Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal

message: This proposal will make abusive socks harder to detect. It will be trivial to get around the requirements and get the requested number of good edits in 10 minutes (or less if using automation). Now the sock has 10 edits to articles unrelated to his topic of interest and starts editing it. When we think about blocking the person, we now have to check all these edits, assume they were bad faith attempts to get around the editing restriction, and then block for sockpuppetry. With the classic autoconfirmed, we can block straight away. Kusma (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what exactly does that immediate block accomplish? —Cryptic 09:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It autoblocks the IP. My point was that we don't ask all puppeteers to cover their tracks better. Kusma (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IP autoblocks last only 24 hours, so we have to reassess for sockpuppetry every day for every sufficiently dedicated puppetry anyway.  (More for those without fixed ips; for these, blocking them hurts us more than it hurts them, precisely because of the work needed to reassess their next incarnation.)  If we require thirty or fifty edits before being confirmed, then the encyclopedia either gets thirty/fifty good edits, or we have enough time to block and reset their clock before they come back to the article they were disrupting. —Cryptic 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know these are good edits? You can make 50 whitespace edits with a bot and nobody will even notice. Kusma (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends whether our sockpuppeteers have the technical competence required to write a bot, which isn't very likely due to the amount of effort involved - i.e. downloading the framework, compiler (if required), learning the language, figuring out how to use the framework, writing the program and compilation/testing (if required). I'd go as far as saying that at least 99% of vandals can't be stuffed - Pywikipedia's been around for ages and I've only seen a couple of incidents of automated vandalism. MER-C 09:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On abusive socks 

message: Another question: Will this be applicable to accounts registered before the implement date (if there is one) which are older than four days, yet have not made n (mainspace) edits? MER-C 11:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as currently written.  (For reference, the relevant bit of code is getEffectiveGroups() in User.php.) —Cryptic 11:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would that be important, anyway? >Radiant< 13:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some random thoughts about preventing previously unknown sleeper socks from circumventing the rule. For example I remember a Willy on Wheels sock that had not edited for two years before commencing move vandalism, though the username escapes me. MER-C 08:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if inactive currently auto-confirmed accounts remain auto-confirmed, this should help us solve more problems than it creates. There is a small problem which may still be used to try and bypass the edit requirement before we implement it, but I don't think it will be a serious probelm. Od Mishehu 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retroactivity 

message: *Resounds of the Wikipedia:Quasi-protection policy, the problem with that being that it woudl be too much work.  If it's autoconfirmed, though, it would be no problem. hbdragon88 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Kusma; any automated process can be gamed, and any increase in threshold will keep away some number of good editors. Any manual process will be too labor-intensive and require a presumption of bad-faith (remember, the disabling of page creation by anons was originally supposed to be an experiment). Now I can't even make a needed redirect while logged out. Try logging out and editing as an IP for a while, and observe how much harder it has already gotten for good-faith editors to operate here. --nae'blis 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: blis, See my responses to objections. All this proposal is is requiring that new editors be required to make a minimum of 30 edits in addition to the 4 day waiting period before they can edit semi-protected articles. This would NOT affect anon IP editors at all since they can't edit semi-protected articles to begin with. All it would do is make it a little more difficult for vandals to vandalize semi-protected pages and would make wikipedia MORE OPEN to good faith established editors in preventing many articles from being on indefinite full protection.Wikidudeman (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One question which hasn't been addressed yet, is about talk-page bots (such as archiving bots), given that some talk pages are both active and semi-protected. In order to get around the problem, I think taht any approved bot (already requires beaurocrat involvement) should automatically be auto-confirmed. Od Mishehu 12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: Obviously this isn't going to solve 100% of problems. Yes some vandals will still be able to get around this, and it's not perfect in any way. All that we're trying to do is improve on what we have now, which is just a 4 day wait and nothing else. I also expected the debate between stopping vandals and discouraging newbies, so the idea is to find a compromise between the two (in the number of edits). Again, this will not solve all problems, but sometimes you need to fix something that's not working (which is semi protection right now).
Anyways, the number I was originally thinking of was around 10-15 edits, because it is still a fair few for vandals to do, and it's not an unreasonable number that will discourage newbies from trying. Comments? -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important aspect to consider is 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.Wikidudeman (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A middle ground? 

message: I feel this may be a bad idea, as it could encourage elitism, and take away the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" theory. It could start off the "I've-got-more-edits-than-you" theory.
Isn't it better to be autoconfirmed via number of days rather than edits??
Articles  shouldn't  be semi-protected indefinitely, as that locks out good faith new editors and anons, but we should be making more use of expiry-timed semi-protection, rather than just protecting pages as:
* ,     (UTC) 18:16 Admin protected Volkswagen Passat (spamming from new users) [edit=autoconfirmed move=autoconfirmed] 
This proposal is a controversial one I feel, and you might think my opinion is controversial, but it's true that this proposal will spark a lot of debate - it's like the desysopping inactive admins one. --SunStar Net talk 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now there are tons of articles on indefinite total protection. That's more restrictive than anything this new implementation would result in. With this implemented anon editors who think an article should be fixed could just request the change on the articles talk page and an established editor can make the changes within a few seconds without a problem. This would actually make wikipedia LESS restrictive. With this implemented we can decrease the number of fully protected articles thus making wikipedia as a whole less restrictive.Wikidudeman (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually think timed semiprotection hurts us more than it helps - while it prevents administrators from forgetting to remove the semiprotection, it still prevents good faith newbies from editing the article in question, it lets the vandal know exactly when he should come back and piss on our project some more, and if it's longer than four days, it immediately tells the vandal that he's better off creating a sleeper then and there instead of trying to wait it out as an anon.  If the semiprotection is untimed, the vandal is more likely to get bored when he comes back and tries to edit the article repeatedly over the next few days. —Cryptic 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that there is anything controversial about this proposal, as far as whether it will encourage elitism or detract from the "anyone can edit" idea.  This is just a difference in the autoconfirmed level.  This is no more elitist than the semi-protection we have now, and since this will only affect semi-protected articles (already restricted to users with accounts older than 4 days), it won't be any worse in the "anyone can edit" area. -- Renesis (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cryptic, That is true, however by making it more difficult for vandals to vandalize semi-protected articles and giving new users a chance to get in a few edits before actually being able to edit semi protected articles (which they should be doing to begin with) we improve Wikipedia drastically. Moreover, If a new user wants to see something changed it's as easy as requesting it on the talk page which is A LOT easier than going through the process of requesting an edit be made to a fully protected article.Wikidudeman (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is controversial... 

message: It seems to be like there is a consensus. How do we go about making this into an actual Wikipedia process? Wikidudeman (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just going to repost it to the mailing list so people can come here and talk more, then maybe a straw poll this weekend (I just need to wait a couple of days to get re-autoconfirmed on the list, because mail from non-subscribers is help for moderation and mine's been help for the last week). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Updates would be great. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It seems like there is a consensus... 

message: The pros and cons of this proposal:
Pros
* Stops vandalism - may deter run-of-the-mill vandals, but not really determined ones
* Encourages people to start contributing 
* May stop sleeper accounts.
Cons
* Not useful Wikimedia-wide, e.g on Commons etc.
* Will not deter spammers/spambots
* Semi-protection is effective most of the time.
* Long-term vandals may eventually get bored of semi-protection (which has worked on articles like George W. Bush and Penis)
I would say this proposal is an OK idea, but the current solution of waiting 4 days seems OK for now... --SunStar Net talk 17:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it will be useful on Commons or not. Why won't it deter spambots? The bots will have to make the 30 edits and wait 4 days as well as anyone else. Long term vandals will get bored of attempting to vandalize semi-protection? That's a good thing. Then they vandalize normal articles and get banned quickly and thus we have less indefinitely fully protected articles on our hands such as Brock Lesnar which makes wikipedia more open. Some of your "CONS" might be valid but most aren't, moreover, there are a lot more PRO's listed above. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and disadvantages 

message: Is there any news on this? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: I would appreciate if someone tried to get this back out there by posting it somewhere for more people to comment on. It seems to have gotten a consensus in support. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RFC perhaps?  I only happened on it because of the Brock Lesnar article recently and had never heard of it before that.  So far, the oppose reasoning has been quite unconvincing to me.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think I've addressed all of the oppositions very concisely. Add it to RFC and post a link here for me. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh.  Who was this addressed to?  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I was asking if you could add it to WP:RFC.  Wikidudeman (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: ...first, it needs a concrete proposal rather than armwaving. I've picked an arbitrary number of edits for that. I am aware that it's as arbitrary as any other number, but it should be a reasonable compromise, so please don't replace it with another just-as-arbitrary number for arbitrary reasons, ok? Second, it needs some advertising; perhaps we should drop a line on the village pump et al. No, I don't intent to turn this into yet another pointless vote, but just so people are aware. Give that a week or two, then contact the devs. >Radiant< 09:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 20 edits seems like a reasonable number. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 20 edits. Sounds like a fair compromise between scaring away newbies and discouraging vandals (which was the reason that I originally brought this up). Although I think that many people wouldn't want to see this implemented without at least a straw poll (like a week long or something). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My recommendation: Create a page Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll and take the straw poll directly to the village pump.--PrestonH 04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Wikidudeman (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this needs... 

