Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion on comments[edit]

What about having comment-less votes similar to the recent CU / OS elections? Comments can go up here (or this section can be moved to the bottom). Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be good, if this was moved to the bottom. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should allow comments with the votes for now. It gives useful feedback, and in case serious problems with the proposal are discovered this poll might be closed and a new one started after modifying the proposal. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a set timeframe for this poll? I think there probably should be, so that it doesn't go on for some ridiculous amount of time. A week, maybe? There's been so much attention already that it shouldn't take long. Maybe a month? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A week seems reasonable, esp. for just a trial. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get a watchlist notice for this poll and I would say giving it one week from the time that the watchlist notice goes up seems reasonable. Davewild (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bit longer would be fair, at least it shouldn't be closed as successful too early. Implementing something that people haven't got a chance to comment on will create a backlash. We could ask the developers to start looking into the technical implementation aspects before we reach a final decision though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Watchlist notices should be discussed at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details, though in my opinion a notice is overkill for just a trial and should not be done. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(@ Apoc) I would agree were this a discussion on full implementation, but this is just a two month trial. Do we really need to take a month to poll for a two month trial...? :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last poll was also for a trial and had 720 votes in total. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that poll had a fairly large majority of supporters. This poll is just on one implementation of the result of that poll. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That poll certainly did not receive concensus. Looking at the analysis of the results one sees that admins were in favour and very well represented in the poll. Other editors were just about evenly split. IP editors were not really represented. A one week poll will inevitably skew the representation even further making for an unrepresentative poll. The idea that because something is temporary it needs less discussion is ridiculous: to paraphrase another poster "I didn't think I needed to ask you honey, it was just a two month affair!" Thehalfone (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No poll or policy discussion is ever "representative" like that. Claiming that IPs weren't represented is a rather weak argument against a consensus. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, of course, that IPs and newly signed up editors tend not to take part in policy discussions. It seems more important, however, when it is a proposal that will affect their edits but not those of long term account holding editors. Note that there was no concensus found in the previous discussions or polls. Thehalfone (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer of the trial says "Flagged protection uses similar techniques, but it's very different in spirit from 'classic' flagged revisions." This being the case when was this proposal discussed? Are having a vote on this without discussing it first? If so, then why? I think those who support this proposal should be careful or the will appear to be rushing this through without proper scrutiny: going straight to a vote, making yet another page rather than using the multiple pages already there for discussing implementations of flagged revisions, pushing for the vote to be without comments even, trying to close the poll early. Thehalfone (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed extensively (or at least the controversial part has). Polls on that page have had a tendency to be lost in the flood of nonsense from zealots on both sides, as well as people asking questions and arguing over technicalities (there have been about 3 polls there on matters of technical implementation, and they were mostly ignored). A poll on an actual trial will be huge and merits its own page. This is not "going straight to a vote" by any measure, as the proposal has been around for quite some time, and all it has produced thus far is a large amount of arguing over whether flaggedrevs is acceptable in any form. Thus a poll on a separate page is warranted. The combination has also been around for some time, being a descendent of flagged protection. --Thinboy00 @045, i.e. 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. One problem is that there are so many pages discussing various implementations of flagged revisions that many people will not come across this even if they are actively looking for it. Note that there is no link to here from Wikipedia:Flagged protection. I will add one now. Thehalfone (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on this vs. new page patrolling I've seen some comments here and elsewhere that tries to compare this to new page patrolling. Please correct me if I'm wrong here but the way I've understood this is that all it would take is a minor modification of Huggle. If a reviewer is checking an edit the way she/he would do anyway with the current system that person can either approve it or not which technically isn't much different from rolling it back or not. This is nothing like new page patrolling and those who currently patrol BLPs with Huggle shouldn't be doing so anyway unless they can tell the difference between a BLP violation and a valid edit. Once we have the proper tools in place to review edits this won't be any different from what we're doing now. I'm not seeing the extra workload. I don't think this system is good enough to deal with the problem but at least it's a step in the right direction. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when should we close the poll ? It started on March 17, if we say two weeks, we could close this at 00:00, 1 April 2009 (!..). Cenarium (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a bit late for this decision? It almost sounds like the plan is being made up as you go along. 203.24.135.66 (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there was some planning above, but it didn't really get much input. Personally, I think that April 1 is a good time... that's still another week or so, and the number of new !votes already seems to be dying off a little bit. The question then is to determine what the consensus from the poll is... at this time, I'd say "trial" since there's 1/5th the number of opposers as supporters. I know, I know, it's a head count, but I think that it would be impossible to determine consensus based on the quality of a person's argument unless the person determining consensus is completely neutral on the issue... which I think is more or less impossible. –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support has been hovering around 85% since the day this opened. What further information do you expect to gain in another week? Better to spend that time sorting out the fine details. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, if we closed this poll now, after just one week, there would inevitably be people saying that they didn't get a chance, because they didn't know about it. If we give it two weeks, that complaint loses a lot of its weight. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still keeping steady at 86.16% supporters. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with another week (ending april 1), I just stumbled across the poll via a link through this weeks 'signpost' that I read off another users talk page.....so, there might be an interest/voting bounce. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's down to 85.8% now, so if this drastic trend continues we'll be below 70% in only 9 more weeks. 203.213.2.194 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH NO!</exaggeration> :) –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, why did the poll only make the watchlist 48 hours before the poll is due to end? Something similar happened with the last poll where there was 3 up at the same time and several people, myself included, went to the wrong one(s). Orderinchaos 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone added it like that without discussion. Cenarium (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious: What about this proposal is "beuracratic" in the eyes of the opposers? It just allows IPs to edit more pages and provides another means to monitor articles which is no more complicated then what is currently used for new page patrolling (probably less, actually), and it will help cut down vandalism. –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same pattern is evident in this poll as in many RFA's. Positive SUPPORT edits are left alone. Editors who OPPOSE the measure are asked over and over again to justify and defend their opinions. IMO this is a nasty, bullying, biased approach to opinion gathering and should not be allowed to happen. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of who pays attention. Supporters are more likely to watch the poll page than the opposers, I'd think. It's kinda the reverse on AFDs -- the deleters will badger the keepers like that. And this is WP:NOTVOTE, there's nothing inherently wrong or bad faith about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding most of the opposers didn't seem to be opposing this proposal but something else, be it flagged revisions or a version of this proposal which didn't do what they thought. This will (in my understanding) take the locks off every page, but stop some edits from being viewable to the public (and journalists who delight in Wikipedia's errors). The phrase "anyone can edit" isn't accurate at this moment, if you want to test that log out and hit random article ten times and see how many you can edit. The opposers are getting questions because the first batch kept talking about flagged revs, and editors were seeking to make sure they were opposing this proposal and not something else. And there is no need to question a support as it is obvious what a support vote means. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the "opposes" here are very well thought out, but I've started to feel that a number of opposers don't fully understand the proposal (e.g., how will this limit the ability of IPs to edit?). It probably won't matter much (the poll still has 82% support), but is something which I thought was pretty interesting. I just hope that if/when this is enabled for the trial, everyone at least gives it a good try to see how it goes and don't just leave the wiki because "flagged revs was turned on." –Drilnoth (T • C) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding I've started to feel that a number of opposers don't fully understand the proposal - Perhaps a large number do not fully understand the proposal and that's why they support it? Or that a large number know they don't understand it but are willing to try it out as an experiment. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I have taken the liberty to transclude the voting section onto a seperate page, in case some people have missed the fact that the poll is already over. Additional comments about this proposal should be made in the comment section instead. 山本一郎 (会話) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support[edit]

  1. Support {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, as proposer. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support. Opens Wikipedia up by augmenting (and ultimately I suspect, replacing) our existing protection tools, and gives a non-intrusive means to monitor our BLP violations specifically. How could I oppose such an expansive improvement to our open editing model? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support flagged protection and patrolled revisions, as long as most any established editor (something like 500+ constructive edits over a few weeks) can apply for gaining "reviewer" rights, unless there's some obvious reason why they shouldn't (e.g. a recent block), and as long as the patrolled revisions are basically unseen to the reader. I don't like the idea of having only "reviewed" or "sighted" version visible by default to users not logged in, but having flags that users can make use of to track an article's accuracy would be a great idea. –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, the patrolled revisions are entirely passive - it won't affect the front page view, but will give a stream of revisions for us to check in the background, separate from the RC feed. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome. Then this is a Full support. –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the proposal currently says, Fritz. -- Kendrick7talk 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is. The patrolled revisions are passive, the flagged protection is active. You've not quite read this, have you?  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They indeed seem to be passive. Aaron Schulz 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support a trial. I have reservations about flagged protection but let's see how it goes for a couple of months. Tempshill (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What could be a problem with flagged protection? It doesn't look to me like it will restrict anything, really, just add more options to allow other users the chance to edit pages (with approval, for full protection or non-autoconfirmed users). –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about Tempshill's doubts unless he opposes the trial. Wanting proof that something works in practice is a natural reaction. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support - This clearly, for anyone that bothered to actually read it, allows more people to edit than the current system allows while also stepping up protection for articles which is beyond necessary for our BLPs at this point. لennavecia 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I voted against the previous trial proposal, but this is good. Not perfect, but good. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Flagged protection offers better editing rights while still being able to protect our BLPs. Sceptre (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, I support the notion of enabling the surveyor right on this, which can edit/validate full-flagged pages immedately, and can (if it's not set up to do so automatically) promote people to reviewer. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support anything that moves us closer to a flagged system. -- Bastique demandez 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support for the sixth time. How did Bullwinkle put it? Right. "This time, for sure! Presto!" [reaches into a hat to pull out a rabbit, and ...] - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. This is a step forward.--Pharos (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I don't want full on flagged revisions for all of wikipedia, but have it like semi and full protection. Deavenger (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support excellent idea, will vastly improve the effectiveness of RC patrol and open up semiprotected pages without restricting the ability to edit pages. Hut 8.5 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support A trial especially, but in general better attempts at regulating potentially bad edits. And I'd hope unlike a couple of the below posters that most people actually take the time to see just what it being 'voted' on here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. This is a step forward. - WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support No harm in a trial. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. People's lives are more important than some stupid lousy catchphrase. Anyone can edit, hahaha. Majorly talk 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This attitude doesn't really help building consensus here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What kind of attitude? Majorly gave his opinion that people's real lives are more important than retaining the phrase "anyone can edit". A perfectly reasonable opinion, at that. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support this important first step. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit slogan is already not valid, as we routinely block and ban people who cannot behave. I am for full implementation of flagged revisions, and I suggest that all who oppose are going to do all the vandalism fighting. It is time to do something sensible. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. A small step, but an important one, in the right direction. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Although it doesn't go far enough for my tastes. And I sincerely hope "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" brigade go bankrupt when they are dragged through the courts one day GTD 19:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This would actually open the project up to new lawsuits, since content would be approved by admins, who are essentially unpaid staff of the foundation. Once we're no longer a freely editable host of user content, we lose the legal protections that come with merely hosting online information. -- Kendrick7talk 19:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is exactly what I want to see. If real world people are being harmed, they should be allowed to seek recompense from those doing the harming GTD 20:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You got the unpaid part right, but the rest is off the mark as the Foundation is not involved in selecting the admin, the reviewers, the content, any more now than before. Rather we have a better chance that problems will be discovered. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support a trial with this criteria. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Glad the details have been hammered out. Looking forward to the repercussions. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Not nearly as good as semi-protection of all BLPs and liberal use of full protection but a small step in the right direction. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Yep. Any advance in the correct direction is better than nothing. SBHarris 20:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support I don't think this goes far enough, but we have to take the first step. Kevin (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support shoy (reactions) 20:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Just do it already. And, opposers, get over the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" stuff. That day passed a while ago. BLPs deserve more effective protective measures... this is a good start and yes, it's on "dangerous" path to more rigorous protective measures... the only danger in that "dangerous" path is not taking it. ++Lar: t/c 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support a trial using this policy.--Iner22 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support we should at least try. Schutz (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support as a trial only. Not a substitute for semi-protection of all BLPs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, and I opposed every previous flagged revisions proposal. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Obviously. MBisanz talk 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support BJTalk 21:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support We need to grown up, innocence is over :( -- lucasbfr talk 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Though I voted in support of flagged revisions, this proposal is much better. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. This specific proposal makes Wikipedia more open, full stop. Although we may want to use flagged revisions more aggressively in the future (and indeed, I hope that it's feasible to do so), that will require consensus. Slippery slope arguments are unconvincing.--ragesoss (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - Hopefully this will let us reduce the number of BLP violations without any significant negative effects. –Megaboz (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support While I still strongly believe that the best option for Wikipedia is to just disable anonymous editing and require users to get a free account to edit, every time I bring that up, a slew of editors keep bringing up WP:PERENNIAL. This proposal seems like it might actually work to protect the integrity of articles while not overburdening editors with too much bureaucratic duties. I support giving this a trial. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Merely one step in the right direction. Wikipedia needs to take more steps in the same direction to protect both the subjects of the BLPs, the contributors to the relevant articles, and itself. I sincerely hope that it does. Time to abandon cheap and snappy slogans like the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (which has not been true for a long time anyway), and face up to the fact that hard critical thinking about the issues involved is needed and cannot be ignored by merely trotting out such slogans.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I was opposed to the generic "shall we try flagged revs" but this seems like an appropriately controlled experiment with a reasonably high chance of improving the encyclopedia. Well done. xschm (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support but kind of remaining skeptical if it will be successful due to the huge kind of similar backlog of unpatrolled pages at Special:NewPages. MuZemike 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support: Maybe we can start putting faith back into the editing process at Wikipedia. seicer | talk | contribs 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support per my comments for example in the fourth bullet point under "in the near future" here; as I explain there, I suggest not labelling the link or tab going to the most recent version "draft" but calling it "newest" or "latest" or something. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Let's try it. -- Noroton (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong Support Flagged protection seems like a good way to make the encyclopedia more open while still helping to protect sensitive WP:BLP articles :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support a trial, let's see how it goes. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong support, a good first step. -- Avenue (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Thank you, Cenarium, for helping push this forward. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support — I have a feeling that flagged protection will actually help restore Wikipedia to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I mean, sure, we could always just stick with regular ol' semi and full protection, but I have to keep asking myself the same question: isn't normal semi- and full- protection actually less conducive to allowing everyone to edit? At least this way anonymous editors and newbie editors have a way of editing as opposed to being relegated to the talk pages and/or completely shut out of the process. It'd make editing full-protected templates a piece of cake for all editors so that {{editprotected}} requests are a similarly a piece of cake to fulfill accurately. Those on quests for the the right version can be more easily subdued, as well; for, as it stands, our only main recourses for persistent sockpuppet attacks, for example, are full protection (which is a pain for all editors, including admins) and article probation (which results in a huge "assume bad faith" situation). In my opinion, flagged protection would give us a much saner option in this and other cases. Even better, if it turns out this thing doesn't work out, it's only for two months. That said, let my support not be construed as a carte blanche for mass-enabling flagged revisions across broad domains (e.g., "all blp articles" or "everything currently semi-protected"), because I do not believe that that route is sustainable (just take a look at new page patrol to see why :P). Anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strong Support A first step in the right direction. Biographies will improve, and real people will be protected from nonsense and worse. A win-win. Priyanath talk 01:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support We need to at least try this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - I would support any version of flagged revisions, if only to show the nay-sayers that we can try and build an encyclopaedia the sensible way. WilyD 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Per WR. — CharlotteWebb 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support --Stephen 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Probably a good idea (per WR of course). --NE2 06:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - a sensible approach to a controversial issue. Joshdboz (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong support - it's not enough, IMO - not at all, but it's streets ahead of the mayhem that currently exists. Let's at least give it a shot - Alison ❤ 06:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support would be an improvement and I really think it would be very helpful to encouraging serious anonymous users back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Let's see what happens. MER-C 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Randomblue (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support with caveat that a clearly defined trial (time, scope, evaluation) should be agreed, to prevent a drift into long-term de facto policy. Rd232 talk 13:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - If this trial succeeds, the reputation of Wikipedia will be enhanced. JoJan (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Not as far reaching as I would have liked but better than nothing, GDonato (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support Skinny87 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. While this is almost certainly needed on a broad scale (i.e. most BLP's) a trial ia a good way to assess and debug any system. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message, because this is a lot, lot, lot better implementation! The best proposal so far. - 16:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support — Jake Wartenberg 17:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Let's give it a chance. Valley2city‽ 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support. This is only a trial, and I think it's a step in the right direction. Artichoker[talk] 18:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I recently contacted an admin because I was unable to edit a protected page and had not received a response on the article's talk page. This proposal has the potential to alleviate such problems and is worth a try. Recognizance (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Wikipedia is a weak "encyclopedia" at best. This process would be a good step toward major improvement. I feel strongly enough about this proposed process that I would be prepared to actively participate in it when it is implemented, and would also consider increasing the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia. Taroaldo (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. More protection is needed, particularly for BLPs, but with the existing forms of protection is unlikely to happen. A trial is needed to determine whether flagged protection can be successful for this. —Snigbrook 21:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. People really need to calm down about the slippery slope argument. If this does create a slippery slope, we will argue over every inch on the way down, and eventually we will find a happy medium. Some people seem to think that a trial lasting for 2 months will ruin the project, or else I suppose they don't want to see whether this will work for some reason. I haven't seen any convincing arguments against just checking whether this will work or not... and that's all we're doing. --Thinboy00 @049, i.e. 00:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - yes. Sooner rather than later, please. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Can only be beneficial and will remove vandalism to the people who are reading but never registering. Lincher (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - We have all seen cases where a silly or blatently POV edit has remained visible to the outside world for hours or even a day or two because everyone who had that particular artilce on their watch list happened to be busy doing something else. This kind of thing gives the encyclopedia a bad rep, and this seems like a relatively painless way to address the problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Privatemusings (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. "Flagged protection" isn't really enough, but eh, it's better than nothing. This also opens up editing more than semi-protection. People saying "oh no this will destroy editing for everybody" apparently cannot understand words. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - it's about time that the project realised that we have a mandate to 'do no harm'. Freedom of knowledge isn't the same as freedom of expression, and the sooner we grow up as a community and understand this, the better. We can't keep throwing the time of volunteers at a problem in the belief that it'll be alright, and we can't maintain the status quo when every item of high-profile vandalism gets splattered across the front page of news agencies worldwide, even if it's only there for 7 minutes. Like it or not, this is damaging our reputation as an encyclopedia and until we grasp the nettle and deal with it, we're going to continue to have the mainstream press ridiculing us at every opportunity. Besides, I think that we'll probably see a decline in new editors joining the project and providing us with the manpower to revert vandalism if we continue to receive mockery instead of praise in the future. I for one would like to be proud to tell my colleagues I do volunteer work for Wikipedia, not that I'm a janitor on the website anyone can libel. Gazimoff 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I can't get my head around. Nothing in this actual proposal does anything that you seem to think it does, or want it to do. Supporting simply because it might lead somewhere else is to my mind pointless, we already have (60%) consensus for turning it on and doing something. If that something isn't what you want, why support it?
    And as an aside, I cannot see how this particular proposal loses us any editors, but I find the sentence "I think that we'll probably see a decline in new editors joining the project and providing us with the manpower to revert vandalism" wholly disturbing. For meeting the aims of building the entire knowledge of the world, Wikipedia already has far too few editors, and you want less people? MickMacNee (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read more carefully, but I'll indulge and provide you with more background information. We currently have the potential to do great harm to people, corporations and organisations through our popularity as the world's 4th most visited website. By allowing anyone to edit, we've been complicit in allowing users to libel and defame others as a side effect of our open policy. This has caused real damage, to real people, for no other reason than because it's on their Wikipedia article. But more than that, if we keep on allowing users to use WP as a platform for libel and defamation, we open ourselves up to ridicule. People lose trust in the project and begin to see it as a joke rather than a philanthropic endeavour. So what I'm saying is that if this continues, we'll continue to see a decline in adctive editors and administrators, which is what my second point was about.
    My other point was about developing tools. Let's be honest, this is a tool with a wide variety of applications. Part of it is protecting BLPs, part of it is protecting other sensitive articles. Currently, our only solutions are to protect pages from editing (there goes "anyone can edit") or revert vandalism and warn/block. By default any vandalism is instantly displayed on the site and then has to be reverted. But even if we're very quick at detecting and reverting vandalism, it is still displayed for a period of time and still ends up making front page headlines. It also requires volunteers to spend time racing to detect, choose and revert vandalism. Sometimes it means that vandalism is missed and stays displayed on the site for months on end before it is detected and reverted. This proposal turns the workload upside down - instead of racing to remove vandalism we'd be spending time reviwing edits and making them visible to unregistered readers. Instead of racing to remove something, we'd have time to make more intelligent decisions.
    Currently we have 2.5k users and 1.5k admins able to perform rollback. Our primary vandalism management tactic is to use these people to revert vandalism and block those that vandalise repeatedly. We can't rely on this indefinately - especially if the admin and user base shrinks. Besides, we have people who donate their time purely doing this kind of activity and rather than being treated as valued community members they're often mocked as simple minded button pushers. If people see WP being mocked as a project in the media, they're less likely to join as an editor. If the number of articles continues to grow, yet the pool of editors and by extension vandal fighters doesn't, then we will not be able to keep up and vandalism will be visible for longer.
    We have a mechanism available to us now to fix this and restore the public trust in the project. A public that internationally pays to keep us runing and allows us to expand infrastructure. It's about time we repaid them. This isn't a playground any more, we shouldn't treat it as one. Gazimoff 15:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That was rather a long post, but not a lot of it was actualy about this specific proposal. This proposal does not apply Flagged Protection to any more articles than those that already meet the protection policy, and this proposal does not stop anonymous edits from appearing immediately without review as they do currently. So, as I said, it doesn't do what you think it does. Period. As for losing editors due to bad press, badly researched news articles about Wikipedia will continue to appear no matter what system is implemented. The idea any kind of Flagged system will stop bad press for the project doesn't have any legs at all, that's wishfull thinking at best, and naivety about how the MSM works at worst. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it does. To quote the table on Semi-flagged protection for unregistered users: Can edit; a new edit is visible to registered users, but not to readers by default until reviewed by a 'reviewer'. It's a start. And it'll definately help. It won't wave a magic wand over all articles and make problems vanish, but it will definately help. Besides, it'll be nice if we're not continually providing MSM with ammunition to shoot us with, so to speak. Gazimoff 16:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By this proposal, the anonymous edit being held to await a review in your example is already being prevented right now, because that article is already going to be under semi-protection. So there is no gain in the sense that you seem to think that BLP protection is being improved by this proposal. MickMacNee (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "because that article is already going to be under semi-protection" That statement is simply false. Flagged protection is about much more than just BLP. There are many classes of article (for example articles related to evolution a number of which I regularly work on) that have problems with disruptive editing by anonymous editors. Most of those articles are not protected in anyway because our current protection mechanisms are pretty draconian since they ban anonymous editors from contributing. Flagged revisions are a way to improve the reliability of all the encyclopedia. BLP is just an area that needs the help particularly badly. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Something needs to be done, and a trial has few drawbacks. I think a practical sampling of this proposal is what is needed to bring absolution to a debacle that has already continued for far too long. Let's give it a try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous Dissident (talk • contribs)
  85. Qualified support. Only by actually seeing how this works out for us will we resolve some of the questions. Two months with the flagging as a protection-style option (which is honestly how I think it should be used) will give us some (but not all) of the data we need to work with. Daniel Case (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I would add that citing "anyone can edit" as a principle for opposition is foolish as, as others have pointed out, we've long since moved away from that. If we really insisted on it, we wouldn't have protection at all and we would never have ended IPs' ability to create or move articles. If that's really what you want, go here.
    "Anyone can edit" does not imply that everyone can publish. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support – sgeureka t•c 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. As an alternative to semi protection.--Pattont/c 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support a trial as long as it is more controlled as mentioned in the neutral section. The whole point of a trial is to see if it will work or not. Most of the people that oppose this seem to have a problem with the whole "flagged" idea. I believe that it would be in their best interest to have a trial, so they could point to something and say "Look - we tried it and it didn't work, and here's why..." I believe it is also important to make sure that the trial is stopped, with everything back to normal at the elapsed time. I think a major concern among some of the opposers (to the trial) is that a trial is just an excuse to get it turned on. This should not be a concern and every effort to make sure that it is done fairly (if implemented) should be taken. I know that sounds obvious, but I mean that the proposal should actually have some fairness mechanisms built in. Jkasd 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - I'm unconvinced that patrolled revisions will work. But as that doesn't actually affect what people see and its just a trial, its not particularly problematic IMO. Mr.Z-man 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Better than nothing. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support with conditions. The promotion to reviewer should not be automatic, but done in a similar fashion to rollbacker rights. A cursory review by an admin is preferable to automatic promotion because it will hopefully catch a few over-eager, good faith contributors who have the minimum level of edits, yet don't have the experience needed to be an effective reviewer. If this proposal is successful, discussion on the requirements for promotion should obviously take place before the trial. The trial should only allow the proposed protection scheme on BLPs. -Atmoz (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support, I'm not convinced this is the optimal solution but would like to see a limited trial. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Won't know how this works until we give it a try. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Strong Support per Jennavecia. Willking1979 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Weak Support, I don;t like flags for everything, but this seems like a good compromise. One problem with it I see is the gaming that could come about with vandals keeping Autoconfirmed editors from making changes to a page by vandalizing a flagged page when there is a shortage of "reviewers" around. How about just making everyone Autoconfirmed a reviewer... only people with deep knowledge on how the wiki works will be able to figure out how to use the feature anyways. Also, do not support "trial==something we will do forever since it is now policy" position. --Rayc (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. (This is rather a long personal meditation, but I make it here because my oppose !vote generated a good bit of discussion and think it necessary that I explain why I am abandoning part of it.) Well, I never thought I'd end up in this section. I was watching college basketball and working on some comments for Wikipedia Review, which I will continue to read and enjoy, even as most WRers haven't any love for me at the moment, a bit ago when I received an e-mail from an individual who suffered some legitimate harms as a result of what were, it seems, inaccuracies in our article about her; she was asked by someone here to recount to me her story toward the end of making real what it was suggested was for me purely an academic exercise (although we've had some issues with claims of real-life identities of late, I am convinced of the truth of this one). Perhaps it's because I'd taken my nightly sleeping pill, but I was, I must say, moved more than I thought I'd be (particularly because I was convinced that I had a full appreciation of the BLP problem, which I was convinced was vastly overstated and about which, I was convinced, I shouldn't care). I'm still not convinced that the project won't suffer significantly from the adoption of the system at issue, I continue to fear that what is adopted as a trial will never be overturned, no matter its consequences, and I'm certainly not going to become a BLP absolutist, but, having been affected by what I read (I hope not out of weakness), I can't hold rigidly to the position I articulated (or tried to articulate) below; I'm still propose to use a balancing test, but I am led to wonder whether the weight I was assigning to the harms that might befall real people was a bit off, and I find that I can't reasonably object to a trial of a middleground solution. Joe 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to look into the issue further and rethink your position. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Deep respect. It's not easy changing your opinion in situations like these, where it sometimes looks as if there is only black and white. To do so, as transparently and vulnerable as you have done, takes guts and pride. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. It's a good trial and I don't see how replacing article protection with flagged article protection should cause idealogical controversy. Estemi (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Come on already. MahangaTalk 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support a step in the right direction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. Do it. Do it now. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. support- I don't really understand flagged thingies and am worried it might inhibit article changes, but if it's not across the whole wiki, it won't be too constraining. And if it's just a trial, why not?:) Sticky Parkin 18:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - I supported flagged revisions with the thought that this is where I wanted it to go. The planned flagged protection will make a great alternative to page protection in the long run on many pages, particularly BLPs, and help open up the wiki where it currently is simply not practical. In the long run (though not currently planned in this trial) I do also believe that flagged protection would be helpful for current borderline cases where protection would be declined due to the side affects of regular protection, but enough disruption is happening to be frustrating and time consuming. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Weak support. I will support this, though I do fear the idea that this will pave the way for more restrictions in the future involving flagged revisions. Malinaccier (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support - There cannot be any harm in trying something. We need some actual data, and if it doesn't work, oposition will get it reverted. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support - We need a trial. I disagree with patrolled revs, but if they work, then so be it. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Cautious support Some features of the proposed configuration may require serious changes in the code of the FR extension. I am not sure they can be made quickly. So a lot of time may pass before the configuration is switched on. I think smth simpler would be better. Ruslik (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support as a first step. Risker (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support a trial. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I've no problem with a trial run. Some things can only be discovered in practice, not in theory and discussion. Master&Expert (Talk) 17:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Ottre 17:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  111. Suber-strong support: I support any implementation of Flagged Revisions, but this is by far the best proposed. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support A trial of selective flagged protection is definitely preferable to the previous flagged revisions proposal, and we should have done patrolled revisions a long time ago. Steven Walling (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Anything that moves the project toward protecting people from the consequences of having ill-motivated individuals editing their articles is good. Hasten the day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Using the flagging software to protect the integrity of articles (especially BLPs) while compromising as little as possible the principle that "anyone can edit" is a Good Idea. Such flagged protection and patrolling is considerably more flexible than semi and full protection. The trial proposed is an excellent way to explore this flexibility. There may be unforseen problems such as backlogs, overdeployment and so on. However, the only way to see if these concerns are genuine, rather than a chimera, is to go ahead with a trial. Geometry guy 22:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Per all of my support for stuff like this, generally a flexible way to use FlaggedRevs like protection.--Res2216firestar 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support FlaggedRevs would be a great way to improve Wikipedia's image in the world ending the 'Wikipedia allows anyone to edit any page and anyone can add nonsense' s**t. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Let's do this.--Berig (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - As Wikipedia grows in popularity, the number of bad faith edits grows exponentially. Something like this needs to be done eventually to prevent to community being swamped by this. The only question is whether there are enough Wikipedians to keep up with the number of edits that need patrolling. A 2-month trial is a good way of finding out. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support because I'm getting tired of the gazillions of discussions and polls about flagged revs. Let's try it and then have a discussion that's based on actual data and not on hypotheticals. The debate shouldn't be a philosophical or abstract one. We need to know if from a purely pragmatic point of view this is a net positive and we won't know until we try it. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - Borofkin (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Captain panda 04:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support GlassCobra 04:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. support This may likely not deal with the most serious problems we have regarding BLPs and related problems, but I'm willing to give this is a trial run. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Half-hearted support. While the concerns of Scott MacDonald and Short Brigade Harvester Boris are very much well-taken, I ultimately side with Lar's view that this is marginally better than nothing. Moreover, I hypothesize that the application of flagged revisions in some form is more likely to hasten than to block future, more useful applications (though I could be wrong). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support henrik•talk 07:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support If we don't try it out in the first place, we'll never know how to fix it. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Looks good. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support — Just Do It. This is needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - This seems a neat, efficient way to implement the plan, and goodness knows we need to do something to deal with the endless vandalism. :-) I'd like to final decision on the requirements for reviewer status before this is implemented, however. Colds7ream (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions#Post-poll_discussions. Cenarium (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support, I'm willing to give this a shot. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. Ironholds (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. I'd prefer to see a wider implementation, but if this proposed trial finally means people will agree on testing the extension without drawing premature conclusions, I'm all for it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Amalthea 13:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support, I opposed flagged revisions but this is a much better idea. -- M2Ys4U (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Strong support If there will be those who oppose enabling the full flagged revs, at least enable '(or trial) this. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it you either meant to say "strong support" or to put this in the section below... –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, fixed fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support I would happily trade the immediacy of edits going live for the ability to edit pages that are currently protected. --Waldir talk 16:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, neatly enough, you won't usually need to trade the immediacy of live edits to edit the protected pages! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. Dovi (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support This will let us see if such a system could work. Computerjoe's talk 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support I fully admit I'm not an editor of articles where there is likely to be the possibility of abuse, I think it will be helpful in my scope and elsewhere. We lose little by a trial; much more by inaction. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support A very moderate, inoffensive trial - let's get started and see what happens.—greenrd (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong Support --Analytikone (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support with reservations as one of the few people who originally wrote up the whole idea of flagged protection in the first place, I also understand many of the weakness of the proposal myself, so this is a good chance to see how it actually preforms. When I wrote the flagged protection proposal, I did it on the basis so that people can get familiar with the system, and we can get some good experimental data about flagged revision in general and work from there. If this passes this will probably be the one of first proposal that uses flagged revisions on the English Wikipedia, but I certainly hope it would not be the last as I could see more potential for flagged revisions beyond just the flagged protection myself depending on how the trial goes. Patrolled revision is a passive system so I see no reason to oppose it, at least in theory, I'm not too sure about how would a developer implement it. 山本一郎 (会話) 01:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support - Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support I think, this will reduce restriction to IPs. Wikipedia is not the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit long time ago. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 15:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Sopoforic (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Strong Support Getting the English Wikipedia on board with this project is long overdue and very welcome (to this editor). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support, a useful extension of our ability to control vandalism while making it easier for people to edit articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support, at least we'll have some data to make informed judgements ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. support - just about anything to move this beyond discussion to action. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - let's see how this works out, but if people cannot validate their own revisions (like reverting vandalism and such), we'll be doubling our workload because we need one person to fix the problem and another to validate that the fixer has fixed it. IMHO, if it gets too much, the trial will not be continued. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. This should have been done LONG ago. Those who oppose this proposal are harming Wikipedia. End of story. JBsupreme (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support: This looks like a pretty good tool and goodness knows we need more options for dealing with persistent problem editors. It has worked well for the German WP, and I'm happy to see a trial here. Sunray (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - strong support with proceeding on this basis; there will be a possibility of review and tweaking later. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support A valuable tool that should have minimal problems. — Moe ε 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - I read over the details a week or so ago, and I like the idea. Steve Crossin Talk/24 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. SUPPORT!!!! - This will end mindless edit wars, like the on at United Football League (2009). Standleylake40 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. I was not supportive in earlier, less specific polls on flagged revisions, but this trial definitely works for me (my main caveat is that they are no metrics as to how we evaluate the trial, but I gather from comments from Cenarium elsewhere on the page that we will work this out after the poll concludes). I think FR, in some form, will likely by good for the project and this is the beginning of figuring out what form or forms it will ultimately take, and to what extent it will help us deal with the BLP issue that is underlying all of this. There's another advantage to this trial going through, which it clearly will, that is not being mentioned so much: it gives a chance to get our feet wet using this addition to the Wiki software. Many of the comments here seem to be based on a lack of information on what this is and how it will work, which is somewhat to be expected. After two months of working with a couple of possible FR configurations we can come back to the discussion with a much greater understanding of how it functions in practice, what's good about it, what are sources of potential problems, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support, we should have done this a long time ago. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  160. Past Opposer, Now Support - I opposed on the last trial, however amendments to the proposal have made things more clear and precise. Lets give it a go.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support - we need to implement flagged revisions quickly. I support any proposal that moves us in that direction. waggers (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Weak support Not terribly enthusiastic about this, but it would certainly cut down on the amount of vandalism visible to non-registered users. My only concern is that it is a bit complicated, and might make WP a bit more bureaucratic. Bottlenecks as a result of not enough reviewers around might be a problem too. However, I think the positives outweigh the negatives here. This is only a trial, after all, if we don't like it it can easily be removed. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support --Odie5533 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support as a trial Nicolas1981 (talk)
