Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:PERM" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.
Requests for permissions
This page enables administrators to handle requests for permissions on the English Wikipedia. Administrators are able to modify rollback, reviewer, file mover, template editor, account creator, confirmed, and autopatrolled rights.
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. 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.


Handled here

The following are requested and handled here:

  • Account creator (add request · view 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 request · view 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 50 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.
  • Confirmed (add request · view 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.
  • Rollback (add request · view 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. 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 request · view 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), 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:

  • AutoWikiBrowser: Requests for access to AutoWikiBrowser should be made at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, if approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage. AutoWikiBrowser is a semi-automated MediaWiki editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 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. Users with under 500 mainspace edits are RARELY approved and you only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you have fewer than 500 mainspace edits!
  • Edit filter: Requests for access to the Edit filter manager group should be made at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Requests may take in general up to seven days to process; more in case appropriate consensus, or lack of it, is not clear.
  • IP-block-exempt: While the IP-block-exempt right can also be granted by admins, this should not be requested here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be sent to the unblock-en mailing list or, if there are significant privacy concerns, to the Functionaries list (see Wikipedia:Functionaries).

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 come from members of the Arbitration Committee or a user who is requesting their own access be removed.



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 rollback, file mover, reviewer, confirmed, autopatrolled and/or account creator flags to any user who meets the criteria explained above and can be trusted not to abuse the tool(s). They 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. The request will then be archived automatically: approved requests will be placed here; declined requests will go here.

Current requests


(add requestview requests)

User:Burke Oppenheim

Hello. I am a newly hired junior graphic designer for WB Mason. I was assigned to update and edit the company's wikipedia page by our CEO, Leo Meehan. Because I am working, I need to edit the account immediately, considering it was assigned to me. However, because I am a junior graphic designer, I do not have contact directly to Mr. Meehan. I therefore need me account to the confirmed so I can upload photos. I have access to all of these photos, and have the permission to use them for the page. My account needs to be confirmed immediately so that I can do my job. Any helps is appreciated. All the best, Burke Burke Oppenheim (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done Please remind your CIO that as the founder of Wikipedia has stated, "those with WP:COI should not edit the article directly, but should propose sourced changes on the article talkpage in order to potentially gain consensus for them the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hello! Will you please get my account confirmed. I've been here for 4 days and made more than 10 edits, but I have not been autoconfirmed yet. - Iproshkina (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done You only registeres an account three days ago, so you will need to wait one more day. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I started my account in 24 June 2014,with that short time i completed 89 edits till now,and created 3 pages.I would wish to become a confirmed user thereby i got the oppertunity to write in semi-protected pages too.Happy to be contributor wiki media.thanku Prathaplal (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Already done - You are already autoconfirmed Armbrust The Homunculus 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


(add requestview requests)


I generally create articles as I am working on projects to submit for featured review. I have created articles about living people (and have read the BLP guidelines). Providing me with autopatrolled creations would help the project.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
While you have 60 page creations, I have not reviewed them all, and would tend to discount any that were impacted by your topic ban. Can anyone uninvolved review these? — xaosflux Talk 04:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


(add requestview requests)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
What I did on Wikipedia is I would have rollback rights to rollback some edits that are vandalism and would undo revision. I'm shocked with the vandal user who made edits messed up that I'm going to revert them than other rollbackers does. --Allen Talk 05:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 11 edits to 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 when you have made 200 or so edits to articles you may wish to enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
What I learn is rollback or revert vandalism edits on Wikipedia, so I can have rights for it after I enrolled at the Counter Vandalism Unit! --Allen Talk 07:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
AllenHAcNguyen: One of the largest issues with rollback, apart from not knowing what is good and what is bad, is inability to talk to another contributor about something they've messed up by mistake when having a different intention. You need to demonstrate thorough experience of talking to people about their first messy edits where undoing and moving on without talking was a (the worse) possibility. -- This is why rollback, which undoes multiple edits at once, requires bigger experience. It is not just about edit count. Gryllida (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Gryllida: That reminds me of getting rollback rights on Wikipedia if I try to revert some edits that completely messed up and actually vandalized. --Allen Talk 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Pardon my bluntness, but it is going to be nearly impossible for you to have any advanced permissions if you cannot communicate in English. Your remarks read like you are using machine translation or something, they don't make any sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox: My worth English is good, it maybe right or impossible for me to have rollback rights on Wikipedia and however I'm not using translate (that's because the translate from another language to English is maybe nonsense or gibberish). What I did on Wikipedia is try revert some edits that is vandalism and fix the articles on difference above with undo revision. --Allen Talk 02:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm willing to take your word that you aren't using machine translation, but your English is so poor you might as well be. Your posts are gibberish, and if you can't recognize that I can't imagine how you could be expected to recognize vandalism from other types of editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit harsh. While I agree with denying this request at the moment I don't think there's any reason to discourage the user from contributing. His English is rather hard to understand, but it's usually easier to read a non-native language than to speak/write it, and given quite a few examples of positive vandalism identification I'd be happy to grant the right. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: We can all appreciate good communication and even promote it, your method is just plain rude, which caught me by surprise from such a seasoned editor, not a good day for Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, we can all see above where Gryllida tried to tell him in a less direct way that his communication skills were lacking, and the response was...nonsense. And then I made my first remark, which was a little more direct, and the response was "My worth English is good". In other words, complete denial of the problem, while confirming it at the same time. Of course we don't expect new editors to know all of our policies and procedures before they start out, but competence in the language actually is kind of a prerequisite, not something you will just pick up as you go along. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do ya think this could be the beginning of this users "pick up along the way" ? so let's just beat the crap out of them just in case...ignorance. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether it's relevant to this project or not, wikiasite:community:Message wall:Lt. Allen, he's been known to be annoying, disruptive, and incognizant on various other projects. Beeble is not the only person to suspect Allen of using a translator. From what I've been told, he's been translating from Vietnamese to English. Though when I confronted him directly about where he learned to speak English, his response was "Mol, I learned English before I was born!" (@22:02:58). I also hate to be that guy, but, from scrutiny of his past requests on other projects, this is just some weird power grab. moluɐɯ 22:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Closing, — xaosflux Talk 02:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


To help me quickly revert massive vandalism. I typically work in pages were vandals show up every now and then, and have a good sense to distinguish between good faith contributions and plain vandalism.--MarshalN20 Talk 21:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneJuliancolton | Talk 01:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I have been here since July 2013. I contribute to some politically-sensitive topics where disruptive IP edits and vandalism are very common and are often difficult to revert without this right. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Keep in mind that rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism and spam... any reversions liable to cause controversy should be done manually and with an adequate edit summary. Thanks for helping out. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


To help me quickly revert massive vandalism. I typically work in pages were vandals show up every now and then, and have a good sense to distinguish between good faith contributions and plain vandalism.--Indonesia124 Talk
X mark.svg Not done. Please see the notice at the top of this page. With only 33 edits to 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 when you have made 200 or so edits to articles you may wish to enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


After having been a Reviewer for nearly three weeks now, I have seen how much reviewing really needs done, as there is always a list at least 15-20 items long that need taken care of, and that's even with the 6,000 + Reviewers that are here. I edit mostly in sports-related articles (mostly in golf), and I have seen quite a number of athletes' articles getting bombarded with spam/vandalism whenever that athlete makes news. I believe being a Rollbacker would come in handy to deal with these types of situations. (I've had to have protection put on the Rory McIlroy article in recent months.) Occasionally, one of the Wikipedia bots catches such things and takes care of it, but often it needs the assistance of a human to keep up with it all.

Please allow me the Rollback right. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


(add requestview requests)


I would like to request for reviewer rights. I am quite knowledgeable on Wikipedia's policies, I pay close attention to references, mostly to make sure there not bare. MY mainspace edit count: 243. I've been on Wikipedia for 6 months. If I am rejected, I understand Ibrahimsqureshi (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) This user has been blocked for abuse of editing privileges (although this is not regarded as a reason).--Good afternoon (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done - Not enough experience, yet. Additionally, the two recent blocks coupled with copyright violation uploads show a lack of strong policy comprehensions. Tiptoety talk 03:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I was not blocked for abusing editing privileges, I was blocked for placing private information (location, etc.) on my former user page. I was later unblocked, and have followed Wikipedia's policies since then.--Ibrahimsqureshi (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I am requesting Reviewer rights. Although I haven't had my account on Wikipedia for long, I used to edit on Wikia, which, although it is very different from Wikipedia, it is also very similar. I have thoroughly familiarized myself with Wikipedia and it's policies. I frequently look at the RecentChanges of Wikipedia too. I believe I could be a very helpful and good reviewer here on Wikipedia. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done With only 23 edits to the mainspace, I'd like to just just a bit more editing experience on this site. Based on what you say above, that should be easy to prove in just a few weeks time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Cutest Penguin

