Wikipedia talk:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege

This is the talk page for a report which is automatically generated by the Community Tech Bot. Please report bugs or make requests related to this report at the main database reports talk page.

Errors

@NKohli (WMF): Thanks for starting to revive this, but I think this is just a list of everyone who has created lots of articles ever, regardless of whether or not they would be eligible for autopatroller. Looking through the first few on this list I'm seeing editors who haven't edited since 2008 - this list really needs a filter of "has created a new article in the last 30 days" or it isn't really useful to find potential autopatrollers. Also are you sure it is ignoring redirects? At the moment it looks like a list of retired bots and formerly active editors. ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we've logged the bugs and will fix them soon! Thanks for reporting them. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@NKohli (WMF): cough? ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Gah! I'm so sorry, I forgot about this. I will update this ASAP. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Link. I more or less copied over the query User:Thparkth supplied on my talk page. Let's hope this works! I'll keep an eye on the page. It's an expensive query so will take a few hours to run. I've been warned by the Labs folks that long queries (>3 hours or so) might be abruptly killed which has happened with several of the other reports sometimes. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

NKohli (WMF) if you are taking suggestions - how about adding a WHERE usergrups not in (sysop, bot)? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, if you look carefully, the updated query takes care of your request already. :) -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Does this look legit now?

The bot updated the page, with a good deal of help from Thparkth. Does this list look alright now? If there's any more fine tuning we could do, feel free to mention. Thanks. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking good :) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@NKohli (WMF): Adding the link to ∑'s Pages created tool is a nice addition. However, I've found a bug with it – if you click on the link to the Pages created tool for an editor with a single word username (e.g. like mine: IJBall) it works fine; but if you try to click on the link to the Pages created tool for an editor with a space in their user name (e.g. IJ Ball) it doesn't work because the link to the Pages created tool will look under "IJ_Ball" rather than "IJ Ball", and that seems to "break" the link to the Pages created tool.
Also, I still agree with Thparkth's original idea that it would be really great if another column could be added to the list for just non-redirect articles along with a column for the "total article count" (incl. redirects). Just my $0.02... Thanks again for working on this!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that. I'm working on it (the spaces in usernames issue) now. Thparkth (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Now resolved. Thparkth (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth the current "articles created" count does not include redirects. Thparkth (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be working now, even the links for the "IJ Ball"-type usernames. And, yes, it does look like these counts are "accurate" now, as they don't include redirects (they still do include disambiguation pages created, but that's a small thing that isn't affecting these counts much...). Anyway, great work! I've already contacted one editor on this list about possibly applying for Autopatrolled – I'll try to see if I recognize any others to contact about this when I have more time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Small copy edit?

Just a note that Schwede66 offered what struck me as a useful copy edit on the bot text (to say editors listed in the report may be eligible for the right, rather than definitively are), but as it was overwritten when the bot ran a few minutes later, I'm not sure anyone else saw it--here's the diff for consideration! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the source code accordingly. Thanks! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Bug on block record?

Wanted to flag that I think I've found a bug on the report's recording of blocks--I found a user the report lists as having no blocks in the past year, but their block log says otherwise. Peculiar since the report does seem to be accurately reporting blocks for others (1, 2). Innisfree987 (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks for letting us know! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Think I found another one: Gunkarta -- œ^™ 04:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, it's not "in the past year". Disregard. -- œ^™ 04:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Noindex assumption

Is it assumed that the list doesn't include users who have WP:NOINDEX on their userpage? – TheGridExe (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

link addition

Please add this link to the bot's output:

Users eligible to be autopatrolled as of ...

— Reinyday, 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Criteria

Small suggestion: Should consider listing the criteria used to generate this report in the heading of the report. Hope that helps. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ideas

@Dr vulpes suggests using only the last 365 days of data, instead of all time data.

@Sennecaster suggests checking for copyright warnings on the user talk page and disqualifying the person if they are found.

Documenting here so the maintainer or myself see these good ideas the next time we work on tweaking this report. Please feel free to post additional ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Deletion counts should only count mainspace, since that's the only thing NPP looks at. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The page already lists supposed copyright issues, but it also includes every single edit to a header, resulting in false positives like NelsonLee (who only has 2 issues, not 15). This header is a valid copyright warning, but every edit in that discussion is showing up in the report, inflating it greatly. To elaborate on the copyright warnings; here's a list of things that generally cause eyebrows to be raised at AP requests and should disqualify people from the list. There are way too many 10k+ edit CCIs that were not caught early because of AP.

• Eranbot flags marked as "Fixed"--this should come solely from PageTriage. (This usually shows up in warnings, so if it's not possible no biggie)
• Copyright CSDs (G12, F4, F9, F11)
• copyright problems listings--unless the article was tagged with a cleanup template ~6+ years ago, the person is going to be notified.
• Any copyright warnings, including unattributed translations, copying within Wikipedia, and public domain plagiarism.
• People with an open CCI.

Save for the last one, I would like it for someone with any of these issues to be disqualified/discluded for a minimum of 6 months since the last problem. Sennecaster (Chat) 04:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)