message: Has anyone spoken to a dev yet about this? >Radiant< 09:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that this has attained a consensus? Kamryn · Talk 09:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've filled a request at buzilla (bugzilla:10864). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: Remember Wikipedia:Delete unused username after 90 days?? Well, this is a repeat of that, it won't happen. And it won't work for Wikipedia anyway. Gotcha there. --Bolusball200 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #1, the devs already have this programed in and it may take nothing more than a setting in localsettings.php. DUU was rejected by the Brion (a dev) while I have confirmation from several devs that this is possible. So will you be a little less arrogant and tell us why instead of just a very childish "fail"? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, please this proposal seems in line with the spirit of WP:CREEP.  As in, we are adding more hurdles.  I'm applying that discussion of policy loosely here. Navou  banter  22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no possible measure we can implement that will prevent all autoconfirmed vandalism. This would, however, serve the purpose of making it harder for people to create huge farms of new accounts, and then go on a vandalism spree four days later. Some prevention is better than none. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but at what cost.  I've quoted a very important principle above. Navou  banter  22:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spirit of WP:CREEP is that rules which heavily restrict good things for the sake of preventing a few bad things are bad. Preventing sleeper accounts from all but the most determined vandals is quite a bit of prevention, which is not outweighed by people with less than 20 contributions being able to edit semiprotected pages. -Amarkov moo! 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm speaking of the foundation principle above. Navou  banter  19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:CREEP is making admins fill out forums to speedy delete pages or creating Wikipedia:Protection for Discussion instead of just using WP:RPP and have it done quickly. This has nothing to do with WP:CREEP. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've applied the spirit of creep here, not the most literal meaning. Navou  banter  19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you don't understand the spirit of CREEP. Will you even explain instead of hiding behind it? Saying this is instruction creep, say why. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your misunderstanding instruction creep. It means hurdles that are demanded for the sake of (we haven't figured out why for some yet, like people who want Wikipedia:Protection for Discussion because they don't trust that admins make good enough decisions on their own). It has nothing to do with what pace or weather or not it's transparent. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand it fine.  Lets delete instruction creep, and make it security creep.  You are effectively causing a new editor to have to do something to use all features.  A edit based autoconfirm does that.  It will compel participation in order to create new and move.  This is not correct, and I don't think its inline with the foundation principle I quoted above in another header.  It is creepish.  Respectfully, Navou  banter  01:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? I'd like it more if we get people to actually come in and edit and do something more useful than make a page about themselves, it gets speedy deleted, and they leave. Do you want us to stop speedy deletions too now because they infringe on WP:BITE? -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear your meaning.  However I want to be.  Could you clarify how the speedy deletions and WP:BITE apply here?  Personally I don't see CAT:CSD as a BITE issue, if done properly.  Help me understand what you mean.
I'd love it if editors would provide useful content.  I don't mind the test edit that has to get speedy deleted, if that is in fact a gateway to useful contributions.  It is a wiki. Navou  banter  00:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you said It will compel participation in order to create new and move. I don't see anything wrong with that. Sometimes you have to earn the privileges given to you. Before annons could create pages, then it was changes so only users can (due to blp et all). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad idea 

message: It appears that consensus has not been reached by a wide audience and is unlikely to do so.  Mark as rejected? Navou  banter  19:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been sent to the devs. And I don't think it doesn't have consensus. Several user believe it has enough right now, while only a few (including yourself) disagree. Proposals aren't rejected because 2 people are in opposition. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted a few places so that this can get wider audience.  Thanks, Navou  banter  19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like more than two folks are in nonsupport.  Also, I'm not counting numbers, just reading the discussion.  I did take a glance a the straw poll, it does however, have less weight in a consensus building discussion.  However, I'm not going to be the best to determine consensus here, I am involved in the discussion, a disclosure I should have made in my above comment.  Regards, Navou  banter  20:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I did also make a comment about the foundation principles in the above volunteer heading. Navou  banter  20:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it really doesn't have consensus. I hope the devs look here and see that. Proposals aren't passed because three people support it. Kamryn · Talk 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is "three people support it" necessarily a reason the proposal is bad; it could indicate that people see nothing new to add to the discussion, or don't feel strongly either way, or just haven't seen the proposal, yet. Personally, I'm pleased that it would make it increase the amount of investment and effort needed to build a sockfarm of sleeper accounts, provided that this doesn't become any sort of slippery slope toward more and more restrictions on new editors. Or something along those lines, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How about the points I brought up? Navou  banter  19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should bring this issue to the attention of the developers and let them decide whether or not to implement. This is the only viable approach, simply because the community is unable to force the developers to implement, or not implement, any particular feature. I am sure the devs can reasonably estimate whether this is a good idea and whether there is sufficient consensus here. >Radiant< 10:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, the community will discuss this, and if the developers want to give some technical (or otherwise) input, thats fine.  The decision to code it is up to the developers.  The decision on implementation, rests with the community.  I would like see any input they have.  Navou  banter  12:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the bug report, you'll notice that Rob Church changed the name to Set $wgAutoconfirmCount to 20 for English Wