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".
If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.
Bot report: No errors! Report generated at 21:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
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 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 request • view 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 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.
Page mover (add request • view 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.
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. 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 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 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.
Several permissions are requested and handled elsewhere:
IP-block-exempt: While the IP-block-exempt right can be granted by administrators, this flag is not handled here. Requests for the IP-block exempt right should be submitted via the Unblock Ticket Request System or, if there are significant privacy concerns, email the checkuser team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org or contact a CheckUser directly.
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.
I will be creating several tennis draw pages in the upcoming weeks and would like to acquire the autopatrolled user right, so there'll be no need for a page reviewer reviewing the newly created pages as they will be marked as "patrolled" by default. Qwerty284651 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done One of your articles was draftified just the other day. You need to make sure your articles establish notability and are properly sourced before you put them in the mainspace. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qwerty284651, my advice is that you create articles in draft space and move them into mainspace when they are ready. This is exactly what the next editor who comes along may draftify. Schwede66 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qwerty284651, several of your articles contain empty tables or sections (for future use, I presume). These should be in Draft form until you can fill those tables with scores, or what have you. Articles with empty tables or sections look incomplete to our readers, and are of little informational value until complete. GenQuest"scribble" 08:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GenQuest, only 1 of my article contains empty tables/sections, not several. Yes, upon creation they're empty, but I do finish the articles I start. Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you were to agree on creating your articles in draft space from now on in response to the comments above, I would assess your work. And I’m sure HJ Mitchell would concur should the resulting outcome support the granting of autopatrolled as draftification would no longer occur. Schwede66 15:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created more than 350 pages. Many of them are created through WP:AfC. I can understand WP:GNG. I know many articles which are created by me are stubs but they all are notable. I requested for this permission on 9 November 2022 but User:TheSandDoctor denied my request and said me for "focusing on quality over quantity" and also said "Feel free to apply again in future (perhaps 3-6 months? Just a suggested time frame, not binding.) when you have addressed concerns and improved practices.". Today I have improved that type of mistakes. Now days I publish articles through WP:AfC and I have also enhanced it's quality. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 18:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done. I'm concerned about the number of permissions you're requesting rapidly when there are, or have recently been, valid concerns about your understanding of policy and the manner of your article creations. Considering you were told to wait three to six months, re-applying after just over two shows an unseemly haste. Autopatrolled is not a reward for "good" editing or a badge of honour; it exits for the convenience of new-page patrollers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello all, my reason for requesting autowikibrowser rights is that I am editing a lot of pages with DAB links, I, therefore, wanted to make my edits easier and faster. Thank you. Young Lecturer (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am humbly requesting for Event Coordinator's rights to enable me to create multiple accounts for attendees in an outreachy (RWiC program) being implemented by me and other team members. We are currently in the second phase of the training which will require the participants to create account on en Wikipedia, be familiar with the interface and basics of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, the issues of open proxy and IP block have not been good experiences for newbies judging from past experiences.
Thanks for your time and consideration. Regards.
R Atibrarian (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request — MusikBottalk 04:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please provide a link to the page about the outreach program you are participating in, as I'm not familiar with it? Salviogiuliano 08:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. According to this page, I see that this program is supposed to run until the end of February, so I am about to grant you this user right until then. If you still need it afterwards, feel free to ask again and it will be extended. Cheers. Salviogiuliano 17:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am registered with Wikipedia for more than 11 months and 11 days.
Have edited more than 12,900 times in Wikipedia.
I am active in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
I have a have a solid history that demonstrate proficiency with communicating and interacting with new users, and in a positive, civil, helpful, and appropriate manner.
I have experience for moving pages according to guidelines.
My account hasn't been blocked from the starting of my account creation.
I will must review pages on a volunteer basis.
I requested for this permission on 28 December 2022 but User:Rosguill declined it some AfC submissions declined and wrote "Thank you for your extensive contributions to Wikipedia thus far. However, I'm concerned that multiple different editors have all reached out to you to caution you about rushing through edits in the past two months, and that you have had some AfC article submissions declined during this time period. Not done for now" 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙♂️Let's Talk ! 17:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days (). — MusikBottalk 17:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for over two years now and have over 2,000 edits, the vast majority of which are in main space. I have extensive experience in the use of proper citations and secondary reliable sources as well as Wikipedia's notability guidelines, very good working knowledge of page assessment levels (evident in my edit history that includes one GA in addition to multiple B-class, C-class, and start-class), and am familiar with policies concerning new page creation (I've created at least seven main space articles) and page moving proces. Moreover, I am always civil and courteous when engaging with other users and routinely offer my help to new editors. The only area where my experience isn't as extensive is with AfD, PROD, CSD, and AfC, although I believe that my familiarity with the process is sufficient for new page reviewer. Thank you very much for considering my request. Ppt91 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also wanted to specify that, due to my educational background and my professional experience, my work as a new page reviewer will be particularly valuable on articles for WP:VISUALARTS which would surely benefit from a more consistent oversight and editorial commitment. Thanks again. Ppt91 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm requested the new page reviewer right to help sort through the immense backlog, especially redirects- of which there are currently about 7,300! While I don't usually focus on writing articles, I'm an AfC reviewer, and am very familiar with naming conventions, BLP policies, copyright policies, etc. I also frequently tag various issues on articles, nominate articles for deletion, and draftify articles. I meet all the NPP reviewer requirements, and, if granted, would use this tool responsibly. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eejit43: I was tempted to grant this but the thread on your talk page about the move of ProtonMail gave me pause. You used an advanced permission (page mover) to perform a move that would have been impossible for an ordinary editor. As far as I can tell, that was not the result of any discussion anywhere, and further there is a notice on the talk page that that very move was discussed and rejected six months ago. This would tend to suggest insufficient care with permissions. To your credit, you reversed yourself and that's the only red flag I found so I'm in two minds. I'd welcome your thoughts, or a second opinion from another admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HJ Mitchell Hey! Thanks for pointing that out, I would have mentioned that if it had happened before creating this request. That was per a request made at WP:RM/TR (see Special:Permalink/1138034643). Through a poor choice of my own, I went ahead and accepted the request as:
The requester was well-established, and had been around for years, making me step into a false sense of assurance the request was legitimate.
Upon a quick google search, it did seem to appear like the WP:COMMONNAME.
I was unable to perform a Google Trends search for technical reasons, something I would normally have performed as a final check to ensure the move was correct.
That situation has certainly made me be a lot more wary in any actions I take, and, at least in my obviously biased view, I think I generally do take good care when making similar actions, especially with permissions not granted to the average editor. Of course up to you in the end, and I'll accept your decision. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the last request was declined for DRAFTOBJECT reasons then I think the administrator did not understand my point clearly.
I'm actually requesting for the user right to be able to move pages back to draft space or renaming articles.
During NPP, most users move articles from draft space to main space when they're not ready, some, create double articles; one in draftspace and one in main space.
Tagging for speedy is most times very tricky, so I'll end up skipping a junk in the main space, clustering the backlog.
The other, a page may be moved from the COMMONNAME to say, a full name, and I wouldn't be able to perform a round-robin during NPP. IDK if I've explained my self enough.
About DRAFTOBJECT. If an article was moved to mainspace after being draftified, I usually clean the article up (if I'm familiar with the subject) or leave it entirely. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2008, with over 2,700 edits as of writing. My contributions log should demonstrate extensive experience in patrolling the Recent Changes log especially in spotting and reverting vandalism (including subtle/unobvious ones), BLP violations, unsourced controversial content, spam, and other inappropriate content. I would like to request permission to review pending changes as I encounter them quite often in the log. I have also familiarized myself with all the requisite policies on content, reviewing, and on copyright. Thanks! PritongKandule-✉️📝 13:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been editing Wikipedia on and off since 2008, with more than 2,500 edits since. I usually dedicate an hour a day keeping watch on Recent Changes, filtering through the bottom of the unreverted edits list to check for vandalism that were missed or too subtle to notice at first. My history of using RedWarn/Twinkle to fight vandalism, warn users, and report serious troublemakers should speak for itself, and having rollback permissions would help make me more efficient. Thanks! PritongKandule-✉️📝 07:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Signed up for the CVU 😊. Former Administrator and Interface Administrator (elected, finished my 3 years term in good standing) at the Hebrew Wikipedia, over 16k edits and are a current patroller there. Fell in love with RedWarn so I'm here for a ride. Bar Harel (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I often encounter vandalism or uncited edits on articles related to Sikhism and Punjab. Having the rollback function will save me a lot of time when reverting such edits from problematic users. ThethPunjabi (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done Sorry, but you don't appear to have a lot of experience of reverting vandalism and your request worries me. Unsourced additions should not normally be reverted with rollback. Additionally, I don't see any track record of warning vandals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spend a decent amount of my time on Wikipedia, patrolling "Recent changes", reverting vandalism, and the like, using RedWarn for the most part; I request the "Rollback" right for the sake of convenience. Thank you. Riverbend21 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Ultraviolet and Twinkle, but I had also done RCP for a while without any gadgets. I read somewhere in UV's instructions that using it with rollback makes it execute faster; subjectively, it does feel a little slow currently. I send appropriate notices and warnings to users, and have endeavored to add a summary to my pseudo-rollbacks when it's technically possible. I have this user right on a different language version so I'm also familiar with how it works without any gadgets. —Alalch E. 18:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I have a well established history of working in the Template namespace. I've also submitted several edit requests for protected modules and templates, and feel I would be able to do more for Wikipedia if able to edit protected templates (with discussion or sandbox testing as appropriate or required, of course). — voidxor 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am leaning towards a decline for lack of need, primarily because the edit requests in question were relatively simply/trivial requests (and were all almost a decade ago). Will leave open for now for other thoughts. Primefac (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'm trying to get back into it. I've since seen a lot of needed minor edits, such as grammar, but just passed it up upon seeing template protection. So we're going to discount the minor stuff (such as this)? That's kind of a shame because that's where I could help most. Otherwise, I will need to continue to make edit requests, which in turn won't be counted here. I don't catch major errors in templates or modules all that often (Wikipedia being more stable and quiescent these days), but I certainly would sandbox and seek consensus when it's a highly used template. Another space I might like to get involved more is improving consistency in infobox parameters. — voidxor 16:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the above checklists. Edit requests and sandbox edits are explicitly counted here, and they are the things that you came up short on. Template editors can seriously break thousands of pages with a single edit (ask me how I know), so it is not a permission granted lightly. We would like to see some significant sandbox coding examples, preferably in conjunction with edits to testcases pages that show you are considering the ramifications of your edits. To give one example, something I worked on yesterday, here's a series of edits (with a lot of mistakes!) that I performed in a template sandbox to add an if statement and some non-trivial URLs, along with some updated formatting, to a template that is used on a few hundred pages. I tested it carefully after each edit to find and fix mistakes before applying my changes to the live template, potentially breaking 350 pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]