Wikivoyage talk:Autoconfirmed users

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main page edit[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So how did that happen, I though the page was protected from new users? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It was restricted to autoconfirmed users (the only other restriction available is to restrict to admins). Somewhere there is a $wgAutoConfirmAge and $wgAutoConfirmCount. It looks like the latter (and possibly both) are still at the default values of 0, which renders the restriction useless. I have temporarily restricted editing to admins. Anyone know how to put some sensible values to those two settings? Nurg (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it needs to go thru Phabricator. Info about WP's settings are at w:Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users. Shall we go with the same settings, incl the variation for Tor users? Nurg (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Per Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users, $wgAutoConfirmAge should be set to 4 days. Don't both the age and edit count criteria have to be met to be autoconfirmed? Or is it either/or? Powers (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was rushing and didn't see that page. So it seems we have age set to 4 days and count set to 0. Both criteria have to be met, but any criteria set to 0 is automatically met, so we have only an effective age criteria at present. Any budding vandal who creates a sleeper account and just waits 4 days, will be autoconfirmed. Shall we follow Eng WP and get the edit count set to 10? Nurg (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Full support from me for matching the WP settings for autopatrolled status. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, set the same parameters as Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I would also strongly support this change - otherwise, it's a major liability. --Nick talk 22:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what settings are chosen, so long as they're not zero/zero. There are remarkably few pages, mostly major templates like {{see}}, that are semi-protected, so this decision is really about the point at which a newbie should be able to directly edit listings templates. There are no articles under either semi or full protection. Different Wikipedias have chosen different settings. It's been a long time since I looked at that, but I believe that the typical range runs from four to ten days, and from ten to twenty edits, with a few choosing even looser or even tighter restrictions. Nurg is correct that this is a "both/and" criteria, not an "either/or" thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove automatic autocomfirmed status for users who make consistently bad/incorrect edits?[edit]

We have a particular user who isn't a vandal as such, called Turbo8000. Please see Wikivoyage:User ban nominations

Their edits are of very poor quality, combined with a personal sense of infallibility even when consistently proven wrong. Every single edit they make requires checking.

Can we possibly exempt this user from becoming an Autoconfirmed user? This would highlight every edit they make as well as preventing them from moving pages where they obviously don't know what they are doing.

We could always remove this exception later if their behavior changes and their edits become trustworthy. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is quite a creative idea! It could be a good way of allowing Turbo8000 to edit and (hopefully) become more sensible, without giving him too much power to just do what he wants all the time.
Just for the sake of playing devil's advocate, mightn't that set something of a precedence for new users to be nannied by admins? Of if you decide to make Turbo8000 a case all by himself, might that not make him act out further? While I do want to believe he is a genuine user who wants to help, my instincts tell me he likes the attention generated around him from being a nuisance. In paying special attention to his edits (which I've been guilty of too, these last couple of days), that just feeds into it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I like the sound of this procedure. It's worth trying. The more options of damage control, the better, I think. Let's go for it. Ibaman (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say all new users shouldn't be nannied by admins. As far as I can tell this isn't required in over 95% of new users and ideally only be done in exceptional circumstances when we are trying to avoid a ban situation (i.e. giving certain articles a minimal protection rather than an admin-only projection).
Also I'm not speculating on Turbo8000's motivation, just trying to take steps to limit the issues that they are causing. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I like this, but I think this should be exceptional, requiring individualized action, and that the default for autoconfirmation should remain as it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
OK then. I'm on board. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have a suggestion how to actually do this? The ability to removed from the confirmed users group is limited to Bureaucrats Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Revoking the confirmed status of users who consistently make bad edits?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I asked a question on Wikivoyage_talk:Autoconfirmed_users about revoking the confirmed status of users who have been editing for more than 4 days, but are consistently making incorrect and poor edits. I'm not sure about the technical feasibility, process or potential drawbacks for doing this. Can anyone comment? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not possible (from a technical perspective). You can change the settings (e.g., six days and 20 edits) or you could perhaps use PendingChanges to do something like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks WhatamIdoing . I notice the Abuse Filter can automatically revoke an auto-confirmed status, although I really don't want to use the Abuse Filter for this kind of user management. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)