Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list

Archives

1

Old requests

This page is for requesting 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.

Bleff (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Has created 118 since the start of 2011, and none permanently deleted besides one in 2014, which doesn't show in logs because I think it got classified as an article or XNR or something. Besides that though there's been zero issues, everything looks clean on my end. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suslindisambiguator (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi). After making the comment above about leaning more towards a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative one, I really wasn't sure whether I'd ever see someone with a ton of redirects that wasn't already on the list... well. That didn't last too long. 1034 redirects, none of which permanently deleted. Has 7 G6s from between 2018 and 2022, all of which recreated and still exist. This is definitely the quantitative goldmine with 1k, and I'm not expecting to find any other nominees like this for the rest of the year 😅 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I figured out why this was so unique; this user had AP which was taken lately due to CV concerns. This shouldn't affect redirect creations at all, but it now makes sense how the high page count came about on a dime. The qualitative redirect preference bit still applies 🫠 Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.  Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapLiber (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Not to be confused with Casliber, this user has 127 redirects created with only one deleted; that page was one of their first redirects ever which was made in error with a slash at the end. The rest of their creations have been of quality and solid understanding, so I won't fault them for the singular typo present here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this RfD involving this appellant. Silcox (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adumbrativus (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 220 redirects, none of which permanently deleted (2 of which were G6'd and recreated). Does a good chunk of page moves iirc, none of which I have any issues with so I think this is a solid add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 09:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael7604 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Found these creations through means of the one Quarry search, although I would have stumbled upon this eventually when I got into the Octobers and Novembers. This user has created 331 redirects, with the only deletions being G7s and one RfD for a XNR for WikiProject Chemistry, which was one of the first redirects they made. Everything else has been more than solid since. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomediter (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) (edit conflict) number 1 (edit conflict) number 2 (edit conflict) number 3; Found based on the Quarry for unreviewed pages. This user has created 141 redirects with no deletions. Unfortunately, all of the redirects were in one month (November) and I would personally have preferred redirects be spread for a longer period of time for more data and depth (:V) BUT the creations are good nevertheless, and 2023 has been this user's most active year on Wikipedia, so it's understandable. Everything checks out! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left guide (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Found using Quarry, this user has 423 redirects with zero deleted. Nothing much else to say, all of the creations look solid and a recent push over the last couple months could make this a good add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note an RfD involving this user. Silcox (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone18 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Found using Quarry, this user has 214 redirects created and zero deleted. They were a patroller temporarily earlier this year, and I'm confident they have a clue when it comes to page creations. A good fit I think. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDontHaveSkype (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) The last Quarry find to nominate; has had a nice track record since 2021 with 125 creations and no deletions. While most creations were recent and in 2023, the football redirects they tend to make all look solid and logical. I feel good about it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove TheSandBot per Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Redirect autopatrol - Administrators may "remove" users from the "group": ...at the request of the bot operator, who would be responsible for the patrols. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 31 October 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]