Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Process for granting TE to DYK editors?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:PERM/TE § User:Darth Stabro

WT:DYK should really come up with a formal criteria/guidelines for granting the right and aim for a amendment to WP:TPE. The WP:TPE criteria and this process were never meant to deal with these kinds of requests (primarily because the folks who watch this venue are technical admins and have limited interactions with WP:DYK). See also Hilst's request at [1] which imo was also misjudged. Sohom (talk) 14:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Or they really should split "DYK queue editor" out of "template editor" as a completely separate right. The current situation is an affront to logic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We do not need all these separate user rights, we just need to give out adminship to everyone who would volunteer more effectively with it. I would happily vote for abolishing the template editor permission. —Kusma (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma That is very much a systemic issue, I think the WP:TPE user-right has a place when it comes to technical work -- it is a simple check of "do you understand that editing templates is very different from normal editing with different social expectations". However, WT:DYK appears to see it more as "adminship but not really" and that thinking is (I agree with you) kinda redundant and flawed to begin with and should be remedied by giving out adminship more freely. Sohom (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree that how DYK uses TPE is a bit weird, but it was a reaction to an untenable situation. We had a chronic problem with not enough people working on queues. The few admins working on that were burned out and the work wasn't getting done. And unlike most other processes on the wiki, DYK runs on a clock. When the big hand hits midnight and all the queues are empty, that's bad.

Despite numerous entreaties to the various regulars who were working on other DYK tasks, I was unable to convince any of them to run for admin. I agree with @Pppery that a distinct user right (or a more fine-grained user rights system in general) would make more sense, but we don't have that. So, given a toolbox stocked with a variety of tools that don't fit our needs, we've gone with the least bad way to get done what we needed to get done. Since we've done that, DYK has been running a lot better (i.e. not in a state of perpetual crisis). If the cost of fixing DYK was that WP:PERM occasionally has to handle requests that it's not really set up for, I'm happy with that. If somebody wants to do the legwork to get a new DYK-specific permission created, I'd be happy with that too. RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The only thing stopping us from creating a separate permission is internal bureaucracy. It's a technically trivial to go through the m:Wikimedia site requests process. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Having never done that, my guess is you need to create both a new type of page protection and a new user right which grants you the ability to edit through that type of protection. And maybe a role which includes that right? And then perhaps some interface changes to include the appropriate menu items and/or checkboxes to grant/revoke those things?

And, of course, the really hard part would be the haggling over what to name these things :-) RoySmith (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much that. But this is all something the people there are familiar with, and would no doubt be willing to do. Especially since it's technically the same as the existing TPE right, in terms of changes to the config files. It's something that, given sufficient consensus, I might code up myself. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the biggest problem we have had with using templateeditor for editing the queues has been the lack of clarity on who is responsible for granting the right to candidates, as evidenced by this very discussion. In other words it has been extremely successful and not caused any major problems. —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the right thing would be for the candidate to first ask at WT:DYK and if consensus emerges, then come here for the rubber stamp, providing a link to the WT:DYK discussion. Stewards use that process when approving permission grants which have been discussed elsewhere. RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I know nothing about the inner workings of DYK, but I occasionally dabble in WP:PERM and, speaking for myself, I would not be opposed to granting TPE to editors who deal with DYK queues, provided they showed familiarity with that process and I trusted them not to break anything with the new userright. For me, it's a matter of trust, in the end. After all, it's the same for administrators: we have the technical ability to do many things and, for the most part, we try to stay away from areas where we know we may cause damage through lack of competence or familiarity. —  Salvio ^giuliano 14:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a need to rubber stamp at PERM, individual admins can grant rights when they need to. —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a project can develop criteria for granting a permission on the project. And let me note my general agreement with Kusma's first comment: I think we should be nudging more people to adminship. This creates a wider project capacity in multiple ways, including allowing for no friction opportunities for that editor to eventually branch out into new areas whether they stay with just +sysop or they decide they want to try CU/OS/ArbCom where +sysop is a prerequisite. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I fear that it would be a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good, however. Admin elections have somewhat made the problem better, but admin selection is still broken. Nudging more people to adminship would force them to subject themselves to a process which can be, and has been multiple times in the past, unpleasant and hostile. So, yes, while we should continue to improve the way we select administrators, as a stopgap measure I see nothing wrong with using TPE for the purpose. —  Salvio ^giuliano 14:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer that we spend time figuring out how to improve processes for helping people to pass RfA, than to further devolve tools as a "solution" to the problem. For me that includes needs that various projects have around maintaining front page content. Devolution creates other problems, as I noted in my original comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The concepts of granular permissions and asking for additional permissions are extremely un-wiki. Having to ask or making edit requests is the standard process in the non-wiki world; the wiki way is to make everything as open as possible and to just revert when people get something wrong. To give an example from my own experience, as someone who is not really a techie, I would never have applied for something like editing rights to the MediaWiki namespace, but as I have them as part of the sysop package, I have been able to WP:BOLDly make fixes. no friction opportunities [...] to eventually branch out into new areas are empowering and help people grow as editors and admins. —Kusma (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that we (admins) cannot ask a project for what they feel would be an appropriate metric for making what is essentially an equivalence principle to our existing guidelines; as SD0001 stated, to the unfamiliar admin 32 promotions might seem like a suitable equality to 3 sandboxes/5 requests, but the DYK folk find that insufficient. If someone were to say "the DYK folk want me to have this perm to help out" I would absolutely grant if the other criteria were solid. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I think requesting a non-TE requesting to fill queues would count as a TE edit request. Possibly also my edit request to AmandaNP's userpage (to reflect the fact she no longer hold CU/OS rights) also counts seeing as her user page is TE, even though I didn't use the request parameter. JuniperChill (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If someone has a non-standard use for a permission, I don't have a problem with it outright; especially for well established applicants that will limit use to a niche purpose. Mostly the same as someone that wants to deal with a few highly visible templates that also has no skill with LUA - it's not a showstopper. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Same, but at the moment (at least from my perspective) DYK is enough of an outlier that I'm not always sure how much of a need someone has for the right. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

