Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list

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

Brat Forelli

Brat Forelli (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) Has created 50 pages, many of which are redirects and none permanently deleted over the last few months. While not an incredibly high value compared to other nominations, they have a 98.3% edit-summary usage, and the redirects I've been seeing from them have been highly needed and well documented. They don't quite cross the recommended value of 25 pages for autopatrolled (as much of their page creations are redirects), and its because of that I think they would be a perfect fit as a trustworthy redirect creator to have this pseudo-perm. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Good job so far, but I'm seeing only 34 redirect creations (with 2x G6 deletions, though I don't count that against them). Typically we look for 100+ problem free redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll conceded that among these nominations, this user has the least redirects, and was aware during the drafting of this. That said, I hope that the "100" number isn't by any means a mandate for users; this is not the regular autopatrolled permission. If the person in question isn't a jerk and has a clue when it comes to redirects, and a willingness to explain their rationales in edit summaries and further discussion, that's plenty confidence for me. The backlog is back up to 13k redirects, and most of the unreviewed ones aren't just from one person making ten thousand of them, as we would've picked them up on the list by now; it's from a number of people who've made anywhere between one or a couple hundred.

I feel this list is moreso closer to "Autopatrolled Lite" than it is a separate metric system all-together. For people who have made 24 quality articles, and 50 quality redirects, I feel there'd be space on this list in absence of them getting the full autopatrolled, because the 74 cumulative pages they've made are clearly trustworthy and if the redirects themselves are fine, then at least its a half fix until full-autopatrolled, which includes redirects anyway iirc. If autopatrolled requires 25 high quality articles and a trustworthy demeanor around talk pages, I don't see why that wouldn't be the minimum count here either (Although 50 redirects imo is a bit more reasonable). Making redirects isn't hard to master, and there's a very low chance of abuse compared to making regular articles that get mistakenly autopatrolled.

The decline is like... fair, 34 redirects is the low end, so I guess that's fine. But I do think that 50 redirects no issues, or 100 at least with a 98% existence rate, is a plenty trustworthy metric and can help reduce the backlog one step at a time, so I'd urge you to take a more qualitative look at the remaining noms, if able. If the list is about redirect-trust then I think this can be confirmed much earlier than triple digits creations. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

"The criteria for this pseudoright is an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects (usually more than 100)." – This is what the guideline states and this is a criteria that @Rosguill has typically expected requests to meet. I agree with it, as we often don't have enough to evaluate with applications that don't meet this threshold. Additionally, if they haven't created at least 100 redirects, or close to it, then they do not need the pseudoright. Sorry @Utopes. The top of this talk page recommends that if you wish to discuss the requirements of for inclusion on this list then you should do at WT:NPP/R. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Permacultura

Permacultura (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 113 redirects, none deleted ever. Redirect creation is relatively infrequent, but seems good across the board. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Kornatice

Kornatice (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 375 redirects on all sorts of topics, with only 3 typo redirects deleted across this user's redirecting tenure. Those examples were highly irregular in the grand scheme of things, and I'd have faith in this greater than 99% success rate in the means of reducing the backlog; the intentions are surely positive. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Opok2021

Opok2021 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 350 redirects created, and 4 deleted. For the two RfDs that were opened and resulted in a delete (Bepis and Sugar Bunker, they were a part of the discussion in the latter's case and explained its existence. And even then, Bepis could plausibly be a solid redirect as well if there was a reference somewhere in the Pepsi article for cultural impact. All in all, a by-and-large trustworthy redirect creator with a 99% success rate. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Gibbsyspin

Gibbsyspin (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 131 redirects, no deleted (besides one to make way for move). Trustworthy redirect creator. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Mcdynamite

Mcdynamite (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 322 redirects, none deleted (besides one to make way for a move, and one pointed at a non-existed target which was deleted separate). In other words, nothing potentially wrong with redirect creations as far as I could find. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

VulcanSphere

VulcanSphere (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 74 redirects, none deleted. Redirects all look fine and good to go; the only thing that I notice is they only have 2 page creations in article space that aren't redirects, but that's by no means a requirement and the redirects themselves are great. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Good work thus far, but the volume of redirects that they've created so far doesn't establish a need for inclusion on the redirect autopatrol list. Typical cutoff mark is 100 redirects with few-to-no-errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Uriahheep228

Uriahheep228 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 49 redirects, none controversially deleted. Nearly all created this year. The number might be low, but the redirects are all solid and shows a good grasp of redirect creation. Also has 100 or so page creations of regular articles and none of THOSE have been controversially deleted either, so I trust that the redirect patrol list will come in handy as the number picks up in these last few months.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopes (talk • contribs)

 Not done for now. We typically don't include editors until they've created over 100 problem-free redirects. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Mladifilozof

Mladifilozof (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 225 redirects, zero deleted. A plethora of new titles over the last couple months that all look spot on for patrolling purposes. Seems fine to add. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Michael Aurel

Michael Aurel (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 75 redirects, zero deleted. No pages created in mainspace other than redirects, and the earliest redirect was in May of this year, but that was around when Michael really started editing again (after joining at the turn of 2022). Everything looks good redirect wise to me. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Good work thus far, but the volume of redirects that they've created so far doesn't establish a need for inclusion on the redirect autopatrol list. Typical cutoff mark is 100 redirects with few-to-no-errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rizky88

Rizky88 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 99 redirects, only two deleted at Rfd, only one of which was eh; close but not quite. That RfD title in particular was Music Channel, which was a general topic pointed at somewhere specific, although it was still an understandable thought process. Apart from that though, every single redirect has made total sense, and all titles have been backed up in the associated leads of articles. With nearly 100 other quality pages, I'd happily take a rounded-up 99% in regards to redirect quality. It must be mentioned but I still believe Mmm Whatcha Say was a totally fine title in theory :v Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I don't find the one relatively recent RfD to be of concern, it at least made some sense when being created. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

SamuelRiv

SamuelRiv (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 71 redirects created, none controversially deleted. While they haven't made too many redirects in a short time, the consistent quality of Samuel's redirects (in absence of 25 articles created for autopatrolled) from 2007 to 2018 to 2023 makes me feel like an spot on the patrolling list would be a worthwhile addition in the long term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The volume of redirects that they've created (12 redirects over the past 5 years) doesn't establish a need for inclusion on the redirect autopatrol list. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

CFV2

CFV2 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 89 redirects created since 2008, and none deleted. That alone is pretty impressive that none got picked up or flagged for whatever reason over the years, but this user is a quality redirect creator nonetheless. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The volume of redirects that they've created (15 redirects over the past 10 years) doesn't establish a need for inclusion on the redirect autopatrol list. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa

TompaDompa (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) 80 redirects, with 3 deleted. These three all were deleted via one RfD that TompaDompa participated in with a well-reasoned message at this set. However, these were created really early on in their "redirect tenure", and since then they've made more than 70 with no errors or issues. The RfD in question was already pretty close with arguments for and against, but at the end of the day I feel Tompa is someone that can be trusted on the patrol list. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Though they don't meet the 100 redirect threshold, their creations are, for the most part, good. I'll make an exception given their experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Bleff

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)

Suslindisambiguator

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)

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)

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)

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

Adumbrativus

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)

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

Michael7604

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)

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

Thomediter

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)

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

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)

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

Keystone18

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)

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

Removals

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)

 Done Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yep, this should be coordinated carefully with bot code changes. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)