The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

I'm creating this straw poll to get a determination of the level of support for Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal. Please read the proposal carefully as well as the talk page to understand the responses to the arguments against the proposal. If you have any objections to the proposal then please be sure to read the talk page to see if your objections have already been brought up and addressed. If they haven't then please bring them up on the talk page again and if the responses to your objection don't convince you, then you should oppose. Please sign your name under "Support" or "Oppose" the proposal. Please remember that this is not a vote and that discussing oppositions to the proposal on the talk page of the proposal is ideal prior to making oppositions. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks.[reply]

Support[edit]

1. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. PrestonH 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Seems to have no major drawbacks. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I support the proposal as written. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Haven't heard an oppose above that sways me. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   How about 20 edits but sandbox and user talk areas don't count? (If someone designates a discussion area please move this there). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. As written, though I'd also support playing with the number of days/edits to find a happy medium.--Chaser - T 21:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. Anything to make it more difficult. hbdragon88 22:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. A simple step towards rational policy. Where there are true concerns, the talk pages remain available. DGG (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but prefer different limits[edit]

1. I would bump it above 20 ... it needs to be high enough that someone just wanting to vandalize will get bored. I would go with 40. --B 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, I think 40 would be better than 20, and 100 would be better still. IronGargoyle 22:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep in mind that some users will go years before hitting 100. What I would love to see is something like 5 days/20 edits/50 days+edits. In other words, if you become an active user quickly, you get autoconfirmed more quickly ... but a sleeper account with no edits would have to wait over a month. With what we have now, though, if we set it too high, then some sporadic users will never get autoconfirmed. --B 02:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   50 sounds fine too. IronGargoyle 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. At least 50, and four days. Daniel→♦ 22:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Would you support it being 20 for a short time, just to see if it has any effect? We can always easily alter the number later. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. I was originally going to oppose as sleeper sockpuppetry (which is really the only this this will stop) is not much of a problem. However, I don't see any major drawbacks. I would actually prefer a lower limit though. A persistent sockpuppeteer can get the edits in the sandbox, in userspace, and other ways whether the limit is 10, 20, or 50. If they are really committed, I doubt they are above making scripts (they may already be doing it). However, for a casual yet constructive editor making only 1 or 2 edits per day, 20-30 edits may take almost a month to get. Though I would prefer 10 edits, I would be okay with 20, but nothing more. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. 20 mainspace edits would be better, but we still need this. MER-C 08:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Look good. I support 50 edits as well. It's fairly easy to get 20 edits (removing white spaces, ect), and then go off and vandalize. I don't think most vandals would go through the effort to make 50 edits, just to vandalize and then be blocked. ~ Wikihermit 02:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. I would suggest making two different levels of semi-protection, so we will normally just semi-protect the standard way and we can use the modified semiprotection with some number of edits required if it becomes necessary for a given article. JoshuaZ 03:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I would support that if it were possible. The higher semi-protection level could be used in articles with repeat sockpuppet vandalism. As long as we keep it only 2 levels to maintain simplicity. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8. Minimum 20 or 25 edits to the mainspace, 4 days is fine (most times protections don't last much longer than that anyway). Caknuck 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

1. I'm not convinced that it will do anything against vandalism (vandals can just edit the sandbox or revert sockpuppet vandalism), and restriction is to be avoided whenever possible. Vandalism isn't such a problem that we must make such leaps to prevent it, and sockpuppeteers will persist regardless. Though I would not be entirely worried were this effected (not a big leap to make edits), I think that another level of requirements would be pointless and annoying, so I oppose this proposal. Nihiltres^(t.l) 21:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   "Please remember that this is not a vote and that discussing oppositions to the proposal on the talk page of the proposal is ideal prior to making oppositions." Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   So why did you title the sections "Support" and "Oppose"? This is a straw poll.. of course it's a vote. Kamryn · Talk 12:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Ideally I want people who oppose to be willing to change their vote if their objections are addressed. Not just vote and leave. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   What if they are against a policy like this in it's entirety? Kamryn · Talk 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'll oppose this. I'm not in favor of adding additional restrictions to editing the wiki. Time based restriction does not compel participation in order to participate fully, however, edit based restrictions will compel an editor to make the required X edits in order to use all the features on the wiki. This is an all volunteer project, lets keep it that way. I'll not support having an editor make the required X edits to create a new article, or use the move feature. While I do understand the frustration with vandalism, these things will happen, and these things are always easily corrected. Let us find another solution that does not involve an edit based autoconfirmed level. With regards, Navou ^banter 01:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   This will actually increase the openness of Wikipedia by lowering the number of indefinite fully protected articles which no one really bothers to go through the bureaucracy to edit. By adding an edit minimum of around 30 edits this will discourage a good % of vandals and will give new users some experience before editing semi-protected articles in the first place. Not only that, It will allow the rest of us to edit articles and not have them fully protected forever due to one single vandal.

3. Not needed... current semi-protection works in the vast majority of situations. Maybe though if there was a way to have another level of semi-protection, with this minimum post level, in between current semi-protection and full protection. --W.marsh 03:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   There's another reason to do this other than just s-protection - Special:Contributions/newbies is also tied to this number ... sleepers don't show up on there, but if we make this change, they would. --B 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Couldn't that be accomplished through software without a draconian restriction on letting new editors edit articles they're interested in? --W.marsh 13:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be all for that ... to me, the s-protection issue isn't that big of a deal - if it is s-protected, that means people are already watching it for vandalism ... but the newbie contribution list is a HUGE issue. My watchlist mostly consists of football, political, and religious articles - all huge vandalism targets - and I frequently see unreverted vandalism from sleepers that might have been caught if it they were on the newbie list. --B 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   The semi-protection is a huge deal... 50 edits is a lot when all you make are content edits (as new users tend to do). It took me a month to get my first 50 edits... and that's probably faster than usual. We'd either have to use semi-protection much more sparingly, or create a very frustrating barrier to new users. --W.marsh 19:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. The problem this is attempting to solve doesn't actually seem to be very serious, certainly not enough to justify further encroachment on open editing. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   It's quite serious. Numerous articles are indefinitely fully protected because of repeat abuse sock puppet vandalism. This prevents ANYONE from editing those articles. This proposal would make more articles editable by making semi-protected strong enough to slow down repeat sockpuppet vandals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Articles are only f-protected because of edit wars etc. 50 edits is a trivial barrier for a determined sockpuppet (and they probably are determined if they are evading bans to edit war). I think the only people we will be keeping away here is the newbie editors. But then, not that many articles are s-protected either, so it's not as if either way it will make a huge impact. Is there a 'dont care' section?Kamryn · Talk 06:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

1. I'd like to see some empirical evidence: diffs, at least, but preferably numbers, that might give us some sense of how much of a problem these "sleeper accounts" really are. Chick Bowen 03:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Take a look at the Brock Lesnar article. It has been fully protected almost constantly the past several months. This is all because of a single repeat vandal who has a few administrators re-protecting the article a few hours after each time it's protection time expires. The article is in bad shape and can never be updated unless people manually request edits, which is very tedious. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Jim Clark was similarly held hostage last year by various socks listed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pflanzgarten before Essjay (talk · contribs) took a chance and did a /16 range block. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not sure if that's possible with Brock Lesnar or not. It's been held hostage for quite a while now. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Any other examples? Kamryn · Talk 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.