Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Request for comment: Extended confirmed

500 edits to become extended-confirmed is too much for a 1 month user, I propose to make the minimum number of edits to be reduced to 300 edits. –User456541 13:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed the RFC tag as this will otherwise be WP:SNOW closed. Shortly: no, that is not something that will be changing any time soon. --Izno (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment: you don't HAVE to make all 500 edits in the span of that single month. You simply get extended autoconfirmation when you reach 500 edits, regardless of whether it took you one month or ten. The 1 month limit should be read to mean "even if you reach 500 edits quicker than 1 month you still don't get extended autoconfirmation before 1 month has passed". CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONFIRM

The section appears to discuss/explain both autoconfirmation and confirmation, but then proceeds to discuss/explain autoconfirmation exclusively.

Please edit the article to answer the following questions: what is the Confirm access level, how does it differ from Autoconfirm? When and how do you get Confirmed, as opposed to autoconfirmed by the software?

CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I think you didn't read the whole section? The whole third paragraph details that there's no difference: In some situations, it is necessary for accounts to be exempted from the customary confirmation period. The 'confirmed' group contains the exact same rights as the 'autoconfirmed' pseudo-group, but can be granted by administrators and event coordinators[2] as necessary. It is redundant to grant the confirmed right to an account that is already autoconfirmed, since it provides the exact same abilities. To request this permission, see Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed. See Special:ListUsers/confirmed for a list of the 543 confirmed users. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Edit Count as a Requirement

During a joke edit war that occurred on April Fools’ Day, I earned the extended confirmed right for reaching 500 edits. This edit war was over the title of a section of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019, and resulted in over 100 edits being made by those who participated. This has made me want to ask: Should edits be counted towards Autoconfirmed and/or Extended Confirmed if said edits are made to the same section of an article within a given timeframe? InvalidOStalk 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not a RfC matter, it is a technical question that properly belongs at WP:VPT. Anyway, the MediaWiki software has no way of distinguishing different types of edit, it does a simple count. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Users who have automatically earned rights by “gaming the system”, making edits whose only apparent purpose was to ‘level them up’, can have those rights manually revoked.—Odysseus1479 00:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: What is to prevent the software from automatically re-granting the right? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question right there. I know it basically isn't possible to revoke autoconfirmed status, anagement interface appears to make it possible to revoke EC. We need a test case: any volunteers, perhaps the OP? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: feel free to revoke mine for a few hours (or days) if you want --DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Redrose64: good question; I might be quite wrong about the above. I had thought the system only checked when an edit-count crossed the threshold, but now that I think about it, I’ve seen former admins getting automatically extended-confirmed on their first edit after the sysop flag was removed, and of course thousands of users were already over 30/500 when the feature was first rolled out. So I probably misunderstood something I heard.—Odysseus1479 19:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 and Redrose64: see mw:manual:user_former_groups table --DannyS712 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

With the current configuration: Automatic promotion to extended confirmed will only happen once. MediaWiki checks that the granting requirements (500 edits, 30 days old, not sysop, and not bot) are met when the user makes an edit. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• To answer some of the questions above. Automatic assignment of extendedconfirmed will only ever happen once per account, it is configured in the settings as wmgAutopromoteOnceonEdit, so if it is ever revoked it needs to be manually re-added. Our current configuration with the way we use pending changes doesn't make it easy to make this harder to game - there are other projects that use a more complicated multi-variable promotion system but it would be hard to scale that here. So that's about it for the technical aspects. Those that game the counter can have it revoked and would need to reapply and be evaluated by an admin, in practice that is only going to happen if someone complains about an editor, generally because they are 'using' their new extenedconfirmed gamed access to also do something disruptive or against arbcom topic controls. If you just edit normally and stay away from issues it likely will just be left alone. If you really want your access removed drop me a talk note and I'll do it for you (you will need to reapply in the future at WP:PERM though). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: Require that users be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space

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.

---

I was shocked when I found that User:NAMDAR56 (contributions) was able to create a (now deleted) portal a mere 3 days after setting up an account. This seems to me an enormous BLP/Vandalism/sockpuppet/other problems risk. Users should have to be autocofirmed before they can create pages in the Portal: space. (Previously opened and then closed at WP:AN; pinging @Legacypac:, @GiantSnowman:, @Kusma:, @Thryduulf:, @Robert McClenon:, @173.228.123.166:, @CorbieVreccan:, who !voted over there). UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per at AN. GiantSnowman 14:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - At this time, with portals being contentious, new accounts who create portals recklessly are likely to be suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: I think you meant sockpuppets.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Arthur Rubin - Yes, both. They are puppets made from footwear, and they suck poppets, whatever poppets are. I think the nominally incorrect form does a good job of conveying my disgust about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I read in one of the portal newsletters how the portal spammers made more portals in 9 days then everyone in a year for many years. Yes, anyone "new" making a portal now is likely to be a sock. I don't know if it is worth coding into the software or nust watching for new creations and nuking them as housekeeping based on a prohibition. Also portals built properly require skill. Could we consider protecting the space to extended confirmed 500/30 days? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support As per discussions at AN. Also want them tied in to Wikiprojects. Not a fan of the shape some of these portals are in. Keep finding ones I didn't even know existed. This is the bare minimum we need to do to fix these. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per obvious. Leviv ich 05:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, rarely a problem, no obvious need for further general restrictions. We might not trust new editors to create new portals, but why shouldn't they be allowed to contribute to portal maintenance? That requires being able to create new subpages. The unclear BLP/vandalism risks rather suggest to fully protect all articles instead of disallowing page creation in a namespace rarely visited by the public. —Kusma (t·c) 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Kusma: depending on the mechanism that is used to enforce this if approved, this could be used to only prevent creation of "base" portal pages. (We could use the editfilter to prevent these instead of a backend namespace restriction). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @UnitedStatesian: would preventing pages along the lines of Portal:Pppppppp be sufficient, or is there an actual problem with editors creating Portal:Pppppppp/Subpages as well? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think preventing both makes sense, and in fact preventing the subpages may be more important because 1) there are many more subpage than top page creations, making them much harder as a group to monitor for the odd problematic creation, and 2) portal code is undocumented and very opaque as to how a given subpage is made visible its parent portal. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  UnitedStatesian, why is creating portal subpages more "dangerous" than editing existing portal subpages? —Kusma (t·c) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Because undoing a bad edit can be done by any editor, but undoing a page creation requires action by an administrator (often only after an MfD has concluded). But I think you knew that already. Neither I nor anyone else used the word "dangerous"; why is it in quotes? UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  UnitedStatesian, that means it is more work to undo, but it is in no way more "dangerous". —Kusma (t·c) 17:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support would be good for BLP as well as preventing portalspam. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
•  Administrator note @UnitedStatesian:, I've created an edit filter to log these so you can see the impact (and also monitor any pages created), to access the log use this link. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you, very helpful, but I would prefer to spend my time on other tasks confident that I did not have to worry about these page and subpage creations. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  @UnitedStatesian: that is really just for the benefit of getting stats while your RfC is open - should it be approved that filter could be changed from 'log' to 'disallow' (hopefully with an accompanying friendly template explaining what is going on to the editor). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, understood, thanks again. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. no reason why it should be more accessible than mainspace. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per pretty much all of the above. Portals are a form of site structure and navigation, something that requires some experience to do well. WP is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (i.e., work on the encyclopedic content). It is not "the website anyone can reconfigure".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support I admit my first reaction was that this isn't that big of a problem, but it does have the potential to be one so why not close the loophole. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support While at first it came off as a solution in search of a problem, it makes sense that editors who cannot create new pages should not create portals either. The creation of portals is a relatively complex thing, and autoconfirmation is a low bar. Others have made the point that new users/IPs could use portalspace as a vehicle for spam and vandalism. PrussianOwl (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Pretty much per SMcCandlish. I also think Xaosflux edit filter is the way to go. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Not opposed in principle but this seems a bit of a solution in search of a problem; all the vandalism I can recall encountering in portal space has been IP mediated, but I've never seen an IP attempt to create a new subpage, let alone a new portal. Is there any evidence this goes beyond the single editor noted? Or that it can't be handled by blocking unproductive editors? Would the proposed solution create a burden with the underlying system? To be honest, I had not realised portal space was different from mainspace in this regard. It makes sense to allow very new users to create user pages and all forms of talk pages, but perhaps not others -- what's the situation with Wikipedia, Template & Category? New templates are probably needed for DYK. New categories seem more of a common problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict: in general we're the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit - and this extends to creating most pages (notably not 'article pages'). These creations appear to be quite rare. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think that search works right, but since 12APR there have been none. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

  I believe I've seen that tagline once or twice, Xaosflux. My point is there appears no obvious reason to treat portal space differently from other non-article space entities. I've seen abundant evidence over the years of disruptive AfDs & duplicative/disruptive categories being created by newbies, but before this single example, none of disruptive portal-space page creation. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support if technically feasible, creating new portals isn't something new editors should be experimenting with. Hut 8.5 18:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above. -FASTILY 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• This seems a bit specific. New users, before they even become autoconfirmed, sometimes create a template. For example: {{Brexit Party}} and {{Latest stable software release/Cốc Cốc}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Support Would make less clutter at MfD. SemiHypercube 10:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support as it should be in harmony with the requirements to create a new article in mainspace. Desertborn (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support should really apply to any namespace that isn't User, Draft, or Foobar Talk, really. Perhaps with exceptions made for subpages of pages that already exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. No evidence presented that this is a widespread problem. feminist (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support, due to the portal problem still being overblown. Probably should be temporary to avoid WP:CREEP until the portal problem is resolved, though. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support: portals are by and large a waste of time and new users shouldn't be pulled into thinking that it's productive. They should be shown or find for themselves a more useful area of Wikipedia to lend their talents to. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 19:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per feminist. I understand the arguments about parity with mainspace, but given that this hasn't really been a problem, I don't see how taking preventative action would be a net positive. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 22:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support but I wouldn't class the risk as "enormous". Currently the main risk is that good portals will get scrubbed along with pointless portals in the current frenzy of portal deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
• support per users Legacypac, PrussianOwl, McCandlish, and Zaphod. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• support: The restrction of creating pages should really apply to any namespace that isn't User, Draft or all talk pages per Headbomb. (Usernamekiran I fixed typo, not Legacypack but Legacypac. Hope you would not mind. ) --94rain ^Talk 04:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  @94rain: Hi. Thank you for fixing the typo I do not want to be rude, but kindly read WP:TPO. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 05:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. An obvious loophole that needs closing.

I agree entirely with @Bilorv's observation that portals are by and large a waste of time. All except the 8 portals which are advertised in prime position at the top right of the main page attract risible viewing figures compared with their head articles, with the ratio of readers preferring the head article being overwhelmingly in the range of 100:1 to 2,000:1.

So I'd support restricting portal creation to editors who appear in person at exactly 11:59 on the first Tuesday of July at the South Pole with at least 5 great-great-grandparents and a lawyer for each, all of whom must sign an affidavit that they genuinely want to do this folly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support per all. Even without all the recent Portal drama mainspace pages require autoconfirmation and there's no reason portals should be any different. John M Wolfson (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Ideally everyone should be prohibited from creating portals since they are completely useless (now that we have navboxes plastered everywhere), but this seems like a good start. Kaldari (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support Whilst slightly concerned about WP:CREEP, in this instance the proposal simply aligns portal creation with article creation (trialled at ACTRIAL) and voted overwhelmingly to permanently extend to autoconfirmed users here. We must remember that the community voted at an RfC in favour of portal retention. These recent piecemeal proposals to restrict portal creation should not be seen as giving the 'anti-portalists' a 'second bite at the cherry' to delete them all again, albeit this time by stealth, but must only be common sense measures to ensure portals are able to work effectively for those Wikipedia users who do choose to visit them as a shop window and an alternative route in to finding articles that interest them. Just as with articles themselves, the numbers of people who visit them should never be a factor in their retention or deletion. They have to work for those who do use them, and, of course, too many shop windows popping up just leads to a confusion on the high street. Restricting their creation to autoconfirmed users seems both logical and proportionate, yet is probably never ever likely to be a serious issue to get het up about, unlike instant article creation by myriads of brand new users. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Surprised to find it isn't already the case. WaggersTALK 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support. No reason for this level of functionality to be so accessible. Britishfinance (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per other support recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2019 (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.

Implementation

Hello @UnitedStatesian and Winged Blades of Godric: now that this has passed, it needs to be implemented. There are two primary ways this can be accomplished:

1. You can create a phabricator request for a software control to be built for this namespace
2. We can use the edit filter

If you would like to use the edit filter, Special:AbuseFilter/983 can be set to disallow. It should have a descriptive error message for editors that may encounter it. I created a shell for that at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-nonconfirmed portal creation. I can implement the edit filter route if someone asks and can provide text for the disallow message. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I personally think the edit filter should be fine. It will leave control to disabling it / only making it a warning easier if consensus is for that. Since the filter works, why not have it.

I suggest that "error message" should include some link to the portals WikiProject, so that they could request the page is created from an auto-confirmed editor there. I suggest that the error message goes out of its way to make sure that the editor understands that the portal page they were trying to create wasn't necessarily bad. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: sounds fine - could you (or really anyone) mock up the decline message here: MediaWiki talk:Abusefilter-disallowed-nonconfirmed portal creation - as soon as it is ready, ping me and I'll activate the edit filter. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, OK. I'll make a draft and anyone can add too it if they want too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: thanks! Note: It can always be updated easily at that page in the future, just want to make sure that anyone blocked by the filter gets some meaningful feedback! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Xaosflux, what do you think of the draft text? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems OK. Notice left at Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#New_disallowing_filter_983 (we have a couple days hold on new disallowing filters to give other filter managers a chance to look it over for errors). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Done @UnitedStatesian and Winged Blades of Godric: - Special:AbuseFilter/983 has been enabled. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Note, this was converted from an EF to the TBL (MediaWiki:Titleblacklist) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2019

Please delete my wifes age and I wish my name Rankin Weir to be deleted.I am getting crank calls. Carshalton beeches (talk) 08:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm not seeing an age mentioned at Alison Weir, nor do I understand how having her spouse mentioned relates in anyway to crank calls. Finally, why you chose to write all of this here is a mystery to me. El_C 08:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

“Pseudo-group” is used to describe autoconfirmed editors

Saying members of a (virtual) group belong to “pseudo-group” is confusing. Pseudo means false, so a false-group is not a group. The word “quasi-group” means a group in appearances only, a virtual group. Please consider replacing “pseudo-group” with “quasi-group”.

Moris Hoch (Moshezee) Moshezee (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter log

I saw that I could view the edit filter log even though I'm blocked. The abuse log now applies to blocked users. Is this true? 103.24.106.26 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"reading" things is generally not stopped by being blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended confirmed with only 6 edits?

Can someone explain how Djarkur is an extended-confirmed editor with only 6 edits? I believe is automatically granted when an editor has made over 500 edits with a tenure of 30 days, but this user does not have that much. Their deleted edits show a sandbox and nothing else. Is this a glitch or a bug? Or have their prior edits been suppressed by a steward? 2.58.194.136 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The user made a substantial number of insubstantial edits to their now deleted sandbox. Oldest trick in the book. Favonian (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. xtools counters are good for checking that sort of thing. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019

"WP:CC" does not redirect here. 209.121.141.90 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed, hatnote removed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on user rights of (site) banned users is now underway

An RfC relating to user rights of (site) banned users is now underway at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users. The higher the level of participation, the better the consensus (either way). Please feel free to participate! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2019

The single peaked at number 18 on the UK Singles Chart, making it KSI's highest-charting single.[84]

The single peaked at number 10 on the UK Singles Chart, making it KSI's highest-charting single. Gregnuttall2 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2019 (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. QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020

"An editor with more experience and good standing can attempt to become" to "An editor with more experience and good understanding can attempt to become" Krishankm (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. That's farther from the intended meaning. Although I think "...in good standing" might be a tad clearer, but I don't think it's a huge difference either way. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This page seems not meeting WP:COLOR

The "Table" and "User access level changes" sections' usage of red and green colors do not appear to meet WP:COLOR - I suggest we switch to use {{Tick}} and {{Cross}} instead.--ネイ (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, and if we could figure out the six different colourings the general "User access levels" table could have it too.

I also wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to have it be a vertical table so as not to be wider than the page, and/or cut out some of the "give/take" splits since only "Confirmed" and "Bureaucrat" have those splits. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

If someone is looking at any major redesign keep in mind that one concept that always got me was the "inherit" - bureaucrats don't "inherit" permissions from administrators for example, noone inherits anything - you simply can be a member of multiple groups at once. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I was noticing that myself... as xeno's recent example will show, being a 'crat really only gives one or two very specific things, and that should probably be emphasized. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have redone the template, but along the way I created some "alternate" versions:

• Version 1
• Version 2
• Version 3
• Version 4 (current)

If anyone has issue or suggestions for tweaks, let me know. Primefac (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Import can be "Import, Transwiki Import". We actually have some "Researcher" as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair point; I'm going off Special:ListGroupRights, which doesn't specifically list the ability to modify those groups. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for changing {{User access level changes}}! As for {{User access levels}} - determining 6 colourings does not make it meet WP:COLOR since we need to "[e]nsure that color is not the only method used to convey important information". Instead of the color, we might (1) put "G" for granted and "R" for revoked, or (2) choose several icons from {{Done/See also}}. Since we already use icons in {{User access level changes}}, the latter is probably a better idea.--ネイ (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth I never got around to fixing {{User access levels}}, because my idea for fixing it was taking a really long time to implement; I'll put it on my "do it at some point" list. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Misspelling

“forego” (precede; go before) should read “forgo” (omit; do without).

50.82.5.10 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Assistance

Please I need someone to help me on how to submit article from draft section to main Wikipedia page Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

New table version

I've sandboxed a new version of {{user access levels}}. ネイ, I know you were looking for someone to overhaul it, and I finally got around to doing so. Thoughts? Primefac (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Users

I believe the correct number of edit required to reach WP:XCON is 501 and not 500. Can somebody confirm this? Northern Moonlight 20:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, after making the 500th edit XC is conferred on the user (assuming tenure as well). Primefac (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Northern Moonlight 21:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Check

Can i see anywhere whats my level and what is missed to next level? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra617 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You can check your current rights at Special:UserRights/Sandra617. You can also check xtools to see how many edits you have, which can help in determining which user groups you will be assigned automatically (autoconfirmed, extended confirmed). Primefac (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I cant see there something? If i press this Special:UserRights/Sandra617 i see just noting. Why there is no option witch just shows me what wikipedia all the time does? As far as i understand it - this is been tracked and checked all the time? So why i cant see the results of this check anywhere? Like Your User Level Registered (new) next level is Autoconfirmed xy is missing (for example 4 edits).

Wiki got the information. Why it dont show it? I dont get it? Sandra617 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To answer your first question, you have no user permissions, which is why it doesn't show anything. That's also why I linked to xtools, which shows edits, time registered, etc. As far as some sort of "progress bar", until recently (when extended confirmed was introduced) autoconfirmed really was the only thing, and have a huge block of code purely to keep track of a user's first ten edits is rather pointless. Even with EXC, I don't think it's really necessary to have any sort of progress bar, as the folks concerned with such things will know how to determine if they've reached that level or not. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok but 1 why not? here they say you need 4 days and 10 edits to go to next level. i got more? so why not? 2 why so complicate? like i said. Its checked all the time automatic? So why it doesnt show me the result of this check - for example on my user site and just print there. You are registered user - next level is autoconfirmed user. You need 3 more days and 9 more edits to get it. Sounds very usefull and very simple to me. Because it is checked anyway all time in background. So why not just show it? Sandra617 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean; you have autoconfirmed.

As to "why this isn't a feature", likely it's because no one's asked for it before. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Lost password

Can you get the same user access level as the previous backup accounts immediately? I recently locked out of my 2nd backup as a result of a accidental logout. SpnnerLaserzthe2nd. (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If you can verify that you are the owner of the previous account, then yes, you can get your old access rights. I believe an email to ArbCom will get that sorted. However, given that your only/highest user right on any of your previous accounts was ECP, I think you'd be better off just editing and getting that back through the usual channels. Primefac (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit for someone with permission

"Several actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia." really should be "Several actions on the English Wikipedia are restricted to user accounts until they are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits to the encyclopedia."

Less confusing that way. Have a great day! MihaelMaxenglish1 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

EC edit count

From what I heard, being extended confirmed requires 500 edits, but does that mean 500 edits, or 500 Article edits? --a gd fan (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

500 edits. Primefac (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory IP address masking incoming

Johan (WMF) has indicated that mandatory masking of the IP addresses of anonymous editors is being implemented for all Wikiprojects in the near-mid term (probably sometime in the next year or so), stating that this is an order from the WikiMedia Foundation's Legal Department. Apparently a statement from the Legal Department is forthcoming. As this is likely to hinder anti-vandalism efforts in the near-term, feedback is being requested to make this cause the least amount of disruption possible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

specificity in logs

I' wondering if we couldn't add something, possibly here and at WP:PERM, asking admins to leave a brief, clear description of what changes they made. I often see changes in those logs wherein the user has numerous rights, and for whatever reason the system lists them all for each change. Here is an anonymized example of why I feel this is an issue:

"<admin name>changed group membership for <user> from account creator, autopatrolled, epcampus, eponline, extended confirmed user, page mover, file mover, IP block exempt, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker and template editor to account creator, autopatrolled, epcampus, eponline, extended confirmed user, page mover, file mover, IP block exempt, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, template editor and new page reviewer (Per request.) "

So, all the admin in this case wrote in the log summary was "Per request." It is so much easier to pinpoint exactly what was done if the admin leaves a descriptive summary, something as simple as "+rollback" is sufficient. While added rights are usually at the end of the second list, if one has removed a user right without leaving a description the only option the next person to view that log has is to stare at both lists until they can parse out what's missing from the second one, when just taking 2 seconds to write "-autopatrol" would solve it. I don't think this is malicious, or even lazy, it's just that those who don't spend a whole lot of time doing user rights work may not have it in the front of their mind how the log renders changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable idea. I know there are a lot of admins that use User:MusikAnimal/userRightsManager.js (which may only say "per request" but at least includes a PermaLink), but mandating that isn't really an option. Of course, I can't think of many admins that actually read this page to know how to do something, so maybe just a MMS or post at AN asking/reminding admins to be more specific with their PERM granting edits summaries? Primefac (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

userRightsManager actually includes the "+rollback" automatically, so anyone using that to grant should be set. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: If you want to suggest it more, WT:PERM may be a better place, adding suggestions is fairly easy at MediaWiki:userrights-groups-help as well, but that page rather cluttered already so I don't know how much admins will actually "read it". I don't use the perm script, but generally try to be very descriptive in my perm logs (Special:Log/Xaosflux) - it doesn't take very long to do even manually. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

All of the above, but FWIW, the last item is the one being changed, whether removed or added (likewise if there's more than one being done). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

IP is confirmed by email confirmation

maybe the email that is confirmed cannot be distorted by other users--Hacker-index (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hacker-index: Like many of your recent posts to talk pages, this one makes no sense to me. Please explain what you are trying to say. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposing a new user group.

When I noticed that The Signpost had an 'edit' button, I had an idea, but I doubt it will be taken seriously. What if we make a new User group, called reporters, or journalists, and make it so that only they can edit The Signpost? I know it's kind of far-fetched, and this is probably not the right place to propose this, but please consider my idea.

Thanks, Rosefeather of WindClan (Meow at me!) 01:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rosefeather of WindClan: is there a reason that the signpost should not be editable like the rest of Wikipedia? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if someuser disliked one of the stories, or users who wrote the story, what if they changed it? Drastically, I mean, and it was completely different?

Rosefeather of WindClan | Meow at me! | Fresh-kill |My Den 19:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rosefeather of WindClan: basically, this is way too niche of a use case to even think about something as complex as a site wide permissions scheme. As to your scenario, if someone makes a disruptive edit anyone can just revert it - if they continue to be disruptive administrators can block them from making future edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Change "liling" to "yawa" 2001:4454:643:5500:FC8A:406E:F18C:2E1F (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Why has The Law Society judgement of 3 counts of misconduct as a solicitor not been included? Please research and add FACTS, this is a biased interpretation. 78.86.168.118 (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2021 (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. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Number of ext confirmed users

Not showing the total number is due to only not showing the lack of active and persistent wikipedia users, which is a real disappointment for new users who are enthusiast to contribute. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

An edit through which I removed one unsourced and outdated number was considered disruptive by some non liberal user. Anyway I accept answers about through this section. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll be completely honest, I have no idea what your motivations or intentions are. Why does listing the total number of users discourage others from editing? Primefac (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, to completely answer your question, they are just outdated numbers which don't indicate real edits by users. Brainfrogk4mon (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hrm, in running the numbers I do note that there's no templated way (or magic word) to determine the AC users (though I will note that {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} could probably be used on the page to indicate the 122,687 we currently have active). If there's no easy way to keep that number updated, it might actually be worth removing. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

I want to add file on Wikipedia which cannot be added. Lolloboiii (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: This is not the right place to seek help. Please visit WP:TEAHOUSE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Why can't I...

be an administrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjjjkscratch (talk • contribs) 04:34, September 12, 2021 (UTC)

You are free to apply to be considered for adminship, but I won't tell you how as there is zero chance of you being accepted. You have had an account for only 6 days, and the few edits you have made outside of your userspace have all been reverted. Meters (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"Autoconfirmed" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Autoconfirmed. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 30#Autoconfirmed until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. EthanGaming7640 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What does registered users may email other users mean?

"Registered users may immediately e-mail other users if they activate an email address in their user preferences." Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you create an account and link an email address to the account, then if you have email enabled other registered users can email you. IP users cannot email folks. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What does registered users may email other users mean?

"Registered users may immediately e-mail other users if they activate an email address in their user preferences." Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If you create an account and link an email address to the account, then if you have email enabled other registered users can email you. IP users cannot email folks. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

In his youth, Gavin Bazunu came through Leicester Celtic, a feeder club to Shamrock Rovers, which he went on to sign to at the age of 13 2A02:8084:4060:2500:C947:26D8:7565:4C1 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (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. SpinningCeres 19:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Road to 30/500

How to I find out how many edits I have made? -Hcoder3104 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Hcoder3104 (or if you're anyone else, replace their username with your own). Primefac (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Special:Preferences shows the number as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have extendedconfirmed revoked, how can you get this right again? Thingofme (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thingofme: a few routes; normally if you get this revoked - it will be with specific directions on what you have to do before getting it back. If you had this, and you satisfy the requirement, you can post at WP:PERM, link to the condition, and show how you satisfy it. If there was no reason, start by contacting the revoking admin - if they are unresponsive after a reasonable time you can post at WP:AN to ask for review. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux However after an user get the sysop flag removed, why they only need one edit to be automatically granted extendedconfirmed? Thingofme (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't always: extendedconfirmed will "once" autopromote, every single time you make an edit the "autopromote" checks related to edit counts happen by the system. The majority of admins have been around since before the extendedconfirmed system was invented, so they never were autopromoted to it. If they stop being admins, they are still eligible for automatic auto-promoting assuming they have met the minimum thresholds - thus they often get it on their next edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So after the 30 days, if you have 500 edits you won't be given this right away, but only after getting one edit after the 30/500 mark? Thingofme (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the system back-end process that performs autopromote checks "on edit". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Road to 30/500

How to I find out how many edits I have made? -Hcoder3104 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Hcoder3104 (or if you're anyone else, replace their username with your own). Primefac (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Special:Preferences shows the number as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have extendedconfirmed revoked, how can you get this right again? Thingofme (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thingofme: a few routes; normally if you get this revoked - it will be with specific directions on what you have to do before getting it back. If you had this, and you satisfy the requirement, you can post at WP:PERM, link to the condition, and show how you satisfy it. If there was no reason, start by contacting the revoking admin - if they are unresponsive after a reasonable time you can post at WP:AN to ask for review. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux However after an user get the sysop flag removed, why they only need one edit to be automatically granted extendedconfirmed? Thingofme (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't always: extendedconfirmed will "once" autopromote, every single time you make an edit the "autopromote" checks related to edit counts happen by the system. The majority of admins have been around since before the extendedconfirmed system was invented, so they never were autopromoted to it. If they stop being admins, they are still eligible for automatic auto-promoting assuming they have met the minimum thresholds - thus they often get it on their next edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So after the 30 days, if you have 500 edits you won't be given this right away, but only after getting one edit after the 30/500 mark? Thingofme (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the system back-end process that performs autopromote checks "on edit". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Not wanting author page.

By “author page” I did not mean like my website or other platforms. If you type in almost any authors name you find an “article” about them. I was only wanting to have that type of “article” for myself since Wiki is one of the major platforms google uses for its analytics. I don’t understand how to do it, so I will simply drop the idea because wiki is not easily navigable. And I don’t have the time to waste. I’m busy writing three new novels, a short story for an anthology and promoting my latest novel. 2601:243:C000:FEF0:75D0:B1A6:E23C:837E (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you change your mind, create an account, read through WP:YFA, and head over to the Article wizard. Primefac (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

"promote" STOP RIGHT THERE. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Nobody is going to read your novel because of a Wikipedia article. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Are extended confirmed users "exempt" from new page patrol?

1. I read somewhere that extended confirmed users don't have to have their new articles patrolled before they're visible to search engines. Is this true? If so, it should be added to the section.

2. Do the 500 edits include all edits or mainspace edits only? Galagora (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

1) It is not true, 2) all edits. Primefac (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac Even userspace? Couldn't someone just "legally" make hundreds of edits to their sandbox? Anyways thanks. Galagora (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but unlike Autoconfirmed, we can (and do) remove EXCON when someone gains it by gaming the system. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

What about if you just copyedit in small steps to an article? Is it gaming? After all, it's net positive. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 00:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have zero intention of spelling out exactly how to game the system. As far as gaming goes, I know it when I see it. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Noone is exempt from "new page patrol" - it is a concept, not a technical control. Regarding having new articles be indexed without a wait, that is the Wikipedia:Autopatrolled group. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation of user acess level

Hi. I wanted to ask how to check if you are an autoconfirmed user or not.

_ Anonymous user 0000 (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You can see your user groups either in your preferences (Special:Preferences), or by visiting Special:UserRights/Anonymous_user_0000, which is a link usually found in the tools on the left side of the page when looking at your user/talk page or contributions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks

- Anonymous user 0000 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong automatic promotion

• 02:02 User rights log DefLeppardFan90 talk contribs was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user

This user did a huge number of minor selfreverted edits and nothing else useful.

I think his user user level must be demoted and the algorithm of the bot must be reviewed. It this way anyone can rake thousands of edits by simply inserting a space into pages and become a respectable user. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think what they're attempting to do is a null edit to refresh the page. Their way is a horrible, horrible way to do it, but I don't think they're attempting to game ECP by doing it. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You didnt read carefully, sorry, so I have to waste my time for repetition. I did 'not say this particular user was gaming the system, but I said:

• the user acquired undeserved rights granted by an imperfect bout, and these rights must be removed
• The algorithm of the bot has a hole that makes an abuse possible.

If y'all think this is OK, so it be. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Loew Galitz this appears to not be a technical issue, if you want the social aspects of this editing to be further investigated please follow up at WP:ANI. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is a technical issue. It is appalling how you continue to misread my complaint. I am repeating, now for you, this time not only in boldface but in all-caps as well: I am NOT complaining about the editor. I am complaining about a stupid programing of the bot which automatically promoted user rights for nothing. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fine, my short answer is that this is not gaming, and so the rights will not be removed. Editors are granted ECP when they hit 500 edits automatically, and are only removed if it was granted due to intentionally abusing the process. Not knowing how the system works and editing in a way that happens to give 500 edits does not meet this criteria. Primefac (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Loew Galitz, if people aren't understanding you here, I think it may be because of a case of https://xkcd.com/1425/. Getting MediaWiki (there's no bot, just MW itself) to autopromote users when they hit 500 edits and 30 days is trivial. Any sort of ECP-gaming detection would require programming many orders of magnitude more complex, and would still likely have a rate of false positives that the community would not accept. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Named users

I saw "Named users" along with "Autoconfirmed users" and "Users" when I went to Special:Preferences but could not find any information about what "Named users" are. What does it mean? Themaxtiger (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Themaxtiger: This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#New "named" group -- John of Reading (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Thank for pointing out this interesting Village Pump thread. Themaxtiger (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Founder for user: Larry Sanger  ?

Just a random thought on a cloudy day where I live, so please do not take this harshly if in fact anyone has passionate feelings about it one way or the other.

I see that Jimbo has the user right WP:Founder, whereas Larry Sanger is just a listed as a regular extended confirmed user.

I think for the historical record, we may wish to consider granting Sanger with the same WP:Founder user right. Or maybe rename the right/permission to "co-founder" and then grant it to both Sanger and Jimbo at the same time? It looks like Sanger hasn't had any activity since 2019, but I'd be curious to see what the community thinks about this. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

His role is already noted on this page, on Larry's user page, in the Wikipedia article about Sanger, and in the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia itself. It's no secret. Larry spends a lot of his time now telling anyone who will listen that Wikipedia sucks and nobody should use it for anything, so I certaonly don't think he qualifies as a trusted user who should be assigned advanced permissions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

To that end, I do not see it being used since Sanger has been inactive for years, similar to how I do not think that Jimmy Wales uses his account in any real substantial capacity that I know of. That said, if one "founder" has it, seems to me the other should. Or I'd suggest that since the community was not part of forming the user right of Founder to begin with, then alternatively we just do away with it for altogether. One fewer "thing" out there. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 22:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

If we just removed the permissions that founder gives, I would support giving it to Sanger. But I don't think he's trustable with anything other than XC, and even barely. casualdejekyll 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Interface admin rights

Do interface admins have admin rights (blocking, protecting, editing protected pages, etc)? Interface protection is higher than full protection, and I don’t know if interface admins have normal admin rights. Any responses will be appreciated. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Super yoshi013021: See Interface Administrators here, Special:ListGroupRights. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime, thanks for the reply. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022

I see something wrong Susiscool69420 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done please be specific. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

Change her death to his wife's death.

This is in the section on Washington and slavery. 92.30.180.174 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This is in the wrong page. However, guessing you mean George Washington, I've done it. Please discuss future changes at Talk:George Washington. --Mvqr (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

2v.nii.i (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@2v.nii.i: that request is empty. You also probably want to place a request on an article talk page, not this page. --Mvqr (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Badly worded sentence

In the section "IP block exemption" it says:

"If known, an administrator is also free to grant the right to affected good-faith editors without waiting for an unblock request."

This is badly worded. Literally it refers to "an administrator who is known". I assume it means

"An administrator who knows an affected good-faith editor is also free to grant the right to that editor without waiting for an unblock request."

and request it be changed. Thanks. 220.253.118.126 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

That sentence was just tortured. I un-Yoda'd it to,

Administrators are also free to grant the right to good-faith editors known to be affected by IP blocks, without waiting for an unblock request.

FeRDNYC (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Need help uploading 4 images to my account by an autoconfirmed user asap

Hi I am in the process of creating a new wikipedia page about a company called FOSSA Systems. I need assistance from an autoconfirmed user to help me upload 4 images for this article. Could I email them to you and then you would upload them here? I am not sure exactly how it works, I guess you would upload the images after it is posted and in the visual editor you would put "insert" and select "media". IggyMoo (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@IggyMoo images aren't a high priority for an article, especially one that doesn't yet exist. You only have to wait another four days and have made at least 10 edits before you will be able to upload images yourself. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I need to have the article completed in one day for work though. IggyMoo (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@IggyMoo: Work? Are you saying that you're being paid to create the article? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I work for the company I am making the article for. IggyMoo (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@IggyMoo: Ok but is your work paying you to create the article. I suggest you read WP:PAID and WP:COI ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

2601:40:C780:2CC0:FCB3:4098:71A2:6587 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)   Born in 670 AD, Tariq Ibn Ziyad (Moroccan), a Berber who grew up in a Muslim Arab environment, was a member of the Al-Sadaf tribe, originally an Amazigh

 Not done: This does not appear to be the correct location for your edit request. Please leave the request on the talk page of the article you would like edited. Tollens (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

update

can it be updated? TempAccount187 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Examples mixed with live data are confusing?

Given that this article displays real account information to logged-in users (with indicators such as "Your account is autoconfirmed", "Your account is extended autoconfirmed", etc... showing up alongside the corresponding descriptions), is it really helpful to display a sample of the "YOU ARE NOT LOGGED IN" banner so prominently?

How do we communicate to the reader that they should disregard that information, but take the other information on the page seriously? (And what real purpose does it serve to give a sample of the not-logged-in banner, anyway? If someone wants to see it, they can always just log out and edit a page. Or, we could link to MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, instead of displaying it.) FeRDNYC (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

agree TempAccount187 (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Having heard no objections or concerns, I updated the page so that it only links to MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. The curious can view the contents of the banner by following the link. FeRDNYC (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Exact definition of required edits

I think I've just reached 500 edits (at least per xtool's edit counter) but have apparently not (yet) been granted extended autoconfirmed level. I was wondering which edits are counted: of the 500 edits, 15 have been deleted, so there are only 485 live edits. What's the rough latency between reaching 500 edits and the permissions being granted? Minutes, hours, days? I'm asking here on the talk page as the article does not seem to cover this. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, as I was writing I was granted the status. So the answer is: total edits count (deleted included), and the latency is on the order of minutes. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Does 500 edits count across wiki projects, or just enwiki?

It is unclear from the description whether extended confirmed counts for all accounts liked together, or just the account for a particular wiki. It is also unclear whether 500 edits total or 500 edits on a particular wiki are what give extended confirmed.

(tags: other languages, translation, interwiki, between wikis) Bart Terpstra (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Change to userrights being proposed

I've started a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Give NPR additional rights? regarding a proposed change to the NPR userrights. Please feel free to join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2023 (UTC)