Forum:Extended Confirmed User

Proposal: Adding the "Extended Confirmed" User Group

I want to propose adding a new user group called Extended Confirmed Users to the Minecraft Wiki. This is similar to how Wikipedia works. A user would get this rank automatically once they have made at least 500 edits and their account is at least 30 days old.

The main reason for this is to make the wiki more secure and help experienced editors work faster. I suggest giving this group these two rights:

Access to Semi-protected pages

Right now, "Autoconfirmed" users can edit semi-protected pages. Because this rank is very easy to get, it does not always stop people from causing trouble on important pages. I propose that only Extended Confirmed users (or higher) should be allowed to edit semi-protected pages. This way, only editors with enough experience can change sensitive pages.

Moving Pages Without Leaving Redirects

Experienced editors often rename pages to fix titles. Currently, if you are an experienced but non-autopatrolled user, you have to move the page and then manually add {{d}} to the old page so admins can delete the redirect.

If we give Extended Confirmed users the right to move pages without leaving a redirect, it will save a lot of time. By the time someone has 500 edits and has been here for 30 days, they usually know the naming rules well and can be trusted with this tool.

I look forward to hearing the community's feedback and opinions on this proposal.

-- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 11:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Id rather we just replace autoconfirmed protection with autopatrolled protection tbh.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  11:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft oppose I don't think we need several automatic user groups. I don't think we need group for "experienced but non-autopatrolled users". I think such people could be given the autopatrolled right. 👁 Image
Miner (👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 12:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral While not really effective, this new right could help fight gaming the system. This means some disruptive users make use of editing in order to penetrate semiprotected pages. 👁 Image
Quake the Wind Fan 👁 Image
12:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose It seems like the same thing as autoconfirmed and also, then what is the point of autoconfirmed then? Plus, I see how the Moving Pages Without Leaving Redirects could work but we could just add that right to autoconfirmed. I don't see it as really necessary. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 15:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

changing to a 👁 Image
 Strong as netherite Oppose what is the point of an Autoconfirmed user if this is a thing? The Extended confirmed user would take over the semi-protect lock and be able to move pages without redirects. And also, If a vandal is trying to get autoconfirmed, they 98% of the time get caught before even close to it. Not necessary. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer ^{(Talk) (Contibs)} 23:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Question What pages do you have in mind that this would be useful for? TheCaptainYaya (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

that's actually a good question. @Dipanshu Sarkar, what are ya thinking? 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer ^{(Talk) (Contibs)} 23:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Not just for a single or selected pages. Many semi-protected pages have been spammed multiple times in the past; therefore, they have been secured under semi-protection. Right now, "Autoconfirmed" users can edit these pages. Because this rank is very easy to get, I propose that only Extended Confirmed users (or higher) should be allowed to edit them. This ensures that sensitive content is handled only by trusted editors. -- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 06:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong support extended confirmed user group and restricting semi-protected pages to extended confirmed. We have too few autopatrolled users around to edit semi-protected pages. Only 190 users to edit semi protected pages and files would signficantly increase the burden on admin and patrollers to honor requests for good faith user requests to edit these pages, as we have somewhere only a few dozen patrollers and admins (I'd think it's even less than 50). Though it would be good to know the number on how many users would meet the extended confirmed criteria. Delvin4519 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of cases where semi-protecting pages was not enough to stop vandals? To me this seems like you are trying to solve a non-issue here. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Now thinking on it, MarkusRost makes a very good point. I have never seen once where a semi-protect hasn't stopped a vandal. though, there are some pages that in my opinion need more protection then Autoconfirmed. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 14:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose

• To have more new editors we need to minimalize the friction of editing a page. Semi-protected pages is already a compromise between this and dealing with constant vandalism. I'm not comfortable with more restrictions especially when considering that semi-protection already does the job well.
• Moving pages without leaving redirects is actually a feature that should have the same level of trust as page deletion, since it allows you to effectively do that. I don't think it should be given to people who are not even autopatrolled.

Dianliang233 (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It seems that the previous proposal for an "Extended Confirmed" group did not gain much support, so I would like to offer an alternative solution based on the community's feedback.

As @Nixinova suggested in the previous discussion, changing the requirement for editing semi-protected pages from auto confirmed user and higher to Autopatrolled and higher makes a lot of sense. I truly believe this would be a more effective way to keep these pages safe from spam and bad-faith edits.

However, I would also like to suggest a few adjustments to make this work:

Reviewing Protection Levels

Currently, there are only about 190+ Autopatrolled users compared to over 2,000+ active users. If we restrict semi-protection to Autopatrolled users only, very few people will be able to edit those pages. Therefore, we should remove semi-protection from pages that no longer face active threats, allowing regular users to contribute again.

Replacing Higher Protection

Since semi-protected pages will now be managed by experienced and trusted (Autopatrolled) users, we could consider downgrading some Director protection pages or Fully protected pages to "Semi-protection," provided they don't require the highest level of security.

I believe this approach balances wiki security with the need for open editing. I look forward to your thoughts.

-- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 14:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Agree If a page is protected at all it is for a reason and restricting the access would make it less easy to bypass the protection by simply making an account. - Bucket of Bubbles - He/They/She (Talk) 15:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm still having a difficult time understanding which specific semi protected pages would benifit from increased protection. From my time these past couple of weeks keenly monitoring the recent changes feed, a lot of spam and vandalism seems to be by new or unregistered accounts that semiprotection protects against. And eitherway, most spam that does get through to pages (in general, not just to protected pages) seems to be very quickly reverted, usually withen a minute or so. Can you point me to specific instances of semi-protected page vandalism where this would currently be useful for? (I've only been active for around a month so my knowledge on this is limited) It may be better to protect those specific pages with autopatrolled protections instead of getting rid of semi-protection all together. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Per TheCaptainYaya, I'm going to change my opinion to 👁 Image
 Neutral - 👁 Image
Bucket of Bubbles - He/They/She (Talk) 02:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support if this is possible to do. We need better semiprotection so we can actually restrict pages to trusted users. Autoconfirm is too easy to acquire - troublesome users lurk for a hundred odd edits before trying to blow things up. Templates like {{Other editions}} used on every version page need to not be able to be edited by disruptive users, but the only tool for that we have currently is director protection, so our patrollers have to ping admins every time they want it updated.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  02:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support For example, a lot of templates and pages like this have been fully protected, which requires people asking admins to edit them. I think autopatrol or patroller protection could be good to have since it's pretty easy to become autoconfirmed and there's no protection levels between autoconfirmed and directors. 👁 Image
Miner (👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 13:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This comment fits better in proposal 3. 👁 Image
Miner (👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 09:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support. 👁 Image
 Weak Oppose Per MarkusRost above and below. As most spin off mainpage are this and need more protection. And for other reasons in which already stated. I would've supported this even when I was still only a Autoconfirmed User as it would be for the Greater Good. MarkusRost makes a good point and though i still stand on the idea that MCD, MCL, and MCE mainpages need better protection, MarkusRost is right therfore, Changing me to a Weak Opposal. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 13:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose this would remove our most useful low impact tool against vandals. Semi-protection would no longer work against low effort vandalism, instead turning it into something closer to full protection which locks out the majority of all editors. I'm not aware of any recent cases in which semi-protection was not enough to deal with vandalism and we would have needed a higher protection level. In any case such a situation would be so rare as to not require a dedicated protection level. Any vandal dedicated enough to circumvent autoconfirmed protection is unlikely to be stopped by a higher protection level anyway, for those cases we have other tools like abuse filters. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Strong oppose per MarkusRost. Aside from changing almost all admin protected pages to director protected (except for main page, wiki skin files, and wiki rules); there is little need to implement such drastic changes. Aside from maybe extended confirmed status, there are no other changes necessary. Delvin4519 (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per MarkusRost. Most people will not be able to edit these pages if we restrict semi protection to Autopatrolled users only. Like what MarkusRost said, it will lock out the majority of all editors. Qitaoh (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, I propose we introduce a seperate tier of protection (read: not changing semi-protection). This is not necessarily to combat spam but to allow trusted users to edit certain director protected pages, such as block sprite icons used on the main page (there is still a pending request from last week by User:Sightnado to fix 👁 EntitySprite sulfur-cube.png: Sprite image for sulfur-cube in Minecraft
so its features are more accurate), common templates for citation or version that can benifit from tweaks when needed, or any other page in the future where director protecting would be overkill and hamper constructive contributions from trusted users. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support And coincidentally, this is exactly the proposal I was planning to present today, since many users had opposed my previous two proposals. -- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 01:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Soft support For example, a lot of templates and pages like this have been fully protected, which requires people asking admins to edit them. I think autopatrol or patroller protection could be good to have since it's pretty easy to become autoconfirmed and there's no protection levels between autoconfirmed and directors. 👁 Image
Miner (👁 Image
talk 👁 Image
contributions) 09:32, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Neutral/👁 Image
 Soft Support. I'm right on the line of Neutral/Soft Support line Per Miner. I'm still un-sure though cause like MarkusRost has said, when hasn't semi-protection stopped and vandal. I see how this could work though. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 15:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Markus, those were the exact concerns I raised with the first two proposals. However this proposal, in spirit, is to increase access to editing pages that would otherwise be director locked because no intermediate level exists. It is in direct contrast to the concern with the second proposal: that it would restrict edits to pages and hamper constructive activity (and gaining new editors), wheras this proposal seeks to primarily encourage access. I don't see it being used much to fight low level article spam. TheCaptainYaya (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Autopatrol protection used purely for cascade protection would be good I think. Though I don’t like autopatrol becoming an even more important role that people actively seek out. We’d also need to consider whether or not a user should be editing files used on the main page, instead of just whether or not their edits need patrolling. These two things should go hand in hand but it nonetheless increases the barrier of entry. - Harri / Talk 👁 Image
16:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, allowing autopatrolled users to edit stuff used on the main page seems too much. A patroller protection level would be better. –LauraFi - talk 07:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose the Patroller Protection. Isn't the Patroller group supposed to be more focused on checking edits than an like actual editing group? I'm not sure if Patroller Protection would exactly be the best as:

1. There is only 27 patrollers.
2. There are contributive users that may just not want the Patroller Rank or edits aren't focused more towards patrolling. Not everyone is fit for Patroller.
3. The rank seems more focused on checking edits rather than making edits. (Maybe I'm wrong on that one though so...) 👁 Image
   Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 16:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

If we exclude the admins, inactive users, and the deceased one (HalfOfAKebab) that leaves us with around 14 patrollers. This idea is not good. Minermatt122514 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

After giving some more thoughts I 👁 Image
 Support downgrading main page's protection level to patrollers. Dianliang233 (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I kinda like the idea of giving more people access to editing the main page but unfortunately there is a technical limitation around cascading protection, namely that the user group need to also have the right to protect (any) pages. I don't think this is something we are willing to grant to autopatrolled. Dianliang233 (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Changing to a 👁 Image
 Soft Support Per Dianliang233. Though, I'm not sure if patrollers should get the right to protect pages. I see it as part of there role but I feel like that's more of a CATS thing. 👁 Image
Redstone Engineer (T/C/S/M) 14:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This is probably my final proposal, in which I would like to discuss adding one protection level and changing another. Semi-protection will remain exactly as it is.

1. New Protection Level

A new type of protection that can only be edited by Autoconfirmed Autopatrolled and higher user rights. This won't have much general use and will only be applied to a few pages. Its main purpose will be for when a page experiences heavy spam, allowing this protection to be used for limited time.

2. Change director protection

I want Patrollers to also be able to use director protection. Like directors, patrollers are trusted users, and this will make page maintenance much easier.

That's all for my proposal. Please do share your feedback! – Unsigned comment added by Dipanshu Sarkar (talk • contribs) at 06:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC). Please sign comments with ~~~~

1 is already what exists. 2 won't work as director protect is what stuff like the main page uses, and needs to be restricted. Go back to the patroller/autopatrol protection level proposals.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  06:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, in the first point I meant autopatrolled, not autoconfirmed. -- 👁 Image
Dipanshu Sarkar (Talk) 08:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)