Most of time I keep wonder about new topics, I am interested in monitoring articles related to India under Pending Changes Protection and I think having a reviewer right I can contribute more on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 15:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) I clicked on a randomly chosen one of your "featured" contributions that you list on your userpage, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College. In the version of it at the time you made this request, this small (less than 4000 characters) article contained one substantial copy-paste copyvio - making up the great majority of the "History" section - which I have now removed. It also contained a substantial quantity of wildly over-promotional material, sometimes to the point of incoherency ("295 doctors who are highly qualified in their respective fields, possessing post-graduate qualifications" - I wouldn't like to meet a doctor who does not possess a post-graduate qualification). And it contained clear evidence of WP:COI "Research activities of the highest order are under taken in all the disciplines of medicine and our institute is a centre for the research". None of this problematic material was added by you, but I am concerned as to how you would use the reviewer right if this is how you leave a short article which you have worked on extensively. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Demiurge1000: The contents you are talking about is not contributed by me, please have a look at the history of the article. Thank you! (Featured is meant for restructuring the contents as well as before and after link must be considered to compare my contribution to so called featured articles on my user page ) CutestPenguin {talkcontribs} 17:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) I think what Demiurge1000 is referring to is this passage from the reviewing policy, "The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out [...] obviously inappropriate edits on articles...." If you didn't notice those major problems on article that you say you have worked on extensively, why would you do any better with an article you are unfamiliar with? Looking over your contributions I think you're doing some very good things, but I also see other cases where you have improved articles in one place, but failed to notice other problems within the article. Or if not failed to notice, failed to correct. My opinion, as a non-administrator, would be maybe you should wait and concentrate on editing before you venture into reviewing. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 19:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done for the reasons discussed above. Relative inexperience compounded with some userright-relevant concerns. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lord Roem: I think post the rejection of the request the user has made a personal attack , which I feel is against No personal attacks . I was involved in a talk page conversation with the stated user and thats when I went to the user's Talk page .Commons sibi (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


With Reveiwer rights, I would be able to make sure that articles are the best they can be without vandalism. I also believe that Being a reviewer would help me help Wikipedia. SkaterLife (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done At this time I'm not sure if you are ready for the reviewer right, nor do I think you understand what it actually is. Please read Wikipedia:Reviewing. Your use of the recently granted rollback is also questioned... I will post on your talk page soon. — MusikAnimal talk 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom

Would like to accept/reject pending edits. GreenC 16:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Acalamari 17:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I am requesting for reviewer's right to accept or reject pending edits. — Ascii002 Let's talk! Contribs 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Acalamari 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I am requesting for reviewer's right to accept or reject pending edits. — User:Indonesia124 (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done You only have 44 edits in total. When you have around 200 edit to articles, at least some of which demonstrate an understanding of what is and is not vandalism, your request will have a good chance of succeeding, but you simply don't have enough of a record for us to make a determination at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Account creator

(add requestview requests)


Running a student workshop at Endicott College. Students won't have time to create accounts before the workshop. Will need about 50 accounts. UOJComm (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a page which shows this somewhere? [stwalkerster|talk] 21:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, this is a bit of a last minute thing. I'm holding the workshop tomorrow. I understand if the documentation is not appropriate to do this. Isn't there anything I can point you to to legitimize this request? Thank you in advance for your time and attention. UOJComm (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You really should let the students create accounts for themselves, or arrange ahead of time for this to be done. Creating multiple accounts from your home or mobile connection tends to trigger red flags. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, and I wish I had extra time and the ability to communicate to students that they should create their own accounts from home. I mentioned, this is a last minute thing and those things weren't possible. UOJComm (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@UOJComm: Has your need for the right passed or do you still need it. If you still need it please see User:Callanecc/ACCRIGHT and let me know if you agree in your reply here. Regards, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@UOJComm: I second that, will approve for a very limited period, ping my talk page as well. I think the short notice was the downfall here. — xaosflux Talk 04:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the responses. Yes, the need has passed, but now I know what is needed for a request like this (so there's a silver lining). Thank you again! UOJComm (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

File mover

(add requestview requests)

Template editor

(add requestview requests)


(add request for primary account or bot accountview requests)


  • OccultZone, I didn't realise that edit summary's were essential. But recently I have added some presets from the "gadgets", which make it a lot easier. Also, currently most of my edits are on a page that I am trying to get up to featured list status. I'm the sole editor on the most part, and I am trying to make all the changes that are being listed on the nomination page as fast as possible. I will start to use edit summary now as i understand it's importance. KaneZolanski (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Edit summary use is not required for AWB, but it is desirable to help others know what you are doing. At this point I see you concentrating on a very few articles, so AWB does not appear to be so useful to you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not having AWB is what is stopping me from concentrating on a wide range of articles. I think it would be extremely useful in allowing me to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. KaneZolanski (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, I would like to know what you want to do with AWB. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
To perform the following activities:
  • To add and remove categories
  • Add persondata
  • Fix grammar — ASCII-002 I NotifyOnline 00:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see you used to be Dudel250, but were you some other user before then? Perhaps this can show how you edit. Anyway firstly I would like to see more improvements to mainspace first, eg correcting spelling, grammar, restructuring text, perhaps even writing content! tagging and reverting are not counted to towards 400 constructive non automated edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator observation) User has less than 500 Mainspace edits.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 22:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


Please only list approved/trial approved bots here and add a link to your bot approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.