Wikipedia talk:User groups/Archive 3

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ropel Arozo (talk) 10:46, 6 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. - Arjayay (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

king 16:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Wikipedia:User access levels has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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

Hi Lourdes would you like to explain this edit here? . 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)

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)

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)