Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Autopatrolled

Sorry, temporary accounts cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
Please read Wikipedia:Autopatrolled before requesting or nominating another user for this right. Applicants will not be granted this right if they have not created at least 25 new articles on the English Wikipedia, excluding redirects and disambiguation pages. These articles should be free of problems requiring the attention of patrollers. Note that this right will not help you create or patrol articles.

User:Iljhgtn

I have been editing for several years now, have close to 89,000 edits, and have new page patrol which I regularly patrol new pages with. I also am a regular in AfD discussions, but I also make new pages, though less frequently than my other activities. I think my new articles pass the requirements of GNG and other guidelines in order to pass the patrol/review process. I've made at least 27 articles in the mainspace, and thousands of others which do not count for this (redirects or disambiguation). Ping me if there are any other questions. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 01:33, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @Iljhgtn's most recent articles are for publications, such as books. Checks of those articles didn't raise any red flags. A minor note about AG1 (company), is that WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable. Articles on companies, as I'm sure @Iljhgtn will know as a fellow reviewer, are notoriously challenging to write in a manner that doesn't come across as WP:PROMO. I didn't come across this in the AG1 article, which is reassuring. I will remain neutral, but I think @Iljhgtn can be trusted with AP. Thank you for your contributions! 11WB (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @11WB. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 02:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing some WP:V and WP:OR issues. Several paragraphs in Swedenburg v. Kelly lack citations. Professional speech has a lot of direct citations to individual court cases rather than secondary sources that describe the law. Additionally, whole sections of the article lack citations.
The Capitalist Manifesto (Norberg book) has a lot of long quotations. Aella (writer) also has an overly long quotation. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your points, such as Aella (writer), are articles which are multiple years old, long since reviewed, and have received hundreds of edits after the fact. Are you referring to the present state of the articles? Am I to be responsible for all edits that follow on any that I created? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok forget about the article on Aella. The long quotes from The Capitalist Manifesto has been there since the start: Special:Permalink/1187712008. As for the first two articles, you're the only major contributor. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Long quotes are more of a stylistic choice. One that I have since moved away from after receiving some feedback from others. See more recent book articles such as Mazel Tov (book) or Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth, both have quotes, but much shorter snippets. I'm fine with going back and removing older, longer quotes for the record. I just haven't edited those in years in some cases. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments on the first two articles I looked at? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles do have sections that require sources for verification. I have applied the relevant banner to them both. I remained neutral regarding their request for AP, but this does unfortunately give me pause. The articles are good, but are missing something quite fundamental. 11WB (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts and @11WB I would hope that this addressed that, "One that I have since moved away from after receiving some feedback from others." More recent work has only improved, and the articles even that you mention on the whole are still deemed notable and worth keeping (I do lots of work at AfDs, having participated in thousands). As for articles I create nowadays, I think they almost no work, and AP should therefore not be a problem. That said, nothing is 100% perfect, and I am open to improvements and leaving changes in place on articles which I have since created, as I also respect that I do not WP:OWN them. I believe the fact that they have not been deleted, and most don't even have any banners for needing improvement is also a testament to my familiarity with what goes into a quality, WP:GNG-passing Wikipedia article. I hope for @11WB that my answer is satisfactory to you and that you do not have further cause for "pause", but please ping me if so. I did not check back here for several days and so my apologies for the delayed response. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn: a good grasp of the notability guidelines is one aspect of WP:APCRITERIA. The fact that you've written articles without adding citations to whole sections of articles is a problem. I'm going to decline AP at this time. Please focus on ensuring that all articles you write going forward comply with WP:V.  Not done voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts I was still answering your questions. Is it expected that every article from the beginning of joining Wikipedia with your first article onwards should be "perfect"? Or that a demonstrated track record of improvement and a full understanding and appreciation of Wikipedia's WP:PG is gained over time, over years, and eventually (been at this for years now), one's work gets to be good enough that AP could be potentially earned to make it easier on all volunteers in this project? I think this "Not done" is premature and I respectfully ask for you to reconsider and allow for me to fully answer any other questions that you or others may have. I've also pointed to more recent work which I don't think you had issues with, as well as others where I'd answered your question seemingly to satisfaction. Also, inline citations is not a required policy for every line or paragraph, but a best practice, and the content that I added, even when not cited, was still found WP:V with all the books which I had read and written articles about. Though admittedly it would have been beneficial to add inline citations with page numbers and I do more of that over the years. You're citing some of my earlier works. Thank you for your consideration. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the sections which may have otherwise been unsourced at present on Professional speech and Swedenburg v. Kelly (created in for example, I went back after @11WB tagged the articles and removed any unsourced sections. Thank you for your help @11WB. I'd ask though to consider the dates for when some of these were created when questioned, @Voorts you mentioned The Capitalist Manifesto (Norberg book) in one case, which was created in 2023. Others were more recent, but I believe there is a track record of improvement over time sufficient to warrant a granting of AP in my view. That said, I am happy to further address questions on any other sections or articles I've written. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Voorts, with respect and appreciation, and though I said that I was content to leave this be, I think given the conversation over here, it might be reasonable to tag in some of those other participants for additional perspective related to my being granted AP or not. Do you think this is reasonable? I did not want to ping anyone myself at the risk of being seen as potentially WP:CANVASSING, but some of them are very senior editors, dating back to the early 2000s, and seem to agree with my understanding of the WP:PG and WP:V. I think at the very least, even if not granted this permission by yourself at this time, that you may want to undo the "Not done" decline and leave it for another admin to decide for now. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, inline citations is not a required policy for every line or paragraph, but a best practice, .... That is incorrect. WP:BURDEN states: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (emphasis in original). voorts (talk/contributions) 19:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If challenged, then the content should be removed. Yes, that is correct and I agree. What I was saying was that the content had not been challenged, and since I'd written those often a bit after reading about the material that I was writing on, I sometimes admit that I intended to go back to some of those and might not have always done so. What I was saying is that I agree with WP:BURDEN, and "Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed [not must be]. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added.
I fully agree and understand the policy here. I think we are on the same page. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do also agree with the process here, and with @11WB's helpful tagging in parts, and since I do not at the moment have the time to go way back to these older articles, since the content has now been challenged, I felt it was appropriate to at least remove whichever sections then are presently unsourced, while retaining the remainder. Thank you @Voorts and @11WB both. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BURDEN refers to adding material, not just restoring it after being challenged. You are responsible for providing an inline citation when you add content, notwithstanding whether another editor contests the lack of citation. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to reply with a note regarding BURDEN, but @voorts beat me to it! 'All content must be verifiable.' 11WB (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am in full agreement, "must be verifiable", it all was, and is, from the articles that I wrote. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V, "All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment."
How could it be that there is ever an instance where there is "no citation for it in the article at the moment" if we have a firm requirement that all added content always must have an inline citation added at the very moment the content is added and the editor clicks 'publish'? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And again, I stand by the fact that what I added was and is WP:Verifiable, meaning that it would be able to have a source/citation from a WP:RS substantiate the various content. It is just at the time I did not always add those, but we are not talking about contentious content here, but mundane facts of each of these articles, and non-BLPs. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually asking about that at the Teahouse just now, feel free to comment if you'd like. I do believe that editors are free to WP:BOLDly add to Wikipedia without the immediate source being always inserted inline, provided the author of an article knows such a source substantiating the added content exists, and is WP:Verifiable and a WP:RS, which in the case of what I wrote, I knew all such material existed, I just might not have always had it right at hand. In some of these examples I must have been busy and did not always get around to doing all the citation additions in one motion at the point of publication. That said, I do believe it is absolutely a best practice to follow and am aware that any such content being challenged could be removed promptly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BURDEN requires you to "demonstrate verifiability" when you "add" content. It is not sufficient for you to know that sources exist when you add content. You need to show our readers and other editors what those sources are. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That is clear and helpful language, as you write it. I'd love to see where in WP:V or WP:BURDEN it says exactly that though. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB and @Voorts here is the Teahouse thread that I started as a result of this permission request, just in case I am missing something here. I am always happy to learn something new regardless of the outcome of this RfP. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is filling up the requests page. It would be good to carry this on at your thread now. 11WB (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It'll get archived soon anyways. There are three threads here all of which have been declined. The bot will handle it. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Would you give guidance to me on when it might be acceptable to reapply if we have truly met with an impasse, even for an editor editing Wikipedia since 2023 with 88,500 edits, and 28 reviewed articles. How many articles with every single line cited to an WP:RS would you want to see that I create before I reapply? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn Autopatrolled is not a prestige award for creating a lot of articles nor can it be determined by asking a admin "What (do) you want to see". AP does not confer you any right besides the ability to (un)review your own articles. It is primarily a technical mechanism for NPP to say "I don't need to look at these other folks articles I've never found a fault with them". The fastest requests we handle on this board are when other NPPers nominate other people. My personal recommendation would be to continue creating good, well sourced articles and wait to see if NPPers will nominate you once they believe you have a good track record. Sohom (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I totally respect that as an NPPer myself. Thank you @Sohom Datta @Voorts and @11WB for the time in looking this over. I will no longer comment then on this discussion here and will let it auto-archive. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Granting of AP is not a consensus decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cypp0847

@Cypp0847 has authored 198 articles, of which only 2 have been deleted. One of these was for WP:SYNTH, the AfD having taken place during October 2022. They primarily translate articles from the Chinese Wikipedia, recent examples contain no issues that require action by an NPR. I reviewed Ma Tau Wai Road building collapse and found no issues, other than adding the translation banner to the talk page. Chinese sources vary in reliability, but based on the articles I have reviewed from @Cypp0847, the sourcing appears consistent and without issue. BLPs such as John Clancey are well sourced and do not leave any information uncited. A recent AfD of their article John MacLennan resulted in a unanimous keep. Their talk page is mostly filled with automated messages regarding images, with little after April 2025. Based on what I've seen from @Cypp0847, I am quite confident the 2022 AfD SYNTH concerns were an anomaly, and doesn't appear to have been an ongoing issue, with no reoccurrences since. Thank you for your contributions and translations, @Cypp0847! 11WB (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB: Thank you for your nomination and your kind words. Will do the best to keep up with the good work. ~~ J. Dann 10:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! This should be seen and reviewed by an administrator within the next 7 days or so! 11WB (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&oldid=1336259385"