Autopatrolled
I have been editing since May last year and have created more than 25 articles. Two of them are rated B‑class, and most of the others are C‑class or Start‑class. Two of my articles, Presley Gerber and Killing of Sonia Exelby, were nominated for deletion because of differing views on their notability, but both were kept. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsShandog (talk • contribs) 11:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi @ItsShandog, could you explain how you created Brendan MegrawBrendan Megraw in Diff/1290863082? Why did you use the
{{navbox}} template in Diff/1290872406 and how did you produce that in such a short amount of time? Why did you remove the {{ai-generated}} tag (added in Diff/1348062842), along with utm_source=chatgpt.com parameters, in Diff/1348070103 and then restore the original redirect in Diff/1379884757 a couple of months later? ‑‑gurkubondinn 14:59, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- That would have been around the time I was new to Wikipedia from what I can recall, and looking at it now, it was days after I joined when I would have used ChatGPT. That was before I knew much about AI or about Wikipedia. I stopped using it a long time ago, as I saw how unreliable it was even before the ban on Wikipedia. I cannot explain the navbox, as I have no idea what that is. I would assume it was something to do with ChatGPT at that time. In regard to restoring it to a redirect, that was more to do with the fact that I was editing the disappeared page that covers all those people, and the page more or less repeats the same thing. It does not have any more information than the disappeared page. It was not anything to do with my old edits, as I did not even notice the ChatGPT bit on it. I forgot about that edit, as it was over a year ago. If I had remembered, I would have gone back and fixed all of that, but it is better as a redirect anyway. ItsShandog (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- The reason for the removal of the AI part was that this was at the point when I did not use it anymore, but I had not fixed the page at that stage, so I should not have removed it. That was my own fault. There were so many pages I would have edited when I was new that I could not remember them all, but any I come across now I try to fix. I probably removed the ChatGPT part because I would have assumed that was what the template was referring to. That would have been me trying to fix the page, but to be honest I did not know the ins and outs of AI until recently, or all the different ways it is incorrect. Even back in April I just assumed a page was tagged with that because it had old links from ChatGPT and that type of thing. It is only when I have started to read the AI signs page on Wikipedia that I have learned about all the different things it does. If I had known that in April, I would have done a lot of copyediting and fixing of that page. ItsShandog (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been fully editing Wikipedia since May of this year, and I've created almost 50 active articles. I have had a couple deleted in my early days and, in recent times, have had about one nominated for deletion, but it was kept without hassle. Thanks! ReelCosmix (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. My previous request was declined due to a copyright-related concern. I acknowledge the feedback and remain committed to complying with Wikipedia's copyright policy and content guidelines.
I request a reassessment of my article-creation record and subsequent contributions. Thanks Biplab Anand (Talk) 01:42, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
User has created 171 articles and 0 have been deleted- most if not all are WP:NPOL passes that are well-sourced w/ newspapers.com clippings. I haven't found any problems (TSI issues, CV, etc.) in their work. They also categorize, defaultsort, make talk pages w/ appropriate WPs, and stubsort if needed. Zzz plant (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks @Zzz plant for nominating! I double-checked several of @Birdlab's articles, and I agree that they have consistently notable subjects, generally reliable sources, and complete metadata. I see that some articles cite FamilySearch, a primary source, for a basic biographical fact, which seems reasonable for public figures who have died (while not acceptable for living people under WP:BLPPRIMARY). I don't see a need for future articles like these to go through the review process, so I've granted autopatrolled. Birdlab, if you choose to venture into a more contentious subject area at some point later, please take the same kind of care to write factually and with reliable sources. Thank you!
Done Dreamyshade (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser
I want to use AutoWikiBrowser to speed up my deorphaning process as well as for general maintenance tasks. Script7921 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I am working on a personal project to address pages marked as needing copy edits (See: Category:All Wikipedia articles needing copy edit). I'd like a bit of help making these edits. I do agree that I need to carefully review each edit, and that each edit should be meaningful in the context of the article. NevinThompson (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like access to the tool that could assist with rectifying the tens of thousands of deprecated parameters in articles using Template:Infobox football biography, following the recent changes. DUCKISJAMMMY🦁✿(talk) 15:40, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- As discussed on that template's talk page, it will be much better for those edits to be made by a bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- Having some players at the same club with deprecated parameters while others have not been updated is far from ideal, note sure of the hit rate of the bot. I have already updated some pages manually, but the process was time-consuming. I have seen fellow WP:FOOTY members use AWB to update these pages, hence my request. DUCKISJAMMMY🦁✿(talk) 18:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- The only differences are the presence of a hidden category and an error message in Preview. The bot will get to the articles soon. If you have a special request for a batch of articles, you could post it at the template's talk page or the bot operator's talk page. It's better to have the bot do the edits, because it will be less prone to errors and will not light up editors' watchlists. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- The statement that the bot “will not light up editors' watchlists” is contradicted by my own experience, as the bot has appeared on my watchlist. The guidance on this page states: “Since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general remarks from other users are rarely helpful. If you have specific information that is relevant to a request, please feel free to comment.”
- In light of that guidance, it is questionable for a non-administrator to make a categorical assertion that is contradicted by direct evidence, rather than leave the matter to those able to respond to the request or contribute specific, relevant information. DUCKISJAMMMY🦁✿(talk) 20:55, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- @DUCKISJAMMMY: there is a VERY easy toggle to turn off bot edits in your watch list. The fact that you have chosen not to use this toggle does not negate the fact that other's have chosen to use this feature. The deprecation that has been undertaken at {{Infobox football biography}} was done with the explicit condition that the vast majority of this cleanup be done by bots (@GiantSnowman: you may want to chime in here).
- Your desire to help here is appreciated but not needed and go against the established consensus for how this deprecation is being done. As Jonesey95 has pointed out,
The only differences are the presence of a hidden category and an error message in Preview. The bot will get to the articles soon.
. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- The option to hide bot edits is not enabled by default; bot edits appear on watchlists unless users choose to hide them. The fact that some editors have opted to do so does not negate the impact on those who have not, nor does it make the statement that the bot “will not light up editors' watchlists” accurate.
- The patronising emphasis on the “VERY easy toggle” is particularly unnecessary coming from a non-administrator, especially when the toggle is enabled by default. It would be more constructive to address the substance of the request than to make condescending remarks about how other editors manage their watchlists.
- You have just said that “the vast majority of this cleanup” will be done by bots, which will presumably be the case. My purpose in asking for AWB assistance was to make updating the parameters easier in articles I was already editing for different reasons, not to undertake a mass cleanup. Your reference to “the vast majority” also leaves open the possibility that some articles will still need attention, which is relevant to the point I made in my original request.
- I will refrain from commenting further until an administrator has provided input, as I do not think further discussion would be productive at this stage. I am happy to hear GiantSnowman's views and appreciate that a response may not be forthcoming immediately while he is away.
- To reiterate, my request was intended to help with articles I encounter while editing for other purposes, not to take over the work intended for bots. DUCKISJAMMMY🦁✿(talk) 22:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that these edits being undertaken slowly over time by bots is much preferred, so as to prevent watchlists being clogged up. GiantSnowman 09:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- I will also add that you attitude that only administrators can comment on this discussion and that the opinions of 2 of the most experienced editors on Wikipedia is invalid because they are not admins is HIGHLY concerning and does not encourage the community entrusting you with additional permissions. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- I should clarify that, although I said I would refrain from further comment, an edit conflict occurred between my last response and yours, so I am responding for the sake of clarity.
- I never said that only administrators could comment on this discussion, nor did I dismiss the opinions of experienced editors because they are not administrators. I was quoting the guidance displayed when editing this page: “Since only administrators can effectively respond to these requests, general remarks from other users are rarely helpful. If you have specific information that is relevant to a request, please feel free to comment.”
- My specific point was that “it is questionable for a non-administrator to make a categorical assertion that is contradicted by direct evidence”. That was in reference to the claim that the bot “will not light up editors' watchlists”, which my own experience contradicts. It was not an assertion that non-administrators should not participate in the discussion or that their opinions are invalid.
- Your characterisation of my position as an attitude that only administrators can comment, and your suggestion that this makes me unsuitable for additional permissions, therefore misrepresents what I actually said. I would appreciate it if my comments were addressed on their own terms rather than attributing a position to me that I have not expressed.
- I believe it would be more productive to address my response to the substantive points in the longer passage I quoted above, particularly the scope and purpose of my AWB request, rather than continue debating an alleged position I do not hold. DUCKISJAMMMY🦁✿(talk) 22:28, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
New page reviewer
I've read the guidelines and would like to help reduce the backlog. I have experience with AfD and have created over 50 articles. मल्ल (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
- Done for a 90-day trial period based on your strong AfD record and track record of creating pages on notable topics. Please watchlist Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and ask questions there as you have them. Thank you for volunteering! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
I've had a trial run for a little over 3 weeks now, meaning it ends soon. I'd like to continue reviewing. Thanks! Bungle491 (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 28 October 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 15:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- Bungle491, can you comment on your reviews of SLB Coach of the Year Award and SLB Defensive Player of the Year Award? signed, Rosguill talk 16:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- I first checked for the usual copyvios + blank + csd criteria, but didn't find anything wrong. Since the actual articles had references (self-published, so not for WP:GNG), I just wanted to see if there was a general reason for these lists to exist. I couldn't find specific policies regarding the lists besides the usual WP:NLIST, but going off WP:MOS's general expectation for uniformity, and the existence of these lists for basically every other national basketball league--Template:Austrian Basketball Superliga, Template:Korvpalli Meistriliiga, Template:Israeli Basketball Premier League to list a few, I assumed that convention would to be to allow such a list to exist, so I marked it as reviewed. Bungle491 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied with this response; such articles are a massive WP:FAIT, but not really worth our time haranguing people over. I would probably have tagged the pages with {{notability}}, but I would not fight to reinstate it if someone else removed it. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Done signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I was given a 90-day trial of NPP rights by Dclemens1971 about 50 days ago. I've mostly reviewed from the middle of the queue, so articles that are indexed but have gone unreviewed. As a result, I have almost no experience with draftification and CSDs. I'm applying for full rights early incase more experience is desired in those fields before granting it permanently (my Twinkle xfd log is missing a few I accidentally started through the NPP tool). 1brianm7 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Dclemens1971 (expires 01:41, 29 November 2026 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 15:20, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
- @1brianm7, I've reviewed the last several items in your curation log and your track record is good. (And thank you for working with the middle of the queue; those articles generally require more patroller attention.) I've assigned you the permission on a permanent basis. One helpful thing you could do in the future is to use the User:SD0001/StubSorter tool to sort the stubs you review. Not required but useful! Done and thank you for volunteering. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting a trial run of New page reviewer. I think I have the experience for a trial run, and if this can work for me. Thanks! The Squirrel Game (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot talk 19:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)
Evan Lovett, your most recent creation, does not appear to be separately notable from L.A. in a Minute, although it was marked as reviewed by a NPPer. Your response to User talk:The Squirrel Game#review draft is also somewhat concerning; although you did not actually review Draft:Minhaj (app) (the creator moved it to mainspace after your response), the app also does not appear to be notable and the article is blatantly LLM-generated, so I have nominated the article for deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- On second thought, it is plausible that L.A. in a Minute could be merged into Evan Lovett. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Helpful Raccoon I agree. I have merged L.A. in a Minute into Evan Lovett.
- Best, The Squirrel Game (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I've had them probationally for 2 months, and would like to request them permanently. Thanks! SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 06:04, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights: I have created 23 articles so far and have made a reasonably good number of edits. Some of the articles I created have good page views (eg:- Mother Mary Comes to Me has more than 100,000 views, in less than one year.). Postbox 2 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- One of the roles of NPP is to check new pages for copyright violations and close paraphrasing. Given the open CCI request into your contributions and the fact that you still do not feel that your edits were a violation of the copyright policy, I do not think that you are ready to be granted the permission at this time. Feel free to reapply once you've built up a track record of consistently complying with copyright policy.
Not done MCE89 (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I am interested in helping improve the quality of newly created articles on English Wikipedia. I understand the importance of notability, reliable sources, verifiability, copyright, and Wikipedia's content policies. I aim to treat new editors respectfully and provide constructive feedback when pages need improvement. I will continue learning the relevant guidelines and seek advice from experienced editors whenever necessary. I would like to contribute responsibly to New Pages Patrol. Wowinside.in (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had an account for 12 days and has 74 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 00:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting new page reviewer rights is to help with backlog and improve efficiency. Have created and edited articles and review regularly DeltaEcho4 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has 81 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 11:30, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer
I have well understood WP:PCR and I pass WP:PCCRITERIA. I shouldn't claim that I am something special, so I rest my request for granting Admin. Whatever is decided, I would accept with good faith. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 08:12, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting pending changes reviewer rights because I think I can help prevent vandalism and bad faith edits. The Squirrel Game (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been an editor on Wikipedia for about four years now, and I have a good grasp on the policies. I believe that I can be an efficient patroller of recent changes, and hopefully do a good job reverting vandalism across the wiki if given this right. I appreciate the time that has been dedicated to my request. Sir Banking (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights: I have Rollback permissions and are experienced in Recent Changes Patrol, I would like to expand my capabilities to also review Pending Changes Strongshorts (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
I have understood WP:PCR, I pass the WP:PCCRITERIA and I shall try my best to remove bad faiths and vandalism. Cheese240 (talk) 13:56, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Hi, I am requesting the pending changes right. I think I am ready and I can help the encyclopedia. It's ok if you deny this request, I'm not that confident in being accepted, but thank you if you do accept this request. Have a nice day! :D -Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 01:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)
I’m applying for the WP:PCR user right because I want whatever backlog it has by the time one reads it as low as possible. I have also read all mentioned policies in the section on prerequisites. TheEpicEgg56 04:33, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I'd like pending changes reviewer rights because some pages on my watchlist, such as Kuru (disease), are under pending changes protection. While I can (and do) revert edits anyway if they are vandalism or not constructive, this role would allow me to accept good edits, reducing the workload for others. I'm an experienced editor in (I hope) reasonably good standing, and I've read WP:PCR and am familiar with the policies and guidelines listed at WP:PCCRITERIA. Gawaon (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights to improve flow and efficiency. Have experience editing and willing to help.
DeltaEcho4 (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has 86 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 13:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Rollback
I would like rollback to handle obvious vandalism more efficiently. I enjoy monitoring for spam, unconstructive edits, and talking to/notifying newer editors . I have read WP:ROLLBACK and will not use the default rollback summary on good-faith or disputed edits. Thanks. DocLG (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
I'd like to have rollback permissions so I can utilize tools like AntiVandal to help out with recent changes patrol. Justcgi (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has 182 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 15:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to have rollback permissions to use Interceptor while out and about :) TobyKohlhagen (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has 188 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 08:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- this probably would've increased past 200 by now TobyKohlhagen (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
My reason for requesting rollback permissions is so I can make Recent Changes Patrolling easier with tools like Huggle and Interceptor instead of patrolling the old-school way. Evercool1 (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been involved with RC patrolling on and off for a while now, and would like to have rollback permissions to help my antivandalism efforts, particularly with the tools that require it. smallest red boy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I am willing to fight against vandalism and I am requesting the right to continue against vandals. I have manually reverted some vandalism by reporting it at ANI. Dylan Reed (Ping me) 16:43, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to have rollback rights so I can use Interceptor in order to do RCP on mobile. FYI, I've already been granted Pending changes reviewer. —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 16:21, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Reason for requesting rollback rights
I would like to request rollback rights be better handle repeated vandalism incidents in Wikipedia articles. It will be beneficial and helpful for me to use such as Interceptor and Antivandal tools. Thank you. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I became an active page watcher a month ago after learning where the “watch page” was located, and I also noticed that a lot of random and IP users vandalize wiki pages, making it harder to undo except manually. I would like to request rollback rights to make reverts easier. Obinna Tony (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years now. I do some of my work on articles related to WikiProject Schools. I believe rollback right might be helpful in reverting obvious vandalism. There is often a lot going on when it comes to schools. I am not particularly technically savvy and have done most of my editing by doing everything manually. It may take me a while to learn this tool, as it did take me forever to finally start using Twinkie. So I do hope that this tool might help me work more efficiently. Issac I Navarro (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
100k edits with eight years of experience in editing here. The reason for requesting rollback permissions is the need of cleaning up professional wrestling-related articles which I am constantly patrolling and keeping updated and away of spam or unsourced edits on a daily basis. JeyReydar97 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
I want to make Recent Changes patrolling easier with tools like Interceptor instead of the manual method. Cheese240 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Would like to be granted rollback to more efficiently do AI cleanup. In particular, WP:AI noticeboard/Carigval.97 seems infeasible to deal with otherwise. Would only use in collection with WP:LLMPRV when consensus has been reached on LLM use and a cleanup effort begins. Bruhpedia (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
I have been on RC Patrol for a while now and I would like to try out the tools available with rollback to better help me clean up vandalisms. LkL-70547 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
For the past few weeks I've been using twinkle to revert edits (both constructive an unconstructive). Thought I might as well get formal rollback rights to do this more effectively. In solidarity, Grilledcheeseisgreat ✉ 17:06, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I would like to request rollback rights. I do a lot of recent changes patrolling, and I think the rollback function and the tools that require the right would prove very helpful to me while patrolling. A while ago, I requested the rights and then realized I did not have 200 mainspace edits, so I withdrew my request. However, I should now have over 200 edits in the mainspace, and would appreciate if I could be granted the right. Thanks! Bucket of Bubbles (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
- Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined or withdrawn in the past 90 days (). — MusikBot talk 01:40, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
I've been intervening with vandals for a good chunk of time now and think rollback rights would enable me to work a little faster than I do with Twinkle. I always provide a warning for an editor and provide an extra explanation when I believe they've edited within good faith, and finding a solution when a problem arises. Thank you for your time. I understand the rules stated at WP:ROLLBACK and only plan to use it for obvious non-constructive behavior. Much love, rock on! ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Hello. In order to facilitate my action against vandalism on English Wikipedia, I ask for Rollbacking permission. Currently, I am the sole sysop of Persian Wiktionary. In that project, I have been engaged with a substantial amount of vandalism in the recent months and by using such feature, I have managed to overcome the problems. I have also been an active guard in Persian Wikipedia articles (although I have not requested for rollbacking permission there yet). The.shahab (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
I would be honored to be granted the powers of the legendary Rollback flag to further destroy the morale of the nefarious vandal empire in my exalted conquest. They shall no longer have any hope of escape once I lay my eyes upon them and their unexplained content removals. EditWarCriminal (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
