Wikipedia talk:User groups

Pseudo groups

cc FaviFake. Diff. partially undid revision 1307304983 by Novem Linguae (talk) because I've heard them called 2"pseudo-groups" elsewhere. I this this should be explained better, why are they pseudo-groups? Or is this just planly incorrect? I don't see it in CodeSearch or MediaWiki wiki. I don't think this concept exists. Can we go back to just saying "user group"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

if it is just incorrect, sure. I've reverted my edit. I'm curious as to why they were called that in the first place. Maybe it's just that this page isn't very monitered.

Thanks for the ce and ce you did, btw. FaviFake (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why they were called that in the first place. For awhile, I think English Wikipedia was inventing its own terms. For example a couple months ago this page was called "user access levels" instead of "user groups". However in the program code, it seems clear to me that there's very precise terms for these things, such as user group and user right. So I am trying to standardize the page to use those terms. Hopefully it helps get everyone speaking the same language :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

makes sense! thanks FaviFake (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy § Revised proposal to improve extended confirmed grants

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy § Revised proposal to improve extended confirmed grants. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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)