Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rosguill (talk | contribs) at 21:14, 4 August 2023 (→‎Karnataka: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Guidelines

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.

Requests

TheNewMinistry

TheNewMinistry (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) Experienced user with 388 live redirects. They do have some deleted pages, according to xtools, but they've created 146 live redirects since their the last time they had a redirect deleted at RfD (2018-04-30). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse based on those previous deleted pages, but see no problems otherwise. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mistico Dois

Mistico Dois (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) Experienced user who has created 241 live redirects with no deleted pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely, extremely weak endorse since I am of the opinion that Le Bon Samaritain and A Huguenot could have been redirected to Parable of the Good Samaritan (as an RFOREIGN) and Huguenot respectively, rather than their present targeting to artworks. But that may well be my less-than-competent mind at work... Silcox (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see any major issue with the two titles mentioned above. Seems all good otherwise. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persent101

Persent101 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 156 live redirects and 1 deleted page. The deleted page was deleted with a rationale of "G6: Unnecessary redirect". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse due to the AUSTIN redirect. Silcox (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on the above-mentioned AUSTIN redirect and January 1st 2022 (disambiguation), with the second one being deleted as an uncontroversially unnecessary redirect. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: For what it's worth, AUSTIN is the stylization I'm finding for the Post Malone album. It was also mentioned at the target at the time of creation. I understand if you still want to disagree with the redirect's creation, but I wanted to add context. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the context. I still disagree, but that one I'm not as concerned about, as opposed to the unnecessary redirect, which was deleted only 3 days ago. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fair to oppose, thanks for clarifying that your stance is unchanged. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per the January 1st 2022 (disambiguation) redirect. Thanks EggRoll97 for pointing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silcox (talk • contribs)
I hadn't addressed that point earlier, but it does look like it was a redirect created in good faith based on the target being a dab at the time. Not trying to change your mind, just adding context for when the request does get reviewed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that redirect is unproblematic. It's AUSTIN that might be a problem, which I'd probably send to RFD for a retarget discussion (I still might, will probably take a further look soon.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Hey man im josh. Silcox (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I'm satisfied with the overall redirect quality and consistency. While the redirects noted above can be quibbled with, they're also defensible. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Underclass King

Underclass King (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 236 redirects, none of which have been deleted. Appears to be focused mostly on songs to album redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Looks fine. EggRoll97 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Festucalex

Festucalex (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) So far, I have created 322 redirects with 0 deleted, only Roeis was improperly tagged for CSD before being overturned (see edit summaries). 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have sent a redirect that this user recently created to RfD. Silcox (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged and discussed. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Still seems like a plausible redirect, doesn't seem to be much to be concerned about really. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – competent editor, the RFD'd redirect is complicated and I wouldn't be worried about it compared to 300+ undeleted redirects. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SunDawn

SunDawn (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) They have created 135 live redirects and 3 deleted pages. Of those pages that were deleted, there was 1x G6 deletion, 1x G7 deletion, and 1x page deleted at AfD. User is also a member of the NPP team. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No problems here, and user is clearly trustworthy, given they are already an NPP reviewer. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Wow (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) Experienced user with over 31k edits who has created 1,111 live redirects and 20 deleted pages. Of those 20 deleted pages, the deletion reasons were:

  • 1x A3
  • 4x AfD
  • 2x custom reason
  • 4x G6
  • 8x G7
  • 1x G8

Not seeing a need to manually patrol their redirect creations. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse per the fact that I have sent one of their 2018-created redirects (CPRR) to RfD. Not much problem otherwise. Silcox (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not particularly concerned about the CPRR redirect, doesn't seem like a big issue. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrookTheHumming

BrookTheHumming (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) The user has created 163 live redirects and has no deleted pages in their history. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as I see no problems with their creation history. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cfls

Cfls (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 357 live redirects and 2 deletes pages. Of those deleted pages, one was a G6 deletion and the other was a deletion at RfD (in March). I don't think 1 RfD should be enough to disqualify them from being redirect AP. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note my RfD on another Cfls redirect. Silcox (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose based on the already-deleted redirect as well as a current RFD by Silcox that appears to be an implausible misnomer. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, primarily concerned by the relatively recent Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_March_10#Michigan_Business signed, Rosguill talk 21:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 107 live redirects and 4 deleted pages. All of their deleted pages are listed as G6 deletions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No problems with their creation/deletion history, meets requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IJohnKennady

IJohnKennady (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 541 live redirects and 3 deleted pages. Of the deleted pages, only 1 appears to have been a redirect and was G8 deleted (target deleted). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Clearly a productive editor, I see no problems with their history, they meet the requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Est. 2021

Est. 2021 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 129 live redirects and 2 deleted pages. Of those 2 deleted pages, one was a G6 deletion and the other appears to have been a misunderstanding. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse based on the one that apparently was not mentioned at the target, but I see no overall problem with their history, meets requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hajoon0102

Hajoon0102 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 385 live redirects and 27 deleted pages according to xtools. Their last redirect deleted at RfD was from a discussion that was closed on 2022-June-14. Since that time, they have had no deletions (other than G6) and have created 196 problem free redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Only concerned slightly about the RFDs, but those were from over a year ago, so it's well past real relevance honestly. Meets the requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom4U

Freedom4U (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 210 live redirects and 3 deleted pages. Of those 3 pages that were deleted, 1 was as a result of an AfD discussion while the other 2 were G6 deletions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – knows what they're doing, no deletions in 200+ edits, I see no reason RAL is a bad idea here. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Meets the requirements, no problems with their history. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka

Karnataka (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 174 live redirects and 1 deleted page. The single deleted page was a G7 deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No issues. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No problems here, meets requirements, not at all concerned with the G7 deletion, appears uncontroversial. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done signed, Rosguill talk 21:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ZohoOneFan88

ZohoOneFan88 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 1,384 live redirects and 1 deleted page. The single deletion was a G8 deletion (target deleted). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse One redirect deleted out of over a thousand live ought to qualify one for a high five. I see no problems with their history, and they vastly exceed the minimum requirements necessary. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owais Al Qarni

Owais Al Qarni (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 169 live redirects and 18 deleted pages. Of those 18 pages that were deleted, the reasons were:

  • 7x AfD
  • 1x PROD
  • 1x R2
  • 4x G8
  • 1x G4
  • 1x G7
  • 1x G11
  • 1x G12
  • 1x A7/G11

They also have the NPR perm. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse A high number of overall deleted pages, but none of their redirects appear to be malicious. Added with them having the NPR permission makes this a clear endorsement. Meets minimum requirements. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers

Firefangledfeathers (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User who has become an administrator in the time since we added all admins to the RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I will mention that they have only 70 redirects live, so they do actually fall short of the minimum requirements. On the other hand, they're a sysop, so I don't see a specific problem here. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: For reference, Firefangledfeathers is the only administrator that does not have autopatrolled and is not on the RAL. See this request, which was for the 514 administrators without autopatrolled who were not on the RAL list. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Again, no problems with adding them, though I will note we should perhaps find a better way to do this that doesn't include them on the page directly, given the load time has increased since the addition. Perhaps adding a subpage (also fully protected) to list all the administrators who do not have autopatrolled? EggRoll97 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petrandreev13

Petrandreev13 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 121 live redirects and 1 deleted page (which was a G4 deletion). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse No problems with their history, meets the minimum requirements for RAUTO. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Watch

The Night Watch (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 131 live redirects and no deleted pages. They also have the NPR permission. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Meets minimum requirements, plus no problems with history, and NPR bit makes this a solid endorsement. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asukite

Asukite (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 211 live redirects and 4 deleted pages. Of those pages that have been deleted, there were 2x G8 deletions, 1x G7 deletion, and 1x G6 deletion. They also have the NPR permission. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Good history with no real problems, and they meet the minimum requirements, plus have the NPR bit. Solid endorse. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jingiby

Jingiby (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) User has created 304 live redirects and 9 deleted pages. Of those 9 deleted pages, the deletion reasons were:

  • 1x RfD (2020-December-7)
  • 3x G6
  • 1x G2
  • 1x G7
  • 1x G12
  • 1x R3 (2020-04-23)
  • 1x custom rationale

They also have the NPR perm. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Minimal problems with their history, but all problematic deletions appear to be around 3 years ago, and I see no problems with their current redirects. They also meet minimum requirements. Added with NPR permission makes a solid endorsement. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

Thiscouldbeauser

Thiscouldbeauser has been indefinitely blocked for a few weeks now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheEagle107

TheEagle107 has been indefinitely blocked since May 16th. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 23 April 2022

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]

Redirect autopatrol admins via bot instead of via list?

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]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Making redirect autopatrol less bureaucratic

 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]

Question

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]

Bug?

@DannyS712, I've just gotten a notification for a redirect I created, has been patrolled by your bot and I'm not on the whitelist. Do I have a right giving me redirect autopatrol or is it just a bug. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 04:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bot marks certain types of redirects as patrolled as well as redirects created by those on the list. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Which types of redirects? Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 10:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per User:DannyS712 bot III: If here because a redirect that you created was patrolled by the bot, it is because either you are listed at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list so that all of the redirects you create are patrolled, or because, based on the page title and the target of the redirect, the redirect is assumed to be uncontroversial under specific rules discussed with new page reviewers. See /rules for a full explanation. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

xTools bug in redirect creation reports

I've reported an xTools bug T342448 that is currently impeding autopatrol request reviews, as xTools currently is omitting deleted redirects from pages created results. It's not an insurmountable bug, as the deleted pages can still be found by searching for "articles and redirects" instead of "Include only redirects", but if the bug can be fixed quickly I'd rather wait until it's been addressed before reviewing further requests. signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was wondering why this backlog was getting bigger. Just now saw your message Rosguill. I'll see if I can find some time to look into that Phab you filed, T342448. Let me also try pinging @MusikAnimal, since this bug is causing us a 22 person backlog here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Rosguill. FYI we found a workaround. While the first page is wrong, if you click on "Deleted (0)" at the top there, the page that loads after that click is correct. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you endorse, please say what you checked

@Silcox and EggRoll97: Hello everyone that endorsed above. Can you do me a favor, and if you endorse someone, please state in detail which of their stats you checked? If I get time to work on this backlog, I am likely to ignore any supports that don't mention something like "They have 257 redirects created and only 4 deleted. Of the 4 deleted, 2 of them were G7, and 2 were RFDs that closed as delete". The count of their total redirects created (so that we know they met the 100 suggested minimum), and a detailed check of their deleted redirects to make sure they don't misfire too often, is basically the criteria for receiving this pseudo-perm. Thank you for assisting us with this backlog. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: I'm not sure if my newest endorsements are what you're looking for, but if not, let me know and I'll try to rephrase them. EggRoll97 (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae By default, I check every redirect listed in the "tools" link as generated by {{rauto}}. So, if I were to assess User:Example's bid for RAL, I would go
Example (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi)
as look at every redirect that the "xtools" link lists. I don't really look elsewhere given that I already run a fairly detailed check. Silcox (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the "257 redirects" parts of your comment, the convention here at WT:RAL is that a request for RAL rights would also include these statistics. For instance, Festucalex's bid above already states that they "have created 322 redirects with 0 deleted" as of their application. So I fail to see why the endorsements will have to repeat the number of redirects that a prospective candidate has created. Silcox (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI that the XTools link might be broken. See Rosguill's post above and phab:T342448. This is why Rosguill has stopped approving these for the moment... waiting for XTools to be fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of Rosguill's post above regarding XTools. Silcox (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Redirect_autopatrol_list&oldid=1168762796"