• Sswonk (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 · taiv)}

I asked the admin who closed my request for permissions in November to rule again after four and a half months, during which I added several new articles and expansions of previous stubs or redirects, if they would now grant the permission. They have asked me to repost here, and if I am reading their meaning correctly it is due to a concern about notability needing three references. I note the article they pointed to has ten references, however they requested the history be reviewed here.

I feel that I should have this permission, as I had and earned it previously, and only lost it to an arbitrary "three years inactivity rule" which takes into account none of the guidelines, just a time period. I looked at the "last edit on" date for several dozen other users who had permissions revoked on the morning of May 13, 2025, 1,234 users. I am the only user I have found that came back to editing. I have added articles since returning, they are all solid. You can trust the sources on Boundary County to tell you if the first album by one of the more admired artists in Americana is notable.

I will honestly say, I don't like the arbitrariness of these decisions. The reliance of blue linked articles to shoot down other editors is one of the least enjoyable aspects of Wikipedia. I am certain the practice keeps more editors from joining, and contributes to the need for what I am trying to do, fight coverage gaps and the gender gap. I simply disagree, so for another look at giving me the permission I once had I am pinging @User:HJ_Mitchell who granted that to me in 2011 to ask if they have any reservations about restoration.

All of the articles I mention that I have improved or added were reviewed, none were AfDd, all have supporting structured data from Wikidata which I either added or confirmed, and none were even edited in any significant way by new page patrollers. They left them as is, because there isn't a reason for NPP to object. So, please lessen their workload and restore the permission, it would not have been removed if I had simply made one edit – that seems pretty silly. It was removed in error, please restore. Sswonk (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Sswonk

For context, my concerns with Boundary County are not around WP:THREE, but WP:SIGCOV, everything besides [8] seems to fall into the "mentioned as part of a broader story on the artist" territory. Sohom (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

For reviewing administrators, note this November 2025 request and the subsequent... interaction on my talk page. (Non-administrator comment) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi TS and Sohom, you both are certainly welcome to repeat your concerns but I for my part am giving the last paragraph above as my response. This is not a bar exam, my request for permission is to restore it after it was removed by an automated process. I am not making beginner mistakes, I know what I am doing. I deserve respect here. I want the permission returned quickly so we all can move on. The only problems I have on this site are with supercilious personalities, and bias. TS and Sohom are competent, yet overruling their repeated hesitancy would be "being bold" as I have been in covering the subjects I do, subjects which justify coverage. If I claim "80% of editors are men and the ratio is enough to sustain systemic bias", I am not discovering a problem that needs fixing that no one knows about. We all know it. It is no doubt the greatest problem this site has – subconscious misogyny. I think I can bring eyes out of the published guidelines and into a new vista where those guidelines are not cages that compartmentalize subjects into niches or oblivions that perpetuate the bias. Sswonk (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Based on this reply, I am going to formally oppose. Your opening statement says "I feel that I should have this permission, as I had and earned it previously". AP is given to ease the work that new page reviewers do, it isn't something that is "earned" upon authoring 25 articles. "There isn't a reason for NPP to object", this is also wrong. AP is given at the discretion of the reviewing administrator, it is not a decision granted by NPP alone, though their support certainly helps. You went inactive, so the removal of AP was not an "error" either.

Your reply to @Sodium, especially the statement of demanding respect and accusing other editors of misogyny is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I trust that @Sodium's concerns regarding a lack of SIGCOV in articles you have authored holds up. A quick inspection of Boundary County (album)'s sources certainly confirms that. I don't believe AP should be granted. (Non-administrator comment) 11WB (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Listen, that isn't true. It feels like you are projecting a teenage personality on me, I'm afraid. Assumption is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. Sohom and TS are able to protect their reputations without my statements being refuted, or broadcast as what they are not, which you have unfortunately done. The error of using an arbitrary automated process applies to everyone who had rights removed, it makes no sense to me. It echoes the current trend in governments to remove rights. I feel there is an institutionalized voice of disapproval, too easy to grab and hold onto. If you could get past that feeling that I carry bad faith, 11WB, I would appreciate it.

It has little if anything to do with faith, one way or any other, it has to do with institutional bias. What I assume about the two editors is that they are relying on policies that I need to show are biased but that they can't see as biased. There is no way this project can maintain integrity with SIGCOV the ruling principle in a battle with the coverage gap. It is and has been for 25 years flawed in that regard. The permission that was removed should not have been removed – it was wrong to take something earned like that.

Boundary County, as the first album by a highly regarded performer and songwriter, contains material that is performed by Jewell on her current tour. It contains some of her best songs, by her own and critics' estimations. This use of SIGCOV is to say, "well, we have to delete that because not enough people noticed at the time", sorry, plainly not wise. The policy is the problem. Sswonk (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I say this with all due respect, but I can't reasonably have a conversation with somebody who defaults to "institutionalised bias". I switched off at the first line in fact. I'm not "projecting" anything onto you. I read your reply and found a lack of assuming good faith, which is one of the site's pillars. I'll leave you with the following: you've recently been warned about WP:CIVILITY. AP isn't a badge, it is to make the work of new page reviewers easier. At this moment, your articles have notability issues. If you author some articles that lack these issues, you will likely have a better chance of applying for requesting AP in the future. A better attitude goes a long way too. Take care. 11WB (talk) 12:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not "applying for AP". I had it taken away in a flawed way. I am asking for that to be reversed. I left the project because of an administrative attack from User:BHG that made it more of a punishment than a pleasure to volunteer here. It isn't what I'm here for, I want people who look up "Boundary County" to be able to read and find more information about the artist, the style of music, and so on. That information is not as easy to find as it could be, I help with the search. I find that rewarding. I don't like what you are saying about me, but I don't know how to respond without defending myself, so I told you what you made me feel like. I support my request. Sswonk (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I misspoke. I meant to say "request". Thank you for pointing that out. I'm not going to be replying here any further. Best of luck with your request! 11WB (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sswonk (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

To the wider community, I am not removing this request. I am not interested in being accused of having any sort of character flaws going forward. This request should be granted as routine, it has not been. I understand the policies and guidelines, and they, like the gender composition of our editing cohort, can be seen as flawed without having to assume any bad faith.

Further, as a matter of course, this process at this page is flawed. There is no reason for this to be a place to argue about flawed policy that perpetuates bias. I don't make it that. I am asking for something I have earned to be returned to me. Having to endure this as if I am at the Supreme Court, or a bar exam, fielding questions from the assembled, and demonstrate a level of faith which I am not privy to, does not demonstrate a level of fairness that I can feel comfortable with. Sswonk (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done You are not entitled to AP and making demands is a nonstarter. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Please specify the "demands" in text, voorts. I don't want you to feel insulted, but for my part I will state affirmatively and without any reservation, I am not making "demands". If that isn't what you meant, fine, but I am not "making demands" on this website or anywhere else. I feel anger coming from you in what you wrote, so I want you to have the opportunity to clarify what you mean. I am pretty dumbfounded by all of this. I see me writing "Please", voorts. Sswonk (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop assuming what people are thinking or feeling. You've repeatedly made clear that you feel you are entitled to AP. You are not. It's a permission, not a right. Feel free to take this to WP:XRV if you want a review of my administrative action here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that Sswonk has opened an ANI discussion related to this request. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Timur9008 (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 · taiv)}

• ILoveHirasawaYui (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 · taiv)}

I want to find all the pages titled Thout 1, Thout 2, Thout 3, etc and redirect them to Thout, and do this for all the other articles about Category:Days of the Coptic calendar. This is because those pages are hard to maintain, and all the information on them is on the month articles anyway. But there are 366 of them, so it would be very tedious to do this manually. 🎸平沢唯は俺の嫁🐱 ( talk | contribs ) 22:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• SID 'Gingerfool' RAT (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 · taiv)}

I would like access in order to be able to speed up and aid the completion of useful edits. SID 'Gingerfool' RAT ☎ 16:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. The vagueness of this request combined with WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive376#Mass Edit Revert being less than 50 edits ago make me disinclined to grant at this time. Re-build a track record of constructive manual editing, and then come back if there's a specific mass editing task that you think the tool might help you with. Left guide (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• MucusianPhlegm (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 · taiv)}

I want to upload gameplay photos for games like class of ‘09 and hiveswap MucusianPhlegm (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Aristorkle (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 · taiv)}

• AML KING (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 · taiv)}

I am a very active contributor (3,000+ edits) with experience in Afc, tone editing, structure fixes, adding/fixing infoboxes, and most other aspects of intermediate and advanced editing. I've written 6 or so articles myself, but I generally focus my energy on fixing existing articles by reviewing information and making edits for compliance with style and formatting. Some examples are provided on my user page.

I have also edited articles in Draftspace created by others that went to mainspace after review.

Most of all, I want to help with the backlog and make the draft process as seamless as possible for other contributors. AML KING (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@AML KING Did you have a rename? -- The AFC stats tool does not bring up your AFC contributions? Sohom (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No. I think you might have misunderstood. I’ve submitted to AFC, gone through the process a few times, edited other articles not created by me and helped them get accepted.

Is there some other stat for a different activity within AFC that I didn’t do? AML KING (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That stat would be the number of articles reviewed. My personal take would be for you to start there by applying for WP:AFCH/P to get a foot into reviewing drafts of new editors and see if you want to do it more. For context, NPP typically requires a demonstration of the understanding of the application of notability across a lot of pages and I don't that here. Sohom (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Sohom that your article creation and deletion track record is not quite there yet, given the recent deletion of an article you created at AfD a bit over a month ago. Please gain some more experience in these areas, then consider reapplying down the road.  Not done for now. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Lanceloth345 (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 · taiv)}

I’d like to request new page reviewer rights as i've been contributing for some time now, mainly creating and improving articles related to Albania. I am familiar mostly with topics such as biographies, history, geography, and current social and political context, i try to follow Wikipedia’s core policies on sourcing and neutrality. Thank you in advance Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Lanceloth345, could you comment on your decision to recreate an article at Ledja Liku last fall? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It was based on my already project improving Albania related articles. At that time i was thinking to recreate that article with more neutral verified sources, based on media coverage of her and her last show as producer. Lanceloth345 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Tatupiplu (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 · taiv)}

I was inactive during 2025 and lost access to NPR rights during that period due to inactivity. I'm now back and can dedicate some time to reviewing new pages again. I've also updated myself on the recent Wikipedia policy changes and am doing my best to participate in AfDs. Tatupiplu'^talk 14:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done, you seem to be a fair ways short of Kudpung and Hey man im josh's recommendation of returning to active editing and completing 500 edits since your absence before requesting this permission again. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• CherryPie94 (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 · taiv)}

I've had the temporary for a few stints, coming up to expiry this month. If my record is fine, I'm requesting to be granted NPP on a permanent basis and looking forward to be extremely active in the summer. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by HJ Mitchell (expires 00:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot ^talk 08:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

CherryPie94, could you walk me through your review process for Chang Kuo-wei? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Abdullah1099 (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 · taiv)}

Hey everyone, I had involved in AfD and has been a AfC reviewer for more than a month, My AfC/AfD log. So I request for NPP right. This the second time tried for it Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days ([9]). — MusikBot ^talk 12:10, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Abdullah1099 FYI you don't have to log them manually. In the WP:AFCH preferences there is an option to add a log which does it automatically, and your AfD stats are at [10]. HurricaneZeta^C 20:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Absolutiva (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 · taiv)}

Hello, I should grant my page mover rights over a year and 14,942 edits, so I made requested moves, I understand this guide, it's for my third time. Absolutiva 23:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Go D. Usopp (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 · taiv)}

• Chat-qui-Aboie (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 · taiv)}

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for a good amount of time now, and have made a relatively sizable amount of edits for what is common within that time period. I would like to expand the ways in which I can contribute to the English Wikis, and helping review the backlog of pending changes is one way to get that ball rolling. Chat-qui-Aboie (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Ajheindel (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 · taiv)}

I have been editing for a bit now, including helping out at recent changes, so I am familiar with vandalism policies and the procedures related to that. There have been a few times now I wanted to accept a pending revision, but I just never applied for the right. Hopefully my experience so far is enough, thanks. Ajheindel (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• AriuCH (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 · taiv)}

I’m requesting pending changes reviewer rights. I edit regularly, often fix BLP issues, and I’m familiar with the reviewing guidelines. AriuCH (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user has had an account for 17 days. — MusikBot ^talk 00:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin but would remind you that applicants who are new (read: 17 days) to wikipedia will not be granted this right. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 13:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Phlogiston Enthusiast (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 · taiv)}

