Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:PERM)

Administrator instructions

Requests for permissions
This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify account creator, autopatrolled, confirmed, file mover, extended confirmed, mass message sender, new page reviewer, page mover, pending changes reviewer, rollback, template editor rights and AutoWikiBrowser access.
Editors wishing to request a permission flag here should do so following the procedure below. Editors requesting permissions are advised to periodically revisit the requests page, as notifications will not always be given after a decision is made. Editors should not expect their request to be answered right away and should remember to be patient when filing a request. To find out what permissions your account has, go to Special:Preferences, where your permissions are listed in the user profile tab under "Member of groups".
Requests for permissions are archived regularly, please see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive for an index of past requests.
Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 06:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Handled here

User groups

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

Handled elsewhere

Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:

Removal of permissions

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

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

Note: The bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight flags cannot be removed using this process page; those need to be posted at Steward requests/Permissions. Stewards will typically not carry out such requests unless they are made on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, by a user who is requesting their own access be removed, or in cases of an emergency.



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

Any editor may comment on requests for permission.


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

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

Current requests

Account creator



Am I eligible to be granted this one? Given that, I will keep creating decent articles on diverse topics. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Dial911 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has created roughly 8 articles. MusikBot talk 23:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually 12. 2 have been in AfD discussion for so many days now. I am waiting for it to end so that I can know whether to contribute to them or not now. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done the requirement is for articles, not pages, but even if we counted the other pages, you would still be well under half the 25 article guideline. Unfortunately, I don't see a need to grant this to you now. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


This user a strong history of making quality articles with excellent referencing. Has made 61 mainspace articles (excl. redirects) with none deleted. No reason for their work to fill up the new pages feed. (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 16:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)



I would like to make changes like this to United States federal courts and AWB would help speed the process up (there are ~100 court pages that I would like to make this change to). If granted this right, I would likely use AWB in the future for the maintenance of other WP:USCJ articles. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 01:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


See this discussion. There is an obvious consensus that this particular construction is ungrammatical and needs to be repaired on ~500 pages but each usage needs to be examined and changed by a human considering the sentence as a whole. I would like to make this type of correction and have done so already on 50 pages without complaint but the process is slow. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that the RfC has not yet finished, and there is no consensus to remove every instance of 'allows to' present on WP. Maybe it is a little premature to be making these edits systematically. Though I shall leave the reviewing administrator to decide. Sb2001 17:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Which is why I said they need human review and not a programmatic function, a solution that I understand AWB will assist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done for now. This seems to be the only reason you want access, and the discussion is only 10 days old. No prejudice against re-requesting if and when the RFC closes (if appropriate). Primefac (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)



Hi, my name is Toby I created my wiki account in June 2017. I have made WELL over 10 edits for my account and for some reason I have not been autoconfirmed.

I would very much appreciate it if you could manually confirm my account! Thank you for your consideration. Toby(Technosword) Technosword (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done - You have made exactly nine edits, including three which have been deleted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Farhath Banu.S

Farhath Banu.S (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done No reason listed. — xaosflux Talk 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:S.K.Hari Priya

please accept my request.I will be responsible for my account S.K.Hari Priya (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done No exception reason listed. — xaosflux Talk 16:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


P.mahalakshmi (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done no reason listed. — xaosflux Talk 04:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed

File mover


I am already a file mover on Wikimedia Commons and I would like to help out with file renaming requests on English Wikipedia. I understand the file mover guidelines and I am willing to help out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iridescent and Primefac: I seem to remember both of you recently warning this user for automated maintenance tasks on AN. I'm not sure if it relates directly to this request, but thought I would ping you given the competence concerns there. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: However, I am already a filemover on Wikimedia Commons so I do understand the filemover policies. I haven't been warned at all for violation of filemover at Commons. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't ask this right in the first place without reading the policies. I know that I am not suitable to be an Administrator yet but I definitely think that I am suitable for Filemover. This is the honest evidence that I am a filemover on Wikimedia Commons. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, I am completely aware of the recent warning for automated maintenance tasks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a different kettle of fish. I have no major issues with granting this perm, but I also don't do much with file renaming so I'll leave it to someone more involved with the task to make the final call. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done on a 3-month/temporary/trial period. After 3 months the permission will automatically be revoked and you will have to re-appply. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass message sender

User:Tom (LT)

Occasional newsletter I wish to disseminate. Recommended by Xaosflux here (User_talk:Tom_(LT)#MMS)... I don't have a strong wish either way, but this right may help reduce the burden on other editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 11:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Donexaosflux Talk 16:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

