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 Hey man im josh (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 5 February 2024 (→‎Nivamp: 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 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

Chocolateediter

Chocolateediter (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 183 redirects created with zero deleted, mostly in the year 2023, looks fine to me. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reppop

Reppop (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 111 redirects created, only one instance of a page deleted without prejudice to being created again as a redirect. Even if not the most recent in the world, I think they'll be good for a long time. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer

Curb Safe Charmer (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 130 redirects, only a handful of G7s and G8s which are pretty much fine. No issues I'd think. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nivamp

Nivamp (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 484 redirects created with only one G6 in redirect deletion logs to make way for a move. Had some run-ins with 3 RfDs, 2 of them originating from me, but none of the titles were that problematic, and none of the RfDs ended up resulting in deletion which I feel makes these more or less fine to autopatrol. Utopes (talk / cont) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius85

Sirius85 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 1085 redirects created. Most of redirects deleted are G8s or G6s to make way for moves. A couple of intermittent RfDs for some 2019 redirects, but such redirects were completely normal and had unproblematic titles, and no redirect since 2019 has been deleted. Could be possibly worth to double check the r-targets from 2019-2024 as they've had some AfDs that could be flag-worthy, but I think this is a pretty safe choice to autopatrol, redirect-wise. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RodRabelo7

RodRabelo7 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 427 redirects created, not a lot deleted. Some are G8, has a few RfDs, but none of which I think are deal breaking (coming from someone who initiated 3 of them. These were all during the early GTA 6 announcements and many of the redirects were created earlier than they realistically should've been.) Besides that, could be worthwhile to recheck some of the new ones, but all-in-all this is a user I've been hoping to nominate for a month or so now, and with another quality burst in January '24 I think it's a pretty fair time, mainly quality and worthwhile to autopatrol. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floppykart

Floppykart (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 176 redirects, with a mere one deleted to make way for a G6 move! Started making redirects in August so these will be helpful for patrolling, but even with the recent track record I think they'll be a trustworthy and welcome addition to the list.

As a bit of meta commentary for these nominations, I personally have absolutely zero concern about whether or not people are tagging their redirect creations with rcats, or a lack thereof. From my point of view, people can, or they don't have to; it's advisable, but not mandatory, and most people don't. If someone creates good redirects, but doesn't use rcats, I'll still probably nominate them here because the patrol% speaks for itself. It's nice to have rcats, and I add them whenever they're applicable during patrolling, but for me personally it's not a deal-breaking decision. THIS ALL SAID THOUGH to pull it back around to this nomination, I was delightfully surprised and impressed with Floppykart's use of rcats via patrolling. They're certainly nice, add context to the redirect creations, giving me 100+% confidence that this'll be a fine list-add, which blows my threshold evaluations out of the water. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V.B.Speranza

V.B.Speranza (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) 175 redirects created since July 2023, and only one has been deleted to make way for a move. All in all a pretty similar docket to Floppykart above in terms of number, and one deleted for the exact same (unproblematic) rationale to boot! Should be a fine add in my eyes. Utopes (talk / cont) 07:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrobyte

Cyrobyte (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs (block • rights • moves) · rfar · spi) Has created 418 redirects, with only one deleted via discussion that wasn't a G7 or G8. This instance was about a set of foreign language redirects that pointed to the page it was translated to. While not a good practice to be repeated, it's totally no-big-deal as an isolated incident. A few of their redirects I do have some concerns with, which I'll take another scrutinization tomorrow, but 98% of the time they look as solid as it gets. Utopes (talk / cont) 10:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

Generalissima

Generalissima is now autopatrolled. QueenofHearts 00:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Redirect_autopatrol_list&oldid=1203816368"