whole page.

Second, there is a new (leave "granted" note) link in the comments section. The link will bring up the user's talk page with a preloaded message (HJ Mitchell's Autopatrolled notice). The preloaded message is only for users that are granted the right. All you need to do is click the save button on the talk page. The title of the message, the message itself and a signature (~~~~) are automatically filled in. No typing is necessary, just click "save".

The new list starts on page 6. Please let me know if there are any problems and I will fix them. Thanks for your help. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 03:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got the following pages up so far (Pg. 6, Pg. 7, Pg. 8, Pg. 9, Pg. 10, Pg. 11, Pg. 12, Pg. 13, Pg. 14). There's a navigation table at the top of each page to help getting around. Please let me know if there are any problems that need fixing. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Please remember to let users know they've been granted rights by using the (leave "granted" note) link. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 05:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a handy script User:Amalthea/MakeAutopatroller.js for granting this permission. Just click through to their userpage and a button appears somewhere (I don't know where in Vector, it's next to the edit button in Monobook) that says "+autopatrolled". Click it and it and it assigns the permission and drops my template on their talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm proposing the removal (or something to rectify this situation) of the "search an, ani, cn, an3" links at the end of the request palette when you submit a permission request. The reason being is that the user account hosting the tools on the external website has expired, resulting in a bad link (404). As I said before, removal would be an option, not the only one.  Angelo  ♫  00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You noticed that too? Here are some related discussions.

• Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 30#Dead toolserver tools on templates
• Template talk:IPSummary#"search an, ani, cn, an3" link broken - please remove
• Reverted by Perseus, Son of Zeus because it broke some form

I had the link removed here, but it was reverted here by Perseus, Son of Zeus because it broke some form or something. Svick made a copy of the tool here for other people to use, but it didn't seem to work for me. I was going to look in to it and have the templates updated, but I haven't had a chance yet. Maybe somebody else has some time. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 04:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, it's almost been a year since my bot started archiving the requests, and I've hoped it's proved to be helpful :). I just wanted to say a big thank you to those of you who are carefully making sure requests are correctly tagged for the bot. You may also be interested in the templates which can be used to control the bot, which are explained at User:KingpinBot#Archiving permissions page. Anyway, what I really came here to say is I've placed a searchbox at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive to allow for easier searching of archives. It can be a good idea to search for previous requests when reviewing a new request, so I hope this is useful. All the best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your work here has been incredibly valuable, so I must thank you kindly. Related to the auto-generated list of candidates, I have been looking in to automating some of the submissions and I'm still not sure if/how we want to do this. But part of automation would be checking for previously declined users and I was going to manually add these to the existing lists. If I manually added users to the lists, would it interfere with the bot? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Hydroxonium :). Uhh, just let me check I understand what you mean, by "manually add user to the list", do you mean archive requests manually to the appropriate archive subpages? As long as you use the right formatting the bot won't have a problem with that (mostly it's just making sure all the headers are correctly named and in order). If you need help with automating any of the process, I'd be happy to lend any assistance possible. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, manually edit and "sort of" format. I'm not sure if your bot is using a database somewhere else, so I don't want to intefere with it if it does. For example, we started reviewing users on January 18. There currently isn't a January 18 section in January declined, so I would create it. Then I would add *{{Usercheck-short|UserNameOfUser}} [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled]] <sup>[[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled candidates 1|link]]</sup>. So everything would be the same format except the ^link link would point to the whole page instead of the individual edit. Also, I would only do this for the declined users in order for a future bot to scan for them and remove them from an auto-generated list if they were recently declined. Oh yes, any input you have for an automated process is most welcome. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 08:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot doesn't actually use a database, although it does keep some text logs of the actions it takes. Funnily enough, I wrote an app to index/search the logs a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, that all sounds fine, the only suggestions I would make is to use the same header spacing as the bot when creating new sections (the bot should archive any requests with the same date under that heading). Also, it may be worth using the external link format for the ^link link, in the interest of being consistent (no need to link to a specific rev like the bot does though) and possible making life a little bit easier in the long run. However, I wouldn't worry too much about breaking the bot, you won't trigger it to go off on a rampage, and any issues that do arise should be resolved fairly easily. I can take a look at getting the bot to do all of this automatically if you think it's worth it? I suppose the main difference from the regular archiving is that the bot should only look at denied requests and should not remove them from the original page? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I looked through Jan and Feb and some of the whitespace between lines seemed different, so I used what was most consistent recently. I went ahead and added a Jan 18 section, here's the diff. Please let me know if it looks OK. If you think the bot can do this task, that would be great as there are about 2,500 users that we are going through. But it's not a problem if it can't as I don't mind doing it manually. Thanks again. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 23:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I actually meant the whitespace in the header itself, sometimes the title is separated from the == signs by whitespace. What you've done looks fine. I'll try and take a look at getting a bot to do it, but I've not had a lot of time in terms of bot programming recently, I'll get back to you on that. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"and have reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia" (in the section 'Permissions' in the bullet point for 'Reviewer') should be "and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, good catch. Thanks. Acalamari 11:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW it was in the header which you can edit if you're autoconfirmed. Pedro :  Chat  11:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't see that. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Clicking the "add request" link results in the request being added to the redirect page Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Filemover instead of this one. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I got that fixed up. I believe that makes you File mover #2, so please let us know if you encounter anything broken or concerning, it's quite likely there are still a few rough edges to clean up. --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

creating userboxes isn't really 'my thing', but it might be nice for people to have a filemover permissions userbox if some enterprising wiki-artist felt like making one. just a thought. Kaini (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a link to one at the bottom of Wikipedia:File mover, as well as a couple other bits of related media. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

ec There is one, did you look at WP:file mover? It is {{User wikipedia/filemove}}. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

