Wikipedia talk:User groups

Merging confirmed and extended confirmed

I feel we don't have a enough administrators doing deletion work especially in draftspace. After realizing how large the draft back log is after this discussion, I feel if we removed confirmed status and replaced it with extended confirmed, we would fix this problem. What problems would be encountered? Logoshimpo (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey there. I think you are making a couple incorrect assumptions here.

• Can you elaborate a bit on "not enough deletion going on in draftspace"? Are you seeing WP:G11 tagged drafts sitting for weeks or something?
• Can you elaborate a bit on why you think making changes to autoconfirmed (10 edits/4 days) or extendedconfirmed (500 edits/30 days) would result in more administrators? Administrators are created via WP:RFA or WP:AELECT, and the de facto minimum criteria for those is probably closer to 7700 edits/425 days. But ultimately it is not automatic and the community decides after quite a bit of questioning and discussion of the candidate.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for additional group?

After Extended-Confirmed and Confirmed Users, what about a group where after a higher amount of edits (e.g. 5000+, and 6 months), the user will be able to edit fully protected pages, because the point of Wikipedia is to edit, and it would be wrong to have a few bad apples spoil the bunch for other users. This would also be beneficial for those who have 100,000+ edits to the Encyclopedia so this way, Wikipedia can stay true to it's name and still maintain accountability and moderation amongst the platform NissanFanatic245 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Those pages are more sensitive than normal pages, so the vetting process for editing them is more thorough than just automatically awarding it. Groups like template editor and administrator involve other editors using human judgment and examining editing history. The reason for that sensitivity is often technical reasons: making a poor edit to a template (for example messing up its wikicode by mistake) used on 1,000,000 pages is strenuous on servers and takes time for caches to purge, so isn't the same level of damage/disruption as making an edit on a normal page and then getting reverted a minute later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Pre-RFC on modifying autoconfirmation rules again

I would like to start by prefacing that I am aware of the recent changes at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC on modifying the criteria for autoconfirmed and extended confirmed. Me and @Hurricanehink made a similar proposal at a similar time that got rolled into that RFC. I believe that a lot of the suggestions at that RFC were attempting to change the thresholds and not the system, which is a flawed way of thinking. Changing the thresholds means little. Taking my own account as an example, I would have become autoconfirmed on March 28, 2021, after making an account on January 21, 2021. Any simple increase of time would not do anything to affect me as I took a two-month-long dormancy instead of taking the time to read, edit, and get used to the rules of the encyclopedia. Similarly, an increase in edit count would not mean month, particularly regarding sockpuppets since they can just make fifteen or however many dummy edits to their userpage or sandbox to get autoconfirmation (example), which is what spurred this discussion. By the end of this Pre-RFC, I want to see how likely the following two proposal are to be accepted and to possibly brainstorm any other alternatives.

My proposal would be to make the edits occur on four separate days. This should encourage better persistence and is essentially a more progressive form of what was accepted at the previous RFC. I also believe it will be minimally invasive. Any new editor who is very interested in editing will get autoconfirmation in the same time frame as now. Even my account would get autoconfirmed at roughly the same time because of how I did my first edits (I had a burst on March 28 of several edits along with editing two days earlier in the month). The biggest impact this would have would be making it far more annoying to make sleeper accounts, at least in the style of WP:LTA/D86.

Hurricanehink also made the proposal of forcing all ten edits to be in the mainspace. This would mirror practices already done at WP:WPAFC among other projectspace clubs. If he joins this discussion, he can elaborate further as he likely understands his own reasoning better than I do. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Yea, I liked the idea of the edits being on four separate days, and having all ten edits be in mainspace. I heard feedback from another user that the current system makes it easy to identify when socks are gaming the system by doing a bunch of dummy edits. So while I agree with the proposal (4 separate days/edits must be in mainspace), I understand if some might be against it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to address this again. Here is a user who made a request on the edit filter page on September 24th, who then today was able to move a page that was protected because they became autoconfirmed based on that one edit. If socks/trolls were forced to edit on four different days, then I believe their actions would be picked up even sooner, so they can't get to the stage of moving protected pages. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

And again today. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I may just bring it up to the Village Pump since there has been no response here (or you can if you want to; you seem more passionate about it right now). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

I'll co-sign if you copy basically what you just wrote, or I can post at VP tomorrow when I get some more time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Page mover–specific move protection

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Page mover–specific move protection. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)