Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 19:10, 24 June 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.
  • Event coordinator (add requestview requests): The event coordinator user right allows editors to create multiple new accounts, and to temporarily confirm accounts so that they can create new articles.
  • 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, event coordinator, 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




I need this to edits like this, to reduce overlinking, to correct this errors, and similar things. Tajotep (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Tajotep - I was about to approve this, but then I saw that you are indef blocked on your home wiki. Please explain the situation. Swarm 20:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Swarm: I created lots of articles of characters who appear in the videogame Assassin's Creed and I didn't support it by sources (and some of them didn't exist in real life). I was blocked one month, I created a sock puppetry, they caught me and then I was blocked indefinitely. I aslo did copy-paste. Then I came to this Wikipedia. I wish I explain myself correctly. You can see I didn't make vandal editions in this Wikipedia. --Tajotep (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I appreciate your honesty. Unfortunately it is not easy me to verify so I will ping the relevant involved users Cocolacoste and Jmvkrecords to see if they have any problems with this request, but I will approve it if they don't reply. Swarm 19:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging me. I don't see any problem with this request in sense that enwiki and eswiki are independent projects, and these kind of automatised edits doesn't need any sources to prove its veracity, Jmvkrecords Intra talk 03:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC).


To save time with repetitive tasks on articles that I contribute to frequently, and articles I stumble across doing other work and which seem to have been neglected or in need of a good tune-up or more.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request MusikBot talk 04:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


I'm admin at Galician wiki, and I wanted to try that tool at because I wanted to compare it with version. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC) Elisardojm (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done, does not meet the minimum requirements. AWB is the same across all projects. Primefac (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)



because i want to edit a page about my favorite film but it is semi protected Bob240108 (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Sorry, we do not normally grant this right to allow specific editors to edit a single article. The good news, however, is that if you submit one more edit to any page on Wikipedia, your account will be automatically confirmed, enabling you to edit semi-protected pages. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Event coordinator

Extended confirmed

File mover

Mass message sender

New page reviewer


I have created 12 articles, I have 1 DYK and 1 GA, 13,000 edits, been here for seven months so I believe I am qualified for NPP. Last time I came here, my request was declined by Alex Shih and Amorymeltzer because of an now 2 month old AWB screw-up where I got too hot and an error in accepting drafts (where I kept cool). I would like to take part in the NPP backlog drive that will start the 20th. Thanks. L293D ( • ) 16:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). MusikBot talk 16:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
L293D, no prejudice on the request, but I don't believe you have addressed why you were requesting G6 for article credit; that was the reason why the "error in accepting drafts" appeared to be very strange. At the time of your previous declined request, both of the incidents that you have mentioned here were less than month old, so your statement here is slightly misleading. Alex Shih (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Alex Shih: The G6 thing was because I wanted to do a DYK of it and I thought the page had to be created in the past week, but now I learned that there is a "created from redirect" option that works also. And I reworded my request to clarify that that AWB incident in now two months old. L293D ( • ) 17:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"An error in accepting drafts" seems euphemistic, can you explain why you did that and what was wrong? My concern is that those actions and the G6 request are connected in motive. And I'm not really sure what went on at Russian reversal. ~ Amory (utc) 16:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: You and Alex Shih raised a couple points over this request, so I'll try to explain as I can. As I said earlier, my asking TonyBallioni to G6 Comites Jeanne was first, to make a DYK of it (but there is actually a "created from redirect" option when nominating the article for DYK, so this was mere ignorance on my part), and second so the article would show up in my Xtools article creation page. Both were bad reasons for G6, and it was an error on my part to request it. The AWB screw-up was a horrible error on my part and I got way too hot in the subsequent discussion, so I'll readily apologize for that. The draft affair is a different matter; you didn't write it here, but I suspect you think I intentionally copy pasted them drafts so I could say I wrote them. This is not true: if I had wanted to take credit for their creation, I would have listed them on my user page, along with my other article creations. I didn't. The reason I did it is because they needed a lot of ironing (e.g. the references needed to be formatted, the stub template had to be moved to the bottom...) so I copy-pasted the text to the article, did the work and then published the page, instead of submitting with AFCH, accepting with AFCH, then doing the ironing and more. My idea was to save useless edits and time for everyone, but it was actually a bad one. With this explained, I hope you can consider my request. L293D ( • ) 21:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I'd call it "a lot of ironing," as the only changes you made to any of those were simply to move a template down and fill out bare references in a {{cite web}} or some such. I'd be somewhat inclined to grant this on a trial basis, but I don't think you've yet explained what was wrong about what you did? ~ Amory (utc) 14:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
My edit was a direct violation of WP:C&P and I already apologized here, here,and here!!!!! You seem to be confusing this page with RfA. There's no need to dig up (semi) old things that are for the most part, totally irrelevant to NPP. Will I destroy the wiki with this user right? Probably not. I'm sick of this discussion. Just decline this based on my incivility here or accept my request, but let's stop with the RfA-style discussion. L293D ( • ) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm very sorry if you feel attacked or that I am being over-scrutinizing — that is certainly very far from my intention, and I apologize for making you feel that way. My goal was never to demand an apology — you've been contrite from the beginning — but merely to get an explanation of what was wrong in terms of policy. As part of NPP one can expect to find numerous contributions that do not meet our policies or guidelines for inclusion, including copy-pasted material. In the course of the above conversation I asked twice for an explanation, offering a chance for you to allay concerns and show your understanding of the policy despite having violated it in April. As I indicated above, I was considering granting this on a trial basis, but I will remove myself in favor of another sysop making the call. ~ Amory (utc) 22:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I apologize for being rude, I was just getting tired of this. Pinging @TonyBallioni: and @Xaosflux:, as they are the ones who handle PERM requests most. L293D ( • ) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
and also @Kudpung:. L293D ( • ) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@L293D: I'm going to go with Amory's suggestion:  Done for a period of 1 month, after which we can reevaluate and extend to indefinite. While this isn't RfA, it's normal for administrators to ask clarifying questions whenever they're not sure about something (note that a strict interpretation of the granting guidelines would disqualify you because you have a behavioral block in the last six months). However, Amory is right that you've eventually been contrite about the mistakes you've made in the past, and you're good about acknowledging when you've gotten heated in discussions. Please ensure that you patrol new pages carefully, as you will primarily be dealing with new editors – incivility/hostility is particularly problematic when directed to them. If you are unsure about anything, don't hesitate to consult the tutorial or defer the review to another new page reviewer. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


To help the expansion of knowledge in an organise way. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([2]). MusikBot talk 17:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
yes, actually it was delayed till a matter was resolved and it is now nicely solved. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Insertcleverphrasehere raised the idea of applying to become a NPR with me, and I'd be interested in helping. I've previously been involved in article improvement quite a bit, racking up 4 FAs, 18 FLs, an FPortal, some 225 GAs and 570 DYKs. More recently I've been creating articles for Women in Red, so I've been keeping up with the policies on creating new articles. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done ~ Amory (utc) 01:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


I would like to be a New page reviewer so that I can help keep the backlog low. I have looked at the guidelines for granting and I can confirm I meet them. I have also participated in a few AFD discussions to familiarise myself with Wikipedia's notability requirements. Araratic | talk 04:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


I was told to re-apply after meeting the time requirement. My last request was declined by Kudpung because my account was below 90-days old. I'd like to have the right to help out with the backlog. Here's a link to my logs if it helps. The editor whose username is Z0 11:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC) The editor whose username is Z0 11:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([3]). MusikBot talk 11:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Page mover


Have had a few instances recently where having the permission would have been useful, so as to not have to wait for someone else to make a move to accommodate a new article or new redirect (particularly useful when dealing with radio station articles when call letters change and "new" calls are actually old ones used by another station, which are currently redirecting...) StrikerforceTalk 13:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


In continuation to my earlier requests below (given by the bot), I was asked to come back again if needed. I already have FileMover right and work on File spaces. I have been facing the need to move the (Shadow Commons) files without leaving redirects. already 25 this month and 12 as of today on User:DBigXray/CSD_log And I plan to continue my work of helping files with shadow commons. The previous request was denied as the admin wanted more than "a few" examples. I Hope this should be ok to see that I have a genuine need and use for this right. --DBigXray 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([4][5]). MusikBot talk 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


I have moved pages in the past (mostly from my sandbox) and would like the tools Page Movers get. This would have been useful during those page moves. This would make editing wikipedia easier for me to edit. As the guidlines say I do have experience with moving pages. I almost have 3,000 edits as of time of submiting but I get over 3,000 soon. I have been editing for a few years now. ★BrandonALF★ talk edits 03:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has 2696 total edits. MusikBot talk 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. This is not what Page mover is for. This right is only given to experienced editors with a clear need to move pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer


I patrol a few India-related pages that are under PC protection. I already help out by reverting bad edits, but I'd like to do more by accepting good edits and improving the not-entirely-bad ones. I have done a bit of anti-vandalism work and I am aware of core content policies, WP:BLP and WP:NOT. I have read the guidelines on reviewing. —Gazoth (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! —Gazoth (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


I have been reverting some bad faith pending changes (nearly 25) for some time , I think this right would help me accept the good ones .I confirm that I have familiarised myself with pending changes. Kpgjhpjm 18:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Mz7 (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


I have a passion for reviewing peoples work and editing it to the best of my ability. This is why I love editing Wikipedia; I would like the pending changes reviewer right to keep Wikipedia updated with the newest edits as well as bringing up its reputation. I have been editing Wikipedia constantly since I joined and would like to go further.Louis (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had an account for 5 days and has 18 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 08:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done Thanks for your enthusiasm, glad you're enjoying it here! Reviewing pending changes requires an established track record of editing and firm understanding and experience with many of the content policies. Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes#Becoming_a_reviewer has more information, but as a relatively new account, it's hard to confirm comprehension of the policies. That shouldn't stop you from continuing editing, though — there's plenty around here to do, and you don't need this to edit further! ~ Amory (utc) 15:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


Hello again!

I know the bot is going to put something right below this saying I've applied before and been denied for experience reasons. I have reached 30 days on Wikipedia, almost have extended confirmed access (just 50 more edits!), and have read just about all the policies. I come here to re-request the right, as I have more experience than my first application for this role. Additional note: I've also gotten a bit of experience reviewing things, as I've picked up a hobby of GA reviewing as well as my RC patrolling. It's going well, to be honest.

Thanks! EggRoll97 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([6]) and has had an account for 29 days. MusikBot talk 19:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your work so far to Wikipedia, it's nice to see a new user every once in a while. I honestly could care less about what your edit count is. It is clear you understand vandalism. My problem is criterion number 4. I don't see any examples of you making changes based on the Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not polices. If you can show me in your edits where it is clear you understand these policies, I'd be willing to take another look. PCR is more than vandalism reverting, and that is what rollback is, so there is a higher standard for this right that needs to be met. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)



Hello, I am Aggarwala2727 and I have been around here on Wikipedia for around 2-3 months.

I have been reverting vandalism with twinkle and manually and I think I am now experienced with it. I now want to use Huggle to revert vandals as it takes less time. Thanks Aggarwala2727 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([7]) and has 116 edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 09:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, does this also effect the chances of being granted the rollback rights?
Aggarwala2727 (talk) 09:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done Your last request was less than three weeks ago, but more importantly, I don't see any significant antivandalism work. That's fine! Editing content is good. But I'm not sure this would be that useful to you. ~ Amory (utc) 10:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


I have been using Wikipedia (as a "customer") for many years without investing my share of time in keeping it in good working order. Therefore, I hope to be granted "rollback" rights in order to use Huggle to limit the threat of e.g. vandalism. I understand the responsibilty that goes along with these rights. Baerentp (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done That's the path I started on! Reverts look good, but you've basically been at this for about 15 days. Thanks for diving in so quickly, but I'd like to see a bit lengthier history and track record of you as an editor before granting rollback/huggle access. Keep up the good work and then bug me or come back here, say, mid-July. Sound good? ~ Amory (utc) 14:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I respect your decision although I fail to understand your logic. I don't see what had been different if current amount of activity had been spaced out over a month or two. Further, the guidlines as per WP:RBK - although not having a fixed set of requirements, does not include your interpretation of "time". Just my 5 cents... --Baerentp (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Have been an editor in good standing for five years since being reinstated. I contribute to various Wikiprojects and moderate disputes at DRN. Part of my own efforts to help the project include patrolling recent changes. I wish to step up my efforts to keep the "skies clear" to the best of my ability, and the Huggle program notes that rollback permissions are required to use it fully. Requesting such permission on those grounds. Thank you for your consideration. EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC) EnglishEfternamn*t/c* 16:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not done I hear ya, but you've had 122 mainspace edits since your reblock in August 2013, and your editing pattern is anything but reliable. Even with 2013 in the mix, you've only got 280 mainspace edits in over a decade thanks to the block. More to the point, I don't see a pattern of concerted anti-vandalism fighting outside of 2013. If you're actually interested in contributing positively at recent changes patrol, you can use twinkle to get the hang of things. ~ Amory (utc) 14:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Template editor

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