Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions, The proposal has gone live, and there's a poll. Options

[LaraLove]

Here is the proposal and here is the poll.

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

[Alex]

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

Three so far. A couple misunderstanding the proposal completely. No surprises there.

[One]

"During the trial, semi flagged protection is intended to be used with the same requirements as for semi-protection, and full flagged protection (see below), with the same requirements as for full-protection"

Can't wait until after the trial...

[SirFozzie]

Won't be breaking my sabbatical to "support" this. Doesn't go nearly far enough.

[LaraLove]

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

Three so far. A couple misunderstanding the proposal completely. No surprises there.

The stupidity displayed by some people on this project just blows my mind.

[CharlotteWebb]

Here is the proposal and here is the poll.

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

I think there will be some support votes based on the same misunderstanding. While I think this would be pretty useless in the whole scope of things I'll probably support it on a foot-in-the-door basis unless someone gives me a good reason not to.
If nothing else it should make certain templates easier to work on and help persuade people that flaggedrevs aren't actually the devil. Of course we'd want to migrate (like the fog, on little cat feet) toward more robust settings.
This could work as a bait-and-switch ploy. I mean if most people don't understand the jargon anyway...

[One]

I think there will be some support votes based on the same misunderstanding. While I think this would be pretty useless in the whole scope of things I'll probably support it on a foot-in-the-door basis unless someone gives me a good reason not to.

Yeah, me too.

You will be pleased to note that nothing will technologically restrict this to BLPs. With the technology in place, the only thing to do is expand the criteria later on.

[LaraLove]

Well, as I noted to MZMcBride when he linked me to this, I'm opposed to auto-confirmed users being reviewers, but as a trial, I'd like to see anything that is progress toward protecting BLPs.

[CharlotteWebb]

Well, as I noted to MZMcBride when he linked me to this, I'm opposed to auto-confirmed users being reviewers, but as a trial, I'd like to see anything that is progress toward protecting BLPs.

Well, not reviewers per se. If I read the tin correctly, edits by autoconfirmed users will simply copy the flagged or unflagged status from the previous revision. So if you approve a certain revision as clean as a whistle and some autoconfirmed account (I mean come on, most people have dozens of these) comes along and vandalizes it, this edit is automatically flagged as "good". This is a big part of why this is useless. I mean if "auto-confirmed" meant trusted, then semi-protection would actually work and we wouldn't need any of this.

I thought this passive flagging (flag one's own edit good only if and only if the previous edit was flagged good) right was going to be reserved for bots, Rich Farmbrough, etc.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb: Tue 17th March 2009, 8:42pm

[Kato]

Mods: Please move this thread to General Discussion

As stated several times previously, and in our forum organization guidelines:

This sub-forum is hidden from Search Engines - again to reduce the "Google footprint" impact on people who are subjects of Wikipedia articles against their will (also referred to here as "BLP victims"). Please note, though, that threads about the BLP issue itself should be posted to the General Discussion forum.

This is quite important, because threads here get markedly less views, and are marginalized by nature of being a sub-forum. Which isn't very helpful for essential WP matters of BLP policy.

[Kevin]

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

Three so far. A couple misunderstanding the proposal completely. No surprises there.

The stupidity displayed by some people on this project just blows my mind.

And you hadn't even seen this yet

"we do, on the whole, too much to protect living subjects"

[EricBarbour]

Okay, folks......

NOW do you see how many complete dingbats are now dedicated Wikipedia editors?
And how much of the volume of this discussion is generated by the dingbats?

It's good that this is getting good support in the vote....I still feel it will go nowhere.
Even if it is implemented, certain bastards will find ways around it.

[Kevin]

Here is the proposal and here is the poll.

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

"This proposal, if implemented, will surely destroy Wikipedia"

Gotta love the well informed voter.

[Dzonatas]

I've already written my view on features like flagged revisions:
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Dzonat..._considerations

If the 'reviewer' bit is not controlled by indiscriminate means, then this kind of feature becomes politicized, unfortunately. The uninformed will complain about the flagged revisions when really they should complain about the discrimination that will occur if politicized.

If the 'reviewer's were from a random pool that changes often, then it would be more indiscriminate.

[Random832]

If the 'reviewer's were from a random pool that changes often, then it would be more indiscriminate.

The reviewers for BLPs need to be people who can actually be accountable for their actions. I'd oppose even giving it to all admins.

[RoscoHead]

Here is the proposal and here is the poll.

Any bids on the number of stupid opposes from the illiterates that don't comprehend this opens editing up more than semi-protection?

"This proposal, if implemented, will surely destroy Wikipedia"

Gotta love the well informed voter.

Indeed. "They need to be gotten OUT OF THE WAY. Or this project is doomed."

Oh, who do I believe??????

[Eva Destruction]

Nobody seems to have spotted this gem:

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)

Where the hell do we find these people?

[EricBarbour]

Where the hell do we find these people?

They find themselves---on-wiki. A fun place for shut-in assholes.
Jahiegel is probably still "unemployed", and probably will remain
so for a long time---given his personality.

But right now we have people in the way who thing 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. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 04:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Attaboy, Larry! You took the red pill! Prepare to be crapped out of the Matrix!

[CharlotteWebb]

oppose, won't do enough good, says one user.

He's probably right but Boris' vote seems similar to the ones Luke, Larry, Kato, etc. were giving me shit for last time this came up. Is it time to rip into him for not supporting partial solutions?

[Lar]

oppose, won't do enough good, says one user.

He's probably right but Boris' vote seems similar to the ones Luke, Larry, Kato, etc. were giving me shit for last time this came up. Is it time to rip into him for not supporting partial solutions?

After initially opposing solutions that did not go far enough, I changed my mind and I will support anything that moves even a bit in the right direction.

That said ... w.r.t. your opposition reasons: I'd rather have opposition from someone that thinks it doesn't go far enough than from someone who thinks it goes too far or that there is no problem at all or that LPs don't deserve any consideration whatever, or very little.