Wikipedia talk:User access levels

Pratapkumar

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)

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)

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)