Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin


Autopatrolled

(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts

User:Dipankan001

The user is trusted. The user has one FL and one DYK under his belt. I don't think that there are any serious issues about his articles, and he can be granted the rights. Rest is on the community. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note I declined Dipankan's request last time because of concerns over unreferenced material/copyright issues. That was about a month ago. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issues had been solved and you said to reapply in 1 month. BTW though I did not nominate myself, I feel I'm good to go. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 11:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm glad you did reapply, I just wanted the patrolling admin to know why I did what I did last time so they can check. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:BarkingFish

Have been on Wikipedia now for over 7 years, recently starting to move into article creation and translation and currently working NPP. Never actually realised my edits were not autopatrolled, and I would like to ask for this to be done, since I feel I can be trusted to edit correctly and in accordance with policy.  BarkingFish  02:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) User has only created 21 articles [1] (According to the Pages created tool) Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 03:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never realised that you needed to apply to have your edits autopatrolled - I thought that this was something like rollback, where you were granted it after a while. I know my article creation count is low, and that's because I spend 90% of my time working NPP or RC patrol, and grabbing things that really shouldn't be on here - I'm starting to burn out though, and wish to expand my article creation work. I don't do enough of it, and I feel I should be doing a whole lot more - but to still have my edits patrolled after 7 years? Damn.  BarkingFish  03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of autopatrolled. Your edits do not need to be autopatrolled, it is just to help reduce the work load of New Page Patrollers. Yes, users are granted it after awhile but that is if the user has the need for it often. In your case, you have only created 3 content articles this year and in my mind it doesn't show that you really need it. "wish to expand my article creation work." - The right does not help you with your article creation in any ways. "but to still have my edits patrolled after 7 years?"- Having 21 articles patrolled over 7 years of time is not a large amount of work. I suggest you create more articles and request the right again. Please also include references and inline citations. Feel free to read the autopatrolled page if you haven't already. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 03:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC) :)[reply]
I am misunderstanding nothing, Riley. Since I'm laying off on the cleanup side of WP, I am going to be submitting new articles at a rate of knots for quite a while now - I need a change. The autopatrolled right will reduce the workload on the NPP'ers, which they will be noticing as I shift up a gear. The right indicated that the user "can be trusted not to submit inappropriate pages", and although it does also state "submits them often enough that it is better to mark them pre-emptively", it is better that I apply now rather than annoying the NPP with my buildup as I work through a large list of translations and stuff I am going to be bringing in.  BarkingFish  03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I accept your argument about your volume of articles created, and look forward to seeing you move into more creation work. However, of those articles you have created so far, there are a few which raise concerns, and which I would not be happy allowing through NPP unpatrolled. For example, Zoological medicine, and Helme Heine have external links but no inline references at all, whilst Peter Maffay has only two (not particularly good) sources cited, neither of which you added. Baby-Notarztwagen has no external links or references at all, nor does Carmen Kurtz. I appreciate that you're translating these from the German, and that some were created way back when the notability criteria may have been different, but I'm still not comfortable with your created articles being autopatrolled at this time. Create/translate another 30 or so, with appropriate references, and I'd be happy to re-review. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking anyway, Yunshui - allow me please to clear up a couple of those. Zoological medicine was created only as a stub while I was making a new stub category, well over 6 years ago - the fact that it remains without refs after over 6 years is not necessarily down to me. Baby-Notarztwagen was only created yesterday, and the German article has no references or citations whatsoever, leaving me to find appropriate material to support the article, and Carmen Kurtz was stubbed by me to clean up a redlink on here, and I requested translation to finish that work - I bought in the base of the article from the Spanish Wikipedia, where there were (at the time) also, no references. I don't mind bringing in translations, but it's annoying when the criteria are so different, that one wikipedia can have no refs whatsoever, and another needs to be verified to the hilt. Thank you anyway.  BarkingFish  14:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with BF's work, and I was surprised to see this request denied. Yunshui, might I ask you to reconsider? BF has a long tenure here, and history of solid work on the 'pedia in general. I don't believe he'd abuse autopatrolled if he was given the right - in fact, knowing him, I rather think he'd be extra-careful to make sure he's not doing anything that would be problematic, since he'd know no one would be patrolling his work. As with all rights, if it turns out that he doesn't quite "get it", we could always remove it again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed every one of barkingFish's creations. Not all of them are substantial articles by any means, many of them are unreferenced, others are still tagged for other issues, while others are simply DAB pages. I still see a need for his creations to be quickly checked by patrollers, and with all due respects to Fluffernutter, as autopatrolled is not a 'right' in the true sense, but is intended to reduce the workload on page patrollers, I think it would be prudent to wait until he has addressed existing issues and fulfilled the compliment of 50 articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I respect Fluffernutter's endorsement, I do honestly think that autopatrolling Barkingfish's creations is a decision that needs to wait until there's a large enough sample of passable articles. I don't for a moment doubt that his future contributions will put him past the bar for autopatrolled, and if he's as prolific in content creation as he has been in other areas this won't take very long at all. I'd be more than happy to reassess once the fifty article mark is passed - yes, that means NPP have to deal with an extra 50 articles, but I'd feel remiss handing out the userright without sufficient hard evidence of its necessity and appropriateness. Sorry to disappoint at this time. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Yunshui and Kudpung. Thanks for taking second looks :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thine Antique Pen (public)

Thine Antique Pen has created 61 articles under this username. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to change your decision. His main account has the autopatrolled right. It's difficult for NPPer's to review 500 articles/day. Also, "historic reasons" is not a good term to use here. If you refer to hat collecting, he has stopped it long before, now he's a changed, good editor. Please review your actions -- Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He has made 61 short bot like stubs on his secondary account. All but two come from a single source and are in same format "Cychrus X is a species of ground beetle in the subfamily of Carabinae. It was described by Y in Z." In most cases the bit is given out after 50+ decent articles not 50 articles created via a script. The fact that he is violating WP:MASSCREATION is my reason for denial. The hat collecting in his past hat collecting/his standing ban on rights requests and lack of multiple sources on the vast majority the pages he created on this account amplifies the situation. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in but who said he was/is using an automated or semi-automated script to create these articles? It is common for people to do all the writing and save all of them at the same time. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Riley for pointing out that discrepancy, and thank you to Guerillero for explaining his reasoning in more detail (the original rationale was really not fit for purpose).
The decline stands, since a great deal of leeway is granted to administrators in dealing with requests here. If articles only having a single source is not (in Guerillero's view) enough to gain this user right, then that's the result.
However, I agree with Riley that the accusation of a breach of WP:MASSCREATION is misplaced - TAP is not creating these articles using any automated or semi-automated process (apart from a template, possibly), and no script is involved. Ample opportunity for human review has been provided (including the articles created by the main account), and none of the articles have ever been deleted via AfD or CSD. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am required to mention here that Guerillero canvassed opinion on the IRC channel #wikipedia-en about him having received complaints over his initial denial of this request. (On his talk page, all I can see is a talkback template.) This canvassing resulted in one non-administrator describing TAP as a "moron"; and saying that he has "always been a moron". My questioning this rather empty analysis led to my being told by this person to "fuck off" (more than once), and subsequently that they would "have an admin" block me. They also said "if you harass my friends, I will go after you for it". Considering all this in the whole, my suggestions are, firstly, please don't attach personal animosities to minor rights requests like this; and secondly, please don't canvass on IRC in this way, because it leads to stupidity. (The person making all of the quoted comments agreed to my reposting them here, but I have not identified them anyway.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Demiurge, if I'm understanding you correctly, the person who declined this request did not partake of the whole tossing-out-insults thing. Is that correct? If so, it seems a bit of a derail to bring it into this discussion as if it had bearing on the decision Guerillero made prior to that conversation. I would also suggest you give a re-read to WP:CANVASS - again, assuming I'm understanding you correctly, Guerillero asked for opinions on his decision, because he'd received complaints? That wouldn't seem to fall under our canvassing prohibition, which would call for him to have either spoken to a group which would be expected to be non-neutral, or to have phrased his request for opinions non-neutrally, or for him to have asked excessively for opinions, or for him to have asked on irc for other people to join the discussion going on here. Again, I didn't see the conversation when it happened, so I'm going by your description, but it doesn't sound like he did any of those things. And to whichever person made the comments DU quoted here...for the love of pete, there's no need to attack or threaten editors who disagree with you. Bad show. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRC is totally unofficial and nothing discussed there can be used to support arguments in recognised meta areas such as this one. I support the decline expressed by Guerillo at this time. Nobody is forced to maintain two accounts.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fluffernutter, you are correct that Guerillero did not indulge in the same behaviour as the misguided individual who used the phrases that I quoted. He did, however, canvass for opinions on that matter, thus starting the discussion, and he also rather signally failed to disassociate himself from that behaviour as it continued. (It went on for quite some time.) I agree with Kudpung that IRC is not, by any means, the right venue to make decisions on things like this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who gave the {{talkback}} notice to Guerillo. I wanted to inform him that somebody disagreed with him. That is all. I dream of horses (T) @ 09:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Thine Antique Pen topic-banned from requesting user rights? Never mind, I dream of horses nominated him.

Electric Catfish 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orange Firefly

Has made over 100 articles I dream of horses (T) @ 21:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done plenty of well-formed sports-related stub articles. -- Dianna (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Receptie123

I have been a new page patroller for a long time Receptie123 (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) - User has only made 49 main space edits and has only created 2 articles. My suggestion: Please read about the user right here and come back when you have created around 50 articles. :-) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. User is notready for this right at this time. Another creation was CSD today. Receptie123 shojuld wait until s/he has created at least 50 pages without any glaring issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&oldid=506035370

Leave a Reply