whoops, my bad! still good to have mention of it here, i guess. Kaini (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally. There's a top icon there too, and this gives me a chance to say that.  :-) --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we set the page for auto archiving as the request list is piling up? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a bot for that, both I and another person have put in a request with the maintainer a day or so back, I'll follow-up and report back. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I mean by "auto" archiving. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I can't read today, my apologies! In any case, Kingpin13's already got it going, yay! Thanks for the reminder! --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Didn't mean to sound rude or anything there, take care. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't, s'all good.  :) Cheers! --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a thread about automating submissions for autopatrol right at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automating submissions for Autopatrol right. I'm leaving a note here for anybody that might be interested in commenting. - Hydroxonium (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should really slow down in the handing out of the filemover right. Changes like (cur | prev) 04:41, 17 March 2011 Ktr101 (talk | contribs) (127 bytes) (moved File:Reflected refueling mission.jpg to File:94th Fighter Squadron being refueled by a jet from the 128th Air Refueling Wing with a helmet reflection.jpg: More descriptive file name.) is not really necessary, and from what I see, is getting more common. And after all, the number of files should actually go down, after the mass moving ends. 150+ filemovers is actually more than enough to deal with files here IMHO. Just saying. Rehman 15:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be given to any user in good standing who requests it per consensus here. (Note strong support for giving this right to every autoconfirmed user.) Ruslik_Zero 17:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My request added to rollback rights, which I"ve already had and had permission.I requested autopatroll rights and it automatically moved to Rollback rights.Can someone fix this?--Damirgraffiti ☺Say Yo to Me!☺ 19:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Update:Problem solved.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to separate the wiki page for Chad Steelberg & Ryan Steelberg into two separate pages. I created this a few years ago and thought one page would work for both men but now they would like their own pages. The content can stay the same.

Ksnolan (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the "File mover" permission, which, as its name implies, is for renaming files. Any user can perform an article split, just make sure to provide attribution. See WP:SPLIT. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments would be more than welcome at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NoomBot 7 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the bot is a great idea. Sorry, I couldn't help myself. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It would be nice to add {{anchor|rollback}} to the page right before the transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Adding the above code will create an HTML anchor, thus allowing WP:RFRB to point directly to the requests for rollback instead of just to the page as a whole. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use #Rollback_.28add_request.29 (or link to Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback)? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess #rollback is clearer and easier. Is there a reason not to add it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunno, I guess it just feels like pointless duplication to me, feel free to though - as you say it's not going to do any harm. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You can add it inside the heading at the end on the request page (like ===Rollback ... {{anchor|Rollback}}===) and it will be transcluded. Doing that on the subpages leaves the main page clean. — Bility (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled until there is some response from the OP. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't WP:RFRB redirect to the rollback subpage anyway? — Bility (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was changed back in July 2008 for some reason, but I don't know why. In October 2008, WP:RFP/R was created to redirect there. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – added flag

I requested Reviewer status three days ago and have had no feedback on this request.

Please accept my enquiry to see if it may be possible to receive this permission before Friday? I would appreciate your time and consideration in this matter, but it would seem prudent to enquire as I would be thrilled to receive this flag, sooner if possible rather than latter if ever...Kind regardsUser:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs)

Done. Sorry, WP:PERM seems to be less well attended than it used to be. Pedro :  Chat  21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro you are a star! User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(moved from village pump to generate more consensus)

This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:

• You must have some formal experience with moving pages.
• You must have at least 500 edits.
• At least 1 month experience

Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community.mauchoeagle _(c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive, let me ask you the question that I foresee will ultimately shoot this proposal down. If someone can be trusted enough to be given this user right, why can't they be trusted to be an administrator?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alot of respected users of the community were completely shot out of the water (eg My76Strat, Ancient Apparition and Chzz) and this sort of user right would touch the things that admins do without you actually becoming an admin. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this needed? The number of move-protected pages that need to be moved on any given day is vanishingly small; there's not a huge backlog of such pages waiting around to be moved. Why does a special user right need to be granted where "ask an admin to do it" would work just as well? --Jayron32 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, another user right to performs such tasks could take a load off of administrators. And the proposal above is not only moving protected pages it also can move pages with there associated subpages and help with userfies. It always helps to have someone else to do a task, such as userfying, when you come accross pages that need to be userfied almost every day. In my experience with new page patrol, I see them alot. mauchoeagle _(c) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much of a load to take off though. Most pagemoves that require an admin aren't moves of protected pages, they're moves over an existing page; completing these moves requires the ability to delete pages. Pages with subpages are typically established pages (subpages are most frequently used for discussion archives) and are rarely moved. Userfication is really the only one done on a regular basis, but is it that difficult to just move it yourself and put a speedy tag on the redirect? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:

• You must have a demonstrate history of constructive moves.
• You must have at least 3 months of experience.
• You cannot have a history of using moves to vandalize or content war pages.
• You should have a communicable reason for wanting the right.

As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.

I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the move-subpages right? mauchoeagle _(c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see all three components as having the potential for chaos should a vandal get a hold of the right, however from personal experience (someone moved my userpage to the mainspace once) I can tell you that an admin can fix straight up move vandalism in less than 30 seconds. I see no reason why it would take any longer to fix move vandalism if the subpages are also taken for a ride. The only component I specificly object to giving out as a right is the ability to move the move-protected pages. Especially when we get into template dependencies and trasnclusions, this could cause serious, widespread damage with a minimal amount of vandalism actions, and is much harder to clean up.

To some degree, the other issue is that I fully expect admins to grant rights to people that in no way deserve those rights, either in willful disregard for the guidelines, or because they don't care enough to even check the guidelines. I saw it with filemover. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't going to be given out like candy to both trustworthy people that will never use the right and untrustworthy people that just keep asking until they get lucky. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "suppress-redirect" is a mere convenience for admins, to save having to create a redirect page as part of a move and then delete it after when it's not needed. Particularly for admins doing a lot of a certain type of work, it saves quite a bit of time, and is a bit neater. I'm sceptical about the proliferation of user rights generally (given the misuse issues Sven mentions above), and this one just doesn't seem worth the hassle of managing, and the associated risks. Risks being, most notably, that abuses of suppress-redirect can make inappropriate page moves (or even page move vandalism) harder to catch. Users can just CSD the redirect. Moving subpages is needed less often, and probably carries less risk, but again it doesn't seem worth the trouble to separate it out, especially if it doesn't come with suppress-redirect. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moving subpages carries less risk? That's a good one. Some rather nasty pagemove vandals have been known to use that option on things such as userpages with lots of subpages, and are thus able to vandalize upwards of twenty pages within a minute. Moving subpages is a right which is hardly used anyways, and has a massive potential for abuse. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I did say probably... I was thinking it's no harder to undo than ordinary pagemove vandalism, and the subpages (especially of non-move-protected pages) aren't normally of particular prominence. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much harder to revert, considering that most people don't recognize it as that type of vandalism, and revert each one separately - then users without the noratelimit right get stuck by a rate limit after two reverts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• If this was going to be devolved from admins then it sounds like one of the least controversial accesses. move without creating a redirect, and move subpages, override title black list, and no rate limit on moves sounds like a reasonable package to grant as a right. However there must be some limit to the number of different rights before it just gets too confusing for people to understand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving out the right like candy

I'm not going to name names, but a few admins have been giving this right out like candy. I've seen one user with 0 edits in the file namespace get file mover, and several with only a dozen or so edits in the file namespace get the right. Just because someone has autopatrolled, rollback, and reviewer does not mean they are qualified for this. The amount of damage that can be done is low, but that isn't an excuse. The ideal candidate would have solid, demonstrable experience with the file namespace, and knowledge of image policy. As is constantly demonstrated with rollbacker, the amount of knowledge in relevant areas a user has is directly proportional to the amount of good that the user having the right generates, and inversely proportional to the amount of headaches or damage causes. I'm not saying everyone has to have 500 file namespace edits and encyclopedic knowledge of the policies, but some more checking needs to happen.

Admins declining the CSD G6s of the old names

Once a file is moved and the pages that use that file are editied to skip over the redirect, if the old name is bad, the old name should be deleted, period. One admin declined a number CSD G6 tags for badly named images because those names were used for years. I'm sorry, but the name DSC00379 (and other DSC##### names) is utter garbage. Searching for it is impractical, and it gives no information at all to anyone. The entire lot of imaged following the DSC##### format need to be renamed, delinked, deleted, and salted. To say that because it is an older name it should be kept ignores the basic fact that the name is useless. By that logic we'd allow a redirect from HUMAN00317 to George Washington if someone started the article at HUMAN00317. It makes no sense to do so with articles, why so with files.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that we should have a guideline that gives the criteria that should apply. My criteria are files uploaded to Wikipedia and commons, doing work in the file space, including fair use, moves of pages, reasonable block log. If we have consistent criteria then some will not feel shortchanged when the bit is not applied, and the candy shop image can be replaced by a place where people sign up to do work. Should the bit be removed if it is not used? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

At least on admin disagrees with you, and has given the right to two people with zero edits in the file namespace each. Zero! I find that unacceptable. I don't care how trusted they are elsewhere. You might trust me a lot, but with only one article under my belt, I don't qualify for autopatrolled, and you shouldn't give it to me. The same concept applies here. It would be irresponsible to do so. Furthermore, neither of these people actually applied for the permission. Had they, this should have come up quickly. Now mind you I didn't apply either, but that's because when I did so, this page didn't exist. However I am actually qualified, which makes it less of an issue. Now again, as I'm not in the mood to make enemies, I'll name neither the admin nor the users unless asked to, and then I'll only do it privately. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To solve the issue of the bad filenames, why not add suppress redirect to the right. Then there wouldn't be an issue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As noted below, the discussion which led to the creation of this unbundled right included significant support for everyone getting it. I don't necessarily agree with that but setting our own formal standards here might be a bit out of process. It's for the granting admin to decide. If it's abused, any admin can revoke it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:In fact removed his request for rights with this edit. I reverted since this would result in the request not being properly archived, however, he reverted me stating that another admin said he was welcome to do it. If we want a consistent archive, we need to make sure this isn't allowed. I would simply restore and manually archive but I don't want to screw up the archive bot's processes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You should have read the discussions before undoing me. As I already mentioned, I was allowed to do it by an admin. However, it's not that important. In fact ( contact ) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I undid it myself. But the question remains: Why does a non-admin user who has recently been granted the right, comments and judges the others ? In fact ( contact ) 12:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did read the discussion. I'm not sure why Graeme said that but I've asked. It will mess up the archives. Until I hear from Graeme, I disagree with your action. Thanks for reverting yourself. I will check with User:Kingpin13 on whether manually archiving would mess up the bot's process. In any case, the bot will archive it in a few days I expect, it comes around pretty frequently.

As for User:Avenue X at Cicero's comments. I don't understand your question. Anyone may comment here, even an IP; that's true on almost all places on Wikipedia. That doesn't necessarily mean that the admin who decided considered those comments important.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving manually won't mess up the process as long as the format is the same as the one the bot uses (in particular the section titles on the archive pages for different days) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I've dealt with it now (it's archived). That said, I don't in general have a huge problem with users having their requests not listed in the archives. But only so long as they are sure to mention that they have had a previous request if asking again in future. On the other hand, I don't understand why a user would have a problem with being listed in the archives. Getting a {{nd}} request is not a public shaming by any means. That there was a slight pile-on at this request is regrettable, but it does not really reflect badly on In fact. It's something to leave behind you, I sincerely doubt it's going to cause anybody to think any less of you in the future. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I will put my answer here too: my idea was for In fact to quietly withdraw the request and forget about asking. But since this user continued discussing it, I would say he has lost the right to vanish. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins handling permissions, please be aware of User:In fact. He has applied for the permission two days in a row, and has shown disregard for the feedback he recieved (essentially that he did not yet qualify for the right). Because resolved requests are archived so quickly after being processed, such tactics are not always apparent.

Based on this attitude and the lack of experience, I would caution admins against giving him the file mover user right for the foreseeable future. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User Sven Manguard has made a personal attack on me by saying :"I view your experience is minimal, and your trustworthiness and maturity are pretty much zero." or by saying: "I wouldn't support giving you anything past autoconfirmed." In fact ( contact ) 10:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave a suggestion for Sven on his talk page, here's one for you: Drop it. Stop commenting on this talk page, stop requesting this right, just back away. You're not helping the situation at all by making a massive issue out of everything. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK ! In fact ( contact ) 12:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to this at my talk page. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to Template:RFP2. Please click on it to see the usage. It should make declining (or possibly accepting) requests a bit easier. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It would make sense to only allow tool users to grant the account creator flag. I think that it's pretty much this way already, but it wouldn't hurt to make it a guideline. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can users who are already autoconfirmed become confirmed users? mysterytrey (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so.Gregory Heffley (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually yes they can. Autoconfirm is something that is done by the software. An admin can mark any editor as confirmed, even an one that is already autoconfirmed. GB fan please review my editing 16:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, GB fan. mysterytrey (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a process for removing autopatrolled from users, or is it just done ad-hoc? bobrayner (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is for yourself, I believe you can just ask an admin to remove it for you. If it is related to somebody else, then I think this is the suggested procedure

1. Bring the issue up with the user in question and ask them to fix the issue.
2. If that doesn't work and it's a recent incident, post a message at WP:ANI and include diffs that show the specific issues you are concerned about.
3. If it's a long-term pattern of problems, post a message at WP:AN and include diffs of the problems.

So I guess the short answer is, it's ad-hoc. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for your suggestions. I AfD'd several different articles created by an autopatrolled account (and a few more articles created years ago by an IP address which I suspect was controlled by the same person) and as they're all redlinks now I think it would be appropriate for this person's future article creations to be patrolled.

• I started discussion of problems with one particular article; they just stuck to their position and I AfD'd it as a last resort. Other articles had been the subject of previous discussion by others (ie. at the relevant project), which also went nowhere. Of course, once an article's at AfD, we all want to keep our creations, but in this case the creator's keep !vote didn't really acknowledge why the articles were at AfD or address the other delete !votes.
• AN/I may not be appropriate at this point; it would provoke drama and would look like I had a grudge against the editor, and that's not really productive.

Probably best if I just watch their article creations, and if the problem emerges again, then start an AN/I thread. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, AN/I and drama seem to go hand-in-hand, which keeps me away. One other suggestion, sometimes a friendly word from a different editor may help. You may ask a friendly admin to talk with the user or ask one of the people listed at Category:Third opinion Wikipedians as they are usually quite good at getting positive results from others. If the editor in question has blatant issues to work out, you may just ask one of the regulars at WP:RFP/A to just remove their autopatrol bit. I've seen this done, but only in excessively bad cases. Good luck. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 06:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "Do not simply edit this page and add your request, or it may be removed." This is redundant as the page is fully protected and only admins can edit it, who don't need to request permissions.

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Question - Many of the permissions related pages redirect to this talk page. I'm not certain which page you would like edited. The only page I could find that with that line is Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header#Requestors. Is that the page you want edited? If so, you can edit it as it is only semi-protected and any autoconfirmed user can edit it. Cheers. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Done - nevermind my comment above. That section was the header which is transcluded here. I've made the changes. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it (and its use) are pretty self-explanatory... see User:Bwilkins/95 ...suggestions and edits are welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Stumbled upon articles created by auto-patrolled User:Assassin's Creed‏‎ who is creating many poorly referenced articles on non-notable subjects. He should have his auto-patrolled revoked so his articles will be properly reviewed upon creation. Appealcourt (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For autopatrolled page, instructions say "Fill in the form below, replacing "Username" with the desired username, and "Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights" with a brief reason for requesting the right" but what the user get is:
{{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~
Gerardw (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The preload for that page was changed last month and Username was removed and the magic word REVISIONUSER was put in its place to make it easier for people to use. We should probably update the edit notice for that page, but I'm not sure what we should change it to. Anybody have any suggestions? - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done I removed the bit about replacing "username" and added a note to not change anything else.[1] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So how are you supposed to request autopatrol for an editor's account? Gerardw (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To request the right for somebody else, replace {{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~ with the following {{subst:rfp|UserNameOfPerson|Reason for requesting autopatrolled rights}} ~~~~ and changing "UserNameOfPerson" to the username of the person you are requesting the right for. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the Wikipedia page entitled 'N8 Group' to 'N8 Research Partnership,' as the name of the group has changed to this. Here is evidence: http://www.n8research.org.uk/about-us/.

GaiaHudson (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't the correct venue for such a request. You can put {{subst:requested move|N8 Research Partnership}} on Talk:N8 Group and it will be categorized as a requested move. — Bility (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that this tool might be not recording articles created recently? I've actually created 43 of them and it is only showing 38.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A better place to ask this question would be at User talk:TParis, the operator of that tool. GB fan 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to bring up a point about Wikipedia:Requests for permissions it is too often there are very unnecessary (Non-administrator comment)'s It has been suggested that editors be discouraged from making comments such as:

1. Commenting on the obvious.
2. Re-commenting on comments already made.
3. Commenting on stats ie. This editor has only X amount of edits, this editor only has ten edits to the file namespace.

These comments are not needed, they become annoying and the requests become cluttered. Also comments like "this editor does not have enough experience", these are things to be determined by the Admin, and will not be assumed to be correct by an Admin anyway. This does not mean an editor should not post serious issues that might not be readily obvious such as recent controversies with an editor, etc. Nearly all Admin's do their own evaluation before granting a request. The (Non-administrator comment) comments should be held to a very minimum.

As a side note as in "this is my own opinion "Editors who have just themselves received a flag or are new to the project should not be commenting at all.

Overall thoughts?
Mlpearc (powwow) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(The statement above is paraphrased from another editors concerns, for whom I'd like to thank) Mlpearc (powwow) 15:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this: first of all, I do think that non-admins should be able to make comments in RFPERMs, and often those non-admin comments are useful and worthwhile. That said, some non-admin observations either tell me things I already know or would find out in the basic checks I would do on a request. For instance, an autopatrolled candidate, if someone comes on and says:

(Non-administrator comment) They've created 123 articles. ~~~~

That's not very helpful. I'll know that when I click the pages created link and see a list of the pages they've created. And if I am approving an autopatrolled request, I will be clicking through to see how many pages they've created.

Now, if they had clicked through, looked at 10 of those pages and made sure they were up-to-scratch, that would be a useful thing to say.

The problem with making this formal is obvious: the non-admins who need to read any of this kind of advice are unlikely to, and those who are the problem won't read it. I think when we have a problem, it'd be best to try and deal with it informally with the user in question, rather than set out hard-and-fast rules. A lot of people do things like making NAO's on RFPERM as a preparation for adminship. Which is something I have no problem with at all: indeed, it'd be nice if everyone standing for RfA had at least tried their hand at as much NAOing as they can!

It's usually not a big deal, with one exception: when the non-admin observation antagonises the user. That shouldn't be happening.

Mostly it boils down, like everything on Wikipedia, to "don't be an idiot". —Tom Morris (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• From my POV I welcome NAO comments if they are useful. The problem is a lot of the time they're not. Since Rollback is a fairly trivial "easy come, easy go" user right I really don't think they're needed. If it's a tricky call (and that's rare given the nature of the user right) then maybe some input from editors (whatever their particular access levels are) may be helpful or called upon; however as I say that's pretty rare. Pedro :  Chat  22:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to overcommenting/useless commenting (I mentioned it here, scroll down), I'm also getting concerned about what appears to be an increase in "supports" when someone requests a userright: I do value comments that point out potential problems with someone's autopatrolled/rollback request, but I dislike what appear to be unnecessary endorsements (I was less than impressed to see bolded oppose/support in this request...this isn't RfA). At the risk of sounding arrogant, I will always conduct my own review no matter how many other people comment to support a user's request: if no problems are found with someone's request, the only things that need to be said are {{done}} and an appropriate note on their talk page. Acalamari 22:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

To make matters worse, I am now noticing that a bunch of people, commonly after being denied a userright, are opposing other editors applying for the same userright. I agree with Mlpearc that most of these non-admin comments are superfluous at best. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been creating a standardized response template for Requests for Confirmed. Please see {{RFPC}} and let me know what you think. I have added parameters for some of the more common responses ... let me know if you want others! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I already did that with {{RFP2}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, that was not my intent to reinvent the wheel! Sorry :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible for non-admins (such as myself) to request the suppressredirect permission? Though it's not something I'd use in high volume, I'm really no stranger to semi-frequent CSD R3 requests after page-moves, and have often thought that the ability to suppressredirect could at times help me be a bit more efficient, and a little less wasteful of admin resources. I assume this talk page is the best place to ask, as I'm not sure if suppressredirect can even be split out as a stand-alone permission.  -- WikHead (talk) 08:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't standalone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your reply and for answering my question. :) Regards,  -- WikHead (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've read many times the user-level help page and i still don't get which are the prominent differences between auto-confirmed and confirmed users. I'm autoconfirmed (since four years ago) and i have this little quation burning in my mind asking myself if i need to upgrade my status to confirmed or if i'm not correctly understanding the point. If somebody could explain me, i'd really appreciate the help. Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Technically there is no difference between the two. An autoconfirmed editor and a confirmed editor have the exact same rights. Autoconfirmed is done by the software and confirmed is done manually by an admin. An editor is autoconfirmed by the software after completing 10 edits and having an accountthat is atleast 4 days old. There is no reason to upgrade your status because it will notgive you any additional privileges. GB fan 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmm that's the difference. Well i didn't meant i wanted to upgrade, i just commenting that, when reading the user-level related page, it is not sufficiently clear to make the reader understand the difference between those two kind of users and then leave the upgrade question on hand, even when it's not correct. Thanks! --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 07:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter if an article that you have created was not expanded by you? Till I Go Home ^{talk edits} 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to what? In general terms, no. Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. Pol430 talk to me 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In regard to Autopatrolling rights. If you create a stub article, and others significantly expand it, does it still qualify as one of 50 articles that you have created? Thanks. Till I Go Home ^{talk edits} 08:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If you were the first editor, you're always the first editor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say that I have updated the page where user permissions are assigned (or rescinded) to include a list of useful template notifications, which you can see here. I er, trust this is useful. Let me know if there's anything else that would be helpful. WilliamH (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You could add {{RFPC|done}} as well (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I would like any type of lock for the page Falling in Reverse to stop people with out accounts editing it, there has been numerous amounts of vandalism, e.g A lot of people keep removing alot of the former members, they keep messing with the genres, and they also keep writing things like "this band is guy" "does anyone on actually like this band" "Falling in Reverse are a gay hardcore mainstream band" , this vandalism occurs mostly in the sidebox, in the template, in the first chapter titled "The Drug in Me is You and Record Deal" but the thing is its only people without accounts that do it Ericdeaththe2nd Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)

This is not the correct venue for this type of request, you need to make your request here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Mlpearc (powwow) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it looks like pending changes will go live in December, the reviewer user-right user group is being used for the Wikipedia:Article_Feedback_Tool, which will apparently go live in 2 weeks, and they're apparently hoping to see lots more people with the abilities therein.

So I would suggest being prepared for a lot of new requests. - jc37 19:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

With that in mind, I've activated Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. Please feel free to help by doing whatever is necessary to bring the page in line with the rest of the process pages here. - jc37 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The best I can tell, we've got 4 months to decide what it means to be a reviewer for purposes of Pending Changes, so it's premature to certify someone as a reviewer for that ... so it's fortuitous I think that we've got this other use for reviewership available in two weeks. Hopefully people will be content with that while the PC RFC process grinds on. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The archiving for reviewer requests have always been done differently from the other permissions (using the style of the old NPWatcher requests). IIRC this was done because at the time PC was in trial, so we wanted to keep the request processes separate. The bot is still set up to archive them like that. If people want me to change that, I can do, but I'll leave it as is for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned tghat neither the WP:AFT5 or WP:RVW pages have anything about this new use for the reviewer right on. It means that, unless you know where to go, this will pass you by. Could someone more in the know that I am please add something to both pages? Also, do we have any procedure for adding this right at the moment? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change name of article "Ali Mansuri" to "Kalāteh-ye Manşūr" which is the real census name of the village (kalateh meaning small village in Farsi). The former is a name used for a person (for example it is similar as calling the village of Smithville as John Smith) and therefore incorrect.

Solielwave (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done:. The page you want to move is not under any protection. You can move it yourself, see WP:MOVE. Be sure to cite a reliable source for the name, and read the policy on WP:COMMONNAME. Also, edit requests go on the talk page of the article you need help with. RudolfRed (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I only realized the downside of non-admins closing requests after I posted those (Non-administrator comment)'s. It's not considered biting because I'm not new around here, but I'd prefer if you could please not bold statements directed at another editor and comment on content, not a specific editor. I'm not saying that you violated any policies here, I'm just saying that you as an admin should hold yourself to a high level of conduct by not commenting on other editors. Saying I'm off to a "bad start" is not true as I've never made a bad closure here. I already clarified my role here multiple times above. Anyways, that comment didn't really help us out here and I think that in light of Chip's closures yesterday, we should set strict, official guidelines on when a non-admin should be able to close a request. Here are my thoughts, please Support or Oppose them and comment on them. What's been done has been done, but let's keep in mind not to reference specific people here at all costs.

