According to Simetrical: "It is now possible for wikis to require a certain number of edits, as well as a certain registration time period, for users to become autoconfirmed. Thus, for instance, accounts that have existed for several weeks but have made fewer than five edits might be prevented from moving pages or so on. If a particular wiki would like this enabled for them, it can file a bug report after community agreement."
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
I like 4 days, AND 25 edits is a good threshold for en: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mets501" mets501wiki@gmail.com To: "'English Wikipedia'" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Autoconfirmed threshold
According to Simetrical: "It is now possible for wikis to require a certain number of edits, as well as a certain registration time period, for users to become autoconfirmed. Thus, for instance, accounts that have existed for several weeks but have made fewer than five edits might be prevented from moving pages or so on. If a particular wiki would like this enabled for them, it can file a bug report after community agreement."
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/30/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
I like 4 days, AND 25 edits is a good threshold for en: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mets501" mets501wiki@gmail.com To: "'English Wikipedia'" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Autoconfirmed threshold
According to Simetrical: "It is now possible for wikis to require a certain number of edits, as well as a certain registration time period, for users to become autoconfirmed. Thus, for instance, accounts that have existed for several weeks but have made fewer than five edits might be prevented from moving pages or so on. If a particular wiki would like this enabled for them, it can file a bug report after community agreement."
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ugly top post! I agree with 4 days and 25 edits.
What is a top post?
On 1/31/07, Royalguard11 royalguard11@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/30/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
I like 4 days, AND 25 edits is a good threshold for en: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mets501" mets501wiki@gmail.com To: "'English Wikipedia'" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:56 PM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Autoconfirmed threshold
According to Simetrical: "It is now possible for wikis to require a certain number of edits, as well as a certain registration time period, for users to become
autoconfirmed.
Thus, for instance, accounts that have existed for several weeks but
have
made fewer than five edits might be prevented from moving pages or so
on.
If a particular wiki would like this enabled for them, it can file a bug report after community agreement."
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits
is
reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ugly top post! I agree with 4 days and 25 edits.
-- -Royalguard11
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
· Firefoxman wrote:
What is a top post?
It's to put your reply above the thing you're replying to. It's partly an issue of showing consideration for the people you're writing to, and partly a shibboleth of internet culture. See, for example:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Especially on mailing lists, where you may have hundreds or thousands of people reading your message, including people just joining, skipping around, or finding it via search engines, it's considered polite to trim quoted text down to the minimum needed to follow the conversation. Over the last few years, the appropriate amount to quote has shrunk some, probably thanks to ever-growing disks, better threaded mailers, and web-based mailing list archives allowing people to discover context as needed.
William
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
I think 10 edits (and the 4 days that there is now) is a good amount
Would it be possible to unconfirm people when they get blocked (possibly as an extra option for admins on the block page)? So they have to go another 4 days and 10 edits. It would mean that blocking someone for 24 hows stops them editing semi-protected pages for 4 days, which would be useful - far better to let someone do basic editing after a short time, and more damaging editing after a longer time.
(I seem to remember than the 4 days thing is actually done as a you mustn't be in the most recent 1% of signups, or something, which would make resetting that part a little more effort on the part of the devs...)
I favor Dalton's idea.
On 1/31/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should enable this with a threshold of 10 edits. 10 edits is reasonable for a vandal to go through the whole warning system and get blocked, while at the same time not too much so as to discourage new contributors. --Mets501
I think 10 edits (and the 4 days that there is now) is a good amount
Would it be possible to unconfirm people when they get blocked (possibly as an extra option for admins on the block page)? So they have to go another 4 days and 10 edits. It would mean that blocking someone for 24 hows stops them editing semi-protected pages for 4 days, which would be useful - far better to let someone do basic editing after a short time, and more damaging editing after a longer time.
(I seem to remember than the 4 days thing is actually done as a you mustn't be in the most recent 1% of signups, or something, which would make resetting that part a little more effort on the part of the devs...)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please see [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 3]] for a new request for an admin bot.
Thank you, xaosflux
On 31/01/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to unconfirm people when they get blocked (possibly as an extra option for admins on the block page)? So they have to go another 4 days and 10 edits. It would mean that blocking someone for 24 hows stops them editing semi-protected pages for 4 days, which would be useful - far better to let someone do basic editing after a short time, and more damaging editing after a longer time.
Interesting premise, but it does fail to differentiate between "something's gone wrong, stop this person for five minutes" blocks, and 'punishment'/'cooling-off' blocks. Hmm.
(I seem to remember than the 4 days thing is actually done as a you mustn't be in the most recent 1% of signups, or something, which would make resetting that part a little more effort on the part of the devs...)
It used to be "the most recent n% of users", and was used to determine who could move pages. Then we enabled semi-protection, and it seemed sensible to reuse this definition as the target group. At about the same time the definition was changed from something based on number of accounts to a fixed three-or-four day limit, which was roughly the same period of time but less of a logistical hassle (and harder to game by flooding new accounts)
Interesting premise, but it does fail to differentiate between "something's gone wrong, stop this person for five minutes" blocks, and 'punishment'/'cooling-off' blocks. Hmm.
Making it an option on the block page (in place of the "anon users only" check box would work well) would fix that. When blocking vandals, you want to unconfirm them, when blocking someone for a minor bit of incivility, or a 3RR violation, you might well not want to.
It used to be "the most recent n% of users", and was used to determine who could move pages. Then we enabled semi-protection, and it seemed sensible to reuse this definition as the target group. At about the same time the definition was changed from something based on number of accounts to a fixed three-or-four day limit, which was roughly the same period of time but less of a logistical hassle (and harder to game by flooding new accounts)
Excellent!
On 1/31/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to unconfirm people when they get blocked (possibly as an extra option for admins on the block page)?
Not at the present. You could file a feature request at bugs.wikimedia.org. But it doesn't seem terribly useful to me (you have to simmer for four days before making trouble again?).
(I seem to remember than the 4 days thing is actually done as a you mustn't be in the most recent 1% of signups, or something, which would make resetting that part a little more effort on the part of the devs...)
It was eventually changed to just use four days from signup, when (I guess) a signup-date field was added to the user table. It makes no difference from the point of view of resetting it, which would probably need an explicit override group either way.
Would it be possible to unconfirm people when they get blocked (possibly as an extra option for admins on the block page)?
Not at the present. You could file a feature request at bugs.wikimedia.org. But it doesn't seem terribly useful to me (you have to simmer for four days before making trouble again?).
The reason I suggest it is because the reason most people give for an edit count requirement is that once you've reached X edits, we'll know if you're a vandal or not. However, us knowing isn't much good if you get autoconfirmed anyway. Unless we want to indef block all registered vandals as their first block, an edit count is useless without it being possible to prevent autoconfirming if the edits aren't acceptable ones.