Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list

Archives

1

Old requests

This page is for requesting access to the redirect autopatrol pseudoright. If you wish to discuss this list, its requirements, or NPP in general, please do so at the NPP discussion page.

The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects (usually more than 100).

Requests will generally be left open for at least 24 hours, although this is not a requirement. Administrators will consider endorsements and concerns from new page reviewers as part of their decision on whether to add a contributor to the list.

ShadZ01

ShadZ01 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) ShadZ01 has created 190 redirects, principally those related to Kazakh electoral districts. I think that they can be trusted with this privilege. Silcox (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Appears good on surface. Slightly concerned about the number of deleted entries in there, but it seems like none of the deleted have reason to reflect poorly on the editor, rather on other aspects of the page instead. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the numbers make it looks worse than it actually is since the deleted items also includes articles. Summary of the 16 deleted entries:

• 2x G6 deletions (technical deletion, no fault deletion)
• 2x G7 deletions (author request, not usually relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 1x G8 deletion (invalid target, usually means target has been deleted, no fault unless bad creation)
• 1x G12 deletion (copyright issue, not relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 1x G14 deletion (unnecessary DAB, not relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 1x A3 deletion (article has no meaningful content, not relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 1x A7 deletion (subject clear not notable, not relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 3x AFD (not relevant for redirect autopatrol)
• 4x PROD (not relevant for redirect autopatrol)

Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, seems fine, the only one I'd be concerned about is the G8, but I doubt that was a bad creation. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MC-123

MC-123 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) They've created 112 live redirects, none of which have been deleted. Most of their work is focused on music / musicians. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Also no problems here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepinthestars

Sleepinthestars (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) The user currently has 229 live redirects and 1 deleted page (G6 deletion). Redirects appear to all be weather based. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Seeing no problems. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interaccoonale

Interaccoonale (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 305 live redirects and has only had 1 page deleted (G7 deletion). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Treker

*Treker is now known as StarTrekker and has the autopatrolled permission. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, removed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change:

<!-- DannyS712 bot III: whitelist start -->

to:

<!-- DannyS712 bot III: autopatrol list start -->

and:

<!-- DannyS712 bot III: whitelist end -->

to:

<!-- DannyS712 bot III: autopatrol list end -->

Per the closure of the requested move above, to match up with the new terminology. A pull request was opened to updated the code; pinging DannyS712. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 19:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT do this edit request (not marking as declined because I'm not an admin so I can't really respond to it) - this should be done at the same time that the bot is updated to change the code and I might not be around for it. Its also unrelated to the requested move above. When I know I'm going to be around, we can figure out how to change this without breaking the bot in the process. DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this should be coordinated carefully with bot code changes. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold deactivated as the immediate edit is not ready, pending when DannS712 can schedule changes - at which time this can be done. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We recently added all admins that didn't have autopatrol to the the list in this diff. For me, it is making the page load slow, adds a little bit of clutter, and may also end up being a chore to maintain as the list gets out of sync with new admins and former admins. I wonder if it might be better to just add a check to the bot (the bot can grab a list of all sysops via SQL) instead of manually adding admins to this list. Thoughts? cc DannyS712. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy for me to say someone else doing work is a good idea, but yes I think this is a good idea. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 @Novem Linguae @Hey man im josh No objections from me, but you'll need to get BAG approval if you want to always patrol redirects created by admins instead of just those on this list. Its been a while since I worked on the code for this but it should be fairly easy to add something to the handling of the list of users that get patrolled - I would probably use the API instead of SQL though. It'll be a while before I have time to do this though DannyS712 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712. Okie dokie. To get the BAG process started, want me to file Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 73? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to create that once we get a bit more participation in this discussion (this probably isn't the right place to have the discussion though - maybe Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers???) DannyS712 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The admins in charge of this page and who can edit through the full protection have added every admin to the list already, and no one has reverted or challenged, so in my opinion consensus has been met. If you'd like to seek a stronger consensus though I have no objection. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I didn't close the discussion and jump the gun too quickly, but I did feel as though there was consensus. I wouldn't be upset or offended if someone felt the urge to reopen or restart the conversation that I started at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Add administrators to the redirect autopatrol list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "lets add all the admins" and "lets always patrol redirects by admins with no way of removing them from the list" - the former is easily revertible and a one-time thing, the latter isn't, which is why I thought there should be more discussion to make this a general thing the bot does DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, 54 admins were on the list before the mass addition. Ideally though, yes, a bot would manage this task. The bot would be checking whether an admin has the autopatrol perm, so perhaps we could also use said bot to remove people on the list who obtain the autopatrol permission? This is all assuming someone is willing to put the time in create a bot to manage this. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I envision is Danny's existing redirect patrol bot (the bot that loads this page to see who is on the redirect autopatrol list before it proceeds to patrol redirects for people) also does an SQL query to see who all the enwiki sysops are, then merge the two data sets (SQL query of admins + the names on this page) together internally. So the idea is that we can take all admins off this page, keeping it smaller and less cluttered. This would not require a new bot that edits this page's wikicode. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that absolutely makes sense and would help if others are experiencing slow loads on the full list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Making redirect autopatrol less bureaucratic. Frostly (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm already listed on this list, does that mean that I'm qualified for Autopatrolled?

If not, can I have an option to turn off reviewed/approved redirect notification by ‪DannyS712 bot III‬. Preferably that option should be turned off by default. Thanks. Hddty (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hddty. Redirect autopatrol list (RAL) is a bit easier to get than autopatrolled. Over at WP:PERM/AP, they usually look for the creation of around 25 perfect articles (non-redirects) in the last year. By "perfect" I mean even little things like categories and defaultsort should be correct.

You can turn off new article reviewed notifications in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo-echosubscriptions -> "Page review". Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]