All The Tropes talk:Autoconfirmed users

What is enough edits to be in the autoconfirmed users group?

I'm not a mod, but to be in the autoconfirmed group it not a set number but enough consistency of good edits for a while. As long as you add good examples, have good grammar, don't spam, don't break pages and don't engage on wankery, Mods eventually will trust you on not destroying the wiki and give you that privilege.

We don't have a hard-and-fast set of guidelines, but I will say that 11 edits over 11 months is not quite enough, Oflameo.

Soft-and-slow set of guidelines is what ruined TVTrophes.

Just noticing this thread...

We really shouldn't publish hard-and-fast numbers in the middle of a spam flood. Why give spammers information they can use to game the system?

That said, 11 edits is nowhere near enough to qualify for autoconfirmed, even if they were all in the same week. A proven track record is what we're looking for, and that isn't enough for a track record IMHO.

I noticed Robkelk's reply in the #wiki-feed on the Miraheze Discord server. I would just add a couple things, any user can view the autopromotion settings via Special:ManageWiki/permissions/autoconfirmed. I doubt very much these spam only accounts are operated on an individual basis; rather, they're likely operated on automated basis and overseen, in aggregate, by a single human. Just imagine for a moment if you actually employed by a spam company to oversee spam only accounts. What a horrible job that would be, eh!? Anyway, with the Moderation extension enabled, any declined attempted edits will not count towards the purposes of a spam only account obtaining autoconfirmed as they are made before they reach what constitutes an "edit." Hope that helps.

That page is supposed to be restricted to Bureaucrats only. Since you can read it, I'll file a bug report with our wiki host.

Robkelk It's not a bug, though. It's restricted to bureaucrats only to edit, but it's always been viewable by anyone.

I've just noticed on the project page, "[a]utoconfirmed users is a user group for those who are new editors that have edited enough they no longer have an red exclamation point next to their edits in Recent Changes." That's not quite correct. That red exclamation point is a patrol mark and signifies the revision is unpatrolled. Thus, the only local user groups that do not have that are autopatrolled and sysop. You could, of course, add autopatrol to the autoconfirmed group, which we do on TestWiki and Loginwiki, and then this statement would be true, but that may not be the avenue you wish to take.

Also, "[t]hose with admin rights reserve the right to remove this flag in the event troper edits are in need of serious review for grammar, or if we have reason to suspect the troper is not editing in good faith but is not outright editing maliciously[,]" is also not quite correct. Administrators cannot remove the autoconfirmed user group directly; they could, in theory, remove it indirectly, but this would involve creating a very specific abuse filter and having the Abuse filter system user remove the implicit user group autoconfirmed when the particular user next attempts to make an edit matching that abuse filter.

Hope that helps, too.

The statement on the project page is correct. Your statement about the exclamation point being a patrol mark is also correct. Both statements approach the same destination but do so from different directions.

EDIT: And the right is still reserved. I was about to remove your Autopatrolled right to demonstrate that it can be done, and then restore it immediately, but I see you don't have Autopatrolled yet.

Arguing semantics is not helping.

Robkelk I'm not trying to argue semantics, but I just thought it'd be helpful to point out that the exclamation point doesn't relate to the autoconfirmed group, so thought it would make sense to remove the statement from the project page.

My last edit assigned me the autoconfirmed implicit user group locally. I don't have autopatrolled locally, that's true, but my edits don't require patrolling as it's included within this global user group.

I think part of the confusion stems from the fact that I noticed you don't yet have an autopatrolled user group informational page, so perhaps what we should do here is split out the incorrect statements from the autoconfirmed user group page into a new autopatrolled page? You would then just need to update the local location of the latter page at MediaWiki:Grouppage-autopatrolled to All The Tropes:Autopatrolled users. Hope that helps.

Last year, I was being given grief by a Steward because I explicitly had all the rights set on my account.

Now I'm being given grief by a Steward because I don't explicitly have all the rights set on my account. (And you could have told me you're a Steward before I filed the security-issue ticket at Phabricator, you know.)

We have the Autopatrolled right assigned to the groups that we want it to be assigned to.

I prefer to refrain from discussing in a public forum technical issues about how we have the wiki's rights configured. That's bad security, bad ITIL, bad everything-technical.

Robkelk I'm not aware of the situation in which you were given grief by a Steward last year, but that was certainly not my intent. I was just merely trying to assist you with updating your documentation pages. The autopatrolled is indeed a different user group from autoconfirmed. It's entirely up to you as to how much, or how little, information you wish to provide on your wiki's user group documentation pages. I just thought that it might make sense for you to have a very basic user group informational page that explains your autopatrolled user group. As to telling you before, looks like we edit conflicted in that you were filing the Phabricator ticket as I was submitting my above reply. Hope that makes sense.