Wikipedia talk:Reviewing pending changes/Historical/Established usergroup

It is possible to create a usergroup established with the permission to confirm on semi flag protected pages. Established users who are not reviewers cannot patrol, access to the reviewer-restricted Unreviewed and OldReviewed special pages or confirm on intermediately flag protected pages. Autoconfirmed users are auto-confirmed on semi flag protected pages: when a latest revision is confirmed, a new revision by an autoconfirmed user is automatically confirmed, so established users will have the additional ability to confirm a new revision when the previous version was not confirmed, not that much sensitive compared to what they already can do. Of course, it would be of special interest if we don't use an autopromotion for reviewers. Before a poll, we could discuss this. Cenarium (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advantages:

On semi flag protected pages, reduce cases where edits by autoconfirmed users are not confirmed because of previous unconfirmed edits by anonymous or new users.
Special:Listusers/Established provides a list of users who should be considered for promotion to reviewer status.
A usergroup with autopromotion higher than the 'autoconfirmed' threshold would be useful for anti-vandalism purposes (for example, for the abuse filter). Cenarium (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest a different name? How about these users are called esteemed instead? "Established", to my ear, sounds a little too firm and solid, too much like these users have deep, fixed roots within Wikipedia, an image that doesn't seem appropriate for a group that would be handed out quite freely. Whereas esteemed has the dual advantages of being a compliment and of originally coming from the Latin aestimare, meaning "estimate"—which would be highly appropriate if users are autopromoted to esteemed status! Ozob (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally dislike this idea, it add even more complexity to something that is already confusing for a new user. Going by the votes above, most people were OK with 3months/500 edits, which is a pretty low bar IMO. If we were talking about a year and 2K edits, then maybe I could see it, since that would be a big jump from autoconfirm to reviewer. I don't see any serious upside to the added complexity and confusion it would cause, given the relatively low bar (edit wise) that the reviewer right would be based on.--Terrillja _talk 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would new users being confused by that ? The usergoup system is of no concern to new users. The problem is, how do we find out users who would be fine with reviewer rights ? Many, if not most, users who would make good reviewers will probably be left out if we don't have ways to detect them. Having an intermediary usergroup with autopromotion will provide a list of users for admins to patrol. Established users have only the additional permission to confirm on semi flag protected pages, and autoconfirmed users are already auto-confirmed there. This would also be very interesting for the abuse filter and other anti-vandalism tools. Cenarium (talk) 01:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll/Discussion on the creation of an established usergroup[edit]

So it's proposed to create an 'established' usergroup, although the name is not definitive, intermediary between 'autoconfirmed' and 'reviewer', with an autopromotion (users satsifying some criteria are automatically promoted by the software). The group can also be granted and removed manually by admins. The only additional rights for the purpose of this trial are: the ability to confirm on semi-flag protected pages (but not able to patrol, access reviewer-restricted special pages, or confirm on intermediately flag protected pages), autoconfirmed users are already auto-confirmed there, meaning that when the previous version is already confirmed, the new revision is automatically confirmed, so it wouldn't change much in terms of permission compared to autoconfirmed users. It is aimed to accomplish essentially those goals:

provide a list of users to be considered for receiving reviewer rights, as those are not given automatically for the trial (see previous poll), it would otherwise be difficult to identify users who would make good reviewers and many if not most of them would be left out.
reduce the backlog of old confirmed pages and increase the editability of semi flag protected pages by allowing minimally experienced users to confirm there even when the previous version was not already confirmed (in that case it's done automatically anyway)
maybe other uses not directly related to this proposal, especially anti-vandalism related (e.g. the abuse filter), maybe other rights if wanted

The autopromotion criteria are primarily based on the edit count and the time since registration (e.g. 300 edits, 3 months), but can also include the number of edits in mainspace, of recent edits, the total number of pages in mainspace edited, etc.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose such a usergroup with an autopromotion, requirements to be precisely determined later. Cenarium (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More complexity with minimal gains. If someone wants to confirm on flagged pages then they can just apply for the reviewer flag, which will likely not have too many edits or too much time required. As for providing a list, if this flag is automatically given, then the list would be impossibly long and thus of little use. Let's wait to see how the backlog is before we try and propose remedies to a backlog that does not yet exist. Perhaps we can revisit this after the trial, but let's see how things work out first before we try to solve a problem that may or may not occur.--Terrillja _talk 23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is when an autoconfirmed user edits while the latest version is not confirmed. Most users, even if they would be good reviewers, won't request the reviewer rights, considerably more sensitive, for not knowing or simply not daring. The list would be progressively filled if we require recent content edits as criteria for autopromotion. The backlog will necessarily exist, we're just bound to try to limit it. Cenarium (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong support: We really need this. -- IRP ☎ 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the position, but what about criteria for promotion? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (Please leave talkback at my talk page if question is answered here)[reply]
Oppose a solution looking for a problem, too confusing, too much beaurocracy. Wikipedia does not need yet another tier of users, we aren't an MMORPG. The system is daunting enough as it is. Simplify, don't complicate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which problem exactly ? New users wouldn't be aware of this group, it's almost purely technical. They'll just be able to confirm on semi flag protected pages when the autopromotion criteria is passed. If we don't have an intermediary usergroup between autoconfirmed and reviewers, then the reviewer usergroup will indeed become another 'class' of users, while having this group will allow to easily find and grant the reviewer rights to established users by patrolling special:listusers. Cenarium (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Creating yet another group is an unnecessary complication. Either give these powers to the reviewer group or admins. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers have those rights, they can confirm on semi flag protected pages (and they can also patrol). But if we're not able to reduce cases where an experienced user cannot confirm on semi flag protected pages when editing, the backlog will grow out of control. Our reviewers base will be too small to confirm so many edits in time. Cenarium (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the situation: reviewers have two distinct rights: to confirm (see WP:FLP) and to patrol (see WP:PLR); and patrolling is more sensitive than confirming. Autoconfirmed users are automatically confirmed on semi flag protected pages when the previous version is confirmed (and there, the latest confirmed version is displayed by default to IPs). So when it's not the case, unless they're reviewer, they won't be able to confirm the new revision. So we'll have a backlog in old confirmed pages if the reviewer base is too small, which will certainly be the case as the rights are given manually, so that's basically why having a group intermediary with autopromotion between autoconfirmed and reviewer would allow to reduce the backlog of old confirmed pages, while not giving out more sensitive permissions (patrolling) automatically. And we'll be able to find potential reviewers there. Cenarium (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support if - 'autoconfirmed' usergroup stays as we know it. 'established' usergroup, means they have been vetted by an Admins review and placed into the pool for the 'reviewer' usergroup flag. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the entire point of this usergroup was that it was an autopromote, and that they didn't have to apply or be approved for it. Having admins review editors to decide if they should be placed in another pool to be then checked for a different user right is like a dog chasing its tail.--Terrillja _talk 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like a good idea to me. hmwith τ 12:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - But only if handed out in a similar way to rollback. — neuro^(talk) 02:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this would be an autopromote, unlike how rollback is handed out. That is the fundamental difference between this and reviewer, one would require manual promotion, one would not.--Terrillja _talk 02:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, misunderstood. Strong oppose. — neuro^(talk) 02:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now How much tiering do we need on Wikipedia? I'd rather just have autopromote. If that can't be had, then I'll think about this. So far Cenarium has not clearly described the difference between "confirming" and "patrolling", either, and after reading a half-dozen of the scattered pages on this topic, I haven't found an explanation of the difference. Cenarium said this would give the autopromoted "the ability to confirm on semi-flag protected pages". Yet this is meaningless because confirm hasn't been defined. Also, Cenarium's comment that "many if not most would be left out" without this leaves me thinking the reviewer bit would turn into exactly what it shouldn't be: a pseudoadmin group with an awkward promotion process. II | (t - c) 02:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's documented in Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. Confirming can only be done on pages that are semi flag protected (where the version displayed by default to IPs is the latest confirmed one), while patrolling can be done on any page by reviewers. Patrolled revisions are necessarily confirmed. Reviewers are auto-patrolled, and autoconfirmed users are auto-confirmed. Patrolled revisions are used essentially to improve our monitoring of BLPs. Of course, many would-be reviewers wouldn't be granted the rights, because admins wouldn't be aware of them, it's all the point of having an autopromotion for this group, so that we can detect and grant the rights to users. Cenarium (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just don't see the point, more complication. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there doesn't seem to be consensus for this group now. After the trial, if we continue, the question of autopromotion of reviewers and of an intermediary group will be revisited. In the mean time, we can use bots to make lists of users that could match certain criteria, in search of potential reviewers. Cenarium (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]