This only applies by requests for File Mover, Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, and Reviewer.

• Blocked User: If the user is blocked during the time of the request, anyone can close it.
• Withdrawn: If the user withdraws the request, anyone may close it.
• Not Now: Different editors have different perspectives on this, so here are the guidelines:
• Rollback: New user with no vandalism reverts, or who has been told to stay away from Twinkle or Rollback by admins (there are several cases like that that I know of).
• Reviewer: A new user that clearly doesn't understand what AFTv5 or PC is.
• File Mover/Autopatrolled: New user with less than 10 uploads/articles created.

• Disclaimer: I don't meant to bite newbies here, it's just than non-admins shouldn't be closing requests by experienced users.

• If you come across a user who does not meet these criteria, but you feel meets WP: SNOW, you may ask any administrator, such as Acalamari or BWilkins to close it for you. In the end, it's totally the admin's decision and any admin may reverse your closure.

• Also, you may not put in the closure statement that the user should use Twinkle or join the CVU or give any advice. The closures should be as follows:

•  Not done User is blocked.
•  Not done Request withdrawn.
•  Not done As per WP: NOTNOW.

• What are everybody's thoughts on my proposal? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Back the truck up a bit. You should probably let the admins who have been closing requests as per policy do the original drafts. Each PERM might be a bit different. I appreciate WP:BOLD, but this is overly bold here, especially because you've become pretty defensive above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I was made claims against without being notified. If the admins want to modify my proposal, that would be great. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I reverted some of Chip's NAC's, as some of these people are qualified. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Qualified" is not for a non-admin to determine. Damn, I hate that we're being forced to create wordy guidelines when common sense should have prevailed - instruction-creep sucks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW Chip is now doing the NAC's at WP:RFPP. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Armbrust - I have been told I can do crystal clear cases, by a current sysop. I only made 2 here - you make them on a daily basis.--Chip123456 (talk) 11:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Already protected doesn't count, as in this cases an admin already made the decision to protect. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 11:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you use the {{Not done}} temp a couple of times. What I'm trying to say is I have been told what I can and what I can't do by a current admin on RPP. This is PERMS, so lets not bring other things into it :)--Chip123456 (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur about the truck. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've been informed on my talkpage that "trainee clerks" have now been appointed for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Apparently they are appointed by User:Armbrust and User:Bwilkins, and they are "allowed" to make non-admin closures of rights requests. (Indeed, anyone could before, especially if frivolous or obviously ridiculous.)

I'm wondering if this is widespread knowledge, or if the trainee clerk concept was discussed somewhere before being implemented? Especially given the previous discussions about an excess of non-admin commentary on rights requests. Also, is there a listing of trainee clerks somewhere? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, what? We have no such formal thing ... and I've never said so, and nobody "appoints" anyone to anything ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not an admin, but I don't want to consider myself as a full-fleged clerk since I'm new here. Armbrust told me that I can close requests where the user obviously won't receive the permission, and BWilikns joined in the discussion, so I consider myself a "trainee" under both of you. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Bwilkins could clarify whether he has any role in this clerks arrangement or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Armbrust told me about the scenarios where I could close a request here. And there is no official title or process to get the title and nobody gives it out. I asked Armbrust and he and BWilkins gave me instructions. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I clicked that link and I see Chip, Armbrust, and Chip, talking about RfA for various people. Perhaps you could give us a better link? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Scroll up to the part where you find the visible  Not done template. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter the page, but here's the section:

Posted by ElectricCatfish2, collapsed by me. I'm really not seeing how this can be interpreted as someone being "a trainee clerk" "under" Bwilkins? Could someone explain, please? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a formal position like an SPI or ArbCom clerk. It's just someone who gave me some tips at the beginning and who I go to for advice on situations at WP: PERM. Simple as that. No special "powers" or usergroups. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're about to strike what you said on my talkpage, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

−

I made that comment on a NAC that you reversed. It seemed legit and I thought that you believed that only admins should close requests. I was just trying to inform you that I am not experienced at PERM and I go to those 2 for advice. I have made about 5 NAC's here and they have all been obviously not going to be done by an admin, so I closed them myself. There is no official title, just I help out here but go to some more experienced editors here for more difficult closures. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC).

• Thank you for the update! My talk page still contains the statement "I am allowed to make these closures, as I am a trainee clerk under Armbrust and BWilkins." I just want to be sure that you, Armbrust and Bwilkins all agree with this statement. (I have not yet informed Armbrust of this discussion - I will do so momentarily, unless you prefer to do so yourself.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to inform him. The talk page section clearly states what I am and am not allowed to do, and I take borderline cases to either one of them. Again, there is no formal position, I just take borderline cases to either one of them. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you have removed the questionable statements from my talkpage. Thank you for doing that. Please do not make similar claims in the future, as it may provoke some level of annoyance from the people claimed to be involved. (Not to mention, other people as well.)

I think we're about done here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I believe I have said many times that NAC's for the majority should not occur. I did clearly suggest that Welcoming anyone who posts to RFPerm is a good idea, and that the Welcome should be related to the request/their edits so far - this sometimes challenging. I have no issue with NAO's asking the "simple" questions that need to be asked anyway I some cases. I have, however, said closing is not good - NOR are extended discussions with an editor. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Related to the above and going back to this now-archived request, but why is there now an excess of comments on a lot of requests? While I don't mind potential problems being pointed out on some requests, I see no reason for three users or so to all state the same thing (I mentioned this in these places: [2][3][4]) or give support/opposition comments. Why also the rush of non-admin closures, such as the ones done in the past several minutes? Again, I don't mind troll requests being closed by anyone, but I think admins are still better off answering the vast majority of requests (I should also note that the non-admin closure template being used here is for XfDs, as Wikipedia:Non-admin closure deals with XfDs, not any type of non-admin closure.) Acalamari 13:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This keeps on happening, despite repeated concerns expressed about it here (some in the archives now), and quite a few direct talk page messages to individual editors asking them to desist. I think the only way to get it under control is to have some specific instructions, linked from the page or visible on the page, about what is actually acceptable. Regarding non-admin closures, how about specifying that good faith requests should only be closed by administrators? (That would still allow troll requests to be closed by non-admins.) Maybe with an exception for the {{already done}} template where appropriate. Regarding the sort of non-admin comments (as opposed to closures) that are useful versus not useful, we'd need something slightly longer. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Another one, now also being used as a method of promoting WP:CVU. How would people feel about non-admin closures of good faith permissions requests being reverted? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(And another, again with a CVU advert.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)s

