THC Science

This page is for requesting access to 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.

For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). After two weeks, if a request does not have the individual consensus of 3 reviewers the request will be automatically closed. Alternatively an administrator may close a request as successful or unsuccessful at any time as part of standard individual administrative discretion for the granting of user rights.

Closed requests will be archived to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist/Old requests after a minimum of three calendar days^[a] following the close of the discussion.

Notes

^ Per this discussion on the user talk page of one of the New Pages Patrol coordinators.

Requests

Jonas1015119

Jonas1015119 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I've been pointed towards this whitelist by I dream of horses over on Autopatrol, since I create way more redirects than articles, so I'm requesting this whitelisting here as I often create redirects (XTools) jonas (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now, track record looks fine so far, but we typically add editors who have created over 100 problem-free redirects, whereas you appear to be at around 50 at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TartarTorte

TartarTorte (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I was approved above as Snood1205 but changed my username and I was not sure if the list auto-updates or not. Thanks! TartarTorte 16:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does not update automatically, thank you for notifying us here.

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

usernamekiran

Usernamekiran (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I am a page-mover, and time to time I have bursts of edits/page moves. I rarely create redirects out of nothing though. But when I move pages or create redirects, I use proper rcat shells, most of the times. Other times, I just leave the rcat shell. If I am added in the whitelist, I will have to add the proper shells out of onus. Thanks. PS: 9 inch nails was out of humour. Regards, —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Q28

Q28 (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I often create redirects. According to incomplete statistics, at least 100 redirects were created by me and auto patrolled by ‪DannyS712 bot III. So I should be added to the whitelist.--Q28 (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, looking through your history of redirect contributions, the vast majority are from all-caps 3-letter combos to sentence case equivalents. While such redirects are generally harmless, they're a) not particularly useful, as the search bar already handles case differences and b) already handled automatically by other bots operated by DannyS712 as noted above. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dandilero

Dandilero (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

In Wikipedia I mainly edit pages of Spanish league footballers (first and second division). Recently I have started to create redirections of full names, nicknames or both without accents. Some of them are approved by a bot, but most of them aren't, having this rank would avoid annoying other people who are in charge of approving them. Thanks. Dandilero ^talk 22:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude

FormalDude (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I'd like to be added to the whitelist for redirects if possible. ––FormalDude talk 20:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a NPR. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL

Venkat TL (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

This user currently has over 300 items waiting to be reviewed at this point in time due to page moves and they've moved 500+ pages today alone. They are working to standardize the naming convention of a series of pages and it would help to prevent the backlog from getting even larger if they were granted the redirect autopatroll right. I suggested applying on their talk page and they granted me permission to make the request on their behalf. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, if this helps others. Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose because this editor’s moves are currently discussed at WP:AN/I, making the rationale moribund. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request is stale, but seeing as the ANI did not result in any sanctions for Venkat TL and that their redirect-creation record remains both prolific and error-free, I'm adding them to the list. Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skarmory

Skarmory (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I help out at redirects for creation and requested moves often, which often results in creating redirects that later have to be approved. I also create some on my own whenever I feel like one is warranted. Hopefully my track record looks good enough for this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Menchi

Menchi (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I am nominating. After the discussion at WTNPR I forked the Quarry query that was mentioned to handle redirects, Menchi was one of the top on the list. I went and patrolled a lot of them to see if there were any problems, and found none. they is an admin (for so long that their RfA only has 3 votes and therefore used to be AP), and has over 6,000 mainspace redirects intact. Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 20:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Hey man im josh (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

Based on my Wikiscan, I have ~~124~~ 229 redirects created (edit: as of 15:22, 05 July 2022 (UTC)). I do plan on continuing to create redirects so it'd be cool if I could be added to the autopatrol list, as I don't qualify for the regular autopatrolled user group. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NotReallyMoniak

NotReallyMoniak (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

As a probationary AfC/R reviewer, I would like this right to streamline my work. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to reflect my new username. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Critter

Tree Critter (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi)

I am nominating Tree Critter because they have over 500 redirects created as of now. I've reviewed at least a couple hundred of their redirects, typically music related from songs, band member names, or real life name of an artist who performs under a stage name, and they've always been good. They've got 120 in the queue right now that I'm going to start chipping away. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engineerchange