Hello! I am Phlogiston Enthusiast. I would like a moment of your time to request rollback rights. I believe that I could use rollback permissions to assist in anti-vandalism in the recent changes tab. There are multiple reasons for this. For one, it would streamline reverts on articles that need them, and be a useful tool against vandalism. This is because if a user is making edits of a vandalistic nature, they are likely to have made multiple. Rollback would assist with these issues and prevent long and drawn-out revert wars by vandals. Second, I believe that I meet the qualifications for the role. I possess experience patrolling the recent changes section, and have reverted many vandalous edits. If need be, I can attempt to provide a comprehensive list of the articles on which I have combatted vandalism. Finally, I understand that it looks bad to have had two arguments over vandalism-related subjects in the past. However, I would argue that this is almost the opposite, as having a clean record with no mistakes would mean that I had no mistakes to learn from, and as well I have apologized to all parties involved in both. In summary, I believe that I should possess rollback rights as to better combat vandalism, and if need be there can be elaboration. If not, I completely understand.

Ammending: this was written roughly a month ago. I was told that I would need one month's experience more before I should re-apply. I have since aqquired more than this. I have been the cause for scores of blocks and have better since de-vandalized the Wiki. Following my embarrasing mishap recently reguarding confusion over the tool, I have better researched it and now believe I would be more fit to utilize this. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 20:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([11]). — MusikBot ^talk 20:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Of note, possibly: Following my removal of every single known instance of a specific syntax error, I have gone up to 1030 edits. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 15:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also every instance of this one. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This brings it up to 1053. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 17:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

After doing both again today I'm up to 1093. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 16:25, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That isn't really relevant to rollback though; admins will check your edits when they review this, and reverts and counter-vandalism is what matters for rollback. HurricaneZeta^C 16:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. Just trying to say I understand to an extent what does and does not break syntax. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 16:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Also worth ammending is that it would provide access to interceptor, which is a useful tool I believe I could do a great deal of antivandalism with in a way that is more efficient than the typical recent changes page. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Also of note: I am now a Pending Changes Reviewer. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 14:49, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Phlogiston Enthusiast, an admin will review the needed information. I don't see how a lot of these notes are relevant to rollback; pending changes requires some overlapping skills with rollback (such as the ability to effectively determine what is vandalism), but it is an entirely different right for good reason, and does require different skills. Rollback's primary purpose is to assist with recent changes patrolling. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. Just trying to put everything on the table here. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 02:25, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding comment so it is clear this is still open and so it doesn't get archived from inactivity. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 16:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Not to sound picky, just wanted to make sure two weeks of inactivity and lack of approval/denial wouldn't make this stagnate and die. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 19:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding another comment, since it has now been 22 without this being responded too and I don't want this to get archived. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 18:03, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

It has been twenty-seven days and there has been no administrator response, or even so much as a comment. In the most respectful way possible, I would like to know why, as other people have recieved responses in that time. (Talk) PHLOGISTON ENTHUSIAST 13:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Not an admin, but happy to answer this. There is no specific set amount of time from requesting a permission to being granted it. Administrators review these boards in their own time and at their own discretion. There is nothing personal, don't worry. An administrator will respond eventually! 11WB (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed by this interaction, which is a clear failure to deny recognition, and to a lesser extent this edit summary [12]. However, I'm not sure what the norms are for granting rollback, so I'll leave this for another admin to decide. Toadspike [Talk] 21:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Theeverywhereperson (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 · taiv)}

I would like to renew my rollback rights, because I have been using AntiVandal constructively, and the same other reasons as my most recent request. Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Namely:

1. I am a recent changes patroller and have been patrolling for a few months now,
2. I have made more than 700 edits in mainspace and more than 1700 edits in total,
3. Since I am already a pending changes reviewer, I am also used to reverting vandalism in some areas where it isn't visible to everyone yet, so I think I am trained for the job,
4. This would allow me to use tools like AntiVandal to revert vandalism easier and faster, for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.

Theeverywhereperson talk here 11:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user was granted temporary rollback rights by HJ Mitchell (expires 00:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)) and has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([13]). — MusikBot ^talk 11:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Toadspike [Talk] 21:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Legendbird (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 · taiv)}

Hello! I am already doing antivandal/recent change patrol work, and am alredy familiar with Twinkle, but wish for rollbacker permissions to be able to use more powerful tools, such as AntiVandal. Thank you for your consideration in advance! Legendbird (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This editor only has 148 non-automated mainspace edits, --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Legendbird I don't see any reason not to grant you rollback, but I'm concerned about your really sporadic activity levels. Do you intend to regularly edit Wikipedia in the foreseeable future? Toadspike [Talk] 21:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• OzmoOzmo (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 · taiv)}

Recently I have been facing disruptive editors who have been making edits extremely quickly. For example, HermeneuticMind, who was adding LLM-generated content to articles en masse, and Goldfishgonnabedeadsoon.

With rollback, I will be able to revert these unconstructive editors much faster than pressing the [vandalism] button with Twinkle for every one of their edits, which is inconvenient, inefficient and slow. -- ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contributions) 11:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

And will also be able to use more powerful tools such as WP:HG and WP:ANVDL. Thank you, ozmoozmo@enwiki (talk:contribs) 06:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by the recent use of Ultraviolet to do a BLP revert on an article on someone who has been dead since 1984. Access to instant rollback needs to come with a pattern of not just automatically reverting without carefully checking the context. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done for a three-month trial period. I looked at a variety of other edits and didn't find anything concerning. In fact, Ozmo's follow-up in that situation [14] was commendable. Toadspike [Talk] 21:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• NuggFrog (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 · taiv)}

Hi! I am requesting rollback rights today so that I can be more effective in my work within the CVU. My two primary areas I work in are counter vandalism and copyvio, and my job in both departments would be a lot easier if I had rollback permissions. I am very interested in trying tools such as Interceptor, AntiVandal, and Wikishield so that I can be the most efficient counter vandalism volunteer as I can. Thanks in advance :) 「NuggFrog」 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done for a one-month trial period. My only advice from looking at your recent reverts is to say "vandalism" less often. "Vandalism" assumes malicious intent. Edits like this one [15] could more accurately be described as a "test edit" or "unexplained removal". In other cases "unsourced" can also come in handy.Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@NuggFrog Ping so you can take a look at the above advice :) Toadspike [Talk] 21:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Kadermonkey (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 · taiv)}

Rollback permissions would be incredibly useful for what i do, which is mostly patrolling recent changes. I have a history of making good edits and while redwarn rollback is useful, actual rollback rights would be much more useful since i could actually use proper tools. Kadermonkey (She/Her) (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• LuigiMcpe4549 (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 · taiv)}

Hello. My name is LuigiMcpe4549. I would like to request rollback rights. That is because I have done some good edits and revert some vandalism on Wikipedia. I think that it is useful in case of crazy vandalism. It's ok if my application is denied. Cheers! :) LuigiMcpe4549 (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Automated comment This user has 89 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot ^talk 13:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 89 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have sufficient editing experience yet. Take a moment to check out what counter-vandalism is at WP:CVU, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand. LuigiMcpe4549 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• BlueStaticHorse (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 · taiv)}

I would like rollbacker rights to revert vandalism. I have several months of reverting vandalism, and I almost always notify users when reverting their edits. I'm a pending changes reviewer, so I also have some experience reviewing an edit and checking to see if it should be reverted or not. Thanks! BlueStaticHorse (talk)(they/them) 18:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• AllegedlyAPhotographer (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 · taiv)}

• Mastercane FRX9500S (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 · taiv)}

I have been helping before on reporting users on Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard:Incidents, and helping, I have been very active on Wikipedia for over 6 months, and I am wanting to known if I can have this user right, if yes, I would be happy if not, then okay, and also I want to participate on WP:LTA/A5. 🌀 Mastercane F X 🌀 🌀 Talk Page! 🌀 18:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

User has since been renamed to Mastercane FRX9500S; updating request. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mastercane FRX9500S Hi, TPIV is given only if you need access is TA IPs. I'm seeing three edits to ANI and one to AIV. Also, you don't need to ask for permission to add reports to A5's SPI. See premature Autopatrolled request. GiftedIceCream 13:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

• Magitroopa (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 · taiv)}

I have been long helping with reporting disruptive editing/vandalism/block evasion, whether it be reports at AIV, ANI, or SPI. With the amount of these kinds of cases I've been dealing with/attempting to figure out, it seems like TAIV permission would be beneficial for my use. Will also note that I was recommended to apply for this via administrator Newslinger. Magitroopa (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Griboski (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 · taiv)}

As an editor in the Balkans topic area, I have a history of reporting socking and vandalism. Having this ability would facilitate this work by comparing IPs. I have read the criteria for use and understand the guidelines. Griboski (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)