Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

(add request • view requests)

User:MarshalN20

• MarshalN20 (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 generally create articles as I am working on projects to submit for featured review. I have created articles about living people (and have read the BLP guidelines). Providing me with autopatrolled creations would help the project.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

While you have 60 page creations, I have not reviewed them all, and would tend to discount any that were impacted by your topic ban. Can anyone uninvolved review these? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My topic ban had nothing to do with article creation, so I don't quite understand the rationale to "discount" any of my created articles. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

As there is a 50 article standard for this permission, I would tend to not count any articles that that would fall under the topics you are banned from. Please note, this is only the way I am personally evaluating this request, and have no objection if any other admin disagrees. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done in light of your... err, chequered past here on WP, but mostly on principle rather than to diminish your contributions. I'd be more comfortable with your new articles staying out in the open. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: Per the policy at WP:TBAN on conduct towards banned editors, your reasoning is not appropriate (also read WP:BLOCKBANDIFF), and I consider your accusation that I have a "chequered past" an insult. Please correct your statement/reasoning accordingly. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No thanks. A simple look at your block log reveals a history of issues. Apparently I blocked you years ago (I have no recollection of that whatsoever), so if you feel this is a COI I'd be happy to defer to another admin. Otherwise... my reasoning stands. The autopatrolled flag is for users in good standing who create so many policy-adherent articles as to overwhelm NPP. Seeing as you're barely over the rather arbitrary 50-article threshold, you're currently affected by a topic ban, and you have been blocked multiple times in the past, I see no reason to override the standard process for reviewing new articles. Again, I'm speaking from a procedural point of view—I've no doubt as to the practical quality and integrity of your work. That said, I'm not sure why anybody would particularly care whether or not their account is autopatrolled. It has absolutely no influence on your daily editing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Note that I granted MarshalN20 the rollback right a couple days ago, so I have no prejudice toward the user. These are simply different rights with different purposes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: You blocked me for breaking the WP:3RR in an article, back in 2009 (when I did not know the rule). I have also neither accused you of prejudice nor malice. I only requested that you please edit what I consider an insult at my editing history. You responded by mentioning an "escalation" in conflict ([1]), despite I had only cited policy and made a polite request. To further clarify, the banning policy at no point indicates that a topic ban is a reason to prevent anything other than my editing on the topic for which I am banned (and, in fact, implicitly indicates that any other uses for it should be avoided, explicitly pointing out mocking, baiting, or other abuse). If you want to deny me the autopatrolled rights for any other reason, I can understand; however, I again kindly request that you remove that which I consider unfair and insulting. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to redact anything I've said. Once more, I'm going to speak objectively and in general terms, and without reflecting on the quality of your work: the bottom line is that your new pages are not currently a strain on the NPP system. You've exceeded the recommended minimum number of article creations, yes, but in a borderline case such as this, I'd like to see a nearly flawless editing history and no current editing restrictions. Again, I'm not sure why you're so enthused about acquiring this rather dull and extremely bureaucratic flag. Its purpose is to serve other contributors, not the account on which it's activated. If you recommend your account for a procedural flag, you can expect a clinical analysis of its history; this is true of several of these requests for permissions pages. If you'd like me to change "your" to "your account's" in my above posts to reflect this, I'll happily oblige. Otherwise, I do not intend to change my mind or alter my comments. Feel free to ask another admin for their opinion, but please do point them to this discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: I think I've been clear in stating that what I find bothersome is the insulting accusations on my editing history. You comment that I do not have a "nearly flawless editing history", and use my block log as a justification, but then previously claim to "have no recollection of that whatsoever" when referring to the time you blocked me five years ago. It's far more fair for me to assume that you do not know the other reasons for which I was temporarily blocked and, therefore, cannot properly evaluate the severity of my actions to affirm that my editing is not "nearly flawless". I certainly wouldn't consider a block for a 3 revert-rule break as a horrible stain on anyone's edit history, which is the reason behind your block and that of Crazycomputer. Toddst1 blocked me by mistake, and Sandstein's block was overturned by the community (that speaks for itself). Please let me know which one of these makes my past "chequered"?--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I don't remember each user I blocked half a decade ago. Thankfully we have block logs which allow me to review your case as I would any user who I'd never encountered. At this point your apparent obsession for this right strikes me as evidence of power hunger, though I can't imagine who would perceive the autopatrolled flag as power in any sense of the word. Very confusing, that. I'll make it simple: ask another admin to opine, or kindly stop pinging me. I'd very much like to be proven wrong; if I am, I apologize for any grief I may have caused you. With respect, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that you resort to disdainful insults and insincere conditional apologies. Your behavior is what's confusing, and I genuinely hope to have simply caught you at a bad time. Regardless, I can assure to not reciprocate whatever it is that you harbor towards me. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I harbor no ill-will toward you. Like I said, I gladly assigned you the rollback right just two days ago, and do not for a moment doubt my decision there. Nothing I said here has been disdainful or insincere—I do not think you're a troublesome editor, or that you're not "worthy" of special rights, simply that the autopatrolled flag is unnecessary here (and it is indeed granted on the basis of necessity rather than, say, achievement). In all sincerity I invite you to request the participation of an uninvolved admin, if for nothing other than to review my own behavior here. If I'm out of line, I'll issue a private apology. I don't see that as the case, but I remain open-minded nonetheless. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I was never planning to ask another administrator to review your decision. I find your decision valid except for the statements on my block log and the specific inclusion of the topic ban, which I consider excessive and beside the point. I'd like to think that the interpretation of each statement was lost somewhere in the text, and trust in your statement that you meant no harm (although I'd lie if I said I did not find part of it hurtful). See you around. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Saurav Lamshal

• Saurav Lamshal (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)

Hell :) I am from Nepal and I mostly edit and create a good article on the topic of sports-related predominantly Football and Cricket...I think I can handle..So If You can then you can provide me autopatrolled.Please and Thanks ! Saurav Lamshal (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Saurav Lamshal (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: You only have 3 articles created on this wiki. You need at least 50 to qualify for the autopatrolled right. A² 21:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done per above. Please keep in mind that the autopatrolled flag is purely for procedural purposes and has no bearing on your editing. Thanks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)