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.

GoAheadFan95

GoAheadFan95 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 3,177 redirects and 22 deleted pages. Of those pages that have been deleted, the rationales were:

• 1x G4
• 4x G6
• 4x G8
• 6x G14
• 5x AfD
• 2x PROD

Not seeing a need to manually review their redirect creations. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greyzxq

Greyzxq (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Member of the NPP team who has created 242 redirects, 5 of which have been deleted. Of those 5 redirects that were deleted, 4 were G8 deletions while the fifth was an RfD. While the RfD was from April, I don't think that's enough of an issue to not grant them redirect autopatrol. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, noting that while the RfD ended in deletion, Greyzxq provided a reasonable rationale for why they originally created the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RandomEditorAAA

RandomEditorAAA (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 193 redirects, none of which have been deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry, but just to confirm this is so that my redirects become autopatrolled (which is just reviewed automatically by a bot?), correct? Thankss! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @RandomEditorAAA, that is correct. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aight cool, thanks! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CROIX

CROIX (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 410 redirects, 19 of which have been deleted. Notes on the deletions:

• 4x G6 deletions
• 10x G8 deletions
• 5x RfD deletions (last one was 2022-June-04)

Note that they have created 327 redirects created since the last time one of their creations was deleted deletion at RfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Twist

Karl Twist (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 458 redirects, 11 of which have been deleted. Of those 11 that were deleted, 7 were G6 deletions, 2 were G8 deletions, and 2 were R3 deletions. The 2 R3 deletions appear to have been errors during creation. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger

Phil Bridger (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 1,023 redirects, 3 of which have been deleted (all either G6 or G8 deletions). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus

NoonIcarus (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) NPR who has created 182 redirects, only 1 of which has been (G6) deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapitalSasha

CapitalSasha (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) NPR who has created 256 redirects, only 2 of which have been (G6) deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siroxo

Siroxo (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) NPR/former admin who has created 202 redirects, only 1 of which has been (G6) deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Das osmnezz

Das osmnezz (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 805 redirects, 8 of which have been deleted (all G6 or G8). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ainty Painty

Ainty Painty (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 513 redirects, 22 of which have been deleted (6x G6 deletions, 18x G8). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NmWTfs85lXusaybq

NmWTfs85lXusaybq (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) User has created 334 redirects, only 2 of which have been deleted (G6 deletions). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footwiks

Footwiks has been indefinitely blocked since July 25th. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 04:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 9 August 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]

@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]

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]

That's only showing deleted pages, which may or may not be redirects. I'm glad that works for you all in the meantime, though!

Repeating what I said over at phab:T342448#9074804: the issue we currently can't identify if the deleted pages were redirects, so the "bug" is actually expected behaviour. I've long been wanting to toy with the edit tags and see if we can efficiently ascertain redirect status of deleted pages (phab:T190065), but I just haven't had time to work on it. I'll try to look into it soon. In the meantime, I may go ahead and do phab:T183064 which is easy to fix, and would make the known caveats with the Pages Created tool more clear to the user. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look at that. Interesting that the 0/deleted page filters for deleted redirects fine, but the 0/onlyredirects doesn't. The fact that the 0/deleted page can filter for it indicates that it's doable on the 0/onlyredirect page, right? Could even do two separate queries and array_merge them, perhaps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hard limitation, I'd rather have the old behavior of "shows all existing redirects and all deleted pages". _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should have just sat down and tried… phab:T190065 turned out to be pretty easy! So expect the "redirects" and "deleted" options to work as you would expect them to soon :) There's still a caveat, though – we can only do this for deleted pages that were created before December 2017, when the mw-new-redirect was first added (phab:T73236).

The "0//deleted" options never was able to identify redirects until now; It's just coincidence that most of those created by @Novem Linguae are in fact redirects. Test, will delete in a sec 9836, 季 and Lidya (company) are examples of deleted non-redirects.

I need to rethink the defaults now. Before, the redirects option isn't respected when you request deleted pages (or both live/deleted). For WP:PERM/A and similar purposes, you generally want to exclude redirects, but include for deleted, which just happens to be the status quo because we couldn't filter out deleted redirects anyway. So I'm wondering if we should be explicit and make a new redirects option "Include redirects for deleted pages only", or just always include redirects for both live and deleted?

The current defaults are to use the mainspace, exclude redirects, and include live and deleted pages. Let me know if you have any thoughts on changing that given what I've said above. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @Novem Linguae I've got a fix in on our staging server. Does this now work like you'd expect? If so, I will get this deployed on Monday.

I ended up not adding a "Include redirects for deleted pages only" option, just to keep things simple. If there's demand for it, though, I can make it happen. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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]