IMO there should not be any Non-Admin closures at WP:PERM/R. WP:PERM/C has different variables and is easier for a non-admin to be able to judge the response of a patrolling admin. Rollback has a larger "fudge factor" which should NOT be determined by a non-admin. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't even like recommending Twinkle (prefer to say undo), let alone CVU or anything else. I think it would be a good idea to let Chip123456 and other know about this discussion (I've already posted in at least one place about the discussion here). Acalamari 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on Chip123456's talk page. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mlpearc. :) I posted here; the only thing I dislike more than recommending Twinkle is talking about another user without them knowing! Acalamari 22:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, I also post a note here. Mlpearc (powwow) 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw it and it looks like it is getting totally out of hand. I strongly oppose Non-admins closing requests here unless they are obvious. I mainly work at confirmed, which isn't a problem, and I only close requests for rollback if the user obviously won't receive t (new user with barely any edits, blocked user, etc.) and leave the more borderline ones up to the admins, after all, they can grant it and I cannot. If there is an established editor who I feel will not get it, I'll post an (Non-administrator comment) and won't close it outright. When closing requests here, I go by the cases where a non-crat can close an RFA- By a case of SNOW, NOTNOW, blocked users, and by withdrawn requests. The others I leave up to admins. I hope that nobody objects to when I close a request. I have very specific criteria and will ask BWilkins (an Admin) to close ones for established editors. Regards, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

Well, Electriccatfish2 just a couple things off the top of my head, I'm glad to see that you "strongly oppose Non-admins closing requests here unless they are obvious" at WP:PERM/C this can be done and has been done but, by no where near the extent it is happening now. One of the problems I see is, for example your statement "I'll post an (Non-administrator observation) and won't close it outright" even if you do close it.. it's NOT outright you're not an Admin only admins can "close it outright" so, why add possible unnecessary drama to the requester and the page, not to mention having an Admin come right behind you and override your non-admin statement. If you are working WP:PERM to gain experience and community trust as part of a future RfA of your own, then IMO your off to a bad start. Finally I going out on a limb here and BWilkins, if I'm even slightly out of the park on this one I do apologize Electriccatfish2 have you had a one on one discussion about, how BWilkins is "backing your play here" I could be wrong but I don't think BWilkins is in the "mentor-ship position" you seem to think he is. If I have come across as too WP:BITEY to you here I apologize but, from where I sit I see some swollen balloons that could use some deflating. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, The following comment on ANY PERM page is *&$%ing ridiculous "(Non-administrator observation) I'm not going to perform a closure as a non-admin" Mlpearc (powwow) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but I think part of the problem here is that at least a few people have difficulty in understanding how non-admins should be treating requests for permissions pages. (Quick example, just in the last few hours there's been yet another instance of a non-admin posting "I agree with name of editor" then just repeating part of what the other non-admin just said.) So can you expand a little on why it's *&$%ing ridiculous? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, maybe this is the wrong place to ask this but I was hoping to get a discussion on the possibility of adding a permission to users via WP:PERM. I believe it would be beneficial to allow a permission which let's editors request to be able to delete pages without being an admin. Now I realize that this may be a controversial subject for this reason: Admins are admins for a reason. They have shown the community that they are trusted with a multitude of high level tools to maintain Wikipedia. Allowing a user to gain access to this control and then finding out they abused it could seriously damage the reputation of those who currently admin Wikipedia. But there is a good side to this: maybe by doing this people who actually have "good" knowledge (yes, we'll have to define good later) of CSD's and pages that fail at AFD could delete them without and thus remove the lag time of waiting for an admin. Another possibility would be making the admin request a tiered process. Such as an admin would have let's say 3 levels of controls. For this discussion, we'll label 3 as the highest and what every admin has today. Admin 1 would be able to do things such as delete pages. And a full admin such as an admin 3 would have the power to block and do everything that an admin can do at AN/I now. Thoughts? Thank you!Keystoneridin (speak) 05:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am very strongly against, the deletion of pages are one of the hardest decisions to make and we shouldn't be giving that power to people who one admin can say yes to. I think it would diminish the whole purpose of admins and the whole purpose of having an RFA. Even if we had different levels (which I think is getting deep into WP:BURO territory), "authorised" users would have to given the tools to delete any page which is usually always controversial. An admin has also been selected by the community because they have demonstrated a fair and reasonable approach to determining consensus, this is vital for AfD, as the number of votes can have very little to do with the outcome. With PRODs admins are still free to decline it (or remove it), this is their decision to make using their knowledge of policy etc. CSD tags (especially A7) usually going to require some sort of investigation into the person, which once again admins have demonstrated though their RFA. Sorry if these seems overly negative but I suspect this will be the view of a number of people, so I'm pretty sure I will be safe in invoking WP:SNOW and WP:BADIDEA. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The notion of unbundling administrative powers has been discussed many times before to no avail. See here. -CTS talk 10:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate honest answers. Receiving a thorough response is always good in trying to understand something. Thank you to both of you who contributed and to anyone who might continue this discussion. Good day to you all!Keystoneridin (speak) 12:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The most recent is here.--v/r - TP 18:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

After dealing with requests at WP:Requests for permissions/Confirmed, I'd like to suggest a banner (not the page notice, something to be seen before editing the page) at the top akin to the following:

I didnt want to get into too much detail between free/non-free images, as the assitants at FFU are very good at sifting through that quickly! This is only a suggestion, much open to revision/suggestions/corrections/additions/etc. Skier Dude (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Many people request to be confirmed so they can upload a file and don't know about WP: FFU. This banner will help them. Electric Catfish 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Banner looks fine, in current state should redirect any who come there about images. Mysterytrey talk 22:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I support the idea not sure how to implement it, maybe the message could be worked into the editnotice. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 07:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The banner would save Armbrust and others lots of time. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 16:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added it - please feel free to reposition, resize, etc. if needed. Skier Dude (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved it up a notch seems better there, now if the requestor's actually pay attention :P. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 04:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems the banner is interfering with the TOC, I'm going to rebuild it and adjust the position, if anyone disagrees feel free to change it. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Last year the file mover right was introduced at the enwp. I just wondered that at the beginning nobody asked for some file name work nor the use of {{rename media}}. Is that really necessary? I mean, do we want to handle this right out similar to the admin bit? Trying to create perfect machines before they actually able to use the bit? mabdul 11:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Might as well just include it in the 'autoconfirmed' bit.. Thine Antique Pen 11:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While file mover has among the highest sets of standards for the userrights granted to non-admins, I agree with you that we should not have to expect absolute perfection from users, especially when the file mover right can be removed from them if it's abused (of course, this doesn't mean it should be given out carelessly, as Sven Manguard correctly pointed out early last year). Initially, file mover was granted to people with a good amount of image work, regardless of whether or not they used the "rename media" template; however, in the last couple of months the standards appear to have shifted solely to experience with that template, rather than a user's overall image experience. Acalamari 11:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Over the past few months I have been the one handling a large part of these requests. I have been looking at a few things. (1) work in the file namepace, (2) work on commons, (3) clue shown in other parts of the 'pedia, (4) mainspace work, and (5) any red flags. I find that this is the fairest way to hand out the bit to the largest swath of people but still restrict it from people who will move files for the hell of it. On another note, can the barrage of NAOs slow down? They have turned from being helpful to just confusing. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the matter was also raised at ANI today, as few editors were concerned about the over enthusiasm shown by some of the non-admins.--DBigXray 20:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's a fair way to judge someone's suitability for the userright, and it's not really much different to what I do. Acalamari 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Guerillero uses mainspace work as a criteria, but in general I trust his judgement. I've kind of softened my personal feelings towards requirements over time. I certainly don't agree with bundling it with autoconfirmed, but at the same time, if someone's been around for a few months and can find the rename template and do a half dozen proper move requests (and don't come across as hat collectors), why not? Sven Manguard Wha? 23:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that many rollbackers are requesting the reviewer right to be able to help out with AFTv5. Please note that rollbackers have the same access. Electric Catfish 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, That is true, Because i saw a comment by ECF at WP:PERM/RW.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 08:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, please see Wikipedia talk:Account creator#Updating policy per my note at Village pump. So we can keep it together would you mind commenting there please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks. Theopolisme (coord of CVUA) and myself were looking to see if we could get a page notice at the top of RFR. It will include a recommendation to sign up to the WP:CVUA before requesting rollback. Of course, it wouldn't be compulsory, just a recommendation. We see so many denied requests saying 'little or no experience'. Having this banner will hopefully reduce the amount of those we get here and give requesters that head start on vandalism here. Please let us know what you think. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 18:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To fine tune this message a bit, we were thinking something along the lines of, "On second thought, think you might need a bit more experience before pressing the big blue rollback link? Consider enrolling in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy!" Or something like that... Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that declined rollbacks are because of not knowing that it's rarely given to users with less than 50 reverts. Although the offer may sway some, without them knowing the artificial limit and just bypass it. How about adding that given to someone with less than 50 reverts is rare? Mysterytrey talk 20:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, that seems good. I think 50 is around how many a sysop would except the assign the rights. We will be sure to put that in, something at the bottom of the page notice. It links in with the experience part. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to use a project neutral page as a billboard for a internal project. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 20:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Strong Support Agree with Mystery, Mlpearc, Chip, and Theo, although I'm a CVUA instructor myself, but occasionally help out at WP: PERM/C. Electric Catfish 21:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

However, Mlpearc brings up a good point that we shouldn't use PERM as a venue for advertizing our project. Electric Catfish 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry guys, but I can't support a link to CVUA. :( As someone who has declined requests for several years, I would prefer to decline a request and explain upfront why the person does not yet qualify for the rollback tool, then give them some tips on how to obtain rollback rather than just pass them on to another person/project page such as CVUA. Also in my experience, if someone is power-hungry for a particular userright they will ignore personal notes, so I don't think that a page notice would ward them away (I know this isn't quite the same as people who are merely inexperienced, but I thought it worth mentioning anyway). I also agree with Mlpearc that it's probably not a good idea to use high-profile, neutral page such as this one to advertise a WikiProject, although I will say that I do appreciate the thoughts and good intentions behind the idea. This all being said, while I always grant rollback on the quality of reverts rather than the number (I've always thought 50 is too high...15-30 has worked out fine for me nearly all the time), I wouldn't have a problem with updating the page notice to recommend a number of reverts as a guide, but not a hard limit either way. Acalamari 22:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Acalamari about the "Written in stone number" as a prerequisite, if I were an Admin I would not be counting reverts, I would be looking at the quality of them and the understanding of the requestor. Mlpearc (powwow)(Review me !) 22:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Concurring with Mlpearc and Acalamari who don't support this idea, I also believe that the right should not be for editors whose 50 vandal reverts are their only edits to mainspace. I would generally expect several hundred edits to to the encyclopedia, excluding userspace and talk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This "prerequisite" that Kudpung brings up is much more the way I would like to see it. P.S. Kudpung sorry if I overstepped my self on that ACC request today I hadn't read the updates here before posting on that request (but reading know :P ). Mlpearc (powwow) 20:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning related topics such as the CVUA at the foot of the page in a see also, but please not as a header. People have been coming here for years and successfully identifying and reverting vandalism. We should not imply that they need to join the CVUA before getting rollback. ϢereSpielChequers 08:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! What does everyone think about constructing a talkback template for users who are asked a question at WP: PERM/C? Electric Catfish 14:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No point in my opinion. If they can't be bothered to look back at their application, then they obviously don't care much whether they get it or not. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No point - they are already advised to check back, and we don't want to encourage more reasons for claiming there is a need for clerking these PERM pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. "If they can't be bothered to look back at their application, then they obviously don't care much whether they get it or not." -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Reaper Eternal.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 08:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)