  165. Support as a trial. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Taku (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Sounds like a good idea. Let's give it a go. - kollision (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - per Alison. AdjustShift (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support A fair decision needs a trial. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support : Not my preferred proposal, but cenarium seized the right moment with a good proposal. Show, road, etc.--Tznkai (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support: I strongly opposed flagged revisions in the last poll, but with the idea of flagged protection included (which I believe might be actually effective), I think we are going somewhere. Patrolled revisions also seem to be a good idea. Since the last poll, I realized that there's a serious problem with BLPs here, and I believe finding a way to solve or at least minimize this problem is more important than simply going ahead with the slogan "anyone can edit" (which was pretty much my reason to oppose last time). We need to do a trial and see how it goes. Chamal talk 03:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support trial for BLP only: I have spent an incredible amount of time protecting a few BLPs from organized partisans on certain issues who use wikipedia to abuse WP:RS, NPOV and WP:Coatrack to smear BLPs of individuals, esp. those currently in the news to influence what reporters who use wikipedia write about them. Today I came to the conclusion that a Trial of this process is needed -- but for BLP only. Why not try it where it is MOST necessary first? If people hate it applied to everything, it may never be applied to BLP where it is sorely needed. Of course, editors overseeing hot topic BLPs will have to be carefully chosen and monitored (and dumped if there are legitimate complaints) as well. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support The first step need not be perfect. Trial sounds a great idea. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support, it seems to work on the wikis its been tested on, and so a test here is justified. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support, Forward motion is good. Two months seems short for such a major trial. I hope a poll to extend the trial will be taken after, say, 6 weeks, so there is enough time for responses to be considered without interrupting the trial.--agr (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Raymond (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support, fergoshsakes! - David Gerard (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Strong Support, Since people can't edit if the page is protected, it will actually help the project as IPs can edit semi-protected articles, it will just need to be reviewed for vandalism. Techman224Talk 21:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support - I'm not concerned with exactly how we implement the trial, but I'd like to strongly support the idea of any trial, so we can get some feeling for how it'd work, how much vandalism we'd avoid, and how bad the side-effects would be. We can always fine-tune the implementation in a later phase :-) Shimgray | talk | 22:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Weak Support I have huge concerns about flagged revisions because I regularly edit and create articles about living people and imagine these proposals will ultimately lead to barriers to participation from people like me - much as page protection currently does. I once had to wait several months to get an edit actions on a protected page - will I have to do the same under this system? Probably. Likewise, I've experienceed over-zealous admins on NPP prodding new articles that blatently weren't appropriate under CSD - we'll no doubt have to live with attitudes like that from this reviewer class as well. Nonetheless, this proposal seems to address most of the concerns that I originally had. Some things need to be resolved - criteria for granting reviwer rights, admin rights etc and for approving edits and challenging reviewers who inappropriately disapprove edits - but for now I support this trial. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support BLPs need it, and well established articles do also; most edits are vandalism there. The trial seems a good idea.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Seems like a reasonable way to get things going. Can be scaled-up organically if needed even as-is. --mav (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support this tepid first step. Hopefully it will lead to a more full-blooded permanent system of flagged protection and patrolled revision. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support I like the idea, will greatly help! Would be good to get involved in helping with it too. Isabell121 (talk) 04:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Sounds like an excellent idea. Dougweller (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support lets see how the trial goes. Mieciu K (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support running a trial is a good idea. Flagged protection is much better than standard protection - people can still edit the articles - so I hope that it replaces standard protection in the long run. Passive flagging is great so long as the people who like fighting vandalism find the tool useful and effective. I hope that people don't get carried away with it, though, creating large backlogs. Finally, I would have much preferred seeing a site notice about this rather than hearing about it via the grapeline - using a site notice would probably give a much better sampling of the community than this. Mike Peel (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support It's a good idea, and it's been discussed to death. Let's just do it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Needs doing. --Deskana (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. yandman 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support And the opposes can be disregarded by Jimbo at the conclusion of this. You're with the Right-minded people, or you can leave via the door. BLP trumps any absurd "anyone must be able to edit!" dogma that should have been put down with 2004. The Internet can hurt people. I challenge every last person that says Oppose to provide full contact information for legal liability as an editor, including full name, or leave Wikipedia today. rootology (C)(T) 13:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "[…] with the Right-minded people, or you can leave via the door"? Please, let's not make this so dramatic. This particular proposal doesn't affect the "anyone can edit" idea adversely anyway, and until you follow your own challenge, it's just a meaningless provocation. This is not an attitude we should encourage: many of the people who have opposed and do oppose proposals like this do so because they have legitimate doubts about the effectiveness, efficiency, or side-effects of a given system. Even if you think they're wrong, telling people to leave is not constructive. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I think it's VERY constructive. I'll do one better: we should have an enforced policy that only accounts that self-identify or have identified to the WMF should be allowed to edit BLPs at all. Those opposed? http://www.anotherencyclopediaforyou.org can be forked. rootology (C)(T) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "You're with the Right-minded people, or you can leave via the door". I voted oppose on this. Why? Because I read both sides of the argument and came to the decision that I thought was the correct one. However I now feel that I should apologise, as I was obviously wrong. I shall now prostrate myself at your feet and beg for forgiveness. How did someone so close-minded became an admin? Alan16 talk 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that comment representative of most supporters' views? If so then you are right: I and many others have misunderstood what Wikipedia stands for and should find a more appropriate alternative. However, I do not follow the logic that those happy with the current rules must find "another encyclopedia" whilst those campaigning for change may stay. I hope we can agree on one thing: such a fork is in no one's interest. Certes (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. Also, anyone must be able to edit is _not_ an absurd dogma, as shown by the simple existence of this site. Mike Peel (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote someone, the times, they are 'a changin. rootology (C)(T) 13:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Darrenhusted (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Worth a try. — Emil J. 13:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Strong support - It's about time! - BillCJ (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Will be an interesting experiment. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Strong support. Protection is what's really anti-wiki; replacing it with flagged protection (or mostly so) is a big step forward. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Strong support - It seems like a very reasonable experiment to me. DThomsen8 (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8[reply]
  198. Support a trial for two months to allow us to evaluate how it actually works in practice. Cnilep (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Super-duper strong support. We have a serious problem, and this is a serious solution. I hope that the trial proves the solution to be sound, but we have no way of knowing unless it goes ahead. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support - don't know if it will do what it's supposed to, but trying it out is the only way to see....--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Let's give it a try. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support it's worth a trial run to see if it can improve WP's credibility (especially with BLPs) - Dumelow (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Weak Support - The only thing that brings me to support this is the fact that it is a trial. I am incredibly concerned with backlog, considering the state of Newpages, but I'm willing to see where it goes. People are arguing that Wikipedia is the "encylopedia that anyone can edit", and that's an excuse not to try this...but I don't think it's a valid argument when the current version doesn't let anonymous users edit protected pages at all, so this is a step upwards if you use that argument. I think that these could be good ideas ideally, but the backlogs will end up being too much to handle. DreamHaze (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support I like the idea that this is a trial-run, so if it does not work, we can say at least it was tried, and shown to not have worked. If it does work during the trial period however, then there would be no reason to stop using this tool. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Absolutely! Bubba73 (talk), 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Except that "semi flagged protected" needs to be applied to all articles. I am tired of having "an encyclopedia that anyone can vandalize". Bubba73 (talk), 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support as a trial  Badgernet  ₪  14:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Strong Support --Morten (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support --John (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support --Brad (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support This trial resolves all the complaints brought up in the previous poll. Flagged protection is immediately useful and allows more people to edit protected articles. Patrolled revisions will eliminate a lot of duplicated work, and will make building release versions easier. Wronkiew (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support - I'm thinking of a particular article on my watchlist. It persistently has the same gibberish added by an anon editor, always from a different ip, over a period of at least two years. Currently the only way to stop him is semi-protection, but this stops ALL ip editors from doing anything to the article. Flagged-revision-protection would render the vandal impotent but still allow others to work on the article - ideal. Beve (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Strong Support I'm in favour of open editing, but certainly not of all edits. Some articles are particularly vulnerable. Haploidavey (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Weak Support I support the trial, but am against the blanket introduction across wikipedia. Martin451 (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Weak Support I generally oppose flagging, but the proposed method is mild enough to keep wikipedia from becoming too bureaucratic. I agree that various backlogs need to be taken care of first before this is implemented. -Drdisque (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Gran2 16:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support As a trial, it seems like a good idea. I'd like to see this in motion Greggers (t • c) 16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support No good reason not to try this. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support - I don't buy into the "this is the same as flagged revisions" arguments. This is just a way to ease constraints imposed by page protection. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support --JaGatalk 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support - Strict 2-week trial, but recommend restricting this to BLPs only. The bar for being classified a "reviewer" must not be set too high, or this will cripple Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support in principle: but working out minor details like who is granted the privilege of flagging a revision will need to be worked out. This support should only be taken for the trial period, where we can work out minor fixes, or decide that the idea is fundamentally flawed. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Strong Support - Time to find out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support - For the trial, then we will be able to have an evidence-based discussion on it's value to the project. Graham Colm Talk 17:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support. Happy for there to be a trial; won't feel comfortable saying aye or nae until I've tried it ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support trial An interesting experiment to see if this can possibly work. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support - Magnus Manske (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support - Sasata (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support a trial. May or may not support long-term use. Let's see if this is a "net positive." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support I have strenuously opposed any incarnation of Flagged Revisions in the past, but this is finally a trial I can get behind. This idea allows more people to edit more articles, rather than fewer. Hoping it doesn't lead to anything worse, let's see how the trial works! Ntsimp (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support. Although probably some things could be done better, this trial will serve to allow most everyone to see how flagged revisions will actually work and what impacts there may be. We desperately need a reasonable form of protection and flagged revisions is the only basis for it on the horizon. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support. I hope that this trial will improve the experience of anonymous and new users. At the moment, protection on popular articles prevents participation by anonymous and new users, which may put them off further participation in the project. Ideally, this tool will allow for lesser use of full protection and partial protection, by buffering the input of anonymous and new users on repeatedly vandalised and vulnerable articles. Things could go wrong with this tool, such as too much complexity for new users, unconsidered new barriers for new users, or a change in the use of the tool that could make Wikipedia more restrictive. Hopefully these things won't happen, but the trial should give some insight into how this tool will change Wikipedia. The flagged revisions tool is also a neat way to identify clean versions of articles and might have interesting applications in the future. --Oldak Quill 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support. Soberknight (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support. The time has come for a practical test of switching from post hoc hit-or-miss review to prior review. I hope the implementers will be collecting useful metrics for evaluating the bureaucratic cost and the effectiveness in realizing benefits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Strong Support for a two-month trial David in DC (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Sigh...weak support. We better ACTUALLY judge backlogs and changes in edit counts to articles. This is a pointless trial for all concerned if we roll this out with so many provisos and idiosyncrasies that it doesn't represent what will happen when this goes live. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Strong support, cannot come soon enough, IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support With the caveats I expressed on the BLP/Flagged test proposal which I supported. Collect (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support This should absolutely be tried out, with no prejudice as to the final outcome of the trial. There is a great opportunity here to improve Wikipedia - let's see if it works. Anaxial (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support As above, as far as I can tell, this will result in unregistered users being able to make some edits to protected pages, which can only be a good thing, as most people aren't vandals. dottydotdot (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Enough talking in hypotheticals. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support A reasonable measure to protect BLPs. -- Avi (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support - I don't see how this is detrimental to "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit". In fact, it allows more people to edit, seeing as non-auto-confirmed can't edit protected articles anyway, but allows it in such a manner that it prevents vandalism. Fantastic. I'm opposed to flagged revisions, but not this. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Strong support - the key point is that this is a trial. I understand (but do not share) the doubts of the opposers but until we see how the trial works out we won't know whether the concerns are well founded. Smile a While (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support - A trial can't hurt anyone. It seems like a lot of work, but it's also a controversial topic. A trial should prove whether it's worth it. —LedgendGamer 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support - Trial is harmless, especially if we can get some good data from it. --Lucas20 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support - seems a good balance of protection vs. editing, and if experience shows that it fails horribly we can stop using it. BencherliteTalk 22:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support - Looks like a good way to demonstrate that flagged revisions are not the root of all evil. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support - Makes recent changes patrol a bit more efficient, no harm in trying it. Garyzx (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support About time to see if it works. faithless (speak) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support. Even my mentees in de.WP (who cannot sight yet) have no objections against the system.:-) --Ziko (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support Let quality articles stay that way. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support (assume rollbackers will be auto-added to reviewers group for trial) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support This is a worthwhile endeavour; we can discuss the system ad nauseum, but at some point it needs a field test. --Ckatzchatspy 05:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support OSX (talk • contributions) 12:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support the trial. --Kbdank71 16:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support - if used as an alternative to semi/full pp as proposed, it sounds like an excellent idea. κaτaʟavenoTC 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support - the only way to figure out if FR is a good idea is to try it. Franamax (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Strong oppose Flagged protection is a bureaucratic disaster in the making which fundamentally undermines the contention that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There's no reason to bother going thru a "trial period" because it is a lousy idea. Furthermore, we just did a poll on this a few months ago where this idea was rejected. So why are we back here again? -- Kendrick7talk 17:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When did we have a poll on Flagged protection? Are you sure you're not confusing this with Flagged Revisions? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Flagged protection uses similar techniques, but it's very different in spirit from 'classic' flagged revisions. The purpose is to use a flag for pages meeting the requirements of the protection policy, instead of protecting them. It opens up Wikipedia, instead of closing it to editing. Patrolled revisions has no effect on the version viewed by readers and is merely an enhanced way to monitor pages, such as low-profile blps. Cenarium (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference, really? Too many articles are left protected for to long as it is. This is just getting flagged revisions in by another means. It's even worse -- creating wishy-washy protection means real disputes will never get resolved because there will be no pressure to do so. -- Kendrick7talk 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It means that everyone can contribute to more articles. If the protection policy applies, this shouldn't happen for longer than it does now, but in the intervening time, everyone, including IPs and newly registered users will be able to suggest edits. Nothing more extensive than that. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It means many pages will simply remain locked in The Wrong Version essentially forever. Editors may already suggest consensus edits via {{edit protected}}. Why complicate a system that is already working well? -- Kendrick7talk 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably because it isn't.  :) Fritzpoll (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This opens the encyclopedia up more. IPs will be able to edit fullprotected pages fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to apply only to the flagged protection part of this proposal, not to patrolled revisions, which, like new page patrolling, are essentially just a way for recent changes patrollers (and watchlisters etc.) to communicate with each other, and which do not affect which version is displayed by default. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose as unneeded bureaucracy and a dangerous step down the slippery slope towards a full-fledged version of flagged revisions. This nonsense must be stopped in its infancy. Articles should be edited in the now, not through a backlog. Flagged anything undermines the spirit of Wikipedia as a free-for-all encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 18:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This isn't about flagged revisions... please see my comment for details. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to me to apply only to flagged protection, not to patrolled revisions, although this isn't clear. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean "free-for-all" as in a chaotic situation where everyone is on their own, or where its "free" (as in free license) for everyone? If its the former, I don't see why that's desirable (whatever happened to collaboration?), and if its the latter, I don't see how flagged revs will affect that. Mr.Z-man 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose. It's been said already, but flagged revisions are not compatible with "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". The practical effect will be that IP editors and casual readers are not allowed to fix gross errors (such BLP violations) on a flagged page without getting permission from the regulars, which could result in more damaging BLP violations sticking. Experience with new page patrol flags says this will immediately get backlogged; same deal. At the same time, the current proposal would exempt regulars from any inconvenience related to the proposal - cabalism that will be seen as such by outside editors. We've just been through the Obama incident, complete with a story on Fox News, so it should be plain how easily we can be made vulnerable to assertions of such cabalism. Moreover, the assertion that this would reduce the amount of pages with editing restrictions is troubling doublespeak - flagged protection would surely be used mainly as a "solution" where actual protection is considered infeasible, leading to more restricted pages, not fewer. All in all, even a trial demonstration is likely to be harmful to the wiki. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This isn't about flagged revisions... the "patrolled revisions" feature won't have any effect on a reader of Wikipedia. IP contributions to pages (as long as they aren't semi-protected) will be visible immediately. The only significant change is that it will be easier to patrol BLPs and other highly sensitive articles by having a list of edits to them in one place so that the changes can be reviewed. Having the list won't cause the edits not to show up until its reviewed. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the proposal currently says: "version viewed by readers by default is the latest flagged revision." So, no, the edits won't show up until reviewed. -- Kendrick7talk 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is for flagged protection, and only applies when IPs edit semi-protected pages or when any non-admin edits a fully protected page. This is explained more fully in the table below; I believe that the sentence that you pointed out is unclear (although correct me if I'm wrong). Autoconfirmed users will still have edits visible immediately in most every circumstance, and the handful of times that they wouldn't would be when editing protected pages. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Righto -I can only comment on the proposal that actually exists, and the proposal that actually exists says that IP edits to pages with flagged protection will not be visible (to actual readers, of which there are many more than the total number of Wikipedia editors) until someone makes them visible. And, for the record, if a random IP removes BLP-violating material, and their edit doesn't immediately show up on the article served to actual readers, we have in no sense improved anything; we have made it worse. The fact that we would have a nice report of things made worse is not a compensation. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For flagged protection that is true, IP edits will have to be "reviewed" to be reader-visible on protected pages... but right now, IPs can't edit protected pages at all. It would actually give them more freedom in what they can edit. And patrolled revisions will have no effect on the visibility of edits. ––Drilnoth (T • C) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean to say is that IPs can edit BLPs freely, without the need for a "review", the same way that they do now unless that BLP is protected. –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, IPs can edit freely on any page that isn't fully protected, semiprotected, or cascade protected (and they can't move move-protected pages or start any new ones). If this proposal is adopted, there would be another new class of pages IPs couldn't edit, at least without getting permission from the regular editors. And patrolled edits do have an effect on the visibility of edits; that's rather the point, that they wouldn't be visible (except to Wikipedia's regular editors) without a permission flag (from Wikipedia's regular editors). The fact that you and I could see the edit beforehand wouldn't change the fact that everyone else would be served the old version of the page. If the IP edit is a BLP fix, or a vandalism fix, or the like, then choosing not to display their edit, even temporarily, is not acceptable. Requiring them to have such fixes approved is not acceptable either. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "another class of pages"... only pages that would currently be semi-protected or fully-protected will have flagged protection on them, no other pages. And patrolled revisions doesn't hide edits at all... it just creates a list so that there's another way for Wikipedians to patrol edits to highly sensitive pages and check new edits, reverting them if needed, not to patrol the edits and "approve" them. This isn't flagged revisions... did you read the whole proposal? –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We should admit that flagged protection will probably (eventually) be used on articles that would not currently be semi-protected. An advantage is that edits do eventually get flagged unless they are reverted. Edits won't just go unapproved forever. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me for nitpicking a post that generally supports me, but in view of practical experience with new page patrol logs here, and flagged edits on de.wiki, it's likely that some edits will be delayed effectively forever - there's almost certain to be a backlog, and delays of more than a few days, on any article edited heavily enough to warrant restrictions on editing, effectively are forever, if other editors can edit freely in the meantime. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it there is no branching of the versions. Anyone who wants to edit has to edit the latest draft version. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's also my understanding; sorry if I wasn't clear enough. If one editor needs their edits approved, and another does not, and they are both editing the same article, and they happen to disagree - which has been known to happen from time to time, even on articles where there's some sort of dispute - then the editor without flagged editing restrictions has a large advantage, because they can always immediately make their preferred version available - without any action on their part other than to edit - and the editor who's subject to approval of flagged edits cannot. That's bad. We shouldn't pretend that this will never happen. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but what really matters is what stays in the end. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    On a semi flagged protected page, an edit by a reviewer, is automatically reviewed only when the previous revision is. Thus if there is a dispute between a reviewer and a non-reviewer, the reviewer will need to manually flag his/her preferred version. However, edits by the non-reviewer will appear in special pages as unreviewed, so other reviewers will notice them, review them, signal the dispute to admins, etc. In those cases, the standard dispute resolution mechanism should be followed, the reviewer status is no exception to 3rr, including flags/deflags, and if s/he 'unreviews' edits by the other user that have been reviewed, it would be an abuse of the privileges. Full flag protection can also be used in those cases, admins only can validate. It has been proposed to reduce the requirements for protection, or to semi-protect all blps in the past. Likewise, it will probably be proposed to reduce the requirements for semi flag protection. But doing so will require community consensus. Cenarium (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the reviewer first flags all edits, so no unflagged edits are present and then makes his or her own edit which will be autoflagged (worst case scenario), or is that prevented ? Mion (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)You've not understood - BLPs aren't going to be automatically flagged with flagged protection, so IP edits will be immediately visible as they are now. The patrolled revisions flag is passive, and has no effect of the visibility of edits. So the only BLPs where IP corrections won't be visible immediately are those where they cannot currently edit anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they will. They risk of getting sued by an LP because we failed to protect their biography sufficiently will eventually mean this new protection will be used on all BLP's by default. -- Kendrick7talk 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If that was going to happen, wouldn't all BLPs be semi'd or even fully protected already? –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re backlog: I hope that tools such as Huggle will eventually be modified to automatically mark revisions as patrolled. That way, patrolling will in most cases be no extra effort; instead, it will save time by coordinating efforts. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm pretty sure I've explained before why I strongly oppose, and my reasons remain the same. We're barely keeping up with flagged newpages, after all. DS (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    apples and oranges. We're keeping up just fine with {{editprotected}} and {{editsemiprotected}}, and flagged protection basically replaces those in a much cleaner way. The patrolled revisions is passive, so it won't interfere with people trying to edit. Are you talking about something else? --Thinboy00 @055, i.e. 00:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Opposed Although I see people above saying it's not flagged revs, essentially it's the same recycled proposal. It still requires someone to flag a revision before it shows up to readers (honestly, nobody else really matters in the discussion). If this is suppose to "replace/succeed" regular protection, then it will have the same pitfalls. Many articles that are hardly watched are currently semi-protected and letting people edit but requiring someone to flag it will have no difference whatsoever. "Full" flagged protection will do nothing to end content disputed except keep the wrong version visible, same as now. Meanwhile, the edit war continues. The idea of full protection is to stop the warring and force them to the talk page. Then there's the extra work this creates: as I understand it we'll still need to revert vandalism but it just won't be "shown", so now we need a user watching a certain page 24/7 just in case an edit needs "approval", which leads to more backlog. Admins will have to deal with the "full" one, and if it's mostly just the admins who currently handle protections then there will be a major backlog there. To say nothing of what happens when it comes to "de-flagging" an article (which I image will gather as a backlog just as semiprotected pages currently do, which currently sits at Fall 2007 for those interested). So there's my little schpeel. -Royalguard11(T) 22:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-flag-protection instead of semi-protection means that IPs and new users can edit, but it gets delayed. There will be a list of unflagged revisions so it will not take forever. If the backlog keeps growing endlessly, then the trial must be considered a failure. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not intended to replace existing protection, but to provide an alternative. Semi-protection can be used in cases of particularly high levels of vandalism, and full protection in cases of unstoppable edit wars. Although there is little purpose to edit war on a fully flagged protected page, that would be similar to edit war on a draft page. I think full flag protection would help to find a consensual version, but we'll see, this is a trial. If admins have too much work at validating edits, which is similar to make editprotected requests, we can create a usergroup specifically for that. Admins don't have to deal with each edit though, they validate a revision only when there is consensus for it on the talk page, or it's non-controversial. We can set an expiry for flag protection too. Cenarium (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would put money down on people continuing to edit war on a "full" flagged page. As long as they see a difference, they will continue to fight over it. It's not about being seen as right, it's just about being right. You can set expiry dates for protection now too, but that doesn't happen all the time. And creating another new user group with pseudo-admin power? As the theory goes, if you are good trustworthy enough to handle some admin powers, then you should be trustworthy enough for all, and that's the reason proposals to split up admin powers have failed (save rollback, the least controversial one). -Royalguard11(T) 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to apply only to the flagged protection part of this proposal, not to patrolled revisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really sure why this is a joint poll because the second proposal is completely different from the first one. In any case it doesn't matter because an oppose is still an oppose, unless there's some voting requirement that I am unaware of that disqualifies my vote because I haven't made a good enough argument for my case. You might want to be a little more careful, someone could interpret your little "comment" as coming from some self-appointed "voting official", or as a subtle insult. -Royalguard11(T) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that! I have no intention of looking like an official nor of insulting anyone, nor of implying that your vote is invalid in any way. It's my understanding that this is a discussion and a poll, not a vote; as such, it's not only the word "oppose" that counts; I and other users are also interested in the rationale you supply with it. If the proposal is implemented, feedback from this poll may guide details of how that is done; and if it is not, feedback here can guide the development of future proposals if any. It seems to me that one possible result of this poll (depending on how it goes) might be an indication of support for one but not both of the parts of the proposal. One purpose of my comment is to alert you to what your comment seems (to me at least) to mean, so that you have an opportunity to clarify it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I would support patrolled revisions alone, and could be persuaded to support flagged protection for currently protected articles only despite the page locking problem, but I have to oppose the proposal as stated. Certes (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand, what in the proposal as stated are you opposing? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple objections: it is unclear what sort of page will be flagged; the technical problem I mentioned above; complications arising from one view of WP for editors and another for readers; risk of putting off new and IP editors by making them feel ineffective or second class; a successful trial on whatever pages are chosen may not mean flagging is appropriate elsewhere. Basically it feels wrong to me (and I gave more explanation than many support voters). Certes (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose I hate the whole concept of Flagged revisions and every aspect of it. Do you really want to volunteer your time to check millions of edits, which are mostly done in good faith? I fear that this trial may evolve into a permanent practice so I must oppose a trail. There are really better substitutes for filtering out bad-faith edits than filtering all edits. -- penubag  (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Do you really want to volunteer your time to check millions of edits, which are mostly done in good faith?" Err... isn't that what dozens of people do daily with things like Huggle? Do you think reverting vandalism, spam, and nonsense is a poor use of time? And, eh, a little good faith that when people say it's a trial, it will be a trial, would be nice. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "millions of edits" - how prevalent do you think our protection practices are? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits are already continually checked, with recenchanges, watchlists, etc. But those systems are not as efficient as they once were, with the high number of edits on a ever-increasing number of pages. Most edits are unreviewed, and we don't have the resources to improve this. Patrolled revisions allow to detect little-watched articles and then monitor them by comparing with a previous sure version (in most cases, it won't be the previous version). So it gives us a way to monitor the evolution of an article, without actually having to check every edit, which we are unable to do. Cenarium (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to perhaps apply to the flagged protection part of this proposal, but not to patrolled revisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I appreciate the significant distinctions between this and the various flagged revisions proposals that have been advanced, and I commend Cenarium, et al., for continuing, in view of their perception of a problem, to work to find some scheme that will command the support of the community, but I can't get behind even this. It is widely accepted, I think, that there attends any system of this sort some harm—and not just theoretical, in the rejection of one of our principles, about the non-absoluteness of which I agree with the supporters—to the project (toward which see tens of past discussions; I've set out parts of my own analysis elsewhere, but I don't imagine that it would be useful for me to aggregate them here), and so we are left to consider whether the ills that seeks to address are so grand that the net effect on the project of our adopting flagged protection and patrolled revisions should be positive; continuing to believe that the prevailing construction of BLP is too strict and that we do, on the whole, too much to protect living subjects, and so apprehending no serious problem with the current system, and thinking that the effect of the general content-compromising vandalism that this system might otherwise prevent is de minimis, I resolve that question in the negative. Joe 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC) (This was struck out by Joe/Jahiegel [1])[reply]
    I think this must be the most despicable statement I have ever seen on Wikipedia. You're advocating causing real harm to real people in order to uphold the principle that anyone's edit must be visible right now. Kevin (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)(This was struck out by Kevin [2])[reply]
    He is not advocating real harm. He's weighing the consequences of adopting the present proposal and coming out in the negative: He believes that most people interpret the BLP policy too strictly, that it is too generous to LPs, and that the proposed system offers few benefits. (Furthermore he says so in grandiose language, so his reasoning must be correct!) Far from being despicable, I think he sounds reasonble, even though he didn't explain how he came to hold his opinion and even though he didn't convince me. Ozob (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'd undertaken to explain how I came hold my opinion, I'd have consumed a many more paragraphs to little effect (the harms—and there are at least some is not, AFAICT, disputed—have been enumerated by others elsewhere, and my offering why I assign to them the values I do isn't—and, the matter's being one of personal values, shouldn't—going to persuade anyone to oppose; I can offer only that I hope people are employing a balancing test and aren't thoughtlessly and illogically elevating one group of harms over another solely because one group are cognizable, carrying with them human faces that evoke emotion). Joe 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the most charitable read, that. As I made clear—or at least meant to make clear—I do not regard the continued restriction of what was in short form an unqualified right of editing ("about the non-absoluteness of [the principle of open editing] I agree with the supporters") as inherently problematic, and I do not rest my opposition on a small-minded defense of some principle to which I shallowly hold reflexively; I do not deny that there are those who are situated on my side of the flagged revisions debate (and probably of this one as well), but I do not appreciate my being lumped in with that number. My point was that—and this is an issue about which there is no question, it is my sense—there are benefits that inhere in a system of open editing, and that even minor tweaks to that system have some negative effect on our overall achievement of our mission. That mission, of course, is a humanitarian one, driven by the idea that the free dissemination of information is a good thing, from which follows that anything that obstructs the maximum distribution of content that otherwise meets our encyclopedic standards is a bad thing, one that harms real people, our readers. So too is the libeling of (or, to some, the inflicting of emotional distress on) a biographical subject bad thing. Everyone weighs those opposing concerns differently (and even my own weights are inconsistent; on one of my utilitarian days I might determine that causing significant harm to a single biographical subject is morally preferable to making Wikipedia .01% less effective to each of its millions of readers, but I don't know that I always feel that way), and it may be the latter should always prevail, but we cannot pretend that the former don't exist. Joe 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "we do, on the whole, too much to protect living subjects" .... you have got to be kidding. Really, there is not much more to be said in response to that, except "get out of the way" ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My !vote isn't going to stop anything, and I'm not really out to persuade anyone, the philosophical arguments's having been debated to death over the past few months, but I feel good having taken a moment to stand athwart history yelling "Stop" (and that's all the use I have for William F. Buckley). I am wrong much more than I am right on-wiki, but I am happy to say that I was amongst those who were concerned about the elevation of BLP to policy, expecting that well-meaning overreach would follow, and I, who wishes the project well, fear that we opposing will be shown to have been right some months from now. But, hey, I recognize that I'm in the minority here (although not on BLP generally, I'd suggest, suspecting that there does not exist a consensus for the strict operation of BLP that now controls), situated opposite many good folks (I've always respected you and have been pleased to support five requests for permissions for you across en.wp, meta, and commons), and I've no inclination to do more than offer the small discursive protest I have here. Joe 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Time will tell, I guess. Props to you for having changed your view and struck your oppose. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good! I'll start up an article regarding your personal life, Joe, and compare you to a rapist, and let's see how it lasts under your "anything goes" mantra. seicer | talk | contribs 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My life at the moment is such that very little harm would befall me from your libeling me in a Wikipedia article, and given that I have done a good bit of writing on why we are wrong to treat rape as a crime more serious than any simple physical assault, a crime of the perpetration of which one shouldn't ordinarily be embarrassed, I would be irked much less than the average person by your accusing me of being a rapist. But I readily concede that I my position would change were Wikipedia doing me serious harm. That's not inconsistent with my broader submission; it is not unusual that there should be things that one wishes not be done to him/her but that he/she wouldn't hesitate to do to others (and I would fully expect that Wikipedia should ignore my entreaties, even as I mightn't to be pleased with that outcome). Joe 07:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to me to apply only to the flagged protection part of this proposal, not to patrolled revisions. Kevin, please avoid jumping to conclusions about what someone is advocating. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. If this is passed I will flag all "on wheels" edits. Imagine a sleeper account racking up good edits so he can "flag" his vandalism as approved. 149.254.218.20 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This just reaffirms what I and other supporters have been alluding to: long-term vandals and veteran sockpuppeteers are scared that it will actually stop them by making it extremely difficult to even use "sleeper accounts" by merely registering them en masse and waiting. More than a mere autoconfirmed sleeper account would be needed to vandalize a flag-protected article in any effective way. So I continue my support, especially in light of whoever this dude is. --slakr\ talk / 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see an IP that needs a block. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh...
    Anyway, I've removed their !vote from the numbering; revert if that's a problem. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, no! A system that might force sleeper accounts to have to make a whole bunch of productive edits! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose due to Patrolled Revisions aspect. Creates a large scale workload for passive flags that also does not work with Special:NewPages (which is under-manned anyway). I'd fully support a "Flagged Protection" only implementation. Aaron Schulz 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you elaborate on this a bit? Are you saying there is an implementation (code) difficulty or a workflow difficulty, or something else? For the record, your oppose is the only one so far that gives me pause, since it apparently is trying to point out why this approach might not work... Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Both, though mainly workflow issues with the "patrolling"; all edits in namespace is a lot, especially for a passive flag. It would be hopelessly ill-maintained. It would also add special page and more UI clutter (like history pages saying "]sighted by x] [patrolled by x]". I'd strongly like to stick to the smaller scale protection-like aspects of the proposal. Aaron Schulz 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most edits in recent changes are looked at now, usually I believe by more than one person. With passive flags, a backlog does no harm. The backlog at newpage patrol is in my opinion largely pages which have been looked at and judged to be borderline. As with new page patrol, this will help divide the workload so that edits are generally looked at once, rather than randomly by perhaps zero to 10 (or whatever) recent changes patrollers, 0 being a problem and anything more than 1 largely duplicated effort. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, I would actually argue that having an in-wiki form of passive flagging makes for less overlap in rc patrol, thereby making it more efficient. It makes it easy to script through the API, and it's all totally optional. It might be an idea to expire away patrol log entries after a while if those make too much database clutter, but I doubt that it'd be too much of a problem anyway. --slakr\ talk / 19:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong oppose Flagged protection is a disaster in the making which fundamentally undermines the contention thatWikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.This will cause huge back logs.Admins/reviewer can have thier own viewpoint,thus only those edits will pass which are in line with thier views.And some pages will be left without edits for months.Some of the best edits comes from Ips even.This will turn wikipedia into a ethnopedia,where reviewer/admins ethincity will decide what to add and what not to.Beauty of wikipedia is ,"anyone can edit" as long as they follow the rules.yousaf465
    Admins will not be the only ones able to review edits. IPs cannot edit protected pages at all at the moment - this proposal will allow them to at least contribute to these pages. This is an opening up, not a closing down. as for backlogs - how much stuff do you think we currently protect? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This oppose seems to apply only to the flagged protection part of this proposal, not to patrolled revisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment::Do we have a defination for reviewer ?yousaf465
    Actually, IPs can edit protected pages, just not by themselves. You just figure out the edit you want to make, and go to the talk page and use {{editprotected}} or on semiprotected pages {{editsemiprotected}}. However, in practice there is little likelihood of your edit being implemented. Try it sometime. Apteva (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are assuming that IP users know how to use that template anyway. 99.9% of casual readers don't bother to figure it out. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose due to poor trial design. This is not a trial with a control group, so it can't produce useful data. At the end, all we'll have is another discussion with no meaningful data. Either A) come back with a proposal that has a real control group and a real way of comparing outcome differences between the two groups or B) come back with a statement that no trial is viable and this is proposed as a permanent change and get consensus for a permanent change. I don't think the underlying proposal will actually help anything, it will just create overhead. But I might be wrong - a trial would produce data, this is just a waste of time. GRBerry 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:agree with this user,no control group exist for the trial,with which we have to compare.Even a small experiment requires control.yousaf465
    Since flagged protection will not be enabled on all articles, only on a subset on a case-by-case decision, the simplest control group will be those articles where it was not enabled. An even better control would be the same set of articles where it was enabled, but comparing the levels of edits and vandalism in the periods where flagged protection is enabled to the periods where it is disabled. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - While I believe that flagged revisions could be a good thing, I don't agree with elements of this trial. What is the point of patrolled revisions? If the flags don't actually do anything, we shouldn't be wasting our time. It just creates another backlog. The point of flagged revisions, in my mind, is to ensure that revisions that are unacceptable because of vandalism, BLP violations, or other reasons are never seen by the general public. I understand that some people think this is a bad idea, which is a fair opinion to have, but here it looks like you have attempted to get around their objections by making flagging have absolutely no bite whatsoever. I also agree with GRBerry's comments about the trial design. How will we know if these changes have any effect? Perhaps we should do something like "If the title of the article needing protection begins with A-M, use regular protection, if the title begins with N-Z, used flagged protection."--Danaman5 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strongly Oppose. Now that I have learned what flagged revisions are, I can now say that I completely oppose the idea. Implementing such a system would turn Wikipedia from a free resource that people can work collaboratively on (which is what makes Wikipedia most attractive to people willing to edit it), to a strict bureaucracy where only the most well-respected people can even have a chance to contribute to. So, just for the record, I oppose flagged revisions, and if such a system is implemented on Wikipedia, I, and surely many other editors and members, will not return. This proposal, if implemented, will surely destroy Wikipedia. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is your problem with this particular trial that merely allows IPs and newly registered editors to contribute to pages that are normally protected, as well as giving us a passive feed of information about edits to BLPs? For someone following the line of "anyone can edit", I am baffled that you would oppose this system, which allows more people to contribute to Wikipedia. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:This oppose seems to be about flagged revisions; it's not clear whether it applies to this proposal, which is flagged protection and patrolled revisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Adds unnecessary complexity. I see a lot of NIH, where no one wants to implement a change because they didn't think of it themselves. I do think we need better scrutiny of each edit in a more organized fashion, with a system for flagging bad edits and good edits, but we need to focus more on the released versions, and make that the version that is reviewed. A better solution would be to buffer the changes until a few editors had a chance to flag them as good or bad before they became visible, but not to require that they be flagged, or reviewed. Trying to protect the Ted Kennedy article from embarrassments is like trying to keep someone from throwing their shoes at you - it's going to happen, and it's protected by the first amendment. Apteva (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What? I think throwing shoes would cross the line from "free speech" to "aggravated assault". However I would like to hear more about your proposed alternative (namely how it differs from what's being proposed), if you can find some place to explain it in greater detail. — CharlotteWebb 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of throwing shoes is that in that particular culture where it is done it is an extreme insult but does no physical harm, and as such would fall under the category of free speech, if they indeed protected free speech. The flagging of edits was brought up at WP:RCP talk, and apparently is rudimentarily implemented as documented at Help:Patrolled edit, and implemented for all autoconfirmed users for new pages. This would extend it from marking the edit as patrolled to allow multiple editors to mark it as good or bad. It is entirely possible that just marking edits as patrolled is adequate. All Dutch edits are patrolled for autoconfirmed users. Apteva (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose No measures in trail for success or failure. Zginder 2009-03-21T05:32Z (UTC)
    We'll work on this before the trial, we won't run it in a hurry. One could adapt some for example from those. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose out of concern that this half-measure (really, quarter-measure or 1/10th measure) will preclude more meaningful action on the moral nightmare of Wikipedia's BLP policy and enforcement. The BLP policy doesn't need technical rejiggering like this. Instead it needs utter destruction and rebuilding from the ground up so that we don't have thousands of poorly-watched articles that can do real harm to real people. If this is passed it's too likely that folks will say "ok, we've fixed BLP" instead of doing something truly effective. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy proposals will come later. This is a proposal to give the technical ability to admins to protect pages in a different way. Classic protection is not optimal to protect BLPs and as you say, we have many BLPs that are underwatched, and patrolled revisions can improve the monitoring of those. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SBHB: You know what? I agree with you. You're right. This is not enough, and BLP as it is now is a moral nightmare. And this is a truly weak solution compared to others that have been proposed. And I've in the past opposed stronger ones as not going far enough. And yet, despite all that I supported. We do need to do something truly effective, but I've come to believe that this is better than nothing and we need to at least move in the right direction. As for those who don't think there is a problem? Some of them will never be convinced... write them off, they are in the way and need to be removed. And maybe some will be convinced... there have been some changes of view here in this discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Oppose Assuming I understand this correctly, Semi-flagged protection is enabled by default which defeats the purpose of using it as an alternative to protection Alexfusco5 17:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi flag protection is not enabled by default, it can only be enabled by an administrator, alternatively to semi-protection. Patrolled revisions is a different matter entirely, it can be used for all articles, but is completely passive. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thank you for the info Alexfusco5 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose with regret. I've been sitting on the fence here, trying to convince myself that something is better than nothing. But, regretfully, I conclude that this is indeed nothing - if not a step in the wrong direction as far as BLP victims are concerned. The bottom line is that 2/3 of our BLPs are underwatched, and as long as they remain open to "anyone can edit and instantly anyone will see" we open subjects to an unacceptable risk (and reality) of malicious abuse. There is nothing here to limit that. Some are supporting this because "something must be done, and this is something" - but I just don't see that it is. This is a fudge to get a minority of callous idiots on board, so we can get something past the ridiculous consensus requirements. Further, I fear that this will in fact delay doing anything worthwhile as people will think "we've done something". I can't see how this gets us any further than allowing admins to protect and semi-protect; but those tools are way underused. All that will happen here is a very small number of articles will be subject to a lesser degree of protection. Well meaning, but useless (at best).--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that a magic proposal will fix the blp problem once and for all ? At any rate, it's certainly not the purpose of this proposal. You would like something to be done for blps, fine, go ahead, propose that blps be all semi-protected, to have a csd for unreferenced blps of weak notability, etc. And lo! nothing will actually be done. You are opposing something that will improve our monitoring of all those under-watched blps you mention. And they're just no going to disappear any time soon, so we have to cope with them. And for the other part, you say it yourself, semi-protection and full protection are 'way' underused, then consider this: don't you think admins would be more inclined to use flag protection ? I won't comment on the other parts of your comment. Cenarium (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is somewhat expected that flagged protection will eventually be extended to all BLPs. Then it will protect them about as well as semi-protection. I think it will depend on whether the flagging backlog can be kept short with so many articles under flagged protection. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be right Scott that this proposal will cause folks to say "there, we fixed it." That's a legitimate concern. But of course you also could be wrong. The trial could go well, and some of the fears being expressed here about the negatives of FR may ultimately be allayed (e.g., while I fully support this trial I have real concerns about how this stuff will work in practice, but if it goes well I'll almost certainly support a wider implementation which I did not do in previous polls). There will always be a hard-core group opposed to this, period, but there is a larger (and equally hard-core) group of editors pushing for putting flagged revs on all BLPs or even all articles. I'm sure that, once the trial is over, those folks (including yourself) will continue to push for a wider, more stringent implementation. Past efforts to push something like that through obviously have not succeeded due to concerns about consensus, so if I were you I guess I'd look at the trial as something which might well bring more folks over to my side, and therefore make it easier in the end for us to take the tough measures necessary to address the BLP problem. Your pessimistic prediction could, as I said, prove true, but there's a good chance for the above scenario as well I think. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Opppose. I have no issue with the two unrelated parts of the proposal, they might be of benefit if tested against what we have properly. I just have to oppose on principle, to point out to the many supporters who either have no idea, or simply just don't care, that this proposal does not do what they want, and are wasting everybody else's time pretending they give a shit about it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - This proposal offers no indication of how reviewers will be chosen apart from mentioning that the status may be auto-granted. I am very worried that gaining reviewer status will become very difficult to achieve possibly like gaining administrator privileges. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - I want to make sure it stays that way. Cedars (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it may be granted in a similar way to Rollback... a simple request, and an admin can accept or decline it. I'm not sure what will be done for the trial, but that's how I think it will be if/when it's an official process. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose - Just don't like the concept in general. OhanaUnitedTalk page 13:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose this additional layer of bureaucracy as contrary to the basic principles that have made the English Wikipedia the #1 non-portal site in the world, creating unnecessary extra obstacles to participation, and directly interfering with my own work on Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just curious... what are you doing that this would interfere with? –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Translating biographies of living people from foreign-language wikipedias. Personally, I'm curious about why almost every "Oppose" has replies from the "Support" camp?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's because most of the supporters are just wondering what the reasons for opposition are. I really don't see how this would interfere with translating pages from other languages... flagged revisions might, but this is completely passive. It won't make the article "invisible" until it has been patrolled or anything like that. For all intents and purposes, when you're creating new pages, you shouldn't notice a difference, except for a tag or two in the edit history, unless you are also working in vandalism-patrolling. It's kind of like how editing any page makes it appear in Special:Recentchanges, but you don't notice that happen because it doesn't affect your ability to edit the article or make it immediately visible. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since a minor incident involving a slightly overenthusiastic new pages patroller, I've found it necessary to check every single revision that's made to articles I've translated for the first month or so. This will create work for me, and I dislike it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this create more work than what has been in place? I don't mean to be a pain or anything, I'm just curious. –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More diffs for me to go through every time I log in—it's simply time I don't want to spend. I'd also like to draw attention back to the "unnecessary obstacles to participation" and "contrary to the founding principles" part of my objection.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Under this scheme, as I read it, if there's anonymous vandalism, then even if it's reverted, the page cannot move forwards until reviewed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the visible version will not advance, and the flagged protection is planned to be used on few enough articles that the backlog could be kept low—and if not, this is only a trial, which will be limited to its two-month duration. Also, if we ever got revision text hashes, the software could be modified to recognize this situation and automatically review versions that constitute reversions to reviewed revisions. Just explaining some of the rationale, don't feel pressured. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your logic, ShoeMaker's Holiday. An anonymous (IP) editor doing vandalism almost certainly would not have reviewer rights, so the unvandalised version would continue to be displayed whether the vandalism was reverted or not. If the next editor has reviewer rights they can have their edits displayed immediately; if they do not, their edits would not be immediately displayed regardless of whether there had been some anonymous vandalism or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose This is too damn complicated! Flagged protection, semi-flagged protection, full flagged protection, and patrolled revisions. I think this is much too big to do all at once. And what I hate most is the backlog. There are 2.7 million articles here - I can easily see the waiting list for edits in the tens or hundreds of thousands. The German Wikipedia is much smaller than us and it took them nearly half a year to get all preliminary reviewing done. I like the German style of what I've seen of it: very basic. IP users see the most recent flagged/reviewed/whatever revision, but logged-in users see the most recent altogether. In short, I kind of like patrolled revisions, but not flagged protection. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose pending specification of "reviewer" promotion and demotion criteria. I can't agree to something that is incompletely specified, and the stringency of the reviewer promotion process is key to how effective or disruptive this change will be. Set it too low, and there'll be no point to enabling the feature; set it too high, and the wiki will become a bureaucracy overseen by a small number of vested users. I'd also insist on a specification for revocation of reviewer rights; this is the kind of power over content that can easily be abused.--Father Goose (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak Oppose I find myself agreeing with OhanaUnited. SpencerT♦Nominate! 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Reason 1: I agree with Reywas92. These are over-complicated. And on the German Wikipedia, I found this to be quite annoying which could scare off newcomers. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 00:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose same reason as I did a couple of months earlier: too vague, poorly documented, questions on how-to and what-if remain unanswered... NVO (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. STRONG OPPOSE Look at these complex rules. WP:NOMORE, WP:BURO, and WP:CREEP scream out as I read these rules. For anyone wanting to see how much flagged protection will suck, try editing http://en.wikibooks.org. Tonight I was introduced to this terrible system, which made up my mind. Where can I get one of those no flagged edit banners? Ikip (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not recall any Wikimedia project has ever adopted flagged protection, unless you are referring to flagged revisions. In fact I don't think the code has even been written yet, since this system works in an entirely different way than the way it works on Wikibooks, please read the proposal carefully first. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I read the proposed page. What is on wikibooks is the exact same technology, just a different name. Ikip (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It uses the same software, but the implementation is fundamentally different. It's proposed to be used as an alternative to page protection, temporarily or indefinitely, with two levels: semi/full, while on Wikibooks, it's used on every page. It's not rules, it's the way the extension works. New users will hardly notice this, and even less be affected. There are no 'unflagged' banners. The only instance where a reader will be aware of [resp. an editor will be affected by] the extension is when seeing [resp. editing] a flag protected page with an unreviewed latest revision, which would be globally extremely rare. Cenarium (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep; it's the exact same techonology, but is used in a completely different way. It's not just a different name. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose - First off, I am absolutely opposed to the Flagged Protection- it is just a watered down version of Flagged Revisions that will discourage participation by new users. As for Patrolled Revisions, I don't have a huge problem with it in and of itself, but I'm worried that it will be the start of a creep into flagged revisions, which are an abomination. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How will flagged protection discourage participation by new users? The system would only be enabled on pages where semi-protection or more would be justified—and flagged protection is vastly more open to new users, who cannot edit semi-protected pages at all. While I share your concern that flagged protection might lead to a more restrictive system, that would require further consensus to implement—so you can support this proposal while opposing that hypothetical one. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it would be frustrating to go to an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," come to a page, make an edit, and then have that edit not show up until some Admin can be bothered to roll over that way and approve it. And I am not going to support this one and oppose your "hypothetical" later proposal, because it will be that much harder to drum up opposition to further abominations once we let the first one get its proverbial foot in the door. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, it'd be far more than admins that have the ability to site an edit. Secondly, how is this worse than the current issue of number of pages that only admins can edit, or the many pages that only logged in editors can edit -- most of them on high profile articles, which MORE people will want to edit. With flagged revisions, no matter which form they take, it means MORE people can edit, it's just a matter of what is "live" (and the 'doesn't show up' issue only even affects someone who leaves and comes back, not right after they make the edit).♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: Unnecessary bureaucracy, a limit to the open participation which is the hallmark of WP. I'm failing to see the effective difference between flagged protection and flagged revisions in how either would solve the problem faced by WP without creating more undesirable problems. The most serious risk, I believe, will be the significant bottleneck of articles needing flagging. The potential bottleneck of a full roll-out will be considerable, and this proposal will not be an adequate simulation of a stress-test under what will be 'normal load factors'. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - I see how much easier this will be for many users who deal with vandalism on a regular basis. However, as I have said before, the concept essentially goes against the principles of Wikipedia itself. As many have stated also, it will cause more friction in the community between the IPs and registered users—something of which we already have too much. I fully understand that this is only a trial, but it is, on the whole, a step backward in Wikipedia's advancement in my opinion. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 05:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - our slogan is "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Part of the charm is just that: you can edit anything at any time and see your changes right away...this 'charm' is our major source of new editors (read: me). Do we want the project to slowly wither and die over the coming years? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 23:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand that the flagged protection is only to be used where semi-protection would otherwise be used? I have the same concern about stricter implementations of FlaggedRevs, and yet I'm strongly supporting this trial. Flagged protection is more open than semi-protection. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be nice if I thought that it would only replace semi-protection and no more... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's precisely what's proposed. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose: While the proposed system has its merits, it also has disadvantages. Unfortunately this "trial" has been proposed without any of the criterion that one needs. All the following need to be specified: a test group and control group, the policy that admins be referring to when implementing flagged protections, the policy for reviewers, and the conditions that need to be fulfilled for the test to be considered a success. I can't believe people we even started this a poll when the concept for the conduct of the test hasn't got past "How should the trial be conducted ? Should we create control groups ?". This is an ill-thought-out shambles that can not give us any useful information. Thehalfone (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What criteria? People will either like it or they won't. I have no doubt some folks will collect data on things like average time between an anonymous edit and the review for consideration, but success/fail will be determined by another poll taken after the trial has been running a few weeks. What other kind of criteria could you have? Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a policy on how to determine if an edit is vandalism? No, we just use our common sense. Even when deciding whether to protect a page or not, admins have to use their common sense. WP:PP or any other page doesn't give every single detail on how and when it should be done. Same thing here. What is being done after that is different, and is the only difference in using this system as far as I can see. As for the success of the trial, that should be decided through community consensus again after it is complete. Chamal talk 10:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything you mention is going to be discussed in depth at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Trial, before the implementation. Cenarium (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose First, for a collaborative project like Wikipedia it is essential for the recruiting of volunteers, on which the fate of the project eventually depends, that there is a minimum of barriers to their understanding of the project. Simplicity has viture. For Wikipedia, less is more. At the very start there was nothing but a simple (and naïve) vision by Jimbo, and the five pillars - which turned out to be a brilliant combination. This has since developed, or I would say degenerated, into an increasingly complex bureaucratic jungle, of which this proposal is the latest step in the wrong direction. This proposal is so enormously complex that repeatedly in the discussions, supporters are pointing out that other editors have misunderstood some intricate details etc. Very worrysome, if editors that have the Wikipedia-knowledge to find this poll page in the haystack have so many problems understanding and appreciating what is really meant by the proposal. Second, it is a departure from one of the most fundamental ideas of Wkipedia, if any user no longer can edit anything at any time and see the changes right away. No light matter. Third, there is the plain common sense objection from DS, that similar flagging systems have shown simply not to work in practice. "We're barely keeping up with flagged newpages", he says above, a point he has detailed elsewhere. This should not be dismissed with "apples and oranges" handwaving. Fourth, some editors above have said that actual experiences at the German Wikipedia with this type of restrictions are negative. And fifth, why the hurry? Maybe the poll should only last a week, and "it's only a two months affair, honey". I don't like the smell of this fish. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Oppose Why !vote on a Trial when the specifics haven't even been finalized. What are people actually !voting on? A mythical entity that doesn't exist yet and may encompass something entirely different? Flesh out the specifics then come for consensus, not the other way around. Q T C 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything essential for this trial is and has always been at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. Opposing because the measures of success haven't been specified or some details like the precise requirements for autopromotion haven't been !voted on yet is beyond me. Nobody's going to invest hours of work for polishing this kind of things up while not being even sure if the trial would be accepted. Cenarium (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's basic scientific method, you have to layout the experiment before you do it. Q T C 23:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's what we're going to do. I just closed as Later a premature bug request (see #Consensus Time). But we'd better have support for an enterprise before going into the details. Those will be finalized before the beginning of the implementation, by discussion and consensus. Cenarium (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose: I believe this change would lead to a more bloated, bureaucratic, and confusing Wikipedia, and the cost seems to outweigh the benefits. Managing something like this would be a massive undertaking, and we are already understaffed. The possibility of a "moderator" usergroup with "validate" rights, as mentioned in the proposal, is scary to me. I am also worried that the two-month trial period will be easily extended...overall, this smells like instruction creep to me. —Pie4all88 T C 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. To disregard "anyone can edit" is not better if it's only done for a trial period. There is no need for a trial, all reasons against this system will not vanish because of such a trial. If anything, it will get incorrect results because people tend to be much more active in such things for the first months after implementation and will not allow any results that reflect to long-term implementation ideas.
    To elaborate in more detail: I did support flagged protection in the previous suggestion, i.e. that all those edits can be reviewed by autoconfirmed users. I oppose any creation of an unneeded new "reviewer" usergroup which creates more bureaucracy to achieve this because it essentially removes the reason why I supported flagged protection in the first place. In it's previous suggestion, it would have expanded the "anyone can edit" for protected pages, now it adds more bureaucracy and effectively limits autoconfirmed users because there now would be instances in which their edits, currently allowed with semi protection, would have to be reviewed, if the previous edit was by an IP. I still oppose any patrolled revisions as just another form of flagged revisions. On a side note, I would have suggested that this poll were split because currently one can only support or oppose both ideas, not only one. Regards SoWhy 13:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New autoconfirmed users wouldn't know how to review, it would make editing more complicated for them and expose them to sanctions in cases of mistakes. Note that autoconfirmed users are autoreviewed, so if the previous version is reviewed, the new revision is. Reviewers are also autopromoted, this could be for 100 edits and 1 month for example, so that they have a minimal experience. The case where a non-reviewer autoconfirmed user edits a semi flag protected page with an unreviewed latest revision should globally be very rare, but only a trial can really tell us about that. Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If they can edit those pages, they should be allowed to review. It's not a question of "too complicated" - it's about whether they are allowed to if they would want to. I have read the proposal, but if the previous revision was done by an IP (and the whole point of it is to allow those IPs to edit), they will be treated like IPs, which is impairment from the current protection system. And I don't want to support any proposal that actually worsens the way editors are treated, even if it does not happen often. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Opppose for lots of reasons given above - overly bureaucratic, overly complex, additional workload, fundamentally anti-collaborative etc. etc. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong oppose per "The trial is intended as a conservative starting point for using flagged revisions..." If this is a proposal to bring in the Flagged Revisions through a back door, then my opposition will be cast in stone. This is in general a good idea, but I don't see it in a way that will deprecate the current protection methods or even make this applicable on a large number of articles (say, 10,000+). —Admiral Norton (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not at all my intention in any case, I'd personally strongly oppose this. The implementation actually would not allow to switch easily to a more classical flagged revisions implementation, as patrolled revs are, technically, meant to be passive, and the other flags are meant to be used as a protection measure. It would require a complete revamp. Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose It not only undermines the "anyone can edit" idea but would in my opinion be unworkable. There are backlogs that need attention this will create even more. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strongly Oppose I think this is a ludicrous suggestion. It increases the work load unnecessarily , and makes Wikipedia more bureaucratic than it already is - and if we are honest, it is already fairly bureaucratic. Alan16 talk 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose It's opening Wikipedia up for a bureaucratic disaster. It also seems to be a sneaky way to get the bigger proposal in which would *be* the disaster if it was implemented. Let's not go that way. I see several posts above which I strongly agree with, especially that by "Power.corrupts". Orderinchaos 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose — Do not contact me regarding this. I have no desire to discuss the matter, just offering my opinion. --JBC3 (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose because I feel that restrictions beyond those that are already in place will change one of the fundamentals of this encyclopedia, that anyone can contribute. While that will technically still be true, I can see new and inexperienced editors being put off and even scared away by this. I wouldn't mind the trial in theory but I don't feel that the motivation behind it is particularly helpful. Sky83 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose It is contrary to the basic principles of Wikipedia. It is better to have vandalism than to have "trusted" Wikipedians as gatekeepers. I think that Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia. It is also, perhaps only to a slight extent, a working place for an experiment in human social engineering. We actually shouldn't be trying to eliminate the inherent difficulties in an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." I think Wikipedia may be "editing" us just as we are editing Wikipedia, and that is the way it should be. That is a good thing. I think we should allow this experiment to run its course. Wikipedia was a bold idea in its inception and we shouldn't become timid simply because we've had some "success." I think the "idea" is what is worth preserving, not necessarily the body of knowledge. An online encyclopedia that anyone can edit is the thing of value, not necessarily the articles. Sure, we want to preserve the integrity of the articles. But that is accomplished through active participation of concerned editors -- not by suspending the experiment and opting for stale "knowledge." Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Very Strong Oppose Was anyone else forced to read Animal Farm in high school? All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others. It violates the most basic principal of Wikipedia. Forcing this sort of situation will drive people away rather than attract them to the project. It's better to undo the relatively small amounts of vandalism from unregistered accounts (remember that some people still vandalize even if they have accounts) than to drive away the majority of unregistereds who choose to contribute positively. Some use Wikipedia only infrequently, or make only minor edits, and for them it is not worth having another account that they have to remember their username and password. I'm getting further away from the central topic than I wish to be, but in general, I say that it's not in the best interest of Wilipedia.Andy Johnston (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose as antithetical to equality in all its forms. Alohasoy (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Sorry, this is a cop out. It creates just as much work as real implementation of FlaggedRevs would, but carries none of the benefits. The obvious outcome, then, is that people will decide FlaggedRevs is a waste of time. I'd rather have nothing at all than be stuck with the inertia of a half-assed version of FlaggedRevs that solves no problems but will annoy everyone with backlogs anyway. Come back with something useful, and I'll support it like I did at the last poll. Avruch T 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose – These type of things (a) take away user's (particularly anons) ability to edit pages, and (b) highly complicate editing, which should be as simple as possible. This is unneeded and will make editing less about sheer articles and building the encyclopedia, and more about fun tools. No point in testing this if it is unneeded to begin with. TheAE talk/sign 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - Nothing that can't be sorted by banning IP edits. MRM (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Very Strong Oppose - Just because some person somewhere came up with Flagged Revisions/Protection/etc., doesn't mean we have to fit them in here, one way or another, a desire this constant polling demonstrates. Because their supporters couldn't get Flagged Revisions put in as is, they're trying to do so now gradually - "Patrolled Revisions" and "Flagged Protection" first and then when that is ambiguously successful, outright Flagged Revisions will be the next step. So the buck needs to stop here. The reality is that Wikipedia is fine as it is. It works. Most of the articles look exponentially better than they did even a year or two ago (they have more information and are better referenced and written), and indeed even the number of articles is growing. BLP awareness is at a constant high. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. All that Flagged Revisions/Protection/etc. do is make the place more complicated to edit. The pleasure of Wikipedia was and is a simple one - you click "Edit" and what you've written is visible immediately. When you can't edit the page because it's protected one way or the other, you know it right off because "Edit" is just not up there. Making it more complex than that is changing the basic nature of Wikipedia, and not in a good way. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongest oppose i'll ever give on Wikipedia since flagged revision will be the death of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". John Sloan (view / chat) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose I oppose both flagged protection and patrolled revisions. We have enough backogs already. The current systems works just fine.--Rockfang (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Unneeded bureaucracy; will ultimately lead to the second-classing of anonymous editors. Some may support such a move; I don't. Good Ol'factory (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. This looks like an ugly mess. As much as I dislike vandalism and spend most of my time at wikipedia fighting it this proposal is cumbersome and so full of abbreviations and referrals to other proposals I can't even fully understand it. It looks like it will create just another stream of backlogged items for review that will bog down valid edits just as much as invalid ones. Wikipedia's death of a thousand cuts by vandals is inevitable so let's not hamper it with more bureaucracy that deters what's left of the quality editors, anonymous or not.Rob Banzai (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per Bastique and Kim van der Linde. Haven't we been through this already? –Sarregouset (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But they are both supporting. Can you please clarify? Chamal talk 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They support on the grounds it may move us closer to full .de style flagged usage. I suspect many are opposing more vocally as each "more refined" poll we have that narrows the scope of what will be implemented is drawing higher and higher percentages of support. Once it locks in at the 67% range or when Jimbo finally just drops the Flagged hammer, as has been promised, all their opposition will become largely irrelevant. This is becoming the natural progress and evolution of Wikipedia--it's been heading this way for some time, thank God, from the putrid BLP-endangering free for all it was becoming at one point--and some people are just ideologically opposed to anything which prevents or slows editing. Far more people are in support of such a thing. You can't stop evolution education, however, only delay it with religious dogma. :( rootology (C)(T) 13:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting that during that putrid free-for-all we had our time of fastest growth, raising us from a helpless upstart to a reliable powerhouse. Now, Far more people are in support of anything which prevents or slows editing. Oh, I can certainly see where Wikipedia is headed. –Sarregouset (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. This has so successfully muddled flagging, protection and BLPs to the point that the proposal is illiterate and incomprehensible. What's wrong with having simple flagging for all articles, and letting the rest of it come in a separate proposals. In other places where money at stake these additions would look like "earmarks". Eclecticology (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. On the grounds that administrators should have no special powers to deal with reviewers. If an admin can remove a reviewer than we are no further ahead then we were without flagged revisions whatsoever.Wjhonson (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. I don't really like this idea of another class of users that have all the power. Whatever happened to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?" The current system may not be ideal, but it works. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The only power that reviewers will have that would have any effect on others' editing is determining if non-autoconfrimed edits to semi-protected pages are good or not. All other edits will be visible immediately; they wouldn't need a reviwer to look at them to make them appear. So reviwerers wouldn't have "all the power", any more than rollbackers have "all the power". –Drilnoth (T • C) 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to above Comment In many instances that will be precisely where unencumbered access is needed most. It is no secret that opinionated editors cannot be expected to be fair. There will be a lot of abuses (by established editors), but they will be covered up before they even come to light. There will no doubt be exercise of personal biases in choosing whether an edit is "good" or not. That is one reason that Wikipedia is Wikipedia -- it is an online forum (an encyclopedia) that all human beings have equal access to. The bottom line is that under the proposed procedure there will be abuses and they will never even come to light. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And how is that different from a standard revert now? I don't believe this system will actually hide the edit history from anyone. And so many people keep bringing up the "anyone can edit" counter -- but why is it so hard to understand that this will allow 'anyone' to edit MORE articles (by replacing with this on (semi-)protected articles), not less. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The controversial edit, the unpopular edit, the unfashionable edit, and lastly -- the edit that is nothing but vandalism -- will never get onto Wikipedia, unless a "gatekeeper," in the person of a "trusted editor," allows it passage, under this proposed procedure. Wikipedia was bold from it's inception. This is an impulse rooted in timidity. It is active participation of concerned editors that makes Wikipedia a success. That is not accomplished by impeding the access of any and all people to any and all articles. That is the experiment, and that is the astounding (and counterintuitive) success. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is BLP. By the time a 'bold' BLP edit gets reverted, somebody could have suffered massive consequences.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edit is good, it still gets through anyway, there's no monopoly power on siting and so forth, it's likely to be a common power, it's not admin-only.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is sometimes invoked where it is not applicable. Even established editors have powerful opinions. Blocking something on BLP concerns is no more reliable than preventing inclusion of something on the basis of any other Wikipedia transgression. BLP concerns have been raised to the status of being sacred, which arguably they almost are -- but they are just as vulnerable to abuse as any other Wikipedia principle. Where opinions differ, each side can (and sometimes does) claim BLP concerns as their reason for inclusion or exclusion of certain words in an article. Only vigilance can serve the twin needs of an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit and the need to have reliable, factually correct articles. It is getting away from both of these needs to allow "trusted editors" to serve as gatekeepers to Wikipedia. It erodes the principle of Wikipedia to prevent all people from having input -- virtually everywhere. I would not be surprised if vandalism was not a part of the early repertoire of some of the now well established editors. When people grow tired of vandalism, they try contributing positively. Vigilance comes about from the presence of concerned editors. We should be concerned with cultivating a responsible Wikipedia community. The present proposal segregates the "community" into those with full access and those with only pseudo-full access, and that is not conducive to a vigilant, concerned, populace on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose as a slippery slope to Bad ThingsTM. Hobit (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose because this is a watered down version of proper flagged revs (which I would strongly support). I think the German Wiki is doing the right thing. I think this proposed "Flagged Revs Light" is a waste of time. Do it properly or not at all.  Channel ®   22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Oppose This system could allow a select group of so called "trustworthy" people to control the content of an article in a fashion not consistent with NPOV, even if their attempts to maintain NPOV are in good faith.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Agreed, this feature would inhibit the NPOV. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

