Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

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:Ranjithsiji

I have created over 45 articles which has reliable, independent sources. Trying to improve references related to Kerala, India. Ranjithsiji (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ranjithsiji I do not believe your creations are consistently free of issues requiring New Page Patrol attention.
@Vanderwaalforces Thank you for the updates. I will try to clear them. There is not enough sources in Internet for some articles. But I will try to find and improve the references. Ranjithsiji (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ranjithsiji: your articles should be properly sourced before you move them to mainspace or submit them for review at AfC. If you don't have a source for information, you shouldn't be adding it, unless it's an obvious statement of fact (for example, the sky is blue). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts There are sources about some of the subjects. In some cases those are offline, also in local languages. So that will not help readers in English Wikipedia. Still I can add them as books with page numbers etc. But what I am trying is to find online sources which are instantly available to English readers. This might not happen suddenly. Need to wait for some time. In the article Koomapatti there are lot of Tamil offline sources. Some of them are govt sources. But those are not online and in Tamil langauge. So that will not serve the original purpose. I am keeping some article in the draft due to this problem. There is no easy solution. To solve some problem we need Time, Money and resources. In other cases I have the confidence that I can improve in future. Ranjithsiji (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ranjithsiji Not exactly, many editors use non-English source on English Wikipedia. FWIW, I recently used a French-language source for one of my creations, I had to translate them to English first, then summarised the translation in English to use here. Because this is English Wikipedia, all sources must not be in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
See WP:NOENG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Vanderwaalforces If it is offline (And far away from where editor is living) and we must request permission to access (In govt sources case) And need to pay fee to get the access (In some cases). What happens ? Ranjithsiji (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
How do you know if what you're writing is true or that the sources support what you're writing if you haven't looked at the sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts Looked at the sources and giving quotation in a dispute are two different things. If I am adding a non-English source. Like a report from local govt or a report from a religious institution then I need to make a copy of the sources and keep it in my custody to give as a proof. This is not always possible. Insted keep the article as unreferenced is better. Ranjithsiji (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
There is no requirement that you make a copy of a source. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:56, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts The Quoting section give very difficult choices. Need an official translator other than a Wikipedian. Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles, be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline. These are very hard rules to follow. If the material is offline in local languages (In most rural / local cases it is). If the dispute arise after long time the above rules are hard to follow. Still I can obtain the sourced material but to get it I need to spend Time, Money, Resources. In most cases I cannot have that bandwidth. So these things will put me in very difficult situation. So make an offline copy is better solution. That might not be possible in most cases. This is why lot of jobs from my side is pending in English Wikipedia. For Example - Most of the articles about Panchayats in Kerala are wrong in English Wikipedia. We corrected all of them in Malayalam Wikipedia. Because we had an offline meeting 9 years back and decided to do the correction, move pages, do structuring etc. But to do this in English Wikipedia it is not easy. Lot of discussions, explanations etc. So doing it slowly. Ranjithsiji (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
You are not required to keep copies of sources. The only requirement is that you cite them. There is also no requirement that you use an official translator to use sources as references. You are not required to spend your money paying translators or photocopying government documents. Nonetheless, if you need financial assistance to assist with your editing, you can apply to the WMF for grants.
In any event, I'm not sure how the Malayalam Wikipedia operates, but on the English Wikipedia, you should be using mostly secondary sources, rather than primary source government documents. Please review WP:OR.
Because we had an offline meeting 9 years back and decided to do the correction, move pages, do structuring etc. Off-wiki coordination is prohibited. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts Without offwiki coordination, annual editors meeting, smaller wikis cannot survive. In some cases (Like the case of Panchayts) We had decided to source lot of govt materials before meeting and have a consensuses about page structure, infoboxes, sources etc and cleanup lot of pages. For administrative subjects Government doucemnts are better than other third party sources. Government documents ane verified, reviewed mostly correct documents to relay. Third party sources have more errors and outdated information due to lack of accurate raw data. Every year we have annual meetup and having discussions about onwiki and offwiki topics and next year plans. Ranjithsiji (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
Off-wiki coordination is not allowed on the English Wikipedia. You cannot impose the consensus that exists on Malayalam Wikipedia here.
For administrative subjects Government doucemnts are better than other third party sources. Government documents ane verified, reviewed mostly correct documents to relay. Third party sources have more errors and outdated information due to lack of accurate raw data. I'm not sure what kind of information you're sourcing to government documents, but on the English Wikipedia, articles are supposed to summarize what reliable secondary sources say. Government reports and data are primary sources and if that's all you're relying on to write articles, you are engaging in original research.
Each Wikipedia community is different. Please familiarize yourself with the policies & guideliens of en-wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Voorts I am not imposing anything here. relying on government information is not original research (Example: Census data). Location and boundaries of an administration, Annual expenditure etc. I am reading the policies and guidelines of en-wiki Ranjithsiji (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
I thought you were trying to apply the style you came up with on the other wiki here. I misunderstood. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ranjithsiji I believe by “editor” you mean you. Well, the point is; if getting the source is this tedious, then why not focus on other topics? My workflow is usually, when I notice a topic, I look for sources, if I’m unable to get them, I ditch it and move to another. Sometimes, while writing about the other, I tend to come across sources for what I initially ditched. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Vanderwaalforces Only one answer to this. Representation, Bias, Coverage. To achieve this we need to go through difficult path. You can look into research papers of Gender bias in English Wikipedia. Ranjithsiji (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ranjithsiji I have replied on your talk page. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
@Ranjithsiji:  Not done per @Vanderwaalforces. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:49, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:CostalCal

I am requesting autopatrolled rights to help reduce the backlog at New Page Review. I have created 49 articles (primarily focusing on wildfires), with 49 of my 50 total creations successfully remaining in mainspace. As an active New Page Reviewer, I understand article policies and guidelines very thoroughly. My pages are well-sourced, neutral, and clean. CostalCal (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @CostalCal Honestly, I believe your NPP and AfC experience is positive, but recent creations still contain issues that warrant the review this right would bypass. In Government of Truckee, California, several references are bare URLs, which is not the major issue; the citation attached to the Finance section is a California Assembly-members page that does not verify the numerous local tax and revenue claims. 2026 Georgia wildfires was tagged for notability shortly after creation and still contains an uncited claim. Your newest creation, Thunder Bay 36 Fire, had sources removed as non-verifying. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
 Not done, unfortunately, per Vanderwaalforces and these concerns I raised about CoastalCal's reviewing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI