Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

• NewAccount7295 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma · from redirect) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

38 pages created. GA Lego Life, DYK Rebrickable, DYK En rejse til månen, DYKN Pym Test Kitchen, DYKN Lamplight Lounge. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I have a few issues with some of their articles. Planet Zoo: Arctic Pack has multiple unreliable sources (WP:VG/S), such as TheXboxHub and Impulse Gamer. Comments like this also don't fill me with confidence, as it shows they are not sure that articles they've authored meet the (admittedly stricter) notability guidelines of the WP:VG project. 23/41 of their articles are WP:STUBS, which are usually not too time-consuming for reviewers. (Whilst they did get Lego Life to GA, they did not author the article itself). My opinion obviously has little to no bearing on the decision here, but I think these factors demonstrate a need for continued second-looks, at least for the time being. Thank you for your contributions, @NewAccount7295, and for you recent participation at WT:VGRS (making an effort to learn is respectable and shows commitment to the project)! (Non-administrator comment) 11WB 💬 23:53, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I will point out that they are 88% author on Lego Life, which makes who has page creation credit rather irrelevant. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:26, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I don't agree. It is the original author who assesses whether a topic (in this case Lego Life) is notable. Overhauling an existing article does not demonstrate that ability, which is required for AP. Else a bunch of non-notable articles would end up in mainspace without secondary review. 11WB 💬 02:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@NewAccount7295, thanks for your work at DYK and your application here. I'm taking a look through your last several created pages. Can you comment on what makes RollerCoaster Tycoon Wonderworks notable based on the sources you selected and the coverage it has right now? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Courtesy ping @NewAccount7295 to make sure you saw my question above. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Dclemens1971 While there are no reviews it is because the game is still upcoming and was recently announced. Articles analyzing it are linked in the sources (which you mentioned) and it is part of an already notable video game series so there is probably room for expansion. Could you elaborate a bit more on why you think it might not be notable? If you don't think it is you are welcome to nominate it at AFD. We can discuss the sources there and see other editor's opinions on it NewAccount7295 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@NewAccount7295 Here's my analysis on it. It hasn't been released yet, but like many games it gets pre-release coverage. In this case, the coverage is based on Atari's press release and promotional materials -- it has to be, since there's no game to experience or review. As a result, the coverage you've included isn't actually independent of the subject since it's solely based on information released by the game producer. Now, I'd anticipate that the game is likely to become notable once reviews trickle in, but it doesn't appear to have passed a notability guideline when you created it. (If there isn't qualifying coverage now, I'd suggest draftifying instead of AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I think @Dclemens1971's analysis is spot on. It's great that @A412 believes you have put out enough for AP, but over the past week or so, I've observed some serious issues with your knowledge of notability, @NewAccount7295. For one instance, at a recent AfD you counted a WP:VALNET source as SIGCOV when VG/S specifically makes clear that Valnet owned sources are not considered as such. My concern is that such articles based entirely on such sources could end up bypassing NPP were you to have this permission. I don't think now is the right time. This is a highly scrutinised perm and for good reason. (Sorry if this comes across as harsh, unfortunately it is the reality. You're doing great work. Keep it up in my opinion and AP can very likely be given later on.) 11WB 💬 02:18, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@NewAccount7295, please put aside 11WB’s comments as they will not be making any decision here. Do you have any thoughts on my analysis of the notability of the subject discussed above? My instinct is to decline the perm request at present because I do not think the Roller Coaster Tycoon article should have been created in this state (and its creation is so recent), but I’m interested in your perspective in case there’s anything you think I missed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Dclemens1971 A lot of the subjects I edit are of borderline notability, so I am okay not having it. You may decline it. (Plenty of upcoming video games have articles given their announcements have had coverage. As I said before, if you feel there isn't enough (I think it can be expanded with the current source) nominate it for draftification. I am okay with that. I actually welcome a nomination since we can discuss it with other users there.) NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@NewAccount7295  Not done at this time, but I encourage you to keep creating articles and participating at DYK. The DYK regulars are also pros at notability, and by reviewing/promoting there I suspect you'll gain greater awareness of our notability standards. Another way to develop your skills in this area and assist new article creators is by reviewing articles at Articles for Creation. I invite you re-apply after a period of time if you feel like you've improved your understanding of our notability standards. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2026 (UTC)reply

• Omnipup1 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma · from redirect) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^(notify)

I have been editing the English Wikipedia for over three years, with about 2,500 overall edits, and have created more than 70 mainspace articles. I regularly create sourced articles, particularly on historical, archaeological and biographical subjects. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies on notability, verifiability, biographies of living persons, copyright and NPOV. My article creations generally do not require substantive New Page Patrol cleanup. I am requesting autopatrolled rights to reduce the New Pages Patrol workload due to existing strain. Omnipup1 (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I have started a discussion about your creations at the AI noticeboard here; it would be good if you could comment there. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)reply

I understand that autopatrolled is mainly about whether my new articles can safely bypass New Page Patrol. I am taking the concerns raised at AIN seriously and am going back over older articles where specific problems have been pointed out. I have commented at the noticeboard and begun reviewing three articles identified there: I have already revised Bayt al-Dhakira wal-Turath to remove redundant and over-attributed prose, and revised Hani al-Hayek's article with new material reflecting his activities since the page's creation. I would deal with the Saeed al-Amour article later this week.

I would appreciate it if this request could also be judged on the basis of my recent editing and current practice rather than examples of LLM usage from 2025 and early 2026, which predate the March 2026 change to WP:LLM. Since that time I have not used AI to generate article prose; and my LLM assistance is confined to the permitted use for translation from another-language (Arabic/Hebrew) Wikipedia for missing articles in English, with manual review and revision, with disclosure in edit summaries and/or talk pages. Omnipup1 (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

That just means that users won't be retroactively sanctioned for breaking the NOLLM guideline, old text is not "grandfathered in", and it is definitely relevant when considering granting Autopatrolled to to someone. And it is also demonstrably false that you stopped using AI after NOLLM was passed in March because Diff/1343935605 is from April, and would have violated the older NEWLLM version of the guideline as well. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:27, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Apologies, I need to correct myself here. The edit that I linked is from March (not April). ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Thanks for raising this. I have commented at AIN and gone back through the three artcles mentioned there. I have already revised Bayt al-Dhakira wal-Turath and Hani al-Hayek in response to the concerns raised, and I will review Saeed al-Amour early next week as well.

I did use LLMs in some articles in 2025 and early 2026. After I recieved guidance on Wikipedia's LLM policies in March, I changed my practice and have limited LLM use to permitted purposes, mainly translation, with manual source checking, revision and disclosure.

I have been editing the English Wikipedia for more than three years, with 2,500+ edits. I would appreciate it if the request could be assessed on my recent creations and current editing practice.Omnipup1 (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC)reply

@Omnipup1, did you use an LLM to compose or edit your response above at 4:32 on 26 August? Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Of course not! Omnipup1 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

It certainly read that way to me. I'll take you at your word, but the response does not give me confidence to action your request. I'll leave it here for another administrator to evaluate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Dear @Dclemens1971, I believe assuming good faith is key. People may need to be advised on wiki regulations they might have been ill-informed before, like I may have been with regard to early articles I've contributed, but I have since then kept a good standing with significant contributions of primarily historical/geographic, archaeological and linguistic data in a field of Levantine and Israel/Palestine related subjects which are otherwise desiderata on Wikipedia. Again, thank you and your fellow users in reviewing this request. Omnipup1 (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply