Page extended-protected

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 07:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


Handled here

  • 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 rules of use and registration requirements 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 will need to give a reason for wanting AWB access.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Extended confirmed (add requestview requests): The extended confirmed flag is normally automatically added to accounts after 500 edits and 30 days, 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 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 toolbar. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
  • 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. At administrators' discretion, the right may be accorded on a time limited basis or indefinite.
  • 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.

The bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight flags are removed at meta: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, page mover, 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). Administrators may either grant these permissions permanently or temporarily. 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 have created 26 articles so far, and it would be great to have the next ones appearing on search engines more quickly. PetéWarrior (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a regular here, but is that the purpose of autopatrolled? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: More of a side-effect: new pages are marked as {{NOINDEX}}, telling search engine crawlers to ignore them, until they're patrolled or for 90 days (whichever is first). – Joe (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, it’s been a few months since I last applied for the permissions. I have created many political articles since then and taken on the feedback from before. I have not faced any issues and received several thank you messages from users with some of my articles making it to ITNR. Considering this, I do feel like its the right time to submit this now. Wish you all a good day. BastianMAT (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1][2]). MusikBot talk 21:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. Last time, we talked about Wikipedia:DOB where it says "Wikipedia includes ... dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources". The date and place of birth for Tiémoko Meyliet Koné is referenced to Latest celebarticles. Does that website constitute a reliable source to you? Schwede66 03:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66:, the birth date was right but the source should have been better, pretty hard to find it but eventually found his birth date on the Ivory Coast government website (so went to update that). [3] As you did find that, you must have looked through my other articles too like Dragomir Zakov and all election articles created, is it fine? They have all been approved and as I mentioned some of them have even made it to ITNR. BastianMAT (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Myself a regular editor in Wikipedia and mainly involved in writing articles of public interest request this permission for getting these articles directly into search engine. I dont have any remarks in the content of my articles as I reference them from reliable sources. I wish to make Wikipedia a trustable platform for global readers by adding genuine content. Thanks in advance. Gardenkur (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object. The user has been adding large unsourced, perhaps even non-sensical, content - duplicated in several articles of "___ Muncipal Corporation" like this one [4] (see my contribs for the reverts) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Aside from some recent concerns about your editing and creations on your talk, you also have copyright warnings as recent as January of this year. Moneytrees🍔(Talk) 18:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've made about 50 articles, mostly related to the history of religion, none of which needed much cleanup. My particular areas of interest: ancient texts, philosophy, monasteries, monks. I sometimes translate from Wikipedias in other languages and always give attribution when doing so. Florificapis (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Hello! I frequently work through the backlog of files to be copied to Commons. There are a large quantity of bot-assessed files, and I would like to used AWB to go through them and check if they are actually suitable for the Commons. I may also use it to do the standard uncontroversial typo correction/maintenance tagging/etc., if it turns out that I enjoy using it. Thanks! HouseBlastertalk 22:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on how AWB is supposed to help with that? Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) contains a large number of false positives (many of which are subtle in nature), and I'm not sure you should be reviewing these at a rapid rate. -FASTILY 21:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of ones that are subtle in nature, and I agree those need more time to review. I would skip anything that is not obvious in nature. Due to the sheer number of files in the bot-assessed category I would still be able to get a good deal of files into the human-reviewed category, even though many (read: the vast majority) would be skipped. Glancing at the first page of the category right now, I would mark files like this or this as human-reviewed, and not touch anything where there is any reason to doubt an {{own}} claim. HouseBlastertalk 02:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I run a bot task that removes {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} from obviously ineligible files. Can you provide examples on what the bot is missing (i.e. is this actually a productive use of time)? Also, instead of categorizing files as "human reviewed", why don't you just transfer them to Commons? -FASTILY 06:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you are getting at when you mention your bot task - I would not be removing the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} tag from obviously ineligible files. By "skip", I mean I would click the "ignore/skip" button. As for the second question, my hope would be to decrease the amount of time spent copying files to Commons by employing the assembly line principle - i.e., it is faster to assess a bunch of files at once and then move them all to Commons at once than it is to assess/move each one individually. FWIW (which is not much, given that this was almost 13 years ago), the template was nominated for deletion a while back because it is such a simple task to just move the file to Commons, and there was SNOW consensus to keep it around. HouseBlastertalk 20:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. However, I still don't see how this saves any time. Files should never be blindly transferred to Commons, even if they are "human-reviewed". The reality is that editors miss things and/or make mistakes, so a full audit still needs to be conducted by both the transferring editor and the deleting administrator. Like I said, if you encounter an eligible file and have done your due diligence, then you should skip the busywork and simply transfer it Commons. Curious, have you tried For the Common Good? This may be a better fit than AWB for your use case. -FASTILY 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at For the Common Good. It seems like it is exactly what I am looking for. I think it being listed as "unclear" scared me off from even checking it out. Don't judge a book by its cover, eh?  Request withdrawn, and thank you for your help! As a slight aside, thank you for all of the tools you have made for people dealing with the file namespace. I greatly appreciate them, as do plenty of other editors. HouseBlastertalk 14:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr vulpes

I am in the process of updating the conservation status of native plants in the US. I’ve been working on California and plan to expand to the rest of the US. My process has been to manually check the conservation status for all the plants that need updating in a database to confirm they are the correctly stated and then go copy and paste the update to the info box on the proper page. I plan to still manually confirm the conservation status of each plant and then use the tool to put cut out the copy and paste of the wiki text. Dr vulpes (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Automated comment This user has approximately 282 non-automated edits in the mainspace. MusikBot talk 01:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr vulpes, could you give an example or two of the edits you'll be making? From your initial request it sounds like AWB is not the best program for this, but I might be misreading something. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, here are a few examples of what I've been doing.
Arctostaphylos glutinosa: Difference between revisions
Arctostaphylos imbricata: Difference between revisions
Arctostaphylos rudis: Difference between revisions
If you look at the species box you'll see a little graphic with the species present conservation status, the organization that categorized the species, and a citation to a database page with the conservation status of that species. I've compiled a spreadsheet with species that do not currently have a conservation status, that species current status, and a link to the proper reference. I would also like to be able to add species that do not have a conservation status to a category. My long term plan is to write a bot to update conservation statuses but my programming background is in R not python so it may be awhile. That's what I've been doing so far, if you know of a better tool or faster way to do this I'm all ears. Thanks for your time and for responding to my request. Dr vulpes (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


User:FozzieHey (test)

Hi, this is a test account of User:FozzieHey. I would like to test Ultraviolet on this account, but to use Ultraviolet you need confirmed. FozzieHey (test) (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this is my test account. FozzieHey (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done here. Let me know if you want any of your primary account's rights. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will do if I want any! FozzieHey (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Event coordinator

Extended confirmed

File mover

Mass message sender

New page reviewer

User:Botu Yadav

I am the new user who is interested in Politics related articles more, i would like to request for the New Page Reviewer if i am eligibe for that. I saw people with less than my edits and creations are NPR so i wanted to request and i will work tirelessly after i become the NPR. Botu Yadav (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. With a regular editing experience in existing articles and writing new articles I could gain good knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Request permission to clear backlogs and make new articles suitable for Wikipedia platform. Gardenkur (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Gardenkur (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darth Mike

Hoping to help out with NPP. Previously had the permission. -- Mike 🗩 20:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover

User: Qwerfjkl

Hi, I'd like to request page mover rights so that I can move categories, to help with the backlog at CfD (see User:Qwerfjkl/CSD log for some examples of my CfD work) (please {{reply to}} on reply). Qwerfjkltalk 13:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hog Farm Talk 20:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am a regular patroller of new pages at Special:newpagesfeed. I draftify pages, if they meet WP:Draftify, and if they are not read for mainspace. All my draftification acts can be found at User:Itcouldbepossible/Draftify log. I am requesting page mover rights, because after my draftification, there is a redirect kept behind, there are times at which, that the user returns and add content to the redirect page, and I become the owner of the article, which I don't want. My second reason is that, I don't want to keep behind a redirect and increase work for admins to delete the redirect. So, these are the main reasons behind seeking page mover rights. And a least import reason is that, it would be easier for me to move pages within my userspace, and also whenever I create articles, or move well developed articles to mainspace, when new editors cannot do it themselves. Few months back I had requested for this right. But at that time, I was comparatively new, and so the request was not accepted (I hope the bot links it to this request), but now I have passed the minimum age the account should be. So I hope this time, I am qualified enough to be made a page mover on the grounds of my need. Regards, ItcouldbepossibleTalk 08:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer


Good track record, never been blocked, and have over 16,000 edits to the project with almost 600 of them in the last week. I understand policy and guidelines, and would like to help with backlogs and protect pages against vandalism. Brian (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Brian (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I am requesting for permissions to have pending changes reviewer to be able to help the other pending changes reviewers in their task to make Wikipedia vandalism-free. I have numerous contributions in reverting vandalism and I hope to make an impactful change to help. I am rollbacker in the Simple English Wikipedia which proves that I have substantial trust and can help. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 18:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]



As of recently, I have become more active and have been contributing bigger things to Wikipedia. I was also recently granted the pending changes reviewing right, which I really appreciated and have been using very well. I mainly edit soap opera articles and this tool would really help me out. Thank you. Blanchey (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you want the right, please spend a few weeks patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & RedWarn can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 21:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you @Fastily: Blanchey (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I used to mainly edit/create articles before but I've been actively trying to fight vandalism for the past 4 days through recent changes. I presumably have over 500 edits now (excluding ones that are not related to anti-vandalism work). If I did an accidental revert, I would've revert it back again and would provide a summary to why I did that. Also, for the warns, sometimes I would not provide warns due to obvious vandalism, grammar error (typos) or I'm just not sure what warn type do I address. It would've be great if I can get rollback permissions so that I can further speed up the process of my edits by using a faster anti-vandalism tool. If I ever get denied & if you do believe that I should probably gain more experience and anti-vandalism activities for a few weeks then I'll continue doing it! NotLance (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You said it yourself: "I should probably gain more experience and anti-vandalism activities for a few weeks". You're on the right track, but I'd like to see you get more than 4 days' experience before granting you the right. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. -FASTILY 10:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do! thank you for responding. NotLance (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blazing Phoenix

Hi. I have been recent change patrolling for a long time, and I request rollback rights to revert vandalism. Blazing Phoenix (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your name around. Rlink2 (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Your editing history is inconsistent, I see you editing for a few days, and then disappearing for months at a time. Please be advised that rollback is granted to editors with a consistent and established track record of high quality counter-vandalism work. I took a random sample of your reverts and found that you are reverting a lot of (good faith) edits which are not obvious vandalism (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Please slow down and ensure that the edits you revert are actually vandalism. I'm also concerned by this edit warring incident which you removed from your talk page and never responded to; please be sure to address this if you make a future request for rollback. Lastly, please start warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, FASTILY 02:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor