UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Autoconfirmed Group

The Science.

SO is this a current feature that can be used, or would it require an upgrade? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I think it is a current feature. =/ I'm not sure though. -- Cheese 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a current feature which would merely require some configuration changes.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, adding:

$wgGroupPermissions['autoconfirmed']['move'] = true;

changing: $wgAutoConfirmAge = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmAge = 3600*24*2

and: $wgAutoConfirmCount = 0; to $wgAutoConfirmCount = 50;--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So Kevan would have to set it up? Would it not be prudent to ask if this is something he'd approve of? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a 5 minute job at most.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What is semi-protection? --Toejam 20:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Users who are autoconfirmed can edit it and those who aren't can't. In other words, newly created accounts can't while established users can. -- Cheese 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. BTW: You've just reminded me of the word I was looking for to describe users with autoconfirm in the policy :D.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you two. And presumably semi-protections would be requested on the protections page, in the same way normal protections are?--Toejam 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with some additional discretion allowed in the case of "emergency" protections as per current rules.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Im not sure about protections. Moving I can see, but protections could be more trouble than its worth. (the odd user, throwing his weight around, to protect a page he wants preserving). How would this be accountable? Could the privileged be revoked? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, sysops still protect if this is active. Semi-protection means you can limit the editors to established, autoconfirmed users, making them more trouble to vandalise. -- Cheese 20:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, theory being that few vandals will bother to make 50 good edits for the sake of vandalising one page (Which would likely be reverted in 2 minutes flat, being a high-visibility page). It makes vandalism-sprees all but impossible.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But would users have to record their protections anywhere? I mean. In pretty much whatever form it takes, I'd get these privileges (14 months, 14,000 ish edits), and it would be useful, but, say like in the current arbies case between marty banks and a member of the dead, would the temptation just be to protect the burb page in question after making the edits you wish? A lot of new users wouldn't know how to overturn such a move, or even what was going on. Would certain pages have this protection in place? (Guides, Skills pages etc?) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as i understood this thing, the user simply becomes able to move pages after being autoconfirmed, and to edit semi-protected pages. The autoconfirmed user is not able to protect pages so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it, that's still a sysop action. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat is correct. Autoconfirmed users would not be able to protect pages, they would simply be able to edit semi-protected ones. Sysops would still be the ones to protect pages. Semi-protection would be placed on pages where there is a high risk of vandalism but which we still want editable be established users.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the idea but I don't think we have enough 'crats to sufficiently regulate such a thing and am no particularly partial to giving more users control over group memberships.--Karek^maps?! 21:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It is automatically handled by the software - No 'crat interaction needed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant for the needed demotions, we semi-regularly have gaps in time where 'crats either aren't there or don't keep up with their already small work loads.--Karek^maps?! 21:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which demotions, it's a software feature implemented via a pseudo-group. It wouldn't be counted as a "special right" and misuse would go through the ordinary A/VB channels.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot better about this if part of it were that we were again allowed to protect page moves instead of the default lock on it now.--Karek^maps?! 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We can, just go to the "Protect" tab and select "Sysops Only" in the section entitled "Move". For instance, important pages could have "Edit=autoconfirmed" and "move=Sysops Only" which would mean that only autoconfirmed users could edit the page and only Sysops could move the page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, currently that section is grayed out and and duplicates whatever you select for Editing Lock, default is Sysops only and we can't lower it. Might just be a function of where the minimum level for moves is though.--Karek^maps?! 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I be talking nonsense, ignore.--Karek^maps?! 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume crats or sysops can unconfirm an autoconfirmed user?? Is that what karek's worried about up there?? Other than that seems fine to me.--xoxo 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

This is open to abuse. It's going to make persistent vandals create accounts and then leave them a week, at the end of that time make 50 minor edits in their user space and go crazy with the button. Yes, it can all be undone, but it's a ball ache to do so. Run it on a case by case basis using the same criteria as sysop candidacy (3 months and 500 edits IIRC). After this much contribution it would be clear if someone's established as a member of the community or not, and then people get given the button. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Too much effort, if it's gonna be like that you might as well not have it and let the sysops just do it because you won't actually decrease the ammount of red tape as most users will still have to request moves. In fact it'll increase by having a-whole-nother a/pm page.--xoxo 01:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just have it like vandal de-escalations now. Quick request on a talk page: "Dear Mister Sysop, I have been a good boy this year, I has 543 edits, for Christmas can I has a rocket ship, a puppy and the move button. Yours, Billy Morgan, Aged 6 and 7/8ths." Problem solved. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can up the time and number of edits significantly, before the autoconfirm kicks in. After all, most people take a fair while to work out the system we have in place here. I don't think people who have only been here a week need to be able to move pages, and if the odd person does, they can request the promotion from the 'crats if they really can't wait. A month and 500 edits perhaps? A casual vandal is unlikely to put that sort of effort in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:03 13 November 2008 (BST)