Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request for comment - autoconfirmed status to nominate an article for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, over at WP:CHESS we're having a problem with a persistent troll who constantly creates new accounts and nominates recently created articles for deletion, usually for spurious reasons, and wastes a lot of our time. My proposal is that only autoconfirmed users should be allowed to create an Afd. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I don't believe that is technically feasible, but I could be wrong. The reason I say this is because AfD nominations are subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and any user can essentially type any text, including posting a AfD notice on a page, if the page is not at least semi-protected. To block non-confirmed editors from being "allowed" to post on AfD would essentially mean semi-protecting all pages in the AfD space, which in turn restricts non-autocofirmed editors from even voting on AfDs. It's an idea, but I just do not know how it would be "technically" possible to do this without preventing non-autoconfirmed editors from doing any edits at all on AfDs, including voting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per some of my reasoning above. The only method to do this may require a few things to be done:

1. Programming a bot to automatically remove any AfD notifications posted on by non-autoconfirmed editors on any pages in the article space.
2. Automatically semi-protecting all subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion OR prevent non-autoconfirmed editors from creating any subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
3. Create some sort of new "Speedy keep" criteria in WP:AFD to close an AfD if it was posted by a non-autoconfirmed editor.

• P.S. Anyone feel free to correct me about these points if any of these are wrong or could be expanded.

With all that being said, having to do all of this seems a little too much. There are several IP editors that provide constructive contributions to Wikipedia: to do this would prevent a knowledgeable IP user from nominating articles that seriously may neeed to be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We shouldn't restrict beneficial edits because one area of Wikipedia is having trouble with an editor. I am assuming the editor is indef blocked as a sockmaster. If they are any pages they create with sockpuppets can just be speedy deleted as a G5. GB fan 03:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. We are going to forbid an entire class of users from starting AfDs because of the problem with one person in one area? In short, while I sympathize with the frustration this one individual has apparently caused (have you tried starting a sockpuppet investigation to shut them down?), the proposed solution is so radically overbroad that it strikes me as unreasonable on its face. If you were arguing and presenting statistics on the class itself—for example, that some high percentage of all AfDs by not-yet-autoconfirmed users were dubious and doomed to failure for some identifiable reason—that would be entirely different. We should almost never make a rule, policy or a recommendation in guideline as a reaction to an isolated incident.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah has been open for over 4 years, but hasn't really shut him down. Quale (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having !voted on, and closed hundreds of AfD, I see this more as a solution looking for a problem. Per Fuhghettaboutit, disruption should be addressed by dealing with the user concerned - preemtive measures such as the one proposed would be killing a fly with a sledge-hammer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose – not a very good idea. Many, many AfDs by IPs and new users have been closed as successful deletion. A solution to one user's problem should not be to take it out onto the entire world. Epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Table

Is there a reason why Reviewer isn't listed among the possible user rights in the table? Or does it go by some other name? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer would fall under "other groups", but isn't explicitly named because there are no permissions associated with PC1 in the "permissions" column of the first table. The second table does include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

Ayodhya wale (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what you want changed. GB fan 10:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014

Heading text

178.23.88.154 (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. No request was made. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014

hello sir/man i am new to wikipedia and i want to get user access levels. please confirm my id as verified.i will start further posting in wikipedia. thankyou! Jasbinkarki (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The correct place to ask for the confirmed permission is at WP:RFP/C. Be sure to include what you need the confirmed right to do. GB fan 01:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

File:Https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=778841942129700&set=a.358842134129685.103057.100000117057619&type=1&theater

Sikander

shahid sikander 09:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2014

Muhammad Arsalan Qureshi (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have made no request.
I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only for discussing improvements to the User access levels page.
If you want to suggest a change, please do so in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the statement on autoconfirmed requirements correct?

It says "most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits" but at Nabih Berri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which is semi-protected, Painting101 did 10 edits this morning and could edit with the 11th edit. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Painting101 could edit because the account was created on August 30th. It's likely that Painting101 is a WP:Sockpuppet that was lying dormant. Flyer22 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, hadn't checked. He's been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Abdullah Kanwal AK (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Planeteves.com (Online Shopping)

Saamag Planeteves (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have made no request.
I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only for discussing improvements to the User access levels page.
If you want to suggest a change, please do so in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". -

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2015

I need to write my content and other usefull content article.. so all users can easily gather information from here

Syed.kareem874 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Not seeing a request to edit a semi-portected page here anywhere. This page is for discussing user access levels. To actually request any user permissions see WP:PERM. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete Ray marcano page

Kindly delete ray marcano page on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhibrehman1 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Muhibrehman1: This request is misplaced. But looking around, I see that there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Marcano. Discussions like that one typically last seven days, so an admin will make the decision sometime after March 20. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2015

Milan.khimani (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. -- haminoon (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Off topic requests

With all those erroneous edit requests here I wonder how that happens, the page is rather boring for folks who are not interested in the wonders of MediaWiki access rights. Somewhere is a misleading link that should be replaced by WP:Help desk or similar. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Be..anyone: Here's my guess as to how it happens. If an IP or new account tries to edit a semi-protected page, they see MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. Two of the links in the right column of that message lead to Wikipedia:User access levels to explain auto-confirmation. That page is itself semi-protected, so if the user loses track at that point, and mistakenly clicks to edit Wikipedia:User access levels, the software shows MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext again and the user ends up posting here. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"An established user" could be replaced by "Another editor" on the system message, the right column is rather convoluted for what users presumably want when they try to grok these instructions. ;-)  Be..anyone (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Confirmed users

I have a question: who can set a user to be confirmed users? A bureaucrat friend of mine said that the option was greyed out when he tried to do that. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

yes this is very important to makr sure that there is a way.... Yogendrablog (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Bahubali movie made by SS Rajamouli in Telugu Language Simultaneously in Tamil, dubbed in Hindi, Malayalam, French. But It's not Tamil Movie. It is blunder mistake that you updated as Tamil Movie.

And you missed Attaritiki Daredhi, Race Gurram movie in the Highest Griossing Telugu Movies List Kunnilath (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Cannolis (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

Ropel Arozo (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

misplaced request collapsed

Dimos Gkaitatzis Personal information Full name Dimos Gkaitatzis Date of birth (1992-06-29) 29 June 1992 Place of birth Solingen, Germany Height 1.72 m (5 ft 7.72 in) Position(s) Forward Team information Current team Prosotsani F.C. Number 92 Youth career 2003–2006 Pandramaikos F.C. Senior career* Years Team Apps (Gls) 2007-2008 Las Vegas F.C 2009-2010 Apollon Kalamarias 14 (12) 2012-2013 Doxa Dramas 7 (8) 2014-2015 Prosotsani F.C. 9 (7) Total 30 (27) International career 2011-2012 Greece U20 1 (0) *Club domestic league appearances and goals Dimos Gkaitatzis Dimos Gkaitatzis born 29 June 1992 known professionally as GkaitzZ Teufell is an Greek professional footballer who plays as a forward for club Prosotsani greece. Started in 2007, basic and in the process after injury, took refuge in groups of less "2014-2019" the last contract was set at 5 years which was canceled because "suffered INJURY" again. References References

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. - Arjayay (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

samster

//758475849*/1 85.96.200.148 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Altamel (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Error on Checkuser?

On this page, the section for checkusers states that a user must be an administrator to be one ("Checkusers are also required to be administrators."), yet on the CheckUser page it says users are not required to be administrators, though such occurrences are rare and a process similar to RfA must be gone through ("Although checkusers are not required to be administrators, [...] WMF policy requires that they have passed an RfA or similar process."). I'm not too sure on all the WP policies about this - if for example it's possible that one was an administrator before but stepped down - but nonetheless I think it needs a small revision on either of these pages. --laagone ^(talk) 20:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The policy page has it (see this), and the footnote on this page explains it. To be honest, I'm not sure of the best way to improve this page; the Oversight section will also need to be amended. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

IP-Block exemption for Tor users

Risker in January 2014 you asked for information about IP block exemption for Tor users. Xaosflux You replied to this request.

I have tried to find some best practice on how Tor users may create Wikipedia accounts and contribute to Wikipedia starting with account creation in Tor. I outlined what I could find and what Tor users requested at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Partnership between Wikimedia community and Tor community. The talk page says more.

Xaosflux - do you know of any guide anywhere which says something more about Tor users contributing? Risker, I expect you know that there is historical resistance to having Tor users contribute. I am thinking of revisiting this in the context of the de:Wikipedia:Personal Acquaintances project through which established Wikipedians can vouch for or vet the accounts of people whom they know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Tor links: Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor, meta:No open proxies. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2015

hey can i please edit the page if you don't like what i wanna add then you can delete it

Leo Kitbash28 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

IP disclaimer

I think it would be good, though I don't personally know how to phrase it, to expand this with some warnings to users in WP:IP about editing logged-out if they have registered an account. I personally do this frequently now since I use a cookie to stay logged in on my upstairs desktop which I alone use, but edit sporadically without logging in using InPrivate tabs on a shared tablet in the living room. I do that so nobody else will access my named account and skip logging altogether since it adds time to do it on/off every single time when I want to close everything when I'm done repeatedly.

The main thing I think users should be warned about is WP:SOCK issues. Namely how easy it is for people who don't like your edits to try and classify your behavior as "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address". You can step into this accidentally even if you have no ill will. People may accuse you of trying to mislead them or create a sense of numbers even if you're not.

Far as I know there is no problem with this when articles you edit are limited to one or the other. For example for the most part I edit pro wrestling articles while logged in as User:Ranze because I'm on my desktop to watch WWE Network things, and I edit TV articles as an IP because it's watching TV in the living room which prompts me to think of it.

One time I did overlap though because as R was arguing about a championship title and I then as an IP brought up the issue on the wikiproject and actually got blocked on the basis that this was socking. I didn't and still don't agree with that (I never claimed to be different people) but it does stress the importance of, if you do edit similar topics as an account and an IP, to mention "I was this IP" or "I was this account" whenever that overlap does occur, so that people don't jump to conclusions either about you being 2 people or (if they recognize you are not) you attempting to be perceived as 2 people.

In looking around it seems a link to WP:LOGOUT from WP:IP (and perhaps vice versa) might be appropriate. Logged out as I am, I can't do that. Of course if I log in some other time to do it then I guess I would have to say "I'm this IP who made the talk page section" or something. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed rechecked every time?

If I'm reading this correctly, every time I attempt to do something that takes autoconfirmed, it checks the number of edits that I've made and the number of days? Does that mean that if a user had been on for 4 days, and had 11 edits they would be able to move a page, but if the page with the 11 edits was speedied, they would then be unable? (Is this interpretation correct?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 17:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: No, the account's total edit count would not decrease when the page was deleted. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thanx, given the different definitions of how number of edits are calculated, I wasn't sure. So someone could be autoconfirmed and having their user contributions (as viewed by non-administrators) be empty. Wierd.Naraht (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: That's correct. I get a user's true edit count from the navigation popup. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: and non-administrators do not?Naraht (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Naraht: Sorry, I should have spelled that out more clearly: I am not an administrator, but have learned to use the popup to see the true edit count including deleted edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thanx!Naraht (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2016

Welcome to My Page SridharMJ Wiki (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"Extendedconfirmed"???

What is the user access level "extendedconfirmed"? I just saw someone who is on my watch list have this access level "automatically granted" to them. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I just received it too. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I second this question.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Steel1943: Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#"Established editor" access level.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hi Steel1943, Godsy, As I understand it, "extendedconfirmed" is a new user rights level, added automatically for editors who have at least 500 edits and 30 days. It is part of the outcome of some discretionary sanctions and ArbCom decisions. Hope this helps. In terms of documenting the new level, I am considering that it might be best to include it in the previous section. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reping Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• @Ryk72: That's what I assumed, so I already made necessary to this page and Wikipedia:Protection policy reflecting that. Steel1943 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no urgent need for this right, but I’m curious as to why I don’t qualify. Is the requirement actually 500 edits per month, in the last month, or in a particular namespace, rather than an overall total? Well, that was quick! Thanks to whoever pressed the button–the log doesn’t identify him or her.—Odysseus1479 01:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: It is automatically granted when a user edits if the requirements are satisfied. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain it, and also Steel1943’s second post above.—Odysseus1479 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• The [RfC close] does not include manual addition of this user right, and there are concerns raised by Opabinia regalis and others; a consensus for this aspect is not clear. I will remove the sentence covering this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC) also @Xaosflux: - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

The big "A" change small "a" on Abusefilter-log-detail --> abusefilter-log-detail. --BasBibi (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC) BasBibi (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Caps change made to {{User access levels}}. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016

You forgot about iOS 9.3.2 being in the first beta phase! I would like you to add that to iOS 9 version history please. Thank you

Andrew Faber (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Extended Autoconfirmed User issue problem

I had been testing the use of the extended autoconfirmed user protection issue with an IP (and I promised that I did not abuse my IP) and noticed that "Wikipedia: User access levels #Extended confirmed" did not exist. Why not "#Extended autoconfirmed users"? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an {{anchor|Extendedconfirmed}} in Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users, you can add/fix/edit this as you want it to be. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

king 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: No request posted Mlpearc (open channel) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Extendedconfirmed user group (May 2016)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Administrators are not permitted to remove the extendedconfirmed user group as a discretionary sanction.

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. I agree with the statement by NE Ent, and my preference would have been for this to be similar to autoconfirmed, where it was automatically added, but could not be taken away. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. My far-and-away first choice on how to manage this is to make the extendedconfirmed usergroup technically impossible for admins to revoke. Failing that, I think it should be absolutely prohibited for any reason other than the explicit request of the affected user. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Removing it shouldn't be needed, topic bans would be much more preferable. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Per kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, and Callanecc. 30/500 is a very binary thing: either a user meets the 30 days/500 edits criteria, or they don't. While I see the benefit to adding it (in the case of alternate accounts), I do not think it should be removed. If a user cannot contribute constructively to a subject under 30/500 restriction, they should be topic banned. Otherwise we end up with a confusing scenario where someone who is, say, disruptive in the Arab-Israeli conflict suddenly finds themselves banned from editing Brianna Wu. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
3. I also think this should be up to the community; there is merit in both positions. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Undecided on this. can see both sides. am of a mind to have community-wide input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Administrators must not remove the extendedconfirmed user group as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures (for example, removing the user group as a normal administrative action to avoid banning an editor from the Gamergate controversy article).

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. @Kelapstick and Opabinia regalis: This proposal is different to D1. D1 is about removing it as a discretionary sanction, this proposal is about removing it as a normal admin action to avoid having to use arbitration enforcement procedures. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
2. Callanecc I see what you mean, maybe all these options are just confusing me. I thought the first one was all encompassing "just don't do it". --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

   We originally considered proposing this however the concern was that saying 'don't remove it at all ever, no, nope' would be stepping on the community's toes by creating policy for them rather than defining only how admins use it in our name (discretionary sanctions). Alternatively we can make another proposal stating that the user group is not to be removed except if the community authorises removal for an individual or a process for removal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

   I meant just don't do it as a means of AE/DS. And no more options, my head is already starting to hurt. If the community wants to develop a process for this, that's their prerogative. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

3. I also misread this (I blame Kelapstick, naturally ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
4. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
5. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
6. Per my comments on D1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
7. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
8. . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
9. This at least is an obvious and necessary precaution. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
10. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

As redundant to supporting D1. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah this seems to make sense, I guess. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Per Kelapstick. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

1. This should be a community policy decision. Courcelles (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Abstain

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

On Taylor Swift's bio you don't show that she's currently in a relationship with Tom Hiddleston. My very reliable source of this information come from reading his bio on Wikipedia that shows in he's in a relationship her.... they are BOTH in this relationship, right? 98.18.71.196 (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:User access levels. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rollback summary

This has probably already come up, since it seems fairly obvious, but why can we not leave edit summaries for rollbacks? TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism, so a edit summary really shouldn't be necessary. Twinkle can be used if you would like to leave an edit summary. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

And actually, you can use an edit summary when using rollback, it is just harder than reverting and leaving an ordinary edit summary unless you use a tool like Iwinkle. Monty₈₄₅ 00:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well...I don't use, and have no desire to use, extra software. I edit on multiple machines. This came to my attention when I was reverting copyvio, and wanted to leave a note to the point. This feature seems fairly in line with the spirit of the curation tool, of allowing maximum functionality without downloading additional programs. TimothyJosephWood 02:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Most copyvio's aren't "vandalism" so shouldn't be rolled back anyway, using WP:UNDO, or just loading and saving an old version will allow you to leave an edit summary. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Timothyjosephwood: Twinkle isn’t exactly “extra”, because it doesn’t need to be installed locally; it can be activated for your account in the Gadgets panel of your Preferences (under “Browsing”). Having done that, you should be able to use it from any machine on which you can log in and that has JavaScript active. At any rate, the ‘manual’ equivalent of rollback is to null-edit the last good version of a page, at which time you csn enter an edit summary as usual.—Odysseus1479 03:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ip address

I found my ip address Bensoto22 (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain removal of material

Hi Lourdes would you like to explain this edit here? [1]. Thanks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jules. My edit summary has a good explanation. The English you've used is incorrect (one example: "the ipblock-exempt (IP block exemptions) group have"). Plus, material that you are adding (for example stuff on global...) seems to already exist in the page in a different section. That said, I'll suggest that if you wish to make any more substantial changes, please discuss them here on the talk page, get a clear consensus and then undertake those change. I am not comfortable with significant changes that repeat instructions and are not using the correct grammar. Please don't hesitate to ask me for any other clarification or assistance. Thanks. Lourdes 00:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It’s quite normal for group and such collectives to take a plural verb in many varieties of English, although it‘s less common in North America, especially the US. (Still, even in USEng I‘m pretty sure I’ve occasionally heard things like “The Tampa Bay Lightning have replaced their coach.”) At any rate, pluralizing is generally a matter of emphasis, not of grammar: whether to treat the members of the group (team, herd, whatever) primarily as individuals or as a unit. Even though we Canadians use the plural less than the British do, I wouldn’t blink at the example above, and indeed the right is exercised more severally than jointly, so to speak.—Odysseus1479 01:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lourdes its not that you didn't leave an edit summary, but it makes little sense to me. The grammar can be corrected through discussion without reverting, I am open to suggestions. The material pertains to an "overview" and this material is relevant to that. The fact that information is available on other pages is irrelevant, the section is meant to be an overview of user groups and rights. No inaccuracy in actual accuracy of information has been brought up. Also you wish to make any more substantial changes, please discuss them here on the talk makes little sense to me, why do you think this? Do you think it is some sort of policy or guideline? It is not, so rules pertaining to them are not applicable. As such relevant material should be added where appropriate. I am still at a loss to understand your reasoning. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Jules. While the grammar issue was significant in my view, the issue is also about repetitive information; information that is already contained in the same page that you are editing, is being repeated by you. I was not referring to information being there on other pages, but this page itself. Any page on Wikipedia may follow the BRD format. You've been bold in your edits. I've reverted and provided what, in my opinion, are logical suggestions. You should discuss substantial changes here. If you feel your edits are good, there's no harm in allowing your peers to review them for a couple of days before attempting to include them. I'll suggest that you should exhibit the changes you propose to make below this section and proceed to make those changes if no one objects for a couple of days. Thanks. Lourdes 05:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lourdes I'm well aware of the BRD cycle and I guess that what I'm doing here by discussing rather than reverting your edit. It was also that I couldn't see how the material was particularly controversial, and was trying to understand you reasoning better. I suppose my main point was the "overview" section needs expanding to more accurately present an overview of the page. Maybe some users would simply want to read the lead and overview to get the gist of the material rather than the whole page. This can make summaries and so forth invaluable. I'm a strong believer in reducing complexity for users who do not want to wade through walls of text, while of course maintaining details for those who do.

But anyway thanks for suggesting a way forward, and I'll see what comments arise. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on additional material

OK the additional material in the "overview" section is something like this (after some c/e)

User groups have one or more rights assigned to them; for example the ipblock-exempt (IP block exemptions) group have the 'ipblock-exempt' and 'torunblocked' rights. All members of a particular user group will have access to these rights. The individual rights that are assigned to user groups are listed at Special:ListGroupRights. User group memberships requested at Requests for permissions only have local rights on the English Wikipedia wiki. But global user groups have rights across all Wikimedia Foundation wikis, although that access can sometimes be restricted by wiki policies. Users registered at Wikimedia wikis also have registered user rights to other Wikimedia wikis if their account is a SUL or unified login account. For SUL accounts, both local and global user group membership across Wikimedia wikis can be viewed at Special:CentralAuth.

I think i've explained above why I feel this would be a good idea, i.e. I suppose my main point was the "overview" section needs expanding to more accurately present an overview of the page. Maybe some users would simply want to read the lead and overview to get the gist of the material rather than the whole page. This can make summaries and so forth invaluable. I'm a strong believer in reducing complexity for users who do not want to wade through walls of text, while of course maintaining details for those who do. If there are any comments on this please make them. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Added to page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: RfC

Note that there is a RfC on the creation of a new user right named 'XfD closer' at WT:AfD#RfC: Creation of new user right 'XfD closer'. J947 18:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why aren't we all researchers?

