Ciao @Superpes15 and hello @taavi! :-) I want to answer your questions here:

I can understand your perspectives and views, my intent was to create all of these intermediate user groups to "fill the gap" between Autoconfirmed users and Admins, so that encouraging to have more users to be more active in future on roa-tara.wiki (I'm trying to find people who are interested and to help out roa-tara.wiki to grow) and also to have a more possibility with having one/two more protection level(s) in order to have more security. Especially because lately there have been vandals coming to the Wiki (common and LTAs).
In order to gain these user groups, it was meant to do it at the page "Wikipedia:Richieste de le permisse" (to be created) and have similar criterias present on it.wikiversity at Wikiversità:Richieste di permessi.

Personally, I want to use the Admin protection as little as possible on the NS0 and sometimes, having the Semi-protection may not be enough IMO.
Regarding the some situations where these groups would have been helpful, there where few trusted users from other Wikis occasional coming to edit on roa-tara.wiki during my 8 months of my roa-tara.wiki adminship, that they could require having some of these rights, for example like autopatrolled. So that I and the other admin wouldn't have to press constantly on "Mark as this page as patrolled" if new pages are created.
But if we talk about a long time ago like 10 years ago, personally on roa-tara.wiki, I don't know if it happened (I edit on Wikipedia since 2017 and got elected as an admin on roa-tara.wiki this year in February), maybe the other admin knows more with his 10 years+ experience :-).

My intent with eliminator and reviewer where meant to be some kind of "semi-admin" because there may be users who aren't fit to be admins yet and which could be evaluated before being candidated/elected to admin.
Reviewer was also meant to be an "extended version" of Rollbacker and some sort "semi-admin" by taking inspiration from the use of blocking for pt.wiki Rollbackers. Eliminator was meant for maintenance work like deleting old templates or in worst cases, deleting vandalic pages or hide very inappropriate edits.
It was meant to be assigned to some other trusted users (even to some global patrollers if necessary, so that they don't need to ask to us local admins or at GS/R to block users and protect pages).

If it's about invalid Wiki URL/ISO code, I know that roa-tara doesn't have a real ISO code, there has been a dispute if Tarantino belongs to Neapolitan or not and changing to "nap-x-tara" (see also at T322244). But there are existing Wikis like simple.wiki that doesn't have a real ISO code but has for instance the rollbacker user group (I know that simple.wiki it's a bigger community than roa-tara.wiki's).

If it's possible to make this request "more economic", I can strike off Extended confirmed, Reviewer, Eliminator and Flood user groups + Extended confirmed protection from the request, thus leaving autopatrolled, patroller, mover and rollbacker user groups + editautopatrolprotected Protection.

I also wonder if there is a way that eliminator and reviewer can be kept in the request. Could eliminator and reviewer be assigned temporarily by Stewards the same way the sysops are assigned temporarily, by being also consistent with Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements#Temporary Administrator? if there is the problem that admins could assign them permanently or removing. If not, it's ok and I understand your views.

I hope that that there is an easier alternative for this request (like having a few user groups like it.wikiversity?), so that isn't a complete waste, or as we say in Italian: "Buttata al vento" (thrown into the wind) :-).

Kind regards

P.S. Thanks for the tip about the priority Superpes! I will keep that in mind next time I create a task :-).

@S4b1nuz_E.656 Remember that, per WMF policy, only users who passed an RfA-like process can see deleted edits (so eliminator should pass a RfA and, at that point, imho is better to give them sysop flag on a low traffic wiki) :)

Imho now the request is acceptable! Any thought @taavi ?

@Superpes15 Thanks for telling me this, I didn't know about that other user groups that has the possibility to see deleted edits, must pass an RfA-like process :-). But I guess that user groups with block and protect also require an RfA-like process (just for curiosity :-).)?
A theory I had while thinking to propose the reviewer group with that config, was that since editprotected wouldn't have been included in the user group, adding/removing Admin protection from pages wouldn't have been possible, right? :-)

Thank you for evaluating the request as acceptable now :-). I hope that Taavi would think the same.
But if Taavi has nothing more to say and no longer wants to intervene after reviewing my first attempt of this request, can another Phab admin review if the request is acceptable now, or is Taavi the only one in this case that must fully review and give the final result?

I'm asking this because I don't want to bother Taavi and if it's ok to proceed anyway with your review of my second attempt, if Taavi has nothing else to say.

Ciao e buon fine settimana! :-)