Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Temporary grant to Stuartyeates and Giantflightlessbirds for GLAM workshop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These should be OK, reviewing your accounts now. Stuartyeates please verify if from 2014-11-21 through 2014-11-28 is sufficient for these needs? Also, the interface is available all the time at Special:CreateAccount; having account creator allows you to bypass certain safeguards and throttles, notably the 6 accounts-per-day limit. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Those dates look great to me, thank you. I had no idea it was going to be as easy as Special:CreateAccount; perhaps my experience of mw:Extension:Education Program led me to expect a huge cumbersome thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Moved question from request page. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account Creator technical change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

— Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 01 Dec 2014

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy at 400 mainspace edits?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see administrators usually declining users under 400 mainspace edits by suggesting to enroll in CVUA after the user has reached 400 mainspace edits ("when you have made 400 or so edits to articles you may wish to enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more"). However, on the CVUA page, under Goals, it says 200 mainspace edits minimum instead of 400 to enroll in the program. Shouldn't it be suggested at 200 mainspace edits instead of 400? HelloThereMinions ^{user, talk} 04:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:NE Ent removal request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• NE Ent (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Please remove autopatrolled from my account NE Ent 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 22:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I can submit my request. ^†2†ťəäçħ^†4†ӛṿəř 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's unclear what you are asking for. This is the page for requesting permissions, but you need to state exactly what permissions you are requesting and why you are requesting them. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ajaxfiore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(From Special:Diff/642403645)

• Ajaxfiore (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I would like to renounce my Rollback privileges. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pending Changes Reviewer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ajaxfiore (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

I would also like to renounce my Reviewer privileges. Ajaxfiore (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad form

I obviously did a poor job in filling out the request form. My apologies.   Bfpage |leave a message  05:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This presumably relates to this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of revert

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask this but is this an example of inappropriate use of the revert facility? A large swathe of text, numerous citations, copyediting, and other improvements were removed. Without so much as an edit summary explaining why. I have been unable to find anything in the changed text that obviously merited this. This would appear to show a lack of "ability to distinguish well-intentioned edits with minor issues from unconstructive vandalism".

According to here, "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed."

According to here, "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool."

The revert concerned was not produced with standard rollback: its edit summary is "Reverted to revision 638078795 by Snappy (talk): Rv to prev version. (TW)"; here, the "(TW)" implies that Twinkle was used to perform the revert.

By contrast, standard rollback produces an edit summary of the form "Reverted edits by X (talk) to last version by Y" where X and Y are two different usernames. This edit summary cannot be customised or otherwise altered. Since standard rollback was not used for the revert in question, it cannot have been misuse of the tool.

It might fall foul of WP:TWABUSE though. Have you taken up the matter with Snappy? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Missing-subject check

In applying for reviewer permission I followed the instructions not to include a subject line, prompting the software to ask me to confirm that I didn‘t want one. This only makes for one more click of the Save button, but it’s provocative of cognitive dissonance: can the subject check be bypassed on these pages?—Odysseus1479 20:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Novel application of ACC

Non-admin coordinators of The Wikipedia Library have been encountering issues with email rate limits - we often need to send multiples emails at a time, sometimes 30 or more. Since the ACC permission includes an exemption from rate limits, granting that right to this small group of editors would be one means of overcoming this problem. Would this be feasible? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit notice permissions

Hello, a proposal to change the permissions required for editing edit notices is taking place at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_permissions_change:_Edit_Notices; as you have edited recent pages related to this topic your feedback is welcome. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2015

Zalvarez (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Is People Respecting the wishes of their love ones at the End of Life? Just has every human being born into this world has the right to live; then just the same they should have the right to choose when and how they would like to die. Not everyone is able to choose how they would want to die, but there are a few people that have the opportunity to do so, due to different reasons for instance: Terminal illness, old age, progressive or just because you want to have everything in order just in case. What happens after they find out that they need to make choices about the end of their life? According to “North Carolina Division of health services regulations” they created a legal document that was designed for that purpose; to make sure that their wishes are granted in case of medical emergency. (EMSPIC) The division of health service regulations describes the purpose of the most form has a form that has adopted an official portable DNR (do not resuscitate) and medical order for scope of treatment. With all the legal procedure in order and the assurance of planning the end of life the way they wish. Does it really happen that way? What happens when their wishes are not followed, when they have a plan but family members or other have another plan for them? Zelfia Alvarez

Reference page http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dhsr/index.html

 Not done as it says on the edit page - The purpose of this page is discussion of the request for permissions process and This is not the place to request edits to protected articles
Please make your request on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Archiving down

@Kingpin13:, @Armbrust: - looks like we are WAY behind on archiving, have begun collapsing just to keep the page in order. Any idea what is up with the bot ? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:@Xaosflux: AFAIK the bot needs to be manually initiated for every run. I have now  archived all the pages and will try to do it bi-daily from now on. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I know labs is undergoing a major overhaul right now and will be up and down for a few days. It is the reason that xTools is offline and if KPBot is on labs as well it could be the cause of the issue here. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• The bot doesn't need to be manually initiated for every run (it's not on toolserver either), the machine that it runs on is just on easter vacation. I'll set it up to run elsewhere in the meantime. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Read-only edit filter permissions

A proposal to create read-only access to private edit filters is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter#Edit_filter_helpers, input is welcome at that page. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2015

As I am one of editors of Wikishia.net I have the permission of copying and quoting from "wikishia.net" so there is no need to delete what I bring from there. Ali.shakeri.1987 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ali.shakeri.1987:  Not done First this is the incorrect venue, but, since you are a new user, this is kind of fine. The answer you will get at the correct venue is the same. You need to view Wikipedia:Donating copyright material and follow the processes there. However, you need to be clear that Wikipedia has very particular requirements for articles. Your text may not be at all suitable for Wikipedia. You would be wisest to seek mentoring from an experienced editor before blasting material into Wikipedia from any other source, especially one that does not currently allow onward use of material. WP:CO-OP will find you a mentor. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Bot clerking

I have written a script that will leave an automated comment on individual requests, linking to any previously declined requests for that user within the past 30 days (or whatever we decide on). Once approved this can be fully automated under a bot account, much like Cyberbot does at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The intention behind this is merely to help the responding admin in making an informed decision, as it's not particularly easy to check for previous requests. How does everyone feel about this? I can also make it ping the admin who declined the previous request. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Going to ping some of the recent regulars @Xaosflux, Nakon, and Swarm: I have this script done and am hoping to move forward with the bot approval process sometime next week, pending a clear consensus here. Are there any other concerns you can think of? From a development standpoint, it's considerably easier to go through the denied pages with a fixed offset in time, as opposed to counting all previously declined requests. Based on the feedback below I'm going to say let's go with 90 days instead of 30. As a responding admin, I think that will provide sufficient information. Any declined requests over three months old are likely not relevant anymore, unless the user has not been actively editing since then, in which case they may be less likely to be granted the permission anyway. Finally, I will add that this timeframe of 90 days will be configurable on-wiki, along with maybe an opt-out page for admins who don't want to be pinged. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'd think it best to have it say "## declined requests, # in the last 30 days" to prevent people from gaming the system and asking exactly every ## days +1 day. Other than that, I think this is a great idea as more information like this is always useful. Pings for admins that previously declined is also a good thing. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a nice idea and seeing the total number of declined requests would also be helpful. Sam Walton (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, this would be a net positive. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 90 days/3 months is plenty far back to go. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a great idea! Always thought something like this would be helpful. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd love to see a bot like this in action. Strong support from me. Nakon 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

MusikBot is running on trial. I don't expect problems, but please let me know if anything funky happens. Admins may block the bot as necessary, or turn off the task by changing User:MusikBot/PermClerk/Run to anything other than true. I am also implementing another clerking feature that will remove level 2 headings created when users incorrectly add a subject line when adding a request, which is fairly common. I will report back here when that feature has been deployed. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

MusikBot Have a drink on me !

OMG, no more extraneous headers I love this bot ! Mlpearc (open channel) 06:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This feature has been deployed. The bot will now also monitor the Request for Confirmed page, but only for extraneous headers – as we usually don't have duplicate requests there, so archive searching isn't really helpful. Thanks for the motor oil, MusikBot loves that stuff! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Just in case anyone was wondering, the bot was unable to edit any pages as they're all semi-protected. I've given the bot the confirmed right so it should be more swift to comment on requests. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It's first step :) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Armbrust: I believe I see what you mean now. The automated comment was added directly below the level four heading because this was a fool-proof solution. I also take it you prefer two colons instead of one, which I was on the fence about, but I think I agree now. Anyway the bot won't try to remove anymore headers until I get this sorted out. As I said I'm going to add more comprehensive logic to fix incorrectly formatted requests. Thank you for the feedback — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

About the bot -- It will soon have it repair the most common form of improperly formatted request, which is simply with an extraneous header. Request for Confirmed often see more fragmented requests, with the template ignored entirely. I'm going to side-step auto-formatting those for now. Secondly, as already promised I will have the bot ping the previous declining admin(s). So look forward to that! Keep the feedback coming. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The autoformatter is now running. The regex is fairly comprehensive and should handle most scenarios, and ignore if things look too complicated. See the page history at testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback (example [1]).

Functionality is now in place to automatically mark requests as {{already done}} if they already have the permission (Autorespond), and setting qualifications for which if the user does not meet, the bot will comment with the relevant data (Prerequisites). Both have no established consensus and are not currently running, but can be turned on and configured at any time. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a question

I tried submitted an application for the Account Creation right using the 'Add Request' button, however once I filled in the request the {{subst:rfp|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|Reason for requesting account creator rights}} ~~~~ seemed to be broken. Is it just me? — BranStark (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2015

Hiren Kukadiya (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No request = Status quo. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed, CAPTCHA, blank summary issue...

Hello! I was noticing that one of (if not) the most productive accounts I've created had issues with the current system of requesting confirmed status in Special:Diff/659976367. That got me wondering (not only was this, very apparently, good faith editor tagged as possible vandalism but also had difficulties with the existing process) if our current process for requesting confirmed is driving away other possibly good editors by being frustrating to use. Apparently, if you're not confirmed, not editing through the API, and have Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary then you are unable to save an edit (and therefor unable to request confirmed to get rid of CAPTCHA). I've tested this on my Technical-13 doppelganger/test account and can confirm those are the factors that contribute. I could see possible ways of fixing this having the page force load to VE instead of standard edit window, changing the template and having them add a title manually (different header level at h2 v h3), or adding to the editnotice to inform people that if they are stuck in a loop and it won't save to disable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in prefs. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015

Hello I just want to add the few pictures, for the text that I added Can you please approve the request Chhuv (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is a talkpage. You need to file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

Samuelharlandliverpool (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Hi there, I would like to be able to edit peoples biography's on Wikipedia as I have found many mistakes. Starting with Steven Gerrard's page, which I would like to edit.

 Not done This is the talkpage, file it at WP:PERM. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ZaC Political Preachers

Philly kazz (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2015

Rollback because i want to return the vandal article

how to become a editor because i want to deletion vandal

Malikmakmur (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the request for permisssions process, it is not the place to actually request permisssions. Which you seem to be aware of since you actually posted a request for the confirmed permisssion, although you didn't realize you already have it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2015

Prodip Kumar Dey (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

Please confirm my account for upload and image and I can make an article and make it private or public Vikrant.sahoo (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Vikrant.sahoo: Just make one more edit and you will become confirmed automatically. Thank you Supdiop ^talk 13:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi protect this talk page?

As we can see from all these requests just above this section, we have a persistent, recurring issue with users not bothering to read all the notices and so forth and posting stuff here that just does not belong. It's not bad faith, just haste and inattention to both what is written on this page and the edit notice they see when adding these remarks. As this is almost always done by unconfirmed users, semi-protection would pretty much stop it, and we could note the reason in the log, which will give users a third chance to take note of what this page is actually for. We could create a talk subpage, as some users do on their user talk pages, where unconfirmed users could still make a comment if needed.

Alternately, we could just start removing all this misplaced requests and drop notes on the talk pages of those who leave them, but I think protection would be simpler.

Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I'vee also just added ssome rather obnoxious new code to the page's edit notice, perhaps it won't get ignored so much now. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, let's give the edit notice a try first. Beautifully crafted if I may add :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Subst issues?

Just added an RFP/A for a user who seems to meet all the criteria. The substs in the request weren't executed and had to be done manually. The only oddity I can see is that the user doesn't have a user page. There shouldn't be an issue with subst where no user page exists, should there? Bazj (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

MusikBot is taking a break

MusikBot has finally completed it's 100 edit trial. I will build up the report for review by the bot approvals group, and hopefully we'll be back up before too long. I'd also like to note that I'm almost done implementing the archiving task, which will hopefully go into trial soon. Since MusikBot parses the pages every 10 minutes, the archiving will happen on the fly, rather than once daily as it does now (e.g. any discussion that's over 36 hours old is archived). I don't believe this to be a problem but I thought I'd point it out. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI the archiving task is currently awaiting trial. Hopefully won't be too much longer — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thank you for all your work! MusikBot should be very helpful here in the long run. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That was quick! Good stuff! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! More info below — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2015

I am a regular contributor of wiki pages with my login id, also edited more then 5-6 pages 15-20 times. I have seen couple of famous pages got deleted unnecessarily which need a templet editor to modify it and restore it with proper references details. So i want to be a templet editor and would like to restore those pages so that people can access to read about that. Thank you Celebtech (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for requests. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions Cannolis (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

User:NikeThyrsus

• NikeThyrsus (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Hi I am asking and requesting you to grant me the privilege and access to the counter vandalism tool rollback in order to be granted permission to use Twinkle and STiki those are helpful and useful tools which can assist and help me edit in a productive manner , i have been on wikipedia for a few days now and i have made various and numerous contributions , attributions , support , reverts , rollbacks , articles , I am a profound user familiar and recognized with the copyrights and policies i have a lot of spare and free time and willing to dedicate it to improve Wikipedia , i speak fluently 7 different languages , my English level is superb and excellent , i am a great editor and reviewer / patroller , i am always aware and follow the changes on Wikipedia using different application essential utilities and tools for example:WPCleaner or Vandal Fighter 3.5b or AutoWikiBrowser and a various variety of other tools , i appreciate Wikipedia and dedicating a lot of my time so far to improve help and support it , i also issued quite a lot of Warnings using the Multi-level templates to a Vandalizing users , i just want the right permissions to access and be able to do and contribute much more than i can now with the right privileges i can do an astounding Moderation i just request because i want to be an official privileged access user to do more then i do now , i tried to request a rollback on the official request page but it tells me to wait 4 days and 10 edits,and then i will be able to edit semi-protected pages today is my 4th day,so i might as well request today and wait for you to grant me access and assign me:] i am intending to enforce the Wikipedia official guidelines and policies that i am well aware off Wikipedia:Vandalism / Assume_good_faith ,i will Be Active in patrolling and reviewing articles / talk pages or a general maintenance and corrections among others (in general moderation / monitoring),i have around over 386 edits in 4 days!,i use the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Template_messages to issue warnings to Vandals on their talk pages, i so far warned users with and via the User:Lupin/Filter_recent_changes Lupin Tool and copy / paste warning templates on Vandals user pages.

I am also assigned and enrolled in the Counter vandalism Academy enrollment. waiting for your reply:] ! to promote me so i could use STiki or Twinkle, thank you! My user page:User:NikeThyrsus NikeThyrsus (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC) NikeThyrsus (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - as it says on the edit page, in great big letters, with flashing red signs:-

The purpose of this page is discussion of the request for permissions process

This is not the place to request a user permission

To make a request for a permission, please go back to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission. - Arjayay (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Moving mass message sender permission requests to WP:PERM

I've brought this up before (here) with no established consensus. Since mass message sender is another legitimate permission requiring admin attention (as opposed to mass message delivery requests which any MMS can do), I propose we place it with the rest of the requests for permissions here at WP:PERM. Further reasoning is that we have our friendly "add a request" links that insert the new sections at the bottom of the page, which doesn't work at WT:MMS because we have two sections for requests (permissions requests end up in the requests for delivery section). Moving permissions requests to PERM will alleviate that issue, and again make it easier for admins as they will have the permissions backlogs all in one place.

MusikBot is currently handling archiving, and I can easily modify it to process a new permissions page. As for the MMS archives, I can write a one-time script to port archived the permission requests to the approved/denied logs, though this isn't particularly necessary. Finally, having MMS permission requests here would also allow for the other bot clerking features to assist patrolling admins.

Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• This seems like the logical move in every sense. In fact, it's strange that this hasn't been done yet. It is literally an admin-granted user group requiring an RfP, just like any of the other ones, and I can't think of any good reason whatsoever for it not to be integrated into permissions. It definitely seems to fall into the category of the RfP flags, rather than the other highly-specialized user groups which are handled in different forums. I can't think of any downsides to merging it and the positives are obvious. Also, I see that the only comment at MMS was Technical 13's point that he already competently handled the archiving with his own specialized script. While I'm sure it's a nice tool, it was never completed, probably never will be now, and its task can be performed with zero clicks, by our competent new bot. Are there any reasons for not doing this? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input. I've gone ahead and done this, requests can be viewed at WP:PERM/MMS. I'll need to make a few tweaks to the bot but it will start processing the new page soon. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for adding mass message sender permissions

Howdy, there does not appear to be any codified requirements for the Mass Message Sender user right that was recently added to this page. Does anyone have a link to any relevant previous discussions so that a baseline criteria can be created? Nakon 04:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing WT:MMS I don't see much for discussion. There isn't much of a backlog for mass delivery requests, so I'd say this should generally be reserved for those who have a regular need for it. Furthermore I think at least one delivery request should have been made that clearly shows an understanding of the guidance for use. If they've been manually going talk page to talk page over and over, this is essentially the same and should provide enough evidence to determine if they can be trusted not to misuse the tool.

The mass messaging guide itself is fairly simple: Don't spam or canvass users, and if it's a regular newsletter, make sure you include a way to unsubscribe. The content of the mailings should also be common sense... don't send out paragraphs of text or flashy imagery bloating talk pages. Keep it concise and to the point, but also feel free to spice it up with some formatting.

In short, you'll probably only end up granting this right to event or WikiProject coordinators -- but still make sure they know how to properly construct a newsletter! (example) — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

MusikBot is now archiving

I think we're all set now for archiving, and automatic updating of {{admin backlog}} to {{no admin backlog}} (and vice versa). Every 90 minutes or when applicable a report is generated at User:MusikBot/PermClerk/Report. This is transcluded at the top of the main WP:PERM page for your convenience. If something went wrong it will say what it is and how you can fix it (resolution template is undated, etc). Unlike KingpinBot, it does not report what has been archived. This is because rather than once daily, it archives requests on-the-fly – as soon as they are 36 hours old (set by User:MusikBot/PermClerk/Archive/Offset). You can simply refer to the page histories to see what has been archived recently.

Should the bot start acting up please disable the relevant task. I've done extensive testing on testwiki so I'm somewhat confident it is stable, but in production you never know... :) The other clerking tasks are up for review and have been turned off for the time being. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Trial is complete, so no archiving at the moment. I'm expecting either full approval or an extension to the trial. I will report back here when I know more. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Back up for an extended trial. It's running a beta-ish version, tweaked to accommodate the AWB registration page which is formatted vastly different from the other PERM pages. Should be OK, or at least it was on testwiki :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Annnnd extended trial complete. There were no issues this time around so we should be back up soon, once the BAG ops get to the request. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015

Under Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Header#other, replace Microsoft Vista with Windows Vista and add 8.1/10 to the end. 2602:306:B8E0:82C0:5C4A:224D:3582:7F9A (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: - instead of listing every version of Windows, I have edited to match the description at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser which says "for Windows operating system version Windows Vista and newer." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

 Done

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover|answered=no}} Dear sir/madam, I want to upload pictures of my deceased grand father,ex-MP Shri Karri Narayana Rao,so for that I need your permission.I request you to kindly grant me the permission to upload pics

Thanking you...

Kogghy-60k (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kogghy-60k, if you are the photographer go here and you should be able to upload them to our media library Wikimedia Commons, that way they will be available for use not just in English but in hundreds of other language versions of wikipedia, and elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo on Request Template

Just a heads up that when people request permissions, the submission template says "nonautmoated contribs" instead of "nonautomated contribs". Upjav (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator instructions

I've taken a stab at the new "administrators instructions" page convention for PERM, see WP:PERM/AI. Any improvements welcomed — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

More bot ideas

Since I'm in the midst of developing this bot, perhaps I should aim high and see if we'd like anymore clerking tasks to be automated. Some of these tasks will be much more challenging to implement than others, so I will prioritize accordingly. On a per-permission basis:

Account creator

• Can it check if the user is identified and meets the minimum requirement threshold per WP:ACC/G#prerequisites? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  In the short-term I can go with the 6 month account age / 1500 edit count qualifications, and eventually also check for a block within the past 6 months. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This, WP:ACC/G#prerequisites, is checked before the user get access to the tool and long before they're ready for this flag. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Only if they are getting the permission as part of being ACC. There are other ways of qualifying for needing this right. My thoughts are that since this is only a clerking task, it wouldn't hurt for the administrators reviewing requests to have something to gauge it against. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems the requirement for this flag (if not for ACC) is non-existent, save an edit-a-thon. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:ACCP says if you are involved in the Education Program or other outreach work where they have a need to create accounts without restriction you are also eligible. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's my point, there's really nothing for the bot to check, that semi'ing the page does not. Mlpearc (open channel) 03:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems many (most?) of the account creator requests are for users involved with events. The automated comments about not meeting some said qualifications may even be a deterrent toward their good-faith intentions. I'd rather not bother, for now. Thanks for the recommendations nonetheless — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

• Comment if the candidate has created less than 50 articles

  Autopatrolled doesn't just apply to articles. Perhaps it should check if the user has created more than 250 pages in general as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  The 50 article figure came from WP:AUTOPAT, so I'd prefer to stick to that unless there's an established standard for number of pages created. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

AWB

• Comment if the candidate has less than 500 mainspace edits
  • Sounds good. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It should refrain from commenting on bot requests (as it is likely that bots don't have the required mainspace edits) and instead check if it has a WP:BRFA.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 19:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed

• Mark as "already done" if they are already autoconfirmed
  • Sounds good, though I may never understand the point of the confirmed permission... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • EoRdE6, I sometimes suggest it to people that are having trouble with CAPTCHA as it gets rid of that so they can get to the 10 edit requirement. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

File mover

• (no proposals)
  • It'd be difficult and possibly resource consuming but could it check if the user has requested at least one file rename (see these) and if not decline. Plus comment if there are less than say 5 (arbitrary number). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

• Comment if candidate has less than 100 main space edits.

  As they don't have enough experience to review pending changes. We can raise the bar to 200 edits because PC right is considered almost equal to rollback right. I think commenting that candidate has less than 100 main space edits will help the admin take the decision faster.--Supdiop ^talk 06:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Rollback

• Comment if the candidate has created less than 200 mainspace edits
  • Yep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template editor

• Should be able to check for most of WP:TPEGRANT. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  Similar with account creator, in the short term I think I'll have it just check the 1 year account age / 1000 edit count qualifications, and later checks of the block log. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

General

• Add (non-admin closure) or similar notice to requests declined by non-admins Will not implement — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment if the user has other open requests for permissions

Discussion

Any thoughts, input? Feel free to comment within the subsections above, or add any new proposals. Going to ping some recent/long-term PERM admins and other long-term users involved in the process @Armbrust, Beeblebrox, HJ Mitchell, Kudpung, Mlpearc, Nakon, Swarm, and Xaosflux: — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Xaosflux again since the {{ping}} template apparently doesn't like over 7 users to be pinged at a time — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think NAC notices are really needed in general, maybe if a DONE request is going to be done by a non-admin who is incapable of completing it a flag could help? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-admins shouldn't be acting like they can grant requests at all. These look like good ideas in general, the thing that jumps out at me is that it should do the same check for PC reviewers as for rollback as they require a similar level of experience. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I sort of agree with Beeblebrox, but there seems to be varying opinions about non-admin closures (check the archives), so I'm just going to go ahead and scratch that proposed task for the bot. Beeblebrox about pending changes reviewer, how many edits should the bot look for? For Rollback I simply went by Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting rollback rights, there's doesn't seem to be an established figure for pending changes reviewer. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

When all this was originally being debated I seem to recall the idea that it be considered a similar level of trust as required for rollback. In actual practice I think most admins set the bar slightly higher as it is a slightly more powerful tool with no "free" equivalent in Twinkle. Not sure exactly where that leaves us, but I certainly wouldn't give PC reviewer to someone I wouldn't trust with rollback. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if it was noted if the user has more than one active request. WP:HATSHOP Mlpearc (open channel) 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I like Mlpearc's idea. Added to General above, though this may be further away on the development road map. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• This thread was originally entitled More bot ideas, so that's what I'll address. I appreciate being among the list of uses pinged (@Armbrust, Beeblebrox, HJ Mitchell, Kudpung, Mlpearc, Nakon, Swarm, and Xaosflux: ), which is a fairly accurate list of the most regular admins working at PERM over the last 3 years or so - in fact for a very long time I practically had the place to myself until I stepped aside in April last year to give some newly created admins more elbow room. Hence, I am wondering what the sudden flurry of interest is from non admins in this remote corner of admin work. Personally, I find NAO and NAC on these PERMS to be simply duplicating the work that the admins are going to double check anyway before granting or declining a request. I see bot handlers simply looking for yet another area for which they can create a bot or argue the toss with other bots. We've seen competitive bot and/or script writing in other places where some of us ::sigh:: have now given up partly for that reason. I can't speak for my fellow admin colleagues but I'm hazarding the guess that they feel the PERM pages get along just fine with our old friend non-admin Armbrust doing the only clerking that's necessary and doing it better than any bot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the input, Kudpung! As a developer, I of course have a desire to create something that does actual work, but the goal here is for it to do things worthwhile and for which there's consensus – not make it do things just because it can. Some things like repairing malformed requests, removing extraneous headers, etc, are procedural and if the bot can do it (which it can!) there's no reason to wait for a human. Humans also go to sleep, the bot will not. Beyond that, other proposals were to allow the bot to comment if suggested qualifications are not met, leaving the human to make the decision. The bot uses it's own set of API calls, so if edit counters are down it won't matter. Allow me to add it's all configurable. So, if you don't want it commenting here, or not make it check the permissions there, or we want to change it to check for 400 mainspace edits and not 200, etc, no worries, there will be a config file to easily change the behaviour.

  Admittedly my eagerness to offer this functionality has resulted in considerable development time, to the point where I can say I more or less have all of this done. Rejecting all aforementioned proposals will certainly not be music to my ears, but consensus makes the final call. That being said, most of what I was proposing above was hypothetical, and just to get a sense of what we actually wanted to automate. In it's simplest form, I thought I'd have the bot (a) report previously declined requests (b) fix improperly formatted requests (c) mark requests as already done if they already have the permission they're requesting. For rollback, I'd like to also have it report the mainspace edits if less than 200, and the same for AWB registration requests (for 500 mainspace edits), if consensus permits. As for double-checking, the bot uses the same database the edit counters do, so if you can trust one you should be able to trust the other. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving

I have emailed Kingpin13 about MusikBot taking over the task of archiving. I'd like to give him some time to respond, but thought I'd bring up the proposal to you all as well. I like the 36-hour figure KingpinBot is meant to adhere to, and MusikBot would do the same, and use the same well thought out configurations that KingpinBot has used. Essentially I'm not putting down KingpinBot, it's impressive tenure of hard work is nothing to speak lightly of, but I wanted to give the bot an opportunity to retire should it want to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi MusikAnimal, thanks for the email. I've no particular preference either way to be honest, I'm quite happy to keep running to bot at the current frequency for the foreseeable future. I know sometimes the current bot does go on a brief hiatus, which is basically just my fault, other than that there's no much wrong with it as far as I can tell. On the other hand, if you want to take up KingpinBot's mantle then please do not let me stop you - obviously I'm not as active as I once was, and the task could probably benefit from being running by someone more involved in the project. Alternatively, if you want, you could take the source code (F#) and just transfer it to your bot and maintain it. Let me know what ever suits you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: Thanks for the reply! Obviously I don't want to reinvent the wheel but as I said MusikBot is already parsing through each permission page and the archives, so it could easily take on archiving in the same sweep. If it's okay with you I'd like to take that route. I could port the F# source you have over to the Ruby codebase and go from there. This will take a bit, however, both for development time and approval -- so please keep KingpinBot running for now :) I'm on holiday for another week then I hope to move forward with development. I will then need approval for a trial, which hopefully could be coupled in with the other bot tasks, as otherwise it's going to take quite a while to reach the current allotted 100 edits. I'll let you know when I know more and will be sure to not permit any bot wars, though any edit conflicts should be handled properly. Thank you!! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, drop me a message on my talk page if you want the source code. You can turn KingpinBot's archiving component on/off easily enough using the controls explained on it's user page, so feel free to disable it while you're testing your bot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of archiving, I have noticed that sometimes an item doesn't get archived and just sits at the top of the list for days or weeks while newer items get archived. Like right now on the requests for rollback page, there's one there that't been up for about two weeks. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: Maybe the regex is not case insensitive (since the request was marked as "Done" and not "done"? Either way I don't think it should be archived anyway, as it wasn't a request for a permission but rather a request for removal of a permission. Aside from autopatrolled those are never declined. Requests for removal should go here on this talk page, or at least that seems to be historically the case. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I question the need to archive any of this. If we grant a request, there's a log entry. If we don't, and the re-apply before 90 days have elapsed the bot notes it. If it's been more than ninety days it should probably be treated as a new request anyway. I'm not sure there is much utility in even having archives. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well for starters, MusikBot uses the archives to find previously declined requests :) But archiving is of course intended to preserve discussions for easy reference. So for approved requests it's true we won't usually refer back to the discussion. WP:RPP works this way (I think), having only a rolling archive of declined requests so they can be linked to as necessary. We could adopt the same system, but we've been archiving all requests for quite some time, might as well stick with it. I'm porting over KingpinBot's archiving task to MusikBot, and I'll be sure to kink out any bugs. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The bot checks that the user actually has been granted the right (if marked as done) or not (if marked as notdone). So in this case because it was a request for removal the bot doesn't know where to archive it, this is explained in the bot's report ("Mandruss request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback was marked as done but they do not have the user right."), which is in general a good place to check if a request seems to not being get archived. You can make the bot archive the request using User:KingpinBot/override or just manually deal with any reported errors. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Perfect. Make sense to me! I say we move the request to this talk page and let it get archived here. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I already marked it to get the bot to archive it as done, which is what I tend to do in these cases. Although I like your idea better, perhaps that should become standard practice for requests for removal. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

