Wikipedia talk:Autochecked users

What exactly does this do?

I appear to be one of three users in this group. Seeing as the other two are a WMF staff member and the alt account of an admin, I'm curious as to what specific superpowers I get from this. (And yes, I'm fully aware that the first admin to see this post will promptly un-autocheck me with a "harumph," but, hey, you don't know what you got until it's gone.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 19:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I Hope this (Special:ListGroupRights), ([1]) and ([2]) might be of some help and information for you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've also updated the page which should help as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What happens if there are pending edits in a PC-2 page?

If there was an un-reviewed edit on a PC-2 page and someone with this right made an edit, would their edit become the latest accepted revision?

If so, that makes this the equivalent of "reviewer" except it forces the person to actually make an edit.

If this is in fact the way it works, this userrights group should be deprecated in favor of reviewer.

On the other hand, if their edits to PC-2 pages in which there is at least one pending edit wind up in the "pending" list, then this is a useful user-right and one that, unlike reviewer, could be handed out "like candy" to experienced editors with a good edit history. I would go so far as to recommend that anyone with "reviewer" rights that were handed out before PC1 really got rolling should be asked if they intend to review and if they don't reply or they say no, that their reviewer right should be downgraded to autochecked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this user group is completely useless regardless of PC2 implementation. According to this list only 10 users have the right. The irony is that half of them are also reviewers! One of them (user:Pharmboy, now User:Dennis Brown) is an admin. You can check "what links here" on the left toolbox to view some older discussions. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in my Alt sock Pharmboy having the bits, I use that for when I'm at an insecure station, and gave it all the bits short of admin for utility only. Since admin are automatically "autochecked", it just made sense to give all the bits. This bit may never become anything, as PC2 may never as well. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh I didn't mean to point at you (which I did). Sorry if that was inappropriate. My point was that this right while being extremely rarely used is sometimes given rather arbitrarily, since reviewer and admin rights override it. Another example is this famous public log when the right was given to the user on 30 March 2013 despite already being a reviewer. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've emptied the list of users in this group because all were either confirmed or autoconfirmed. Cenarium (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Utility of a modified autochecked usergroup

I've experimented and:

• autochecked does not allow autoreview when latest revision is reviewed at either level, while confirmed does as expected at level 1 - it's a bug.

Assuming it is corrected, based on experimenting with confirmed:

• this does not allow autoreview at level 2.

Therefore it would be included in autoconfirmed and confirmed usergroups and provide no benefit.

However, when reviewers revert to a reviewed revision, it's also autoreviewed, but not autoconfirmed users since this could be abused. Adding this right to this usergroup may provide a benefit, for example by giving it to bots (e.g. User:ClueBot NG). We may also ask for autoreview at level 2. Your thoughts on making a request ? Cenarium (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I experimented with this months ago, and found exactly what you found—redundant when you're already (auto)confirmed, useless when you're not. On the uselessness point, is there a bug tracking number we can throw up? On the redundancy point... personally, I think we're better off just deprecating the rights group: Confirmed works for level-1 if you need that, and reviewer works for level-2 if you need that (which is why ClueBot is a reviewer). An extra "see but don't touch" group or two doesn't really help anything. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I know of a few users who expressed resistance at the idea of being granted reviewer rights, because they don't like PC or don't want to be bothered; they may be amenable to being granted this userright though, which could save some unnecessary reviewing. It may also be granted automatically after a number of edits and days since registration (they do this on de.wp for example), this has been discussed a few times in the past, and the list may be used as a pool of potential reviewers. As for putting bots outside of the reviewer group, it's conventional to avoid giving rights that aren't used - and bots need only autoreview, a reason for this is that the magic word giving the number of users in the group is more representative this way ({{NUMBERINGROUP:Reviewer}}). Cenarium (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This would also make involuntary removal of reviewer rights less dramatic. Cenarium (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)