This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Are IP's allowed to !vote in Move requests? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Http://testdiyaprasanna.bizland.com/pas.jpg
Prasanna Sanjeev born on January 07, 1987 in Manipal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prassuprashi ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Would like to add Photos of the Oklahoma Memorial on the island of Oahu Hawaii (Ford island). I am from oklahoma and have lived in hawaii for 3.5 yrs. I am moving back and this would be great for oklahomas people to see.
Rndynolen ( talk) 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Table of access rights, it is not clear what the difference is between ‘Revoked’ and ‘Denied’.
After trying to understand this, I assume it means that when a user is Blocked, then the Revoked rights are Denied.
The problem is that there are numerous boxes under Blocked users that are listed as Denied rather than Revoked, and yet I assume that even Autoconfirmed accounts that have been blocked would no longer have access that is Denied to Blocked accounts.
If it is the case that Revoked and Denied access rights are actually equivalent, then it would be very helpful to mention this. If they are not, then at least a hint of the differences would be helpful to understand the system. Peterbbishop ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I've decided to create an account after editing for a while with my IP address and would like to upload files but cannot as my account is new. When will I be able to? Hugahoody ( talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added the editor usergroup to the list, with info taken from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive214#Researchers, just to satisfy the curiosity of anyone who happens to stumble upon it and wonder what it is. — Soap — 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
CHANGE "With the throne empty, he was succeeded by Cixi's handpicked heir, his two year old nephew Puyi, who became the Xuantong Emperor. Guangxu's consort, who became the Empress Dowager Longyu. In another coup de'tat,"
TO
"With the throne empty, he was succeeded by Cixi's handpicked heir, his two year old nephew Puyi, who became the Xuantong Emperor. Guangxu's consort became the Empress Dowager Longyu. In another coup d'etat,"?
76.104.178.139 ( talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Wrong talk page. Please make your request on the talk page of the article you want to change. Celestra ( talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone see if someone else is an autoconfirmed or not? Kenrick Talk 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotect}}
Please change all occurrences of "anonymous user[s]" to "unregistered user[s]", as per WP:HUMAN, WP:ANONYMOUS and Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous.
I think referring to IP users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, they are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.
Also, the phrase is often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.
I propose we call a spade a spade, and change to "unregistered users", or "IP users". 113.197.210.85 ( talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
When you pass 10 edits after 4 days, do you automatically get the status of autoconfirmed? PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 14:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_access_levels#New_users section does not say whether or not they can. I don't know because I am not a new user. Could someone please say, or add it to the section. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the most important and top user on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar fix under Autoconfirmed area(two colons and ambiguous structure).
Currently: The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances: for most users on English Wiki accounts the following must (usually) take place: that they are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
Change to: The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances. For most users on English Wiki accounts the following must (usually) take place: Users that they are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
Aqme28 ( talk) 07:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A user asked at the Help desk what afttest users were. Two experienced helpers had trouble replying. I discovered the apparent answer at Special:ListGroupRights and boldly added it here to resolve redlinks at Special:ListGroupRights. — teb728 t c 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Would a persistent vandal become autoconfirmed if they did ten vandal edits and managed to escape getting blocked for 4 days? If this is the case then semi-protection is a rather pointless tool. Roger ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
A user who edits through an account they have registered may immediately create pages in any namespace (except the MediaWiki namespace, and limited to eight per minute). This does not seem true. It appears that new users have to be auto-confimred before they can create new articles on Wikipedia.(striked) Regards,
SunCreator (
talk) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
createpage
)". If not then you can find many examples at
Special:NewPages. A red talk page is often a new user.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 12:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)It seems fairly clear that consensus here favors not automatically removing the user rights of blocked users, but that administrators may do so if the user right is directly related to the reason for the block. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
Should rights of indef blocked users (e.g. reviewer/rollbacker/autopatroller) be removed or left as is? Nobody Ent 01:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can blocked admins unblock themselves? 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
unblockself
userright. But, as others have said, it is almost never appropriate for an admin to unblock himself. --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 23:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is proposed to rename the 'confirmed' usergroup to 'preconfirmed', this way we can designate by confirmed users the users who are either preconfirmed or autoconfirmed. I propose 'preconfirmed' because those users are given manually the same rights as the autoconfirmed (implicit) group, 'before' they reach the autoconfirmed treshold. Note that the rename cannot be done in the mediawiki configuration but it's not a problem, we can still modify most of the messages via mediawiki pages. Such a rename has already been done for the edit filter usergroup. Cenarium ( talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Education Program extension is going to be [re-]enabled in a few weeks, for use with courses in the United States and Canada in the coming term. After the initial version of the extension was deployed, a number of people rightly brought up the problem of building a Wikimedia Foundation staff role (the ep-staff user right) into the software. (From both a practical and philosophical standpoint, WMF doesn't want to and doesn't plan to have a direct role in the on-wiki aspects of the US and Canada education programs for much longer.) So the question is...
What is a good way to handle user rights for the Education Program extension?
The key purpose of the initial ep-staff right was simply to be the gatekeeper for granting the ep-admin right to the Regional Ambassadors and others who bring new professors and ambassadors into the education program. The rest of the ep-staff rights can be devolved to the ep-admin right. So my suggestion would be to have the ep-admin right controlled by bureaucrats, who can grant it upon request based on whatever the current process is for appointing new Education Program administrators. (Right now, that would simply be the existing Regional Ambassadors who were selected by Education Program staff, as well as the staff themselves. In the future, the selection process will be fully community run.) If that doesn't make sense, what is a good alternative configuration for the new user rights?
Note that these user rights only affect the Education Program extension, and will not have a direct impact outside of the course pages and other features of the extension. The only direct affect that the extension will have for those who aren't using the course pages or participating in the education program will be additional log entries.
We need to figure that out by Friday, 10 August 2012 so that the revised user rights can be included for deployment.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 17:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Education Program organizers are the education program participants who manage the use of the Education Program extension. At present, these would be the Regional Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program staff.
Users in the ep-admin ep-organizer usergroup (not to be confused with the local admin group) have full access to the "Education Program" namespace, including removing a reviewer or student from the course, and granting (and removing) user rights for new (or former) instructors and ambassadors. EP admins may bulk-delete course pages. The ep-organizer rights are controlled by bureaucrats, and the ep-organizer usergroup can distribute the rest of the rights for the Education Program extension.
Education Program campus ambassadors is the user right for participating Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors, who guide students face-to-face in courses affiliated with the Wikipedia Education Program. At present, on English Wikipedia this only includes the United States and Canada programs.
Users in the ep-campus-ambassador usergroup may edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up on a course page to be a campus ambassador for a course.
Education Program online ambassadors is the user right for participating Wikipedia Online Ambassadors, experienced Wikipedians who are selected by the community to guide students remotely in courses affiliated with the Wikipedia Education Program.
Users in the ep-online-ambassador usergroup may edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up on a course page to be an online ambassador for a course.
Education Program instructors are instructors at learning institutions who have affiliated a course they teach with the Wikipedia Education Program.
Users in the ep-instructor usergroup may create and edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up as an instructor for a course. They also may remove a student from a course they instruct.
Thoughts? Revisions? The new wave of courses is starting within weeks, so it's important to settle on an initial configuration of user rights by 10 August.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 17:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have questions for both of you. Sageross, could this namespace be put on Outreach instead? Risker, could you explain more why you would prefer this be on Outreach other than saying on principle that Wikipedia isn't a hosting site? Thanks. Pine ✉ 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I jumped in without realizing that the new namespaces issue was also a significant issue. Anyhow, I'll double-check with the developer Jeroen De Dauw, but I think the revised version of the extension would only create one new namespace, "Education Program:".-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there going to be a usergroup for students? Are "normal" Wikipedians going to be able to view pages and make comments without needing any special userrights or will those abilities be restricted? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Sageross, you wrote, "(Right now, that would simply be the existing Regional Ambassadors who were selected by Education Program staff, as well as the staff themselves. In the future, the selection process will be fully community run.)" How do you know that the selection process will be fully community run? The US-CAN Education Working Group is some distance away from making a lot of decisions, and to the best of my knowledge we haven't begun any discussion of how regional ambassadors will be appointed after the hand-off to the new structure. It's possible that RAs will be appointed by the new structure similar to how WMF appoints them today. Those decisions are yet to be made. Pine ✉ 07:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The only solution I see, and it will not be a fast one, is reliance on the existing people in the community as individuals and the ones we will be able to recruit by making this something exciting. To the extent it requires application forms and committees, it will never be exciting. At least it won't be to people like me. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I noted this in the parallel discussion at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, but the plan and timeline from the opening of this discussion is no longer current. To quote from there, "it looks provisionally like we'll push back the timeline, start a more structured and on-topic RfC to figure out whether the community wants this extension and how to configure the rights for it, and then (hopefully) deploy it with plenty of time to play with it, give feedback, and make improvements that the community wants before using it systematically at the start of the following (January 2013) term." If that's what happens, then the rights configuration will whatever the community wants it to be; my own view is that it should be open enough that it's easy for editors to use it to organize classes whether or not they are participating in the formal ambassador program. Note that the course pages themselves aren't editable wiki pages, except for the description which the instructor can edit. The talk pages are wiki pages, and there no restrictions for editing them. The userrights are for regulating creation and deletion of course pages, and for assigning users to the different roles associated with the course pages (instructor, campus ambassador, online ambassador). (There would need to be at least some limited userrights, especially for restricting the deletion of course pages. Restricting course page creation a little more as well may be a good idea just to make sure instructors come into contact with the community before they get started.)-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As for what we should do in terms of access to the program, I suggest the following:
We say right out at the front that
1. you do not have to join the program to run a course (which will always be true in practice), and we will try to find people to help you online to whatever degree you might want if you want us to, (And there will be people to help, at least remotely, because i will do it & I know a few others who would work that way) & if you want an initial presentation about WP we'll try to arrange one if geographically possible.
2. However, we very strongly suggest that you join the program, because this is a rather different thing than ordinary academic b experience, and we have experience that you should at least hear about--and an exchange of views is always beneficial.
3. We also have people who can try to ensure that your student's work will meet the sometimes rather unfamiliar WP guidelines, and will actually be accepted, so they won't be disappointed.
4. And we have a structure for keep track of the class work that you may find helpful if you want to use it.
I think if we word it right most faculty will join. (One thing I just realized is that we should provide for & support faculty who do want to be included, but use other ways of keeping track than our course pages. This happens now, because they list their course, but don't add anything else, and we now don't know whether they did anything constructive or abandoned their project)
As for the user-rights, I suggest waiting until there is some evidence that we need them. I continue to oppose adding rights that we do not know that we need. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've launched a request for comment on whether to enable, and how to configure, this extension.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted two see also links with edit summary "revert two edits by Cyrax Cyborg, Wikipedia:Confirmed users and Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users are currently very poor compared to the sections here; the pages should either be greatly improved or redirect here again like until a few hours ago". [1] The two pages have serious problems. They were written by User:Cyrax Cyborg who made the third English edit today and self-classifies as Category:User en-2 (intermediate level of English). I don't see a need for the new pages so I suggest redirecting them to Wikipedia:User access levels#Confirmed users and Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users again, rather than making badly needed improvements. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
in the current article goering is mentioned as minister w/o portfolio and frick as interior minister;
please change to state that:
a) goering was also made "acting Prussian minister of the interior" (prussia covered most of current germany); b) that meant that through goering and frick, hitler was given de facto unchecked police power over the entirety of germany.
this is very important since it gives the lie to the non-nazi rightwing parties' post-ww2 contention that they had wanted to "corral" hitler by giving him "only three ministries!". They gave him the pistol instead... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos.alberto ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mitt Romney reaps profits from imported coats made from dog and cat fur. 12 years after "retiring" from Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded, Mitt Romney still reaps millions of dollars per year from it. Where does Bain get the money it pays to Mitt? A big chunk of it comes from Burlington Coat Factory, which is under investigation for "mislabeling" fur coats that have been proven to include the skins of dogs and cats killed in China. Tierfreund9999 ( talk) 10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace "myriad infidelities" with "many infidelities". There were a lot, but not 10,000! Martin.ruddock ( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the term "autoconfirmed user" mean only users who are logged in and have their own userpage? I did not feel that this was really clarified in the section with the sub-heading "Autoconfirmed users". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
...most English Wiki user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[] Rahulkamuni1989 ( talk) 04:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
How long did it take to fully flash out the current access system? How much that is present today was present when Wikipedia "went public"? Planning access permissions at inception is, erm, a science project in and of itself, hence my questions on a project I greatly admire. As an information security professional, the subject of access control is central to my duties and hence, is something I am greatly curious about over the history of Wikipedia. Kudos for all who are above User in access for a job well done! Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the section {checkuser} This sentence needs a comma/mark of separation after "users":
This right is only granted to exceedingly few users who are age 18+ and have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation.
It may read as reserving this right to only a few users over 18yrs old, etc. suziewong 16:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to cross-post this but I think this discussion needs to hear from more people, particularly those who use unregistered accounts:
An RfC on reducing the API edit limit for logged out/IP users to once every 30 seconds
Liz
Read!
Talk! 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Are IP's allowed to !vote in Move requests? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 08:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Http://testdiyaprasanna.bizland.com/pas.jpg
Prasanna Sanjeev born on January 07, 1987 in Manipal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prassuprashi ( talk • contribs) 11:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Would like to add Photos of the Oklahoma Memorial on the island of Oahu Hawaii (Ford island). I am from oklahoma and have lived in hawaii for 3.5 yrs. I am moving back and this would be great for oklahomas people to see.
Rndynolen ( talk) 06:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Table of access rights, it is not clear what the difference is between ‘Revoked’ and ‘Denied’.
After trying to understand this, I assume it means that when a user is Blocked, then the Revoked rights are Denied.
The problem is that there are numerous boxes under Blocked users that are listed as Denied rather than Revoked, and yet I assume that even Autoconfirmed accounts that have been blocked would no longer have access that is Denied to Blocked accounts.
If it is the case that Revoked and Denied access rights are actually equivalent, then it would be very helpful to mention this. If they are not, then at least a hint of the differences would be helpful to understand the system. Peterbbishop ( talk) 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello all. I've decided to create an account after editing for a while with my IP address and would like to upload files but cannot as my account is new. When will I be able to? Hugahoody ( talk) 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've added the editor usergroup to the list, with info taken from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive214#Researchers, just to satisfy the curiosity of anyone who happens to stumble upon it and wonder what it is. — Soap — 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
CHANGE "With the throne empty, he was succeeded by Cixi's handpicked heir, his two year old nephew Puyi, who became the Xuantong Emperor. Guangxu's consort, who became the Empress Dowager Longyu. In another coup de'tat,"
TO
"With the throne empty, he was succeeded by Cixi's handpicked heir, his two year old nephew Puyi, who became the Xuantong Emperor. Guangxu's consort became the Empress Dowager Longyu. In another coup d'etat,"?
76.104.178.139 ( talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: Wrong talk page. Please make your request on the talk page of the article you want to change. Celestra ( talk) 20:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone see if someone else is an autoconfirmed or not? Kenrick Talk 12:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotect}}
Please change all occurrences of "anonymous user[s]" to "unregistered user[s]", as per WP:HUMAN, WP:ANONYMOUS and Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous.
I think referring to IP users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, they are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.
Also, the phrase is often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.
I propose we call a spade a spade, and change to "unregistered users", or "IP users". 113.197.210.85 ( talk) 09:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
When you pass 10 edits after 4 days, do you automatically get the status of autoconfirmed? PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 14:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User_access_levels#New_users section does not say whether or not they can. I don't know because I am not a new user. Could someone please say, or add it to the section. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the most important and top user on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar fix under Autoconfirmed area(two colons and ambiguous structure).
Currently: The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances: for most users on English Wiki accounts the following must (usually) take place: that they are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
Change to: The precise requirements for autoconfirmed status vary according to circumstances. For most users on English Wiki accounts the following must (usually) take place: Users that they are both more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
Aqme28 ( talk) 07:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
A user asked at the Help desk what afttest users were. Two experienced helpers had trouble replying. I discovered the apparent answer at Special:ListGroupRights and boldly added it here to resolve redlinks at Special:ListGroupRights. — teb728 t c 09:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Would a persistent vandal become autoconfirmed if they did ten vandal edits and managed to escape getting blocked for 4 days? If this is the case then semi-protection is a rather pointless tool. Roger ( talk) 21:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
A user who edits through an account they have registered may immediately create pages in any namespace (except the MediaWiki namespace, and limited to eight per minute). This does not seem true. It appears that new users have to be auto-confimred before they can create new articles on Wikipedia.(striked) Regards,
SunCreator (
talk) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
createpage
)". If not then you can find many examples at
Special:NewPages. A red talk page is often a new user.
PrimeHunter (
talk) 12:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)It seems fairly clear that consensus here favors not automatically removing the user rights of blocked users, but that administrators may do so if the user right is directly related to the reason for the block. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC) |
Should rights of indef blocked users (e.g. reviewer/rollbacker/autopatroller) be removed or left as is? Nobody Ent 01:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Can blocked admins unblock themselves? 68.173.113.106 ( talk) 00:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
unblockself
userright. But, as others have said, it is almost never appropriate for an admin to unblock himself. --
Philosopher
Let us reason together. 23:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is proposed to rename the 'confirmed' usergroup to 'preconfirmed', this way we can designate by confirmed users the users who are either preconfirmed or autoconfirmed. I propose 'preconfirmed' because those users are given manually the same rights as the autoconfirmed (implicit) group, 'before' they reach the autoconfirmed treshold. Note that the rename cannot be done in the mediawiki configuration but it's not a problem, we can still modify most of the messages via mediawiki pages. Such a rename has already been done for the edit filter usergroup. Cenarium ( talk) 21:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The Education Program extension is going to be [re-]enabled in a few weeks, for use with courses in the United States and Canada in the coming term. After the initial version of the extension was deployed, a number of people rightly brought up the problem of building a Wikimedia Foundation staff role (the ep-staff user right) into the software. (From both a practical and philosophical standpoint, WMF doesn't want to and doesn't plan to have a direct role in the on-wiki aspects of the US and Canada education programs for much longer.) So the question is...
What is a good way to handle user rights for the Education Program extension?
The key purpose of the initial ep-staff right was simply to be the gatekeeper for granting the ep-admin right to the Regional Ambassadors and others who bring new professors and ambassadors into the education program. The rest of the ep-staff rights can be devolved to the ep-admin right. So my suggestion would be to have the ep-admin right controlled by bureaucrats, who can grant it upon request based on whatever the current process is for appointing new Education Program administrators. (Right now, that would simply be the existing Regional Ambassadors who were selected by Education Program staff, as well as the staff themselves. In the future, the selection process will be fully community run.) If that doesn't make sense, what is a good alternative configuration for the new user rights?
Note that these user rights only affect the Education Program extension, and will not have a direct impact outside of the course pages and other features of the extension. The only direct affect that the extension will have for those who aren't using the course pages or participating in the education program will be additional log entries.
We need to figure that out by Friday, 10 August 2012 so that the revised user rights can be included for deployment.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 17:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Education Program organizers are the education program participants who manage the use of the Education Program extension. At present, these would be the Regional Ambassadors and the Wikipedia Education Program staff.
Users in the ep-admin ep-organizer usergroup (not to be confused with the local admin group) have full access to the "Education Program" namespace, including removing a reviewer or student from the course, and granting (and removing) user rights for new (or former) instructors and ambassadors. EP admins may bulk-delete course pages. The ep-organizer rights are controlled by bureaucrats, and the ep-organizer usergroup can distribute the rest of the rights for the Education Program extension.
Education Program campus ambassadors is the user right for participating Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors, who guide students face-to-face in courses affiliated with the Wikipedia Education Program. At present, on English Wikipedia this only includes the United States and Canada programs.
Users in the ep-campus-ambassador usergroup may edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up on a course page to be a campus ambassador for a course.
Education Program online ambassadors is the user right for participating Wikipedia Online Ambassadors, experienced Wikipedians who are selected by the community to guide students remotely in courses affiliated with the Wikipedia Education Program.
Users in the ep-online-ambassador usergroup may edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up on a course page to be an online ambassador for a course.
Education Program instructors are instructors at learning institutions who have affiliated a course they teach with the Wikipedia Education Program.
Users in the ep-instructor usergroup may create and edit course pages and institution pages and may sign up as an instructor for a course. They also may remove a student from a course they instruct.
Thoughts? Revisions? The new wave of courses is starting within weeks, so it's important to settle on an initial configuration of user rights by 10 August.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 17:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have questions for both of you. Sageross, could this namespace be put on Outreach instead? Risker, could you explain more why you would prefer this be on Outreach other than saying on principle that Wikipedia isn't a hosting site? Thanks. Pine ✉ 02:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I jumped in without realizing that the new namespaces issue was also a significant issue. Anyhow, I'll double-check with the developer Jeroen De Dauw, but I think the revised version of the extension would only create one new namespace, "Education Program:".-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 20:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there going to be a usergroup for students? Are "normal" Wikipedians going to be able to view pages and make comments without needing any special userrights or will those abilities be restricted? -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Sageross, you wrote, "(Right now, that would simply be the existing Regional Ambassadors who were selected by Education Program staff, as well as the staff themselves. In the future, the selection process will be fully community run.)" How do you know that the selection process will be fully community run? The US-CAN Education Working Group is some distance away from making a lot of decisions, and to the best of my knowledge we haven't begun any discussion of how regional ambassadors will be appointed after the hand-off to the new structure. It's possible that RAs will be appointed by the new structure similar to how WMF appoints them today. Those decisions are yet to be made. Pine ✉ 07:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The only solution I see, and it will not be a fast one, is reliance on the existing people in the community as individuals and the ones we will be able to recruit by making this something exciting. To the extent it requires application forms and committees, it will never be exciting. At least it won't be to people like me. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I noted this in the parallel discussion at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard, but the plan and timeline from the opening of this discussion is no longer current. To quote from there, "it looks provisionally like we'll push back the timeline, start a more structured and on-topic RfC to figure out whether the community wants this extension and how to configure the rights for it, and then (hopefully) deploy it with plenty of time to play with it, give feedback, and make improvements that the community wants before using it systematically at the start of the following (January 2013) term." If that's what happens, then the rights configuration will whatever the community wants it to be; my own view is that it should be open enough that it's easy for editors to use it to organize classes whether or not they are participating in the formal ambassador program. Note that the course pages themselves aren't editable wiki pages, except for the description which the instructor can edit. The talk pages are wiki pages, and there no restrictions for editing them. The userrights are for regulating creation and deletion of course pages, and for assigning users to the different roles associated with the course pages (instructor, campus ambassador, online ambassador). (There would need to be at least some limited userrights, especially for restricting the deletion of course pages. Restricting course page creation a little more as well may be a good idea just to make sure instructors come into contact with the community before they get started.)-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 14:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As for what we should do in terms of access to the program, I suggest the following:
We say right out at the front that
1. you do not have to join the program to run a course (which will always be true in practice), and we will try to find people to help you online to whatever degree you might want if you want us to, (And there will be people to help, at least remotely, because i will do it & I know a few others who would work that way) & if you want an initial presentation about WP we'll try to arrange one if geographically possible.
