Meta:Babel/Archives/2017-10
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
New project - WikiBarCodes
Hi there. We have a new idea for Wiki sister project. Please, take a look at that (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiBarCodes), give your opinion, and so on. I appreciate any help. Thank you in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexandrKalaur (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --Base (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Move confirmed group management from bureaucrats to administrators
Currently it is Meta bureaucrats who can give and take the confirmed flag. I see absolutely no reasons why it should not be administrators instead. Basically, comparing to other flags administrators can give (autopatroller, ip block exemption, patroller and even global-effects-entailing massmessage sender), confirmed is a very innocent one. I think it might be beneficial to have more hands capable to respond to requests such as this one. --Base (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. No reason not to. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I see no reasons to change this, which is now the default setting on WMF wikis. Little gain for such few requests. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- It is few requests, but it is also few crats at the moment. Considering that that flag makes sense only for 4 days, after that autoconfirmed is automatically given, it is an obvious requirement for those requests to be handled timely. While it was the case with that one, I am not sure it can be said to be guaranteed to be so now. I think widening the pool of people who can respond would be a gain indeed. Sure very tiny one, but with no drawbacks why not? --Base (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
On autopatrollers
I'm not sure about you, but this current manual granting of autopatrolled is a bit annoying to me. What about using some sort of autopromotion criteria like user has registered X time ago, has Y edits, never blocked, never had groups revocked, then promote condition? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I've added quite a lot people to the group recent days, whom I grant it to mostly are either staffers which I see that know how to edit (either experienced in volunteer role or show that they do not break things otherwise) or volunteers for whom I mostly check the global account (if the a guy has 1000+ edits in a big wiki through several years and not banned for them then he is probably trusted enough for not having to be checked per edit, furthermore if he has rollback or sysop somewhere he must be) and who have at least 50+ edits locally (I deviate here and there if I know the user personally or if just feel like it for some reason). I think it would be a good idea to automate most of it, with leaving the possibility to manually add to the group in some clear cases when it feels like there is a need, but I am not sure the out of box MediaWiki autopromotion is a good one as it measures only local contribs. For example I am rather cautionous if it is a 200+ edits volunteer but editing on like Meta and sometimes MWW only. Perhaps a bot can be written for something of the sort of criteria I use, it is quite doable a task. But I am interested to hear what criteria other use as it is basically now up to concrete admins. --Base (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I personally would get rid of edit patrolling, leaving only new pages to patrol. Maybe others find the system useful so I don't mind keeping it. On MW autopromotion, maybe we could set some sort of high criteria were we surely want someone promoted and leave the others to our discrection, or write a bot, or (what I feel it's more confortable and it's going to happen) leave things as they are. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I can create a bot to apply the task. Please let me know if you have any needs, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- I personally would get rid of edit patrolling, leaving only new pages to patrol. Maybe others find the system useful so I don't mind keeping it. On MW autopromotion, maybe we could set some sort of high criteria were we surely want someone promoted and leave the others to our discrection, or write a bot, or (what I feel it's more confortable and it's going to happen) leave things as they are. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Edit patrolling is actually very useful for us who are following recent changes and keep the wiki clean of vandalism and test edits. Stryn (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- That was my experience too usually. Autopatrolled status is best not granted automatically but with some judgement, although liberally. I usually only consider users with at least 50 edits locally, or some similar threshold, because the less active users don't necessarily know how things work on Meta and don't flood the recent changes that much anyway. There are only few hundreds such active users so it's not a huge amount of work. --Nemo 13:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- Edit patrolling is actually very useful for us who are following recent changes and keep the wiki clean of vandalism and test edits. Stryn (talk) 11:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