Nazrulislamsarkar (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC) Najrul Islam

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

I need permission to insert images in wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahraura this will improve page and also provide more information about city. Ab.singhcs282 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: To make a request for a permission, please go back to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, click "add request" next to the appropriate header and fill in the reason for wanting permission. Please note, very new users may not request permissions other than "confirmed". Inomyabcs (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Silliness of the pending changes reviewer position

I was looking at Special:PendingChanges. One of the articles on that list was Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The latest edits needing review were vandalism, so I reverted them. Then I look at another article, and the edits were not vandalism, but in fact fixed a layout issue on a table [2]. I find it hilarious that I can revert vandalism, but I can't be trusted to acknowledge a good edit.

So get the pending changes reviewer bit added, you say. I don't want it. If after all the years and 10s of thousands of edits that I have made to this project I can't be trusted without some special bit to acknowledge a table layout fix as being acceptable, there is a serious problem with the project. More personally, if I can't be trusted to acknowledge a table layout fix to be a good edit, then you might as well block me as disruptive to the project.

Frankly, this bit shouldn't exist. It should be automatically conferred, like auto-confirmed, after some set period of editing/number of edits (and make it as small as possible without allowing damage to the project that pending changes is intended to prevent). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I think this is definitely a big problem with Wikipedia which can hamper its' productivity. Iady391 | Talk to me 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I don't see in the archives where you ever requested pending changes reviewer. Iady391 your original request was declined simply because were too new to the project, and recent activity at the time suggested you may not be ready for the right. That's not to say you aren't fit for it now. Pending changes reviewer differs from rollback in that it may not be vandalism that you are faced to review, but rather subtle BLP changes or unsourced additions that aren't inherently unconstructive but may be the reason the article was put under pending changes protection. If you'd like to give more input on whether there is a true need for this user right, it's probably best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Musik, I've never asked for it because I shouldn't need it. If I can't be trusted after all I've done, I might as well be banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You make a good point, that perhaps there should be some automated assignment of this right, but that's certainly disputable. So again I'd say let's redirect that conversation Wikipedia talk:Reviewing or even WP:VPIL, as this talk page is about the requests for permissions process, which is built around the limitation you are questioning — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks for the information. I hope that I'll be able to discuss it on the pages you gave . Iady391 | Talk to me 17:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: When pending changes was originally being developed, autopromotion of certain users was proposed multiple times in various forms but it ended up being widely opposed in any form. That's why specific criteria for a manually-appointed user group were created. Not saying the idea doesn't have any merit, but this is what the community set up. The ability to review is more or less freely given out to any trusted user. Swarm ♠ 23:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• A big mistake was made some years ago by handing out the reviewer tool willy-nilly on the results of a bot run. I think the criteria for Reviewer should be cranked up a notch or two and then merge it with Rollbacker, AfC reviewer, and including NPPers in it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Why would the criteria need to be any higher? There are only four reviewing criteria, and they're just the fundamental rules that we expect any editor to adhere to. If the average editor can't be trusted to uphold those four rules (plus the additional guideline of being aware of why the page was protected, the visibility of which could be improved), then the average editor can't be trusted to edit at all and we have a much larger problem. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• There are very good content writers who have had rollback removed because they couldn't or wouldn't differentiate between an edit they disagreed with and vandalism. How would you introduce an automatic system of granting rights such as Rollback without moving to indef blocks for things like edit warring? Other editors have done thousands of edits, but had autopatroller revoked after the BLPPROD was introduced because they didn't raise their sourcing standards when the community did. Some editors cite their edits from day one, others are productive and uncontentious for thousands of edits reverting vandalism or fixing typos, but when they start adding content they are effectively a newbie. If we move to auto promotion to Rollbacker/Reviewer after a certain amount of edits then for some people that will be too soon and for others too late. I can see an argument for merging Rollbacker and Pending changes Reviewer if both require the skill of spotting badfaith edits and having the restraint not to treat edits you disagree with as vandalism. But I don't agree that Rollbackers need to understand notability of new articles, though I do think that is essential for AFC Reviewers. Remembering my own past I'm pretty sure I was ready for Rollback long before I would have been ready for AFC reviewer if that had existed then; That wasn't a problem when I was notching up thousands of edits disambiguating and fixing typos, and it took me more edits to be ready for adminship than if my edits had been adding swathes of content. We have a very diverse community of editors who are ready for different tools after very different levels of contribution - whether you measure that in edits or time, and I'm afraid that requires human decisions for many of the extra buttons. ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• For me (though I know this wasn't your intent, and I mean no disrespect) you've just done a marvelous job of encapsulating what is wrong with Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you take it that way, and more than a little surprised. Could you be more specific as to what you don't like about my post? ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps I wasn't clear, and I'm sorry. There's nothing wrong with your post! What's wrong is Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• The fly in the ointment is NPP which although being our only firewall against promotion, PoV, CoI, Copyvio, nonsense, hoax and attack articles in the form of complete pages requires no prior demonstration of maturity, skill, or clue whatsoever. Yet we demand PC reviewers to request a permission. Sommat daft in that - or maybe it's just me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• What's odd here is that pending changes was applied to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The edit which did this had an auto-accept set which perhaps helps but I reckon semi-protection would have been better. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2016

Sahad enz (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Empty request — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Administrator instructions - revamped!

I created Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator instructions a while back, which basically just said how to respond to requests. Now I've gone through each permission and created a dedicated admin instructions page, that thoroughly explains the prerequisites and procedures. For instance, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Account creator/Administrator instructions. These links appear at the top-right of any of the WP:PERM pages. Any input or contributions welcomed.

The new admin's school guide to granting and revoking user rights also links to these admin instructions pages. So essentially we now have a centralized place for what admins should look when granting these rights. On the contrary, the descriptions you see on the doc pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Account creator) are more geared toward the user who wishes to have the permission.

I'll also go ahead mention some other refactoring I did. When the prerequisite figures change you now don't have to go change it a ton of places, rather in a single place. For instance:

• {{Wikipedia:Autopatrolled/Article count}} → 25
• {{Wikipedia:Rollback/Mainspace count}} → 200
• {{Wikipedia:Template editor/Guidelines for granting}} → (see Wikipedia:Template editor/Guidelines for granting)
• {{Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Non-automated mainspace count}} → 250

Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking good! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2015

The request rollback, unblock wiki, admin the editing, semi-user only. Archivecraft (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC) France Wikibooks unblock and Russian Wikipedia unblock. Archivecraft (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eteethan(talk) 12:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Changing WP:AWBCP formatting to match other PERM pages

I propose we reformat the AutoWikiBrowser request page to match that of the PERM pages. It's true that AWB is not a user right, but requests for registration act in much the same way. Additionally:

• It would make the page much more bot-friendly. Right now there's two parts to the code, AWB and not AWB.
• Users often have trouble formatting their requests. A simple "add new request" link like we have at PERM would be put to great use. Being able to format the request correctly by following the instructions might be seen as part of the "test" of whether or not they are fit for AWB, but I still see no reason to make things more complicated than they need to be
• AWB requests still attract discussion like any PERM request, where a dedicated level-4 heading would serve useful

Pinging likely interested parties @Biblioworm, Worm That Turned, and Graeme Bartlett: — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for it. It is a permission, just not a userright. I treat it as such, so making things more standard is a good thing. Worm^TT(talk) 06:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Part of the challenge to prove that a candidate is suitable to use AWB is that they are capable of adding the request according to the instructions. Those that fail to do so have proved that they lack the attention to detail or cannot follow instructions. Though we always give them a second chance to get their request right. Apart from that the format may as well be the same as the other boards. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  Yeah I get that aspect, but I think the benefits of following the PERM format will outweigh this additional screening. We don't have any formatting tests for template editor, for instance, where the ability to follow basic syntax and any relevant instructions is considerably more important. Perhaps we could find better ways to do such a "test", that won't make maintenance and bot automation more difficult — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  I did support the idea of making it the same standard though. I suppose it means that we don't have the button to add the request automatically. But everything else could look the same. If the grant permission link could position the edit box near the insertion point that would be great, though I don't know how that could be done. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Graeme Bartlett: What button are you referring to? Is this a user script? I had almost figured you guys were using something, since the instructions were strict about capitalization of the username. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  I am talking about the links that have this text: "(assign permissions)(rb · pcr · ap · fm · te)" It links to Special:UserRights. For AWB it would link to an edit on the users section of the page though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Oh sorry haha. We can add parser functions to {{Rfplinks}} that checks if it's on the WP:PERM/AWB page and change the link accordingly, or any other links, if we wish. We have no control over where the edit box will be positioned, but we can at least link to the right section. I realized we have another issue, though, of how to indicate if the request is for a bot or personal account. I will draft up a "preload" template and post back here — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment: Just wanted to say I'm working on a v2.0 of the PermClerk bot. It will for one have much nicer and more manageable code, but also lots of welcomed features, I believe. Namely, checking if the user already is on the AWB check page, which happens a lot, and comment if that's the case. Also report if the requested user right (or AWB access) had been revoked in the past 90 days, which is very useful as you may wish to consult the admin who revoked it. Any thoughts on this matter are welcomed. I just figured while I'm doing the rewrite, I might as well try go get AWB inline with the other PERM pages as it's going to make it considerably easier to implement and maintain, in addition to the other benefits outlined above. I will wait for a rough consensus here before continuing with development — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  The bot could also comment if the user is an admin, or already has access, as these situations happen every so often, and would save a little time when checking. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser. There are separate preloaded templates for primary account and bot account, with different links. For primary AWB requests, a reason is still optional. E.g. if you hit save it will not show "Reason for requesting AutoWikiBrowser access" even though it's in the preloaded template (try it out). The "edit CheckPage" links open up the appropriate section of the CheckPage given if it's a primary account or a bot. For bots there is also a parameter in the preloaded template to add the BRFA task number. If it is not provided it just goes to the base BRFA page, which is what it would be if were the first task. This is explained via embedded comments.

How does this look? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Backlog notice

Armbrust brought this up on my talk page before, then I see MSGJ is in agreeance that multiple requests should determine whether we consider a particular PERM page to be backlogged. What should we go with? 3 requests? What about the date of the request? If it's say, a week old, I personally would consider that backlogged. Sometimes a user's request for permission may be with even more urgency, such as account creator where they may need it for an upcoming event. You could say the same about other rights, e.g. someone clearly fit for file mover who is trying to participate in some backlog drive (maybe a bad example). For this reason I feel PERM amy differ in other areas in that a single request may warrant considering it a backlog.

Furthermore, another concern is the {{admin backlog}} template itself. There is language to make it say if this category contains 10 items or more, it will report as an administrative backlog. This only works on categories. For the normal template, there's no way to say what triggers the backlog, it just says it will be removed when the backlog is "cleared". "Cleared" to me means no requests. Should we modify the template to allow a custom message to suit our needs?

As the bot operator, I want to make sure we get this figured out. It is possible for me to add logic of checking what the oldest request is, and whether that should play a factor in considering it backlogged, along with the number of requests, etc. For now however, MSGJ if you don't mind, I'd like to keep the admin backlog template as-is, otherwise the bot will never update it under any conditions. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What a lot of questions! I'm happy to go with a week old or more than three requests, if that is possible to code. We can always tweak it later. I'm not sure it's worth spending too much time on though ... I think it would be fine to have no notice on WP:PERM/T (which is the one I removed), or at least until you get the clever logic sorted, because I've never seen a backlog on that particular page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This is true, probably don't get more than 2 requests at a time, and I don't see a case where needing template editing rights would be "urgent" =P If we want to go with 3 requests / 1 week we should also update {{admin backlog}} to allow us to explain this in the template. So if it were active it would say This notice will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests under a week old. I guess we'd have to whitelist WP:PERM/ACC from this, and report a backlog with any request, as event coordinators add requests there frequently. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Automating procedural removal of account creator rights

Per this RfC, users who are not active in the account creation process or the education program may have the flag removed. We also do this for event coordinators, usually removing the right shortly after the event. Problem is, us admins sometimes forget to do this, or we have no way of tracking who is no longer active at ACC. So, I thought I'd propose we enlist the help of automation. An adminbot could remove the right when appropriate, but I figure we'd rather have human evaluation. The proposal:

• The bot will check the activity of all account creators once per month (or whatever we decide on). Any users who have not created any accounts during that time will have their username posted at WP:PERM/ACC/Tracking under a "inactive" heading for admins to review. The bot will also include the logged reason for granting the ACC right, and also ping the admin who granted it. Their username entry will be removed should they become active again or if the account creator flag is removed.
• For event coordinators, admins can add the username under the "Event coordinators" heading at WP:PERM/ACC/Tracking and indicate the date of the event. This way the bot can parse it and know when the event took place. Three days after the event (or whatever we decide on) their username will be moved from the coordinators section to the inactive section for review. If the responding admin does not add the user to the event coordinators section, the user will simply be handled like any other account creator.

Bullet #2 is more on the nice-to-have side, but I think #1 will provide us a reliable way of keeping track of our account creators and who is still active in using the tool. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• @MusikAnimal: have you done anything to advance this proposal since posting here? It seriously sounds like yet another great idea and a common sense solution to a problem. I think it'll make the community's will expressed in that RfC more effective and it'll make our job more efficient. Really, it'll just make everyone's lives that much easier. I definitely like the idea of keeping track of event coordinators too! The current system is highly informal and allows users, many with little experience, to gain what is otherwise a highly restricted user right on what is supposed to be a temporary basis. It's difficult to keep track of these users and easy for the granting admin to forget to revoke the right. Let's do it! Swarm ♠ 05:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, it's officially in my development backlog :) It seemed like an uncontroversial task to me, just wanted to see some support before I started coding. Thank you for your encouraging words — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for being a an overflowing well of good ideas and technical advancements. So, account creators do their work using a separate account on the Account creation interface. These accounts are suspended as "inactive" after 45 days, so that seems like a good default benchmark for the suspension of the Account Creator permission. But perhaps if we issued a one or two-week notice of suspension, it would encourage people to remain involved with ACC. If we do this, we should probably flag them after a month, so they have an opportunity to remain active before their ACC account is suspended. This may be too needlessly complicated though. If we go without a warning I think they should lose the permission after 45 days, in line with the ACC tool itself. Swarm ♠ 20:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

For members of the Account creation team, a ToolAdmin should contact a sysop when an ACC tool user is suspended. Tracking account creation activity is currently done manually. An automated reminder will be useful. Thanks for your efforts, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Doctree: Are you suggesting that the bot ping the tool admins when a user becomes inactive? That way they can suspend their access to the interface, and then contact a sysop to remove the flag? I can make that happen, but seems like the pings could get annoying to some =P Maybe you all could add the tracking page to your watchlist instead? Additionally, the sysops here at PERM can handle removal of the flag, or whoever gets to it first I guess. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisting the proposed tracking page is ideal,User:MusikAnimal. Only a few ToolAdmins routinely activate and suspend tool access (the others concentrate on technical matters). Automated tracking will be a nice convenience but our group is small enough that manual checking of activity isn't a burden. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 04:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

BAM! Looks like we have a lot of revoking to do ;) This script ran surprisingly crazy fast – about as fast as one run-through of the PermClerk task – so I can keep this list fairly up-to-date, maybe even have it run daily. I have not implemented the functionality to add event coordinators and post them ~3 days after the event, but that's next on the list. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to question its accuracy. It reported 106 inactive users, and there's but 116 total account creators. Hopefully that's not right — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's 130 account creators aren't there? There are a number of campus ambassadors on there who apparently need it for the education program and a couple alternate admin accounts (but we can probably contact them and ask if they really need it given it can't do as much is as it used to be able to do). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The other thing is, just because they haven't created an account in the last 45 days doesn't mean that they're inactive at ACC (as they may be declining requests or deferring them for a CU to take a look at) for example Cyberpower678's last action on ACC was four days ago but appears on the bot's list. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, that would explain it! I wonder how I could query actions at ACC? Maybe the tool has an API? The 116 account creators figure came from Wikipedia:Account creator, which uses the NUMBERINGROUP magic word and might be inaccurate. Either way as Swarm recommended we might want to contact many of these folks before revoking the right, at least those who are part of the account creation team. But first of course we should wean out those who are still actively using the tool — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are currently 130 users who have the account creator flag (from WP:ACCRIGHT)?

Would it also be possible for the bot to check for an education program userright, and if there is one to not put them on the list (or remove them)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Very interesting... I purged the page and now I see 130 as well. That is odd, I thought that page caching applied to everyone... Anyway, I could definitely also check for an education userright and exclude those, or if we want list them in a different section. Going to contact the devs of the ACC tool and see if that can make an API endpoint for when the last action was taken by a user — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Listing them in a different section works too! Good idea, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a trial and error and managed to guess my way to the API endpoint [3] so all good there =P I figure we'll have four sections: (1) account creation team, showing last use of the tool, (2) education program, (3) event coordinators and (4) everyone else. #3 will only be accurate moving forward, assuming granting admins remember to add them to the coordinators page. That page will be something like User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Event coordinators, containing a bulleted list of users. You'll have to add a timestamp for when the event takes place, and the bot will remove the users from the list and add them to the inactive user list ~3 days (or whatever we decide on) after the event. Alternatively, the bot could list the coordinator as inactive about a week after the right was granted. That way we don't have to reply on people correctly typing timestamps — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Stwalkerster:, as he's farily active as an ACC dev. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Give me a ring!} 19:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, do you just need the last active time and status for all ACC users? I can probably make a single endpoint for that (and/or other info, if you need it) so we can optimise it on our side too. Incidentally, we did have an automated list of users who were in the accountcreator group a year or two ago, but not active users on ACC. We used it a couple of times to huge controversy at the time, but this was before anyone used it for education program stuff, and when some people were granted it for edit notice use. I'll see if I can dig out the code we had. [stwalkerster|talk] 12:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: I can get away with the endpoint I found above [4], and actually given how I'm looping through the list of account creators this is favourable than a single endpoint for all ACC users. Provided you don't change the response or require SSL this should be enough for our purposes. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: That endpoint is searching on ACC usernames though, which isn't the same as Wikipedia usernames [5][6][7](OK, it is in like 90% of cases) - just bear that in mind. [stwalkerster|talk] 11:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stwalkerster: Ah, very good point! I take it there isn't an endpoint to search by enwiki username? Preferably it'd work the same way as this one, for a single user. It might also be interesting to know how many total actions the user has taken using the ACC tool. Many thanks for your help — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: No, there isn't, but it's probably time I wrote one. Our db schema isn't ideal for searching by Wikipedia username unfortunately, so it's probably time we revisited that aspect too. I'll try to put together another search parameter for you this weekend. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:  Done. Use the &wikiuser= parameter[8]. Be aware that this is some horridly unperformant code on our end because of a bad design decision I made a year and a half ago, which I've not yet fixed. That's still on the todo list, but at least you can get your bot up and running :) You can also use the ?action=count&user=Foo endpoint[9] to get some basic stats about the user, but at the moment it only includes accounts created, not total actions taken. [stwalkerster|talk] 23:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) @Stwalkerster: A few issues, actually... first off for nonexistent users there is no response [10]. Next, all due respect as I'm sure you worked hard on this, but the wikiuser endpoint is dramatically slower than the user endpoint. Not sure if there's an easy workaround for that? Thank you for your time! — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated the edit notice to include instructions to log temporary grants.[11] It's hidden until we put the new system into effect but until feel free to modify as needed. Also, should we work out a template message that gives a notification about the revocation/impending revocation of Account Creator? Swarm ♠ 20:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  Alright, have a look at User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Tracking and let me know what you think. What you see there should be accurate. As I understand it, users in the education program are OK to retain the right, while the others we'll need to review. @Swarm: a template to issue the inactive users sounds like a good idea. Everyone else okay with that? The bot could issue it maybe a week ahead of time, along with all the currently inactive users? I think just a single notice is enough, as opposed to procedural admin removal which entails 3 notices.

  Also still need to work on the event coordinators functionality... hopefully getting to that tonight. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  Actually I agree we might want to issue a notice for when the right was actually removed too, so two notices total. We can code it to be the same template and take a parameter revoked=yes or something. The revoked notice would of course be issued by the admin — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:, the setup of that page looks good in principle, but there are several event coordinators in the ACC team section. Can/will this be sorted out in the future or should we just fix it manually? Also, do you want me to work out a notification template? I'm happy to help out, unless you already have something in mind. Swarm ♠ 22:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: I assume those users started out as event coordinators before joining the account creation team. At this point I would guess they'd be subject to revocation of the right like the others? If you want take a stab at the template they'd be great. I can help with the templating syntax if you are not comfortable with that. Thanks! — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) I have a create a template for notifying a user that their account creator flag has been revoked or is subject to being revoked, see User:MusikAnimal/ACC notice. Feel free to change the wording. Once we're happy with it we'll move it to the template namespace. Pinging @Swarm and Callanecc: — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, good work. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Looks great! Thanks! Sorry I never got around to it, I've been taking a bit of a break. The message looks perfect to me though and two weeks seems very reasonable. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Should we add a "Notified?" parameter in the table in which we timestamp their notification? Swarm ♠ 04:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Interesting idea. Unfortunately I can't think of a way to auto-detect if the warning had been sent out, unless you're okay with the bot doing it for us. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(←) I'm a bit late to the game but this looks great in concept. Did this get lost in the finalization of implementation? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a report at User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Tracking, and the bot has been written to read changes to User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Event coordinators. However I'm currently manually running this every so often, but could make it automated if we feel this system works for us. I was thinking maybe the bot should issue a talk page notice to whoever granted the right to the event coordinator, reminding them that the event has concluded. I wish I could simply ping the admin, but there's no easy or clean way to do this. At any rate, I can have the bot task run automatically say, every 12 hours. How does that sound? — MusikAnimal ^talk 08:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is really that urgent, updating a list every few days should be more the sufficient, patrolling admins can work through it; this is such a low volume area. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's not urgent, just that if we wanted to issue a timely notification to the granting admin it would need to run a little more often. That's if admins remember to use the new system of adding event coordinators to User:MusikBot/ACCMonitor/Event coordinators... the process feels kinda weird, to be honest. Maybe just the report itself will do. A better idea I think is to add the date of the edit-a-thon in the user rights change summary, which many admins already do. The bot could just parse it -- it can read any date format, and also look for "edit-a-thon", "event", etc. I could add that to the admin instructions. If people don't do it, that's fine, if the used any kind of term like "event" the bot can report it as "probable event coordinator". I don't want to put too much process into it, as it is a low-volume area. I don't think we've had any event coordinators come through in quite a while — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Musikanimal: Alright, I'm going to start going down the list because I've put it off long enough. We've done all the preparation we need to and all it really requires at this point is one good grind. Once it's done, the upkeep will be minimal. It looks like the overwhelming majority of users on the list were not part of the ACC team and/or have virtually never made use of the tool; I think these can simply be revoked without advanced notice. I'll note the users I have given the two week notice to on the Tracking talk page but right now that's only looking like a small handful. Should be able to get this done fairly soon. Swarm ♠ 20:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Sounds good! I don't believe anyone has been following this procedure, so I've only been running it manually. Soon I'm going to add a "purge" link to the page, so the bot can check the so-called "touched" timestamp, and if it's changed the run the task in full. This will address my concern, as if no one is using it I don't want to be running these operations regularly. Going to run it right now so you'll have fresh data to go off of. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

PermClerk 2.0

The new and improved (so-called) PermClerk task is just about ready for deployment! This release includes lots of bug fixes, performance improvements, and much cleaner code, which you probably don't care about. What you do care about is:

• New feature of reporting if a user has had the requested right revoked in the past N days, as specified in the config (codenamed CheckRevoked). I hope to get this implemented for AWB as well, but currently it does not
• As proposed above, the AWB registration page will be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, taking on an almost identical process as the other PERM pages. The only differences are the ability to request for a primary account or bot, and the links in the templates (e.g. link to edit the checkpage and not assign rights)
• The bot comments if a user already has AWB access or if they are a sysop
• New configuration for when to show {{admin backlog}}. This can all be tweaked as needed, but currently the bot will add our custom {{WP:PERM/Backlog}} if there are more than 3 requests or a request that is over a week old. This logic applies to all pages except WP:PERM/ACC, as we have event coordinators requesting account creator rights there, and given the potential time constraints a single request should be considered a backlog

Any other ideas before I proceed? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

We can probably do away with the bot section of the AWB request page, WP:BAG doesn't send operators away to other pages to go request their own flags, the user can easily resolve such a request on their request for bot authorization page. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with that! — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging all recent PERM admins @Beeblebrox, Biblioworm, Graeme Bartlett, Earwig, KrakatoaKatie, Kudpung, Nakon, The Earwig, Xaosflux, and Worm That Turned:

Per the above discussion this a done deal. AWB requests are now included as part of the WP:PERM suite of pages. Additionally there are a few new bot features, as outlined above. Everything is configurable, see the documentation for more info. Let me know of any issues! Many thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• As always, I'm fine with anything that will leave even less scope for non adminss who think they have to come and clerk the pages for us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  What's wrong with non-admins helping out? We're not any better than they are. Biblioworm 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am happy with the new features. I will have to add the new page to my watchlist. I expect that non admins may still draw attention to socks, and blocks and AN/I appearances of the candidates. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
• Love it. You are full of all kinds of awesomeness. And yes, need to keep the wannabe clerks away. God, I know they want to help, but I've got a guy who made his own templates to try and clerk AIV. That's like herding cats. Go and build an encyclopedia already. Katie^talk 00:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• Looks great! Thanks, Nakon 05:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  I've changed the check revoked task (checking if the user had the requested permission revoked) to look over the past 180 days. 90 days makes sense for declined requests, but those could be declined just because they weren't ready. Revocation of user rights is most likely due to misuse of the tool(s), so a more extended check seems reasonable to me. How do you all feel about this? We can change it back to 90, or 42, whatever :) Also this task now works for AWB — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• 180 is fine, I always check the prior log as part of any consideration anyway. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'd be tempted to check for rights revocation over the previous year (365 days) – Admins would certainly have the discretion to ignore revocations older than 3 or 6 months previous... but, if it were me, I'd want to know if they'd lost rights within the past year. Just my $0.02. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016

i am part of the organiser of a series of workshops that involves inviting participant to edit on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/justfortherecord Sarah magnan (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah magnan: If you mean that you would like to request the Account Creator user right, this is not the correct page, you need to make your request here Mlpearc (open channel) 22:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That page is semi-protected, along with all of the other PERM pages except Confirmed. It seems account creator should be another exception, but we don't normally grant this to brand new accounts.

@Sarah magnan: As you are requesting this user right for a specific event and are fairly new to Wikipedia, I will grant it subject to you agreeing with the following conditions:

• The userright will be granted for the time you need it only. When you've finished using the right please tell me on my talk page so I can remove it from your account.
• Do not select the Ignore the blacklist or Ignore the spoofing checks options when creating accounts. You may use the right only to override the account creation rate-limit. Any requested accounts which need the blacklist or spoofing checks to be overridden will need to be directed to the request an account process.
• Usernames should not be offensive, misleading, disruptive, promotional, or otherwise inappropriate, in accordance with the username policy. This includes usernames implying shared use, such as the name of a company. If you are not sure about a username defer it to the request an account process.

These terms of use are a procedural precaution. Please reply here that you agree to them and I will grant you account creation userright. You can ping me using the code {{U|MusikAnimal}} or {{ping|MusikAnimal}}. Thank you! — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)