2. However, we very strongly suggest that you join the program, because this is a rather different thing than ordinary academic b experience, and we have experience that you should at least hear about--and an exchange of views is always beneficial.
3. We also have people who can try to ensure that your student's work will meet the sometimes rather unfamiliar WP guidelines, and will actually be accepted, so they won't be disappointed.
4. And we have a structure for keep track of the class work that you may find helpful if you want to use it.
I think if we word it right most faculty will join. (One thing I just realized is that we should provide for & support faculty who do want to be included, but use other ways of keeping track than our course pages. This happens now, because they list their course, but don't add anything else, and we now don't know whether they did anything constructive or abandoned their project)
As for the user-rights, I suggest waiting until there is some evidence that we need them. I continue to oppose adding rights that we do not know that we need. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've launched a request for comment on whether to enable, and how to configure, this extension.-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 14:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted two see also links with edit summary "revert two edits by Cyrax Cyborg, Wikipedia:Confirmed users and Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users are currently very poor compared to the sections here; the pages should either be greatly improved or redirect here again like until a few hours ago". [1] The two pages have serious problems. They were written by User:Cyrax Cyborg who made the third English edit today and self-classifies as Category:User en-2 (intermediate level of English). I don't see a need for the new pages so I suggest redirecting them to Wikipedia:User access levels#Confirmed users and Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users again, rather than making badly needed improvements. PrimeHunter ( talk) 22:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
in the current article goering is mentioned as minister w/o portfolio and frick as interior minister;
please change to state that:
a) goering was also made "acting Prussian minister of the interior" (prussia covered most of current germany); b) that meant that through goering and frick, hitler was given de facto unchecked police power over the entirety of germany.
this is very important since it gives the lie to the non-nazi rightwing parties' post-ww2 contention that they had wanted to "corral" hitler by giving him "only three ministries!". They gave him the pistol instead... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcos.alberto ( talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mitt Romney reaps profits from imported coats made from dog and cat fur. 12 years after "retiring" from Bain Capital, the investment firm he founded, Mitt Romney still reaps millions of dollars per year from it. Where does Bain get the money it pays to Mitt? A big chunk of it comes from Burlington Coat Factory, which is under investigation for "mislabeling" fur coats that have been proven to include the skins of dogs and cats killed in China. Tierfreund9999 ( talk) 10:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace "myriad infidelities" with "many infidelities". There were a lot, but not 10,000! Martin.ruddock ( talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't the term "autoconfirmed user" mean only users who are logged in and have their own userpage? I did not feel that this was really clarified in the section with the sub-heading "Autoconfirmed users". ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
...most English Wiki user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[] Rahulkamuni1989 ( talk) 04:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
How long did it take to fully flash out the current access system? How much that is present today was present when Wikipedia "went public"? Planning access permissions at inception is, erm, a science project in and of itself, hence my questions on a project I greatly admire. As an information security professional, the subject of access control is central to my duties and hence, is something I am greatly curious about over the history of Wikipedia. Kudos for all who are above User in access for a job well done! Wzrd1 ( talk) 04:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
under the section {checkuser} This sentence needs a comma/mark of separation after "users":
This right is only granted to exceedingly few users who are age 18+ and have identified themselves to the Wikimedia Foundation.
It may read as reserving this right to only a few users over 18yrs old, etc. suziewong 16:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to cross-post this but I think this discussion needs to hear from more people, particularly those who use unregistered accounts:
An RfC on reducing the API edit limit for logged out/IP users to once every 30 seconds
Liz
Read!
Talk! 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)