Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

User group EXPIRATIONS are now live

Hello All, phab:T159416 has been executed and EXPIRATION dates for user groups are now available in Special:Userrights. There is still a little work to do regarding the echo notifications for these groups, but they are otherwise functionally working. The usergroup that this will most frequently apply to here on the English Wikipedia will likely be account creators as it is often given "for an event". But others that have requested a "temporary" access can be used as well. Please note, our "default" for normal groups is indefinite "Does not expire" and should continue to be used for normal group changes, baring a new community discussion. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Perhaps setting an expiration for confirmed if the user is expected to automatically meet the requirements after some days? –xeno^talk 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

IPBE and the oft-used-elsewhere-user-right-"flood" seem like excellent candidates for "turns off at a later date". Perhaps also bots testing and preliminary 'granting' of user rights (for a later review period and possible indefinite later rights-granting). --Izno (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

enwiki doesn't have "flood" — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A fact of which I'm aware, hence the wording I used. --Izno (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that; even for say a month - that should be enough time to amass 10 edits! — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible for a user to have both confirmed and autoconfirmed? How does the interaction work - does autoconfirmed still get added if a user is confirmed? Sam Walton (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it happens all the time, confirmed is never automatically removed, admins clean it up from time to time. For the most part, being members of multiple groups just gives you the benefits of each of them. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The "best" use case here is account creator. That user right is routinely granted for use on events and then removed from an editor who we wouldn't otherwise give the right to. This is a big boon for those who grant that permission. Thanks to all those involved in making this happen! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed and account creator seem like good candidates to me seeing as they are needed for a determined amount of time, as would some cases of IPB and admins/bureaucrats testing permissions. For all other permissions, we'd be dealing with mostly arbitrary and meaningless timespans so I don't see any use there, and some conflict potential. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct, most of the others won't be useful here (maybe occasionally edit filter manager when we have someone requesting temporary access to export to another wiki or something). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2017

I'd like to have access to be able to use AWB to assist in making general corrections, or for finding and replacing tasks to improve wiki articles. Dawood Khan (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not the correct page, in order to place a request, I suggest following this link else reading into Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/AutoWikiBrowser — IVORK _Discuss 13:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are new-enough to need to use a semi-protected edit request to make an edit, you are probably too new to be given AWB access. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Make new Rollback grants a one month trial

Hi everyone, I recently had to handle a few instances of rollback being utilized inappropriately, a number of them being with users who had recently been granted the tool. Given that we now have the ability to set limited time permissions and that currently with permissions like rollback once you get it there is essentially zero oversight unless someone notices something odd, I wanted to get people's thoughts on making new grants of the Rollback permission subject to a one month trial period. Assuming all was well with a user's use of rollback we would then extend to permanent however it would provide a valuable opportunity for a user's usage of the tool to be evaluated and for feedback/education if rollback was be being used in circumstances where it should not be.

My suggestion in a nutshell is:

1. Keep WP:PERM/R the same as it is now but change all new grants to one month (auto-expiring.)
2. At the end of that one month, a user would then post on a new subpage asking for the right to be made permanent.
3. An admin would review their usage of the tool and provide feedback.
4. An admin could then decide to make their access permanent, revoke if serious misuse was found, or extend for another trial period (month, week, etc.) for reevaluation.

From what I have seen, I don't think there are many instances of willful misuse of Rollback however given its ability to quickly remove edits, it being required for usage of Huggle, Stiki, etc., and the relatively low bar we have for giving it out, adding another step to help educate and provide feedback to new Rollbackers can only be a good thing as they are in many ways the first people a new editor/IP would encounter. It also might help in borderline cases as there would be room for re-evaluation after a month (or less if needed) as opposed to concerns of granting a permanent permission. Thoughts or feedback? Mifter (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really opposed to a "trial" as opposed to a "not done" for borderlines cases; but for anyone that would have already been "done" this seems like excessive process. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)