Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

(add request · view requests)

User:Underbar dk

• Underbar dk (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I've been here for almost two decades, with 30k+ edits and a fair number of articles created in the mean time. I believe I am well-qualified for autopatrolled perms. _dk (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

User:M.Billoo2000

• M.Billoo2000 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

Hi. Based upon my learning and experience over the years of editing on Wikipedia (almost a decade now), I have created very selected pages which I find qualifying Wikipedia policies. If I find them trending in news but un-complying with the policies, I usually leave a redirect, or occasionally start with the draft. I believe not a single page that I created and/or majorly contributed has been deleted, and many respected editors and admins whom I had interacted with have always been helpful and supportive, believing in my good faith. Plus I only rewrite those articles in bad state which I find relevant, and not every other random article. However, due to recent attacks by sock puppetry over my edits, I want to be an autopatrolled user, so that I can easily continue volunteering independently here, and participate in the ongoing Destubathon as well. I promise I will not misuse this position. Thank you! M. Billoo 13:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

User:GGOTCC

• GGOTCC (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

As of writing, I have created more than 50 articles from either redlinks or expanded redirects alongside ~30 templates, with only one superfluous template having been deleted. With a dozen Good Article and DYK citations, I believe I have proven myself in understanding the fomat and style of Wikipedia. My current project, to create articles on US Civil War-era ship classes, has and will quickly add more to the backlog. I have never had any issue with the New Page Patrol (that I recall), and would like to not add to their work as several of my previous articles/templates took months to be marked as reviewed (quite understandable, it's a large backlog!). My newest articles, all created since this weekend, (Mohican-class sloop, Sacramento-class sloop, Algoma-class sloop, and Potomac-class frigate) are well cited and comply with all requirments. Thank you! GGOTCC 02:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You might want to go back to the Potomac-class frigate article and address the referencing errors that show up, GGOTCC. Schwede66 03:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Upon a closer look, I see that those errors were introduced by an AWB run by Rich Smith. Schwede66 03:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Schwede66: and @GGOTCC:, sorry about that. Basically the cite errors appears as AWB converts 'others' to 'author', which cite book doesn't like as you should either have a first and last name OR an author. There is no need to put 'Internet Archive' there, so I've just removed it which resolved the error. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

These things do happen with AWB runs. Stuff like that has happened to me too. It shouldn’t because one should check, but it does. I pinged you to (a) make you aware of it for future runs, and (b) because I thought you might want to go back over those edits. Great to hear that you are applying a fix, Rich Smith. Schwede66 10:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)