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.

Vacant0

Vacant0 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Seems to have a good history of uncontroversial Serbia-related redirects, only deletions for G6. Rusalkii (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was compiling a list of people that I thought might be good fits to nominate today, and Vacant0 was quite literally at the top. I haven't even checked their redirect count yet but if Rusalkii also agrees then I'm in full support. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

197 redirects, only 2 deletions which were G6's to make way for moves. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also put up a request for Vacant0 to be autopatrolled, so depending on how that goes, will affect the result here. Cheers! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RedBlueGreen93

RedBlueGreen93 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 103 redirects created since 2022, zero redirects deleted under any circumstance, looks to be a helpful add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nataev

Nataev (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 157 redirects created since 2012 with a bunch in 2023, only deletions have been 2 G6 and one G8, nothing problematic, a good add I feel. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Utopes! I didn't know such a "pseudoright" even existed! I certainly haven't come across it on ruwiki, trwiki, or uzwiki where I'm active. You've probably seen it, but just three days prior to your kind nomination I requested the autopatrolled right here on enwiki. Nataev ^talk 14:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroFC

AlejandroFC (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 523 redirects created. Has a couple of G8's; the only issue that has occurred was a set of redirects created on 10 August 2023 that were R3'd. I don't have the full context as I can't see where the pages were initially pointed, but the titles of "List of ambassadors of [X] to Peru" does not seem problematic or necessarily unlikely, in a vacuum. Given that this user has all other redirects untouched and without issues, I don't foresee this being a long term problem, and I trust their creations. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Givennames

Givennames (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Same as RedBlueGreen93 against all odds, exactly 103 redirects created and 0 deleted. Since 2019, but most creations were in 2022 and 2023. Looks to be a helpful addition. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HTGS

HTGS (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 114 redirects created, zero deleted. Seemingly a safe add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom

Maproom (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 101 redirects created since 2010, zero deleted. Good add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Emperors

Emperor of Emperors (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Once again, 101 redirects created. 1 G6 to make way for move, recreated. No controversy, a good add I feel. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CodemWiki

CodemWiki (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 145 redirects created. One G7, one G6, that's all. No problems, should be a good add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatley2

Wheatley2 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) While a new user in the grand scheme of things, they've already created 293 redirects since 2023 and only 2 have been deleted. And looking at both cases, I don't think either are even that bad. The first deletion was one of their first ever, on Hong Hong, a plausible misspelling of Hong Kong I'd say. However unbeknownst, this is also the name of a Chinese ambassador with a red link, so it was R3'd. Fair R3, but also a plausible misspelling nonetheless, not a big problem. The other deletion I didn't realize happened, and looking at it I would have !voted keep on, but that's Republic of Benin (1967-1967). That was a kingdom that began in 1967, and ended in 1967. Definitely plausible to type, as basically all kingdom titles that are longer than a year are formatted as such, so that could totally be typed in that style too imo. In any case, while it was deleted, I think it's still a fair patrol. I can't find any other issues with Wheatley's creations. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aitraintheeditorandgamer

Aitraintheeditorandgamer (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 279 redirects created. Two deletions; one was a G7, and the other was an RfD for Embankemnt tube station. An implausible typo for sure, but at the end of the day 1 in 279 is a totally fair margin I feel, and I think this user could be a pretty helpful add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich

Levivich (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 143 redirects created, with no problematic deletions. Of the 5 that exist, 2 were G8s, one was a G7, and the other two were cross-namespace WikiProject redirects which were products of their time and not an issue to consider. I feel this would definitely be a solid addition. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix7777

Phoenix7777 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Has created 364 redirects. While they've been hit with a few RfD discussions, the existence of 356 kept out of their total 364, i.e. 98%, I feel is still in the acceptable range. The last time they've had a page deleted was in 2019, yet they've already made 125 since then, all of which have existed with no problems. Some of their early deletions were admittedly a bit sketch, but with the golden track record for the last 5 years, I don't think there'll be a problem with autopatrolling. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I neglected to mention, and I can't believe I didn't throw out the trivia, but Phoenix7777 was one of the first ever rauto-list noms (by me!! :D). I am pleased to say that since that discussion in 2019, they've had no redirect deletions among their 100+, so I feel that alone is a strong positive assurance that these'll be safe to autopatrol. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream out loud

Dream out loud (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 1052 redirects created. Zero deleted. That's all. Should be good. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthewmayer

Matthewmayer (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 206 redirects created, only deletions were two G6s. Otherwise looks good to go. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jmg38

Jmg38 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 172 redirects created, zero deleted. Creations began back in 2013, but a sizeable majority have been 2023 and 2024 dates. Pretty clean cut add I feel. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

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

 Removed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (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]