  1. I have a minor concern with the proposal. I'm willing to support, but I would like one thing clarified. I want to make sure that this trial can be used to make accurate measurements of the effects of flagged protection and patrolled revisions. In order to do this, we need a control group.

    For semi-flagged protection and flagged protection, we need to keep a group of articles semi-protected or fully protected so that we can compare them to flag-protected articles. This will let us make precise measurements of how much better or worse flag-protection is than ordinary protection. For example, it might be that semi-flagged protection decreases the number of IP edits, or it might not. It might be that semi-flagged protection decreases the amount of vandalism, or it might not. I hope that semi-flagged protection does not decrease the number of IP edits and decreases the amount of vandalism, but I don't know (and neither does anyone else) until we have some statistics. If we have a control group, then we can count IP edits to articles in the control group and count IP edits in the flag-protected group. If the semi-flagged protected group has a lot fewer IP edits, then semi-flagged protection discourages anonymous editing, and we will know by how much; if not, then it does not discourage IP editing. Similarly, we can count the number of reverts made via rollback, anti-vandalism tools such as Huggle, bots such as VoABot II, or editors who put "rvv" or "vandal" in the edit summary. If there are many more such reverts made to semi-flag protected articles than to semi-protected articles, then semi-flag protection does not discourage vandalism as much as semi-protection; if not, then semi-flagged protection discourages vandalism as much as semi-protection.

    Similar concerns apply to patrolled revisions. It might be that patrolled revisions improves the quality of an article, or it might not be. Again, in order to make this precise, we need a control group. (It seems to me that this will be more difficult to measure than the effect of flagged protection.)

    I suggest that for the trial we switch roughly half the semi-protected and fully protected articles to semi-flag protection and flag protection. For example, we could implement the proposal for all articles beginning with the letters A-M, the numbers 0-4, and the symbols !, @, $, %, ^, &, *, (, ), and -. We could leave it off for all articles beginning with the letters N-Z, the numbers 5-9, or any other symbol. At the end of the trial period, we would switch flagged protection and patrolled revisions off for all articles and gather statistics. Then we can have an informed debate that moves beyond mere platitudes and opinion. Ozob (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A control group sounds like a good idea to me, randomized or pseudorandomized, and your method of pseudorandomization (letters A–M versions N–Z) sounds more-or-less OK to me though with real disadvantages in comparison to real randomization. I don't think we would just massively switch a bunch of articles from semi-protection to semi-flagged-protection. Instead, someone would ask the admin who protected the article, or perhaps the protecting admin would just change it themself. Having a control group was discussed in some of the other discussions of trials. One idea was to first ask the protecting admin whether they were willing to have it switched to flagged protection, then afterwards apply randomization to either switch it, or not. However, I'm not sure that a control group is essential, and there may be difficulties in attempting to implement control groups within the Wikipedian consensus system where everybody's doing what they think is best for the project at a given moment. Basically, I guess people will experience the feature and decide whether they like it or not and there will be another discussion. I don't think that's such a bad way to proceed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons why I suggested separating the articles by first letter is because the system is very, very simple. You'll know at once which group an article is in; you could even build a bot to go around and fix articles that have been improperly placed in the wrong group. I suggested half of Wikipedia because that gives us a good idea of what sort of backlogs may develop, but for most of the statistics we're interested in, like rate of vandalism, we could trial it on a very small number of articles (even 100 would probably give good information). Ozob (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the only practical way to arrange a control group like that would be by imposing it technologically, e.g. for the developers to arrange that it's impossible to flag-protect articles in the N-Z range. I'm not sure whether it would be practical to do it by bot: bots are not supposed to editwar or do things against consensus. Maybe if there were a strong consensus for a particular control-group arrangement it might work. I'm imagining that even if there's generally consensus to have a control group, there might not be consensus to apply that to some particular pages. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's consensus for a trial, we'll work out the technical details and conduct of the trial at /Implementation and /Trial subpages, and the guidelines on reviewers, flagged protection and patrolled revisions... Cenarium (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Flagged Protection, used sanely, (ie, dropped for 3 month periods on articles with recent vandalism, etc.) would be OK, though I still dislike it. I'd really prefer this wait until the New Page backlog is sufficiently clear. I still haven't seen evidence of lots of people stepping up to work on that, so I see no reason why it would be different here. Quite honestly, we just are not going to get enough people doing the work for this, and it will be left to a few dedicated editors who really ought to be doing other stuff. Patrolled Revisions, while something that is going to generate an enormous backlog, is something that we really ought to have, as it will save BLP enforcers from just doing what they do now: Generating a list from Category:Living people and searching through random articles for BLPvios. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, can someone create a section in Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection titled Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection#When to use flagged semi-protection? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a little premature for that :) Patrolling in the 'patrolled revisions'-sense should automatically patrol in the NP-sense, and reviewers are autopatrolled, so automatically NP-patrolled. It may well have the effect to decrease the NP backlog. Cenarium (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (Switched to oppose MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)). I just want to know why to unrelated proposals that are aimed at doing two totally different things (not counting the obvious catch all 'improve the pedia') are being voted on together. They both have different aims, and trials of each will have totally separate measurement criteria for determining success. If there is genuine support for either, then test it properly and clearly. I would love to see flagged protection tested properly, and see if Jimbo's many pronouncements on the new dawn of openness would actually become reality if implemened (a quick and simple test being whether any articles are actually downgraded in protection level), but I simply don't see why that is being packaged with the stuff about passive flagging, which is a whole different issue. The only commonality is that they both need the extension turned on (and it doesn't even look to be that simple either). Proposing and polling separately would also reduce the incessant and repetitive confusion that seemingly infests all things FR related. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a trial of one configuration of the FlaggedRevs extension. The distinction that causes the two names is primarily procedural: each subset will be used in different contexts. It's a two-pronged system: wide flagging as checkpoints, complemented by protection-policy-governed reviewed pages. The combination matters, and in any event the procedure used to propose something shouldn't invalidate the proposal. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing how the 'combination matters'. And its clear from some of the opposes, the lumping together of two separate concepts is helping nobody understand it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I view this as being overly-complex and so weak that it is basically useless. The bottom line is that 2/3 of our BLPs are underwatched, and as long as they remain open to "anyone can edit and instantly anyone will see" we open subjects to an unacceptable risk (and reality) of malicious abuse. There is nothing here to limit that. Some are supporting this because "something must be done, and this is something" - but I just don't see that it is. This is a fudge to get a minority of idiots on board, so we can get something past the ridiculous consensus requirements. Further, I fear that this will in fact delay doing anything worthwhile as people will think "we've done something". I can't see how this gets us any further than allowing admins to protect and semi-protect; but those tools are way underused. All that will happen here is a very small number of articles will be subject to a lesser degree of protection. Well meaning, but useless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. After clarification, I was going to support however the creator of the extension finds it to be a bad idea and thus I cannot support but I do not see any other issues Alexfusco5 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil[edit]

  • I'm not convinced many of the supporters have even read the proposal they are supporting here. With regard to passive flagging, many are going on and on about the 'anyone can edit' crowd in their votes, and haven't seemingly caught on that this proposal doesn't change that idiom one bit, so that 'ignorant unenlighted rabble who just don't think of the BLPs enough' aren't actually losing anything in this proposal at all. If anything, if the passive flag system is a roaring success in reducing BLP vios (no suggestion of how this is going to be measured for a passive flag system anyway, making the whole concept of approving for a trial a bit of a nonsense), the case for progression to an active flag system is actually weakened. It even has auto-confirmation of reviewers, something most who advocate strong FR were I thought dead set against. In fact, in terms of fixing anything resembling the so called BLP problem (and preventing the really scary sounding issue of 'the lawsuit' which is always 'just around the corner' but never comes, due to pretty obvious reasons), this proposal looks pretty weak, and if I was of the philosophy of some in the support camp, I simply wouldn't support for that reason. There's baby steps and then there's meandering aimlessly in the dark. MickMacNee (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any proposal that includes flagged revisions will at this point get my support, because the opposition to this general thrust, at this point, is getting ridiculous. I am tired of waiting. Get on with it. Get this implemented, whatever it takes. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You really should read what you're voting on. You won't get what you want from this proposal I am quite sure, not even close (bar the fact the extension will be 'on', but per Jimbo and the mega poll, we already have consensus for doing that). You may even have to wait longer, or find that support for taking the next step reduces, if this is shown to be effective. MickMacNee (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I supported a number of far better proposals than this one. They didn't happen yet. I want this technology turned on. Once it's running we will move this in the right direction. But right now we have people in the way who think we do "too much" to protect BLPs. That is a BIG problem. They need to be gotten OUT OF THE WAY. Or this project is doomed. Maybe it already is. ++Lar: t/c 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Let's throw in a few hyperbole to try to bat down the opposition. Things like "They need to be gotten OUT OF THE WAY" and "this project is doomed" don't really help anything, as they are both just opinions, that happen to differ from other people. FWIW, I think flagged revisions are certainly worth a try, and don't understand why so many people oppose such a trial, but I don't agree with your over-the-top attempts at intimidation. RoscoHead (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rosco! Following me around again? Really, you need to get a better hobby! But anyway... quoting someone I admire, even if I don't agree with all the time: "Either serious and successful reform will come out of this or many of the loyal will have to admit that the site has become ungovernable and that no reasonable likelihood of internal reform remains." That's not hyperbole, intimidation or what-have-you, for it has come to that. Don't think so? How many BLPs have you worked? You have no idea about how serious of a problem this is, although at least you are willing to support...many of the opposers feel "we do, on the whole, too much to protect living subjects" which is just inane. Thank goodness Joe at least was a mensch and changed his views. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not a quote, it is a paraphrase, and not a very accurate one at that. And yes, such forceful words coming from an admin IS intimidation IMO. But you already know that. RoscoHead (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a quote? Here is the link to WR, it's word for word, check for yourself. ++Lar: t/c 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll explain that when you explain how it's OK to advocate getting people "out of the way". Because personally, I'd rather see wikipedia die than see anyone "gotten out of the way" just to implement flagged revisions. RoscoHead (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BLP problem is a big one, so big that it can end this project. It needs to be resolved. People need to lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, it is a big problem. I don't totally agree with your second assertion though, and even if I did, there's a HUGE difference between people "get[ting] out of the way" and people being "gotten out of the way". I ask again for you to explain how it's OK to advocate getting people "out of the way"? RoscoHead (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* RoscoHead, you haven't done anything on this page besides comment on Lar's wording. Do you support this proposal or not? Commenting solely on Lar's wording isn't particularly helpful and raises the tone here, which is already shrill with concern over a controversial topic. Lar, while I know you feel strongly about this, it's more likely to help you achieve your goals if you act more cooly about it and don't talk about people "get[ting] out of the way". This proposal already has a high degree of support, so there's a way to move forward. Controversy only slows things down and mires us in the current, undesirable situation, and abrasive phrases, such as the one RoscoHead criticizes, only fuel controversy. Letting go of emotions like this will help us achieve our goals. Please, both of you, let it go, it doesn't matter here. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nihiltres, but I would really like to see that comment re-worded by Lar. I have no problem with him saying "People need to lead, follow, or get out of the way" (even though I don't agree with it). But when his comments escalate to suggesting others need to get these people out of the way I think it needs to be addressed. Millions of people read WP every day, it only takes one wacko with a gun to misinterpret his comment - "But officer, an admin on Wikipedia says these people need to be gotten out of the way". RoscoHead (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is my sincere and good faith belief that Rosco's primary purpose here on Wikipedia is to dog my steps, rather than to meaningfully participate in this discussion, or anything else, to any significant degree. (expect some denial to follow, and enjoy how it's wikilawyered, he's pretty good at it) That's fine, my cross to bear for my past sins as it were, and shame on me for rising to the bait at all, especially in an important discussion like this. That said... I think it's fairly obvious that I did not mean that any violence should be initiated against anyone but if it will help, I'll be explicit in disavowing it. What I mean by "gotten out of the way" is that if it comes to it, I am prepared to see people that will not do what it takes to protect living people from the serious harm that our BLPs can do to them be disinvited from participating here. I hope it does not come to that, but if it does, so be it. I apologise if that gives offense to anyone and it is not my intent to deliberately inflame this discussion or deliberately give offense to well meaning folk but I feel very strongly about this matter. I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 04:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else replies to you first, does that mean he loses his turn and has to wait until you post again? Ozob (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification Larry, but why not just change the original comment from "need to be gotten OUT OF THE WAY" to "need to be disinvited from participating here"? The comment is still there, still emphasized, and the one person that doesn't find the meaning "fairly obvious" may just be the wacko with the gun. What if they don't read further for the clarification? RoscoHead (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've lost one too many administrators lately over the lack of BLP enforcement. Get it on already or be prepared to see more resign in disgust. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What extra measures for BLP enforcement is actually in this proposal then? I see only a more efficient method of RCP, but still with its inherent flaws, and with the added admin burden of monitoring reviewers actions against an as yet unwritten guidance document. MickMacNee (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use flag protection to enforce the blp policy. For the purpose of the trial and in the interest of agreeing on an implementation, I proposed the requirements to be those of the present protection policy. In the future, if we continue, you can propose to lower the standards for (flag) protection for blps. However, this will happen if and only if there is consensus to do so. It's a first step because if you'd propose something like this now, it would very likely be rejected, or end up in no consensus. It has always been the case, so far. One thing at the time. As for reviewers being autoreviewed, it would seem odd that they can review, so included their own edits, but aren't autoreviewed. Cenarium (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any article that needs FP to enforce BLP should already be semi'd, so it is not enhancing the BLP policy enforcement, it is simply making its enforcement less brutal. And I am unsure what you mean by autoreviewing, I was referring to automatic granting of the Reviewer bit. MickMacNee (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those who want to have naught or very high auto promotion can make their point when the requirements will be discussed. It makes the enforcement less brutal indeed, thus admins will probably be more inclined to apply it for certain blps than they would be with semi-protection... Again, it's not a policy proposal, this will be discussed later, if this proposal is adopted. Cenarium (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've lost one too many administrators lately over the lack of BLP enforcement. This sounds dubious. Ikip (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

aversion to voting is illogical[edit]

A position against voting must presume an impossible alternative. TO WIT: The existence of some irrefutable argument that would stand as ultimate truth to which no "mere opinion" can stand. HOWEVER: Irrefutable argument is relatively rare, except in the eye of the arguer — who, by the laws of optics, may well be nearsighted, if not blind. I.E. Plato (student of Socrates) vs Cicero.

  • Socrates' logic was so persuasive, the votes for his death outnumbered votes for his guilt — which despite what one might think is not an argument against voting, but rather against the idea that your logic is superior to your fellow citizens.
  • Cicero's rhetoric was useless when the emperor sent troops to chop him up and p** on him.

I.E., Unless Jimbo orders you chopped up and p**d on, voting is the way a community clearly aggregates its opinion. Rather than by shouting "if you'll only listen to everything I have to say, you cannot help but agree with my irrefutable logic."

I.E., The idea that voting is bad, is illogical; but, of course, a good faith error. On with the vote! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Consensus Time[edit]

I've flicked the 'wiki tech' mailing list a notification of the above, because it seems to me that this is clear enough, with strong enough support to warrant flicking the switch. If I could work out how to link directly to my message, I would - but basically I've asked the technical folk to have a look at the proposal and Poll again, and if they concur that support is such that the extension can be enabled, to do so. We'll see how that goes :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current count is 152/27/4, which is 83% supporting the proposal. I think Erik said the bar to pass was 67%. MBisanz talk 05:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... we have many things to work out before the technical implementation, see Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions#Post-poll discussions. Cenarium (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the time frame for that to take place? 219.90.243.174 (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is almost certainly not going to change, but I guess I would support keeping this open for a full two weeks as suggested in the top section. Not a huge deal, but may as well let more votes trickle in and, more importantly, give more folks a chance to become aware this is being discussed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, whilst I support the proposal and consensus is unlikely to change. If the vote is was meant to last 2 weeks, IT LASTS 2 WEEKS. No if buts or maybes on that one. Privatemusings please direct yourself to WP:TROUT (jk) for being a bull at a gate, you should have waited the entire 2 weeks before the email was sent.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Privatemusings, the poll was opened without a clear time frame for its closure. This fits in with the proposal itself: it is, after all, a poll on a proposal that has not yet been worked out. Thehalfone (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We were also going to get a watchlist notice up about this. That can be suggested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. Would anyone mind if I open a discussion there have the watchlist notice up for a week or so? There are implementation details to work out anyway, so there is no hurry to close this early. If you want to speed this up, get over to /Trial and /Implementation and help out. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ah, well turns out (being an idiot) I'd forgotten to subscribe to the list so I don't think the message got through. I've forwarded it on regardless, and hope the switch can be flicked :-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please forward there that we need to clear up and agree on some technical and policy aspects before turning on the implementation, I think it will be done by the second part of April.
Too late for a watchlist notice, that wouldn't be fair to add it when it's already at 172/33. The discussion and poll at the end of the trial on the continuation of the implementation will have to go there tough. The trial and implementation discussion will be advertized as soon as the poll ends. I don't see much need in continuing the poll now that the consensus is strong and clear after almost two weeks. Cenarium (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a 'bug' is submitted! - I don't expect it'll get flicked on immediately, Cenarium - it's my experience that these things can take a surprising amount of time. However, I hope flagged revisions will be on before very long, and we can dip our toes in...... Privatemusings (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can wait another two days for the poll to be over... –Drilnoth (T • C) 20:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the devs want to have their Berlin conference first then do big splashy things like flagged revs on en:wp. So the bug is technically two days early, but that's not actually a problem - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No point to open a bug if the devs don't know what they have to turn on, so marked as LATER. The implementation details are not completed yet, they will be provided when agreed upon. And as I said some policy and trial conduct aspects need to be discussed before requesting implementation. Privatemusings, avoid screwing up the trial with unconsidered hasty actions, please. Cenarium (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

< you've done some fantastic work in helping this forward, Cenarium, and I for one appreciate it - my feeling is that this extension is urgently necessary (for a variety of reasons), and further, that it's been a long time coming. The trial and implementation pages seem in reasonable shape to me, but I'll try and help out where poss. If you'd enjoy being the submitter of the bug which flicks the switch, then by all means delete / remove my request, and when you feel the time is right, submit another (I'd strongly support this co-inciding with the dev.s getting back from their conflab in berlin :-) - just please please please make sure this extension gets enabled asap ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll try to hurry up the discussions on this. I don't know of a way to withdraw a bug request, and it's the oldest one that has priority on duplicates I think. But really, this would have only been for personal gratification, that I can find elsewhere, so nothing important. Cenarium (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


NOTE: Consensus does NOT DEPEND ON HASHING OUT TECHNICAL NITTY GRITTY, before anyone tries to play such a gauche card. Support is support, the end. Nitty gritty can be sorted out after, if a binding decision is made per Erik. rootology (C)(T) 14:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the way I read it there is very little nitty gritty to work out. I say, fire it up and work out the kinks during this trial. If we decide then that policy changes are needed for smooth implementation of a broader program, we have time to do them. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one/two-day watchlist notice?[edit]

I'm not sure why the Watchlist notice wasn't up immediately. I voted against FR in January and would have again right away if I knew about this poll, which I didn't. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I added the subtopic over Hallows' Wraith) Yes, I've been wondering what happened. Why's this showing up on watchlist with no time left to study the proposal? Proofreader77 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems with the watchlist notice is that it has a tendency to invite people with strong prejudice who do not bother to read the proposal and think and vote right away based on gut feeling. This has happend even without the advertisement on watchlist details, both on supporter and opposer side. For example, as a oppose reason, it's understandable if the proposal is too complicated since there is so many details that needs to be worked out or the proposal will end up doing nothing productive because the scope is too narrow, etc. But, saying that the proposal is restricting anon editors right's is clearly a sign of not reading the proposal and thinking about the implications of it. This poll has been on WP:CENT, so it should be fairly obvious if you are type of person who keeps track of wikipedia proposals reguarly. 山本一郎 (会話) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this falls under WP:CANVAS. Those of us interested in policy or know someone who is learn about the poll and others don't. As one could argue this is a poll leading down a path of disenfranchisement of those more "normal" users, the lack of a watchlist notification is a real problem and may put into question the results of the poll. Do we really think less people care about this than last time? Or were they just unaware? Hobit (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about one thing, this poll produced abosolutely no result whatsoever, I think this should be implemented through discussion/revision of the proposal rather than votes, like how PROD was implemented. I can say with confidence that more than half of the people here are not voting on the same proposal, which explains that most of the arguments don't even relate to this proposal because people are arguing completely different things. 山本一郎 (会話) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the 23rd of January a poll on an implementation of closes. It had been open for a month and placed on the watchlist. It showed that while admins were strongly in favour, other users were fairly evenly split. Some weeks later there is a new poll on a different implementation of the same software. It lasts only two weeks, isn't added to the watchlist (or only by mistake and for a couple of days), isn't in fact linked to from the pages describing this implementation for half of this time. Result: much less participation and a strong majority for going ahead. While the difference in result could be due to the fact it is a different implementation, it could also be because this poll was not so widely known and difficult to find. If we find, as I fear, that the "for" votes in this poll and the last poll have a strong correlation and the same with the "oppose" votes - but with many missing. I think we will have to conclude that many of those "opposers" have been disenfranchised. Thehalfone (talk) 11:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those who had opposed the previous poll and !voted here support this poll, check yourself: 1, 2, even some of the strongest previous opposers. Flagged protection is to 'classic' flagged revisions what is semi-protection to banning anonymous editing, the results are not surprising. It has been linked from WP:CENT, village pumps, etc, watchlist notices are less used those days. Cenarium (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm counting right, most of those who !voted last time didn't show up here. I think 600+ votes last time and 300+ votes this time. And watchlist notices are still used (the datelinking had one and is pretty clearly less important this this). Hobit (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The date linking issue is blown out of proportion indeed, but the vast majority of discussions are not there, and many are more important than this proposal, that is only a trial. But I said "Most of those who had opposed the previous poll and !voted here support this poll". Cenarium (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you did. A valid point, but I still think this didn't reach a great percentage of folks who would be interested and those it didn't reach may well have very different opinions than those it did. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick questions by watchlist-notified latecomers[edit]

  • Will rollbackers automatically be added to reviewer group (for the trial)? (Excuse my asking rather than interpreting, April 1 is soon upon us) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(found it/not yet determined): "If this proposal is adopted, requirements for autopromotion to reviewer status would be determined later by the community." Proofreader77 (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on more exact implementation of the proposal for the trial can be found at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Trial and Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Implementation, where discussion is currently open. –Drilnoth (T • C) 12:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the notice?[edit]

I voted against this several months ago and did not see any notice this was being discussed again. Why was this not publicized more effectively? I only found out about it via the Signpost, which was published today. I watch many Flagged revisions-related articles and saw no notice of such a discussion on any of them. Was it so that only those in favor of such a change to Wikipedia would know such a discussion was being proposed? The relatively small number of voters, and the tilt in favor of implementing it seems to indicate this. This is highly problematic and most undemocratic. Badagnani (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I was shocked to read recent news articles about flagged revs and see that 80% were in favor, when I had clearly remembered voting in a poll nowhere near that favorable to flagged revs. Well, I guess this being a new poll explains it...
Not to mention, only ~400 votes for something as permanent, entire-wiki-affecting, and antithetical to 8 years of open editing? That seems a little low to me. --Gwern (contribs) 00:00 26 August 2009 (GMT)
There were notices all over flaggedrevs-related pages, the village pumps and WP:CENT. You can't always notice everything though. This poll is about a two-month trial detailled at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, which is not classic flagged revs at all, and nothing else. So this is not pemrnanent, not entire wiki-affecting, and not antithetical to open editing since we replace protection (can't edit at all) with flagged protection (can edit, visible when flagged), and the global patrolled revisions are entirely passive. Cenarium (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the four month difference, flagged revisions in not the same as flagged protection and patrolled revisions, for Badagnani (four months too late), and for Gwern, the poll was included as a dismissable notice when users logged on for the period the poll was running, which would have been March 17 to April 1. It was also posted at various other forums. If you look at the main project page you will see that the trial will be narrowly applied and once over will be analysed to determine if it should be rolled out across the whole of WP. And bare in mind that although voting may be evil, wikipedia is not a democracy, even if a thousand editors opposed this it could have still been implemented. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were notices all over - you mean, the notices that looked exactly like the ones for Wikipedia talk:Flagged revisions/Trial/Votes (which you'll notice I did see and act upon)? I checked one random screen of the original poll's oppose votes and notice that a good third of them simply don't show up in the second vote. How many of them were like me, I wonder, in not realizing there was a second poll? (I guess flagged supporters didn't like their only 59% support and decided to keep modifying and polling until the numbers finally came out right.)
As for them not being exactly the same, yes, that is a tremendously meaningful distinction; I have seen the light and will be voting for it! Give me a break. Flagged revisions is flagged revisions, whatever banner it may fly under or how initially restricted it may be. I remember how semiprotection was approved under the pretense that it would only ever be used to replace full protection, yet I routinely see pages semiprotected that wouldn't've been full-protected. And as for the trial being permanent, well, you'll pardon my skepticism inasmuch as I was around for Seigenthaler; the temporary state of emergency has lasted a good 3 years now. And did the study the Foundation promised us ever materialize? No, of course not. I place as little trust in these similar promises of the results being 'analysed'... --Gwern (contribs) 03:21 26 August 2009 (GMT)
I do share some of your concerns. There's been no watchlist notice for this poll. But at the end of the trial period, we'll discuss and decide on whether to adopt the implementation and it'll be massively advertised. If available at that time, we could even use a talknotice or a (dismissible if possible) global editnotice. Cenarium (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes no sense is that a test has been approved, but what is being tested has yet to be defined. It will be shameful but not surprising if the test starts before there's a defined and operational reviewer right granting process. That is putting the cart before the horse; I hope the community decides not to do this ass-backwards. [3] --Elvey (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. My vote would have been against it if I have know about the poll. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what was and was not approved[edit]

the actual proposal is not the one I thought I was voting to support. I thought I approving a trial of a single version of flagged protection on selected pages; I find instead from Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions that I have voted to approve a trial of three additional levels of protection with totally different effects patrolled by different classes of users on variously sleected pages. This is against all principles of a rational trial, to make three separate changes at once. I cannot imagine explain the simultaneous existence of 6 different classes of articles to new users--I am not sure I understand the distinction myself. A trial of a single would make more sense, and I urge the community to reconsider. Perhaps nobody should be allowed to vote to approve the full trial unless they can explain accurately the various possibilities without looking at the text. I think I know how I am going to handle this: I will ignore the existence of the feature entirely,& edit in my usual & I hope responsible way; what is or is not visible in those articles covered by the system can be the concern of those who think they do understand. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope, deployment, and removal[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Pending changes#Scope, deployment, and removal -- verdy_p (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_protection_and_patrolled_revisions/Poll&oldid=1137413787"