Engineerchange (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · redirects created · logs ^{(block • rights • moves)} · rfar · spi) They've created 253+ redirects, only 4 of which have been deleted. Mostly seems to be stuff like alternative names. Clovermoss (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My slight concern with the Captain Oyster redirect does not detract from the helpfulness of this user's other redirects. Therefore, I endorse this request as an NPR. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removals

Utkarsh555

Please remove Utkarsh555 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) 05:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dandilero

I'm now autopatrolled. Dandilero (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already done by Schwede66 _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins not autopatrolled

The implication in #Procedures that admins are automatically autopatrolled is no longer true. Do any non-autopatrolled admins need adding explicitly to the list? Certes (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We were discussing this at WT:NPP, my perspective is that they can be added as needed when I and other reviewers come across their redirects in thee queue, but there's no need to pre-emptively add all of them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 March 2022

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to "Redirect autopatrol list". After much-extended time for discussion, there is a solid consensus to move to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect autopatrol list. BD2412 T 06:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist → Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect allowlist – Per the reasoning at mw:Inclusive language, I believe that "whitelist" should be changed to "allowlist" to be more inclusive with language. Other documentation and related pages should be updated too (I can do this if the RM is closed successfully), and the bot code needs updating as well (I can open a pull request). Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "whitelist" consistent with most things like MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist? Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist page is set by the SpamBlacklist MediaWiki extension and is therefore something under the control of the MediaWiki developers (there is an open task for renaming the extension at phab:T254649). This page, however, is used by a Wikipedia bot run by DannyS712; the only update to the bot that would be required if this page is moved (as far as I'm aware) is to change this line in the bot's source code (if the page does get moved, the  invisible comments the bot uses to find the start and end of the list should probably also get updated to remain consistent with the page title). GreenComputer (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper @GreenComputer thanks for the ping. The change is fine with me, but would need to be done in parallel with the bot updates (and the comments marking the start and end should likewise be updated at the same time). I propose that, if this RM is successful, instead of an admin moving the page directly, when I might not be around, the protection temporarily be lowered (to template editor) so that I can move and update the page at the same time as the bot updates. We can make it clear that the protection is temporary and only for this single purpose --DannyS712 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per EricPupper. GreenComputer (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 力's suggestion of 'Rediect autopatrol list', as it has all the advantages of 'Redirect allowlist' (as outlined by EricPupper), with the additional advantage over "Redirect [allow/white]list" that it actually describes the purpose of the page. Support 'Redirect allowlist' as a second choice over the current title. GreenComputer (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PR opened; hopefully this'll make it easier to implement the change. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and switching to a more obscure form of terminology that less editors will recognize does not assist in this process, particularly since the terms "whitelist" and "blacklist" are widely used on Wikipedia. Further, the controversy that this proposal is based on is disputed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing recognisability as a particularly big issue here; ultimately both the current and suggested titles don't actually tell you what the page is about if you don't already know (the first thing the phrase "redirect whitelist" brings to mind for me is a list of redirects that are allowed to be created or something). Just like they can now, editors will still be able to click on the link to find out what this page is about if they don't already know. GreenComputer (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think 力's suggestion of 'Rediect autopatrol list' improves on the recognisability of the title over both 'Redirect whitelist' and 'Redirect allowlist'. GreenComputer (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
mw:Inclusive language also says that "kill switch" is too violent and that "madam" and "sir" are "unnecessarily gendered language", the latter of which is an amusing way to be culturally insensitive in the name of some confused gesture in the direction of gender equality or trans/nonbinary inclusivity. I don't care what the WMF says is offensive. I care that editors have a safe, collegial editing environment. Are there editors of color who feel disinclined to contribute, or less welcome in this community, because we have pages titled "whitelist" and "blacklist"? If so, I would agree with a move proposal. But I don't like the idea of moving this just because some people in some places have said people should find the words offensive. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I agree that input from editors of colour would be ideal, although I don't know if there is any mechanism to explicitly solicit it (I obviously don't know if any of the editors who have already participated are editors of colour; I am not)? From what I remember from the discussion on the internet after the murder of George Floyd, there are some people who find it offensive, and some who don't. Much of the discussion centred around how whitelist and blacklist reinforce white is good, black is bad connotations (a quick search found this article by the academic Aradhna Krishna, in which she says Still, the color-goodness association is clearly a factor in racial prejudice). I based my support on their being some people who find the current title offensive, compared to no people finding the new title offensive. I'd also note it's not just the WMF who consider whitelist offensive (a quick search found NIST, CISCO, Google, Microsoft, Apple). For an observation of the connotations of white and black, I find this post to be worth a read. Ultimately, I'm basing my !vote on the information I currently have available to me. GreenComputer (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A nuance I'm trying to emphasize here is, it's not "offensiveness" per se that governs my feelings here. What matters to me is whether this makes people feel unwelcome. Humans in general, and geeks (such as Wikipedia editors) in particular have a tendency to view offensiveness as a bit of metadata that gets attached to a word and, like an "NSFW" tag on an image, means it should no longer be shown in certain contexts. I think that misses the point. Something is offensive if it offends. And since that can mean both offending someone's sensibilities (not that big a deal) and offending someone's dignity (a very big deal), that's why I'm asking if this is offending people's dignity, making them feel unwelcome, making them less inclined to contribute. If it is, I'm not going to second-guess someone's feelings. But I think it would be just as wrong for me to speak in support of moving this based just on accounts, often by people who are not Black, of what Black people want. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I used the word 'offensive' above, I was exclusively using it the later manner (offending someone's dignity) as opposed to the former. As to whether it makes people feel unwelcome, I agree that that is the key question. There are definitely some Black people who find the term 'whitelist' makes them feel unwelcome; a futher search brings up this article with a quote from the Alexis Hancock (a Black technologist who works at the EFF) who says [...] any change [such as not using blacklist/whitelist] that might make us [Black technologists] feel more comfortable overall in the field. I don't claim to know what percentage of Black people find the term offensive (to dignity), but there are definitely Black people pushing for this change in broader society. GreenComputer (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per BilledMammal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "allowlist" is not accurate. Perhaps "redirect autopatrol list" would be possible. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the latter, simply because it's a more consistent thing to call this than the rather ambiguous "whitelist". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative "redirect autopatrol list" per above. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support 力's proposal to rename to Redirect autopatrol list. More precise title for the purpose this page serves. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Redirect autopatrol list. ––FormalDude talk 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "Redirect autopatrol list", more descriptive title -- Ab207 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BilledMamal and Tamzin. --Spekkios (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "allowlist", Support "Redirect autopatrol list" casualdejekyll 20:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 力. Reading Beans ^{Talk to the Beans?} 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support autopatrol list over allowlist. NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 22:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess with respect to the problem with using "whitelist"/"blacklist" while WP generally follows external sites etc because WP appears prominently on the internet we may influence if people think such terminology is acceptable or not though I think this is likely to apply much less outside mainspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Redirect autopatrol list notification bot

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Redirect autopatrol list notification bot. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:34, 15 April 2022 (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]

Protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Please change the short description to "An allowlist equivalent to autopatrol for redirects", per mw:Inclusive language and the closed requested move above. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the text to Bot-managed autopatrol for redirects only, which addresses the above concern without relying on a neologism. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Please add WP:RAL and WP:RPW to the shortcut box of the project page. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done though it seems like there are too many now. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Hello. I recently changed my username from Bli231957 to Praseodymium-141 and I've realised that my redirects are not getting autopatrolled any more. I'm wondering if you can change the "Bli231957" in the list to "Praseodymium-141". Thanks. ¹⁴¹ Pr 07:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done DanCherek (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Per this discussion on the user talk page of one of the New Pages Patrol coordinators.

[a]

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 :{{Already done}} by {{noping|Schwede66}} <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
-== Protected edit request on 5 November 2021 ==
-{{edit fully-protected|Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Redirect whitelist|answered=yes}}
-Please change <code><nowiki>{{userr2</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{user2</nowiki></code> (a clear typo by [[User:Rosguill]]) [[Special:Contributions/98.230.196.188|98.230.196.188]] ([[User talk:98.230.196.188|talk]]) 14:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
-:{{Done}}, thanks IP. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 == Admins not autopatrolled ==

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 08:03, 6 September 2022

Guidelines

Notes

Requests

Jonas1015119

TartarTorte

usernamekiran

Q28

Dandilero

FormalDude

Venkat TL

Skarmory

Menchi

Hey man im josh

NotReallyMoniak

Tree Critter

Engineerchange

Removals

Utkarsh555

Dandilero

Admins not autopatrolled

Requested move 31 March 2022

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers § Redirect autopatrol list notification bot

Protected edit request on 23 April 2022

Protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Protected edit request on 21 August 2022

Leave a Reply