New page reviewer


I hope that I am eligible to become a New page reviewer. I used to do that at the time when no special permission was required. If I am not eligible, then please guide me so that I can reach on that threshold. Thanks. Suman420 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Comment: 0 edits in 2017, 10 edits so far in 2018. Last review 19th of June, 2015.Adotchar| reply here 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done You can start by reading Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers more carefully. Alex Shih (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I went through that article. Can you elaborate it from where I should get started? Suman420 (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Suman420, but you nowhere near reach the minimum required exprience, and you would also need to demonstrate an editing history that shows that you have a need for the tools and are likely to use them. You haven't edited the encyclopedia for 2 years. I suggest that you start by doing some work as a recent changes patroller and as a rollbacker first. I would expect to see 3 consecutive months of solid work before according New Page Reviewer. To learn more about it in the meantime, you will need to read WP:NPP and all the Curation tutorials and videos it links to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I am up for it. Should I withdraw myself now from here? Suman420 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The red x above is enough for this report to be closed out by the bot. It will be archived automatically. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I've been contributing to wikipedia for a while now and having an extra hand to review new pages won't hurt. I understand the WP:NPP guidelines and the tutorial. Nat965 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nat965: Thank you for applying. I feel uneasy about your low participation in project namespace. Would you mind providing some examples that demonstrate your understanding of policies and guidelines? Alex Shih (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I have been applying for reviewing newly created pages for so long and have been denied each time for some reason or the other. I have been told to wait, to gain more experience and to gain further more experience and now it seems like infinity would run out but this 'more' experience issue would not go off me. If anyone could just take a look at what I do with AfC process, they would realize that I can certainly make decisions about what page should stay and what should not. It takes a lot of time to cross-check the sources, run copyvio, see if there is something related on Wiki already, refer back to the policies and apply whatever it takes to make the draft publishable in the encyclopedia. And most importantly, it takes time, efforts and knowledge to suggest new editors what to do and what to avoid so as to get their drafts approved. I luckily have time, I want to help and expand my horizons and experience here. Moreover, NPR tutorial says it is 'the place to broadly accept articles that may not be perfect but do not need to be deleted.' and I know what should not be deleted. Besides, I am confident and aware that my experience and thorough understanding of policies and respective essays about guidelines would help me exercise this responsible task efficiently. It discourages a willing, dedicated and sensible editor every time their application gets refused. And that too for reasons like 'do this first; do that first and then feel free to re-apply.' I learn a lot from it, I learn a lot from discussions going on inside Wiki. I fear that this denial would force me to stop investing my time and efforts on Wikipedia which I really don't want to do. And this, I tell you, would be the very result of strict gate-keeping that has been going on here. I respect the experience and trust our administrators have earned through all these years. It is astonishing to see how most of them have been here since more than a decade. However, I appeal them to be a little liberal and not gauge my capabilities solely based on numerical data they see. I can't show how much time I spend on Wikipedia reading several essays and guidelines. I can't show you guys how seriously I take each and every AfC task. Neither I can show that I often see that NPR flowchart in my dreams, nor I can show how proud I feel for contributing my bit to the encyclopedia. I have been thinking of doing something new on Wikipedia for many days now. But, nobody would let me do it! I am sorry for commenting, but that is what I wanted to say to all of you. I think this is my last application for NPR. If denied again, I will refrain myself from applying here again. Thanks for reading this. Dial911 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 3 requests for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1][2][3]). MusikBot talk 09:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Your last denial was ~6 days ago - what has changed since then? — xaosflux Talk 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Page mover


I regularly close RMs; being able to do round-robin moves and the like would obviously help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer


I would like to apply for Pending Changes reviewer right. I want to help at Special:PendingChanges. I have read and I understand all the rules and regulations. I know why some articles are protected and which additions/edits are to be accepted or rejected. I shall not misuse the right and I take all responsibilities. Thank you.  M A A Z   T A L K  11:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I generally work with rankings of countries in the field of doing bussines, corruption, human trafficiking and democracy in eng and german wikipedia. I also have AWB rights to quickly edit new pages which has certain issues. I would like to help here as well, if it is relevant for you. Thanks in advance for support. Kind regards YosyISR (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC) YosyISR (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([4]). MusikBot talk 12:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Alex Shih (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I would like to have the Pending Changes Reviwer right to help review the recent pending changes and I understand the rules for the right.  Anchorvale [email protected]  07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done I'll just note per the message on your talk page to be careful that anything you revert as vandalism is actually vandalism, and remember that pending edits are not 3RR exempt. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


I would like to be a pending changes reviewer because I meet the criteria on the page and I revert vandalism. I do have an account and I frequently edit. I also have a reasonable amount of contributions (over 10,000 excluding deleted edits). I understand the policy on vandalism and I frequently revert vandalism using Twinkle. I am familiar with the basic content policies. I have a good knowledge of the copyright policy and I routinely nominate copyright violations for deletion. I have also read the reviewing process and I understand it. I also have a lengthy CSD log at User:Pkbwcgs/CSD log where most of my speedy deletion nominations have been accepted. I understand what edits are right and what edits are acceptable and what edits are not acceptable. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


User:1.02 editor

I'm a roughly mature editor after about 4 months of service and about 1.5k edits and have been actively fighting vandalism on recent changes or whenever I come across it. 1.02 editor (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


I have a pending changes reviewer right and would find this useful when reviewing edits or come across vandalism.  Anchorvale [email protected]  11:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([5]). MusikBot talk 11:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


I'm requesting for rollback perms so I can deal with vandalism more easily and have access to more tools like Huggle. Since most of the time, I deal with vandals. Thanks. apap04¿ (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([6]). MusikBot talk 19:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Template editor

User:Ergo Sum

I have worked on protected templates for some time. Much of my work on Wikipedia now involves updating/improving templates, especially infoboxes, and I am very familiar with their architecture and template parser syntax. I intend to continue working on protected templates and this permission would make that much easier for me as well as administrators/template editors who now have to execute things that I propose. I also hope to assist other editors with {{edit template-protected}} requests. I very much strive to establish a clear consensus before taking any action on a proposal and intend to abide by all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Ergo Sum 18:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  1. Green tickY (guideline: >1, applicant: 3)
  2. Green tickY (guideline: >1000, applicant: >~11800)
  3. Green tickY (guideline: >150, applicant: ~776)
  4. Green tickY (guideline: !<6 months, applicant: NA)
  5. Green tickY (guideline: 3, applicant: ~9)
  6. ???? (guideline: 5, applicant: ~4) - Approved (1, 2 (after initial decline), 3 (after initial decline), 4 (simple TFD request), 5) Stalled/Unclear (1, 2, 3, 4)
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Has had more than a couple requests declined, but is good about seeking consensus for potentially controversial changes. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: can you comment on the declines here, specifically if you could have made these edits would you have made them in the first place? — xaosflux Talk 19:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac and Xaosflux: The declined requests were due to a misunderstanding of another editor's comment. I believed that, from the way he worded his comment, he was in agreement with my request. The administrator who was reviewing the request believed otherwise. Shortly thereafter, it was cleared up and the request went through with a slight modification. Re-reading the comments now, I still think that the editor was in agreement with my request, but I would have checked for clarification before proceeding. Ergo Sum 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. for guideline 6, I believe that I have >5 completed requests on protected templates. Ergo Sum 19:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I've updated the numbers. Sometimes "hard" numbers don't show everything. Three proposals accepted outright, two proposals declined and then accepted, and a handful of requests that either never went anywhere or I could not otherwise tell if they were implemented. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
As the TE who declined both the requests mentioned above I can see over the last few days that Ergo Sum has, through their discussions with RexxS, come to appreciate the advantages of using the sandbox to help explain the nature of their requests. While I feel Ergo Sum has the technical know-how, I'd like to see more collaborative effort & consensus building. I can also see that having the perm & answering other people's requests at TPERTable is probably the quickest & surest way to get there. Just my 2¢. Cabayi (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi: I agree that Ergo Sum has the technical know-how, but needs experience in how best to use it. For what it's worth, I'd be more than happy to be a sounding-board for Ergo Sum to use whenever they are unsure, and I don't believe they would have a problem seeking advice in those circumstances. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
RexxS, would say a 1- or 3-month trial period be acceptable? I always forget we can do that. It would allow us to revisit this discussion when they actually do have experience using the perm. Primefac (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: - that sounds a constructive idea; so why not? It's unlikely to break the wiki and stands a good chance of having a positive outcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 Done; 1 month granted as a trial/probationary period. Primefac (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Primefac Much appreciated. I hope to use the permission well. Does it automatically expire after one month/do I have to do anything after the one month period? Ergo Sum 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it will automatically expire after one month. You'll then have to come here and re-apply, but ideally that will be more of a formality than anything. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Stop by a couple days in advance, leave a comment with a permalink to this request. — xaosflux Talk 19:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


Dear Editor, The page of Journal of Fungi ( has been deleted and protected because of not being indexed in any selective databases. Now the journal has been indexing in PMC as you can see all contents are available at: Could you please help so that I can edit the item.

Thank you very much. Ccxiong10 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 18 total edits and has 0 edits in the template and module namespaces. MusikBot talk 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done. I'm not sure what you think this perm is for, Ccxiong10, but if you want to write about the Journal of Fungi I suggest you check out the Article Wizard and create a draft. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Requests for permissions"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA