Wikipedia talk:User groups

Permissions table - watchlists

The permissions table lists all users as having watchlist permissions, yet the software doesn't support watchlists for IP users. Is this a mistake? OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably. Will have to look into it and get back to you. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins and Extended Confirmed

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Should_admins_be_extended_confirmed? about making admins keep Extended confirmed by default. Editors here may be interested in that discussion. Soni (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is general agreement that "user groups" is the more consistent and more inclusive term. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:User access levels → Wikipedia:User groups – The English Wikipedia term "user access level" seems to be a synonym of the MediaWiki term "user group". It is always good to use standard terminology rather than make up our own. See mw:Help:User rights and groups, Special:UserGroupRights, and mw:Manual:User rights for examples of MediaWiki using the term "user group".

Quick recap: in MediaWiki (the software that powers Wikipedia), we have "user rights" such as block, and these user rights are assigned to "user groups" such as sysop. Each user group can be masked with a more readable name in the local language, and that more readable name is set at pages such as MediaWiki:Group-sysop. In this case, the mask of sysop is "Administrators". –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support. We'd also need to rename categories such as Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia user access level. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Now that I think about it, I've definitely heard "User groups" more than "User access levels". Plus, making titles concise is (mostly) good. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me
• Support. That's the more common terminology. Schwede66 21:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, because most new readers of the article don't care about the internals of MediaWiki software, and instead seek clarity on why they can't edit certain articles. The page's title including the text "access levels" makes it clear to readers that they are in the right place. The phrase "User groups" in the eyes of a newcomer could indicate that the page is about something like WikiProject members, or other "user groups" that the reader might be interested in. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  This editor won't be able to respond as they are blocked, which I wanted to note, but they have a valid argument - I can see "groups" being misinterpreted, while "access levels" is fairly clear, however "groups" is the more correct technical term here. ASUKITE 15:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: I was ready to close this as "moved", so feel free to if you wish - I decided a little more time wouldn't hurt, but also couldn't actually process the move and would rather simplify this and let an admin close ASUKITE 15:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe could have closed it as "consensus to move" and then put in a WP:RM/TR. Looks about 4 to 1 so I doubt consensus will change with a relist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

• I mildly agree with the opposition above; this page, while describing the user groups, also indicates what levels of access are provided to each one, including having a large table of access levels based on which user group you belong to. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Having been swayed by Novem Linguae, I was going to actually close this again, but of course I missed your reply! I officially give up 😅 ASUKITE 13:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  No worries. Another week it is :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think "levels" is the more confusing aspect, as it implies a sequence of user groups, each successive one encompassing the user rights of the previous ones. I think either "User rights" or "User permissions" would be more clear and better reflect how the permission system works. It would also align with the template {{User access levels}}, transcluded in Wikipedia:User access levels § Table. On a side note, is there a reason that both "User right" and "Permission" is used in the table? isaacl (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  We shouldn't use "user right" because that is something different. "Block" is a user right, for example. User rights are assigned to user groups such as "sysop"s (administrators). Special:UserGroupRights. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

  Personally I think the page is about user rights and how editors are assigned user rights by being members of groups. The authorization framework is designed to provide access to functionality on a user right basis, not a user group basis. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support because it is the official name of them, and "user access levels" sort of implies that there are some pages that can only be viewed by certain groups, which is almost (special pages are locked, but they aren't articles or important info for editors) never the case. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk | sign | contributions 23:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support because while unregistered users, new users, autoconfirmed/confirmed users, and extended-confirmed users can understandably be considered "levels of access", the other groups (pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, file mover) cannot be described as "levels", only with "access". Element10101 T ~ C 21:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

RFC on EXTCON

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Extended confirmed definition. It is a proposal to change WP:XC from 500 edits + 30 days to 500 edits + 90 days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)