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.

CapLiber

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]

Weak oppose Given the RfD linked above, I'm not convinced that the user is creating redirects with accurate targets. A trade war with China can certainly mean a lot of different incidents, as those in the RfD have pointed out. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I was on the fence about this because of that redirect, but I'm going to decline it for now based on them not being particularly active at creating redirects. I don't believe, at this point in time, that it will be beneficial to include them at RAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left guide

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]

And this new RfD. Silcox (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I wrote a third RfD. Silcox (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I'm not entirely swayed against the user based solely on the RfDs above, but the number is concerning, and while I'd pretty much say the first and second were probably still fairly good redirects, I'm not too eager after seeing the third. Might suggest that this user be brought back in maybe three months or so. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97 Seconded. Silcox (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done based on the issues presented by Silcox. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scu ba

Scu ba (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 139 redirects created, 1 deleted via G8 to a deleted page. No issues on my end with their creations. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Not the most enthusiastic support, but support nonetheless. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Mule

Moscow Mule (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 160 redirects, and the only deletions have been G6's. Nothing else to say beyond that, there's been a good chunk of redirects created this year which would be useful to be patrolled. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support No problems here. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partofthemachine

Partofthemachine (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Has created a good 1000+ redirects, with the latest thousand coming since July 2022 alone. And out of these, rounding off some older deletions, but they've only had 1 of these latest thousand intentionally deleted (i.e. not as a G6 or G14). That RfD resulting in delete was for Libiquity Taurinus, which I nominated but it wasn't like, an upsetting redirect by any means; the laptop was talked about in references, just not the article itself. All in all, I think the positives of patrolling this user's redirects far outweigh the negatives, as more often than not they're good to go from my point of view. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support but I'm not too worried about the implausible redirects since they were back in 2021. Fair enough, I guess. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CurryTime7-24

CurryTime7-24 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Has created 185 quality redirects, with only one deleted controversially at RfD, being Tamburo charleston, which really wasn't anything concerning, as it definitely was a title that could have offered value, but was unfortunately not mentioned. CurryTime was a major positive contributor throughout this discussion, and explained their rationale for creating it, which only strengthens my confidence in their creations even more compared to if the RfD didn't happen. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Silcox (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandBot

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]

It is requested that an edit be made to the fully protected project page at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Change "New Page Reviewers" to "new page reviewers" because the name is not often capitalized. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]