If formal criteria are requested: perhaps 600 prep set promotions for a rubber stamp approval at PERM, and less than that requires WT:DYK approval? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Counteroffer: 100 promotions or demonstrated clue at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I said at the original DYK discussion on this topic that I was opposed to allowing would-be DYK template editors to simply nudge a friendly admin to get the permission, and that there should be a more robust process. Having said that, there haven't been any DYK disasters since the system was implemented, but I would still like to see greater transparency. To that end, I could endorse RoySmith's suggestion that seekers of the permission for DYK purposes get consensus at WT:DYK first, or, at minimum, at least flag the DYK community at said talk page that they intend to seek it so that DYK regulars can contribute to the discussion. There should also be a minimum period of discussion before the right is granted, say, one week. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Why should template editor for DYKers ve the only permission with forced discussion period? Generally we should aim to reduce bureaucracy around permissions. —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Well it's not the only permission - there are also set discussion periods for adminship, for example. And why have it? Because not everybody is watching WT:DYK like a hawk and users may need some time to notice the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The admin-granted permissions do not require discussion. If we ask for a week long discussion I think we should go back to full protection: after a week long discussion people should just become admins. —Kusma (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

What's the big deal over waiting a week to close the discussion? It just gives interested parties an opportunity to participate. If you are not going to have a set time for discussion you might as well just allow admins to grant the permission unilaterally, and there are obvious hazards with such an approach. Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I have granted the TE permission unilaterally to @AirshipJungleman29 and @Theleekycauldron; both of these were good decisions that would not have been improved by a week of discussion. I oppose any additional bureaucracy; indeed that is a big deal to me. We have lost the ability to easily give people +sysop; let us not lose the ability to easily allow people to edit DYK queues. —Kusma (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I know the inner workings of DYK very well. What RoySmith says in his first post is entirely correct: this initiative has made a substantial improvement to the project. There are only ever a handful of editors who have the necessary experience to work with queues who are not admins. The DYK admins will be able to judge who those editors are and they can grant TPE. I see zero need to formalise anything; what's happening is working well. We should have this discussion when problems arise. At the moment, this discussion is in search of a problem that does not exist. Schwede66 15:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Schwede66 The problem is that the admins who are manning WP:PERM/TPE have nothing to go on when they need to decide whether to grant a request when a user primarily requests it for edits to DYK queues. I think the answer/consensus in this thread is that to get TPE for editing DYK, a user should eithier ask a DYK admin or start a lightweight discussion on WT:DYK and not ask for it at WP:PERM/TPE. I think that itself is a valid outcome and could be a workable solution over the status quo if we decide to document it somewhere. Sohom (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some requests have come up here because some of us DYK admins have tried not to overstep our authority, but it makes a lot of sense for us to just handle this in house. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I see. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of it. Yes, it’s easiest if this gets assigned based on a discussion at DYK talk. Schwede66 19:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Someone should probably WP:RFCBEFORE some text to add to Wikipedia:Template editor#Guidelines for granting, then RFC it, then we make the change. There's enough lack of clarity and consensus in this discussion that I think an RFC would be helpful to crystallize things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  I think we've pretty much converged on adding the following to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions:

  The queues are template protected, so you need to either be an admin or template editor to edit them. Editors lacking the required permissions who have extensive experience at DYK (including promoting hooks and managing the prep area) and wish to help manage the queues may make a request at WT:DYK; if there is consensus to do so, an admin will grant you the Template Editor user right.

  In addition, the top two queues currently active set and the top queue are subject to the Main Page cascading protection, so you need to be an admin to edit those.

  Any objections to my adding that? RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Only the top queue is cascade protected, not the top two. Other than that I think this is what we converge on. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hmmm, yeah, I worded that badly. It's the currently active set and the top queue. Thanks for pointing that out. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

• Fundamentally, we might have made becoming a queue mover easier by removing all the trappings of RfA and letting any admin grant the perm, but the DYK-based qualifications for moving queues are essentially still the same. There are a couple of people in this thread, myself included, who ran at RfA and failed even though the community thought we were more or less qualified to do the tasks at DYK specifically – we just had other issues to overcome that led the community to oppose adminship. That's the scenario where I think template editor should be granted: if, but for other issues, an editor would pass an RfA where their Q1 pitch was becoming a DYK admin. (and if they would pass outright, we should push them into doing that, but that's a broader issue). SL93, Launchballer, Airship, NLH, all of them would meet and exceed the RfA criteria on that narrow question. For the request that spawned this thread, I don't think the same is true. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd recommend also mentioning this at Wikipedia:Template editor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Revocation ?

Hi all. I don't know, Is this a right place for asking about it or not? Regarding my edits, Recently I had received a warning twice for copying copyrighted text, unknowingly. Can this warning can lead in revoke of my existing rights? Please tell me. Pinging @Rosguill, Femke, and Sohom Datta:. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi – this place is appropriate enough. Revocation wouldn't automatically happen after two copyright violations, no. We don't expect holders of simple permissions to be perfect. Be careful to comply with the copyright policy, however: if warnings are not working, users will require to be blocked indefinitely. Arcticocean ■ 15:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Typically, editors with copyright issues get approximately 4 warnings and then an indefinite block. So please make sure to try to improve your behavior related to copyright. The reason for blocking is that prolific copyright issues are extremely time consuming to clean up. If you end up at WP:CCI, experienced editors check every single edit you've ever made. Better to fix things earlier rather than later. If needed, please feel free to ask specific questions here or in a different place, such as "why is X a copyright violation?" Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This would also be an issue of concern if you request an extension of your autopatrolled permission, which expires in a week. (Grantor: Dr vulpes.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Would it be better to stop content creation or to improve the understanding of copyright policies for gaining this permission in future? Fade258 (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Mislabelment/Help

I have just put in a request for PCR, but then a bot (MusikBot) said that I have had a request declined. I had previously withdrawn the request due to lack of input, not declined it. Should I revert said edit, or should I leave it? Kind regards, Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 09:59, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you should just reply to the bot comment, so that the processing admin is aware that the bot comment is incorrect. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No information on where to request Importers, Transwiki importers, Researchers and Users who may use two-factor authentication?

I can't see if the #Handled elsewhere section of Header lists those four, any ideas on whether to list them? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

For 2FA, see m:Global_permissions#Requests_for_2_Factor_Auth_tester_permissions. Note that "Users who may use two-factor authentication" is an experimental rollout which is randomly assigned, whereas two-factor authentication tester is something that can be requested. Basically, requests are becoming deprecated, though I don't see any harm it listing it here at this time. Researchers need to go through the WMF, probably starting with Trust and Safety. Researcher is extremely uncommon and tightly controlled, and I don't think it's sensible to list it here. For importers see m:Importer. Again this is extremely uncommon, to the extent that listing it here will only confuse people. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

To become a non-admin importer (very rare), the requester opens a discussion such as this one on the request-an-import talk page or this one at Village Pumps, must get consensus, then can ask at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Miscellaneous requests for a steward to assign the permission. For researchers, I think you need to contact the WMF (presumably via https://research.wikimedia.org/contact.html). ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 18:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for WP:EFH Restoration

I'm not sure why these re-requests are put here, but the EFH page states: "A request for the right after a revocation for inactivity or self-requested removal may be made at WT:PERM."

I would like to re-request the edit filter helper permission to continue to assist with false positive reports. I had my rights removed previously for inactivity because I took a mental-health wikibreak. If you would like me to elaborate more on this, I can share privately. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I changed it from saying WP:PERM yesterday because there is no section for EFH at WP:PERM. Welcome back! ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! And that's funny that it was just changed yesterday. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I had seen at PERM/TAIV that you were back, saw that your EFH hadn't yet been restored, and went to check what the page said about regranting it. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Aw, that's actually super sweet for you to think of me. Glad to be back! - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)