Just wondering. I understand why we don't all have the deletedtext right, but the deletedhistory right looks pretty handy. Compy book (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Compy book Meta-data such as deleted usernames and edit summaries are deleted via WP:REVDEL all the time, which may contain offensive, harassing, or otherwise disallowed information. This is all non-deletedtext information. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Compy book: access to deleted material is considered legally sensitive, because it may include libellous vandalism, private personal information, copyright violations, and the like, so site policy requires that it only be available to users who have been deemed discreet & trustworthy through a formal vetting process. Normally that means administrators, who are selected at WP:RfA; I don’t know the background to the (rarely granted) researcher right but I guess it was created for accredited, responsible scholars to gather data on editing patterns and wiki-sociology, developers investigating how the software is used, and other such accountable individuals who have a legitimate ‘need to know’ but who aren’t interested in, or qualified for, a full sysop role.—Odysseus1479 23:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: also please note, that for example if a page is deleted - researchers can still search for the page and see its history, but they can't see the "content" of what was on the page (that's why they don't need the community RFA process). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I played around with the user rights on my test wiki, and they seem to work like this:

User right(s)	Can view metadata of
	Non-deleted pages' metadata-revdeleted revisions	Deleted pages'
		Non-metadata-revdeleted revisions	Metadata-revdeleted revisions
deletedhistory	No	Yes	Yes
revisiondelete	Yes	No	No
deletedhistory and revisiondelete	Yes	Yes	Yes

Over at https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt it says that for enwiki, 'researcher' => [ 'browsearchive' => true, 'deletedhistory' => true, 'apihighlimits' => true ],

So it seems that, if, say, the metadata of revision 1 from an article is revdeleted, then a researcher wouldn't be able to view the metadata of revision 1, because he doesn't have the revisiondelete right. But if the article is subsequently deleted, then he would gain access to view the metadata of that revision 1. (The metadata would have a strikethrough to indicate it's revdeleted, but he could still be able to read it.)

It seems that if it were desired to hide revdeleted metadata of deleted articles from researchers, a new user right, or a hook function, or something, would need to be implemented. That's interesting. I wonder if it was set up that way intentionally, and if so, what the reasoning was. Compy book (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There are likely some unexpected results (c.f. mw:Help:Undelete) with combinations of these permissions - in practice they are rarely not used in combination. Other odd cases may present in entire page deletions, that have since been overlaid with new creations. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think an argument that will always be raised is, "All this time, when pages were being deleted, either revisiondelete didn't exist yet, or it was assumed that only admins would ever be able to view the metadata from that point onward, so we can't just open it up now for everyone to view potentially sensitive metadata like the usernames, edit summaries, etc." Well, actually, one could write some code to allow non-admins to view that metadata only for revisions timestamped after a certain date. But then we'd probably run into the argument of, "It's not worth bothering admins to revisiondelete sensitive metadata from articles that are just going to be deleted anyway."

However, even if we can't reveal that stuff, it would still be helpful to have access to the ar_timestamp and ar_len, and maybe a few other fields like ar_minor_edit that aren't particularly sensitive. If you're looking through a history and seeing an article expand over time to, say, 10,000 bytes, it gives you a sense that there might be something interesting there. More so than if there were one edit creating a 50-byte article that's probably a redirect. Compy book (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Being able to create articles without being confirmed

I was able to create Alameda, New Mexico without being confirmed. Don't I have to be autoconfirmed to create new pages?Okionic (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, though that's often been proposed. EEng 01:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User right to autopatroll file uploads

There is a consensus in favor of adding a new user right to automatically patrol file uploads. The question is when to add the right. --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Someone will need to file a phabricator ticket to get this built in to the software - this is not just a parameter change. Typically the proposer (@Cenarium: in this case) will coordinate that. We will also need to have local pages built out to describe the group (could be part of the existing autopatrolled page) - and a WP:PERM queue made. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Cenarium's not active since Feb. '17. Any others? George Ho (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ticket opened. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ticket currently stalled. --George Ho (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, another task is open before revisiting the other one. --George Ho (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Founder group info

Section Founder and the table at User access level changes do not appear to accurately reflect Meta Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/founder. The permissions of Founder were revised after the 2010 Founder Flag RFC. I considered trying to make the edit myself, but I don't want to botch the job. Hopefully someone with more expertise in Group Permissions can address this. Alsee (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: While a global founder cannot change them, a local founder can. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

I've checked this page and no changes are required for WP:ACTRIAL Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing the 2FA permission

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Changing the 2FA permission

I think everyone should be able to enable 2FA its a security measure to only provide this measure to certain people i find wrong i think this permission should be included in the confirmed user group. Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars.Dormans (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confirmed mystery

I assigned confirmed group status to some users yesterday, using the new event coordinator right. That went reasonably well but, following this experience, I now notice a curiosity in different case.

A high-profile AfD was started recently by the user Ronanheathcote. This account has made few edits and so is not autoconfirmed yet. But they were able to create the AfD page because their account has been confirmed. At least that's how it looks when you review it like this. But if you look for the account in the list of confirmed users, it's not there. And if you look at the log to see who made it confirmed, there's no result there too. I thought maybe it was an effect of global rights – maybe they had inherited rights from another project - but that doesn't seem to be it.

So, can someone please explain to me how this user got to be confirmed and so was able to start this AfD. I have not pinged them in case it's an abuse which requires careful investigation but suppose that it may just be that I'm still missing something. Andrew D. (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I'm not sure how to interpret all those log entries, but the history of the AFD page shows that it was not created by Ronanheathcote; he/she merely stuck a comment in above the original nomination statement. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Andrew Davidson: You've gotten mixed up, although there's some funny business. That AfD was started by Natureium (See this and this). Unfortunately, Ronanheathcote replaced the nomination with their own comment. I'm not sure who removed Natureium's note later, but I've fixed that. Regarding the confirmed issue, look closely. Special:ListUsers lists users starting at a name. Ronanheathcote is not confirmed, so they are not listed; however, the next confirmed user is, namely Ronantimmins. The latter is who is listed there, and has no edits. As confirmed was added for a soon-to-take-place editathon in November, I have removed it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page Creation

Please open a new wiki page of actress neha solnki . She's an actress and currently working on Mayavi Maling. Waiting for your reply. Deb Nandy (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:Deb Nandy, and welcome! You can request this new article at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession#Actors, or if you'd like to write it yourself, please see Wikipedia:Your first article. Thanks, TMG^talk 04:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed, but new pages just started going through Page curation or NPP

Hi,

I have been an autoconfirmed user for years, but just recently my new articles are going through NPP or page curation. And, they are getting reviewed without any edits at all - i.e., I am still creating quality new articles - like Mary Miller (Colorado).

Is this the place to check in to see why my articles might be going through NPP or page curation? I am a NPP reviewer and my concern is just that it's adding to an already large queue.

Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: It is a software bug, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Issue_with_auto-patrol? for more information. It is being worked on. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I appreciate the update, Xaosflux. I wondered if it was happening to others, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: A little correction: you probably meant to write "Autopatrolled" not "Autoconfirmed" because that's what does what you described. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed users has 500 edits?

I don't khow 500 edits are only have live edits or have deleted edits so? Nhatminh01 (talk) 06:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nhatminh01: 500 is live and deleted edits combined. Kpgjhpjm 07:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Transwiki importer

Since the transwiki importer group is mostly deprecated and has no people in it, is there a reason why we still have the user group? --Terra ^(talk) 05:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@TerraCodes: it is one of the default groups, we didn't specifically ask for it. It could be used if there were some non-admins that needed to work on some sort of import project (like a translation drive importing to sandboxes). The main use of import is at WP:RFPI, however many import processes require doing some deletion/restoration making non-admin volunteering at RFPI not very useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks~ --Terra ^(talk) 09:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed criteria

Has the criteria for making a user autoconfirmed changed? It is documented as 4 days old and at least 10 edits. I created my account 8 days ago and I just finished my 100th edit today. I just turned autoconfirmed today. What gives?--Sa57arc (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sa57arc: no, except for special cases about IP Ban exempt users. See current settings below. Are you sure you were not autoconfirmed already - it does not send you any notification when you get it (however you DO get a notification for hitting 100 edits that is unrelated).

'wgAutoConfirmAge' => [
	'default' => 4 * 3600 * 24, // 4 days to pass isNewbie()

'wgAutoConfirmCount' => [
	'enwiki' => 10, // T16191

— xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Former levels section created

FYI, following a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 6#Non-existent user rights, I've created a Former levels section here to keep incoming links working and useful. I listed some now-obsolete levels, namely those associated with courses, the education program, and AFT. I think it should be kept brief, but my knowledge on these is limited and mostly cribbed from the former text using WikiBlame, so would welcome improvements. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: Also deperecated are flow-bots/mw:Help:Structured_Discussions/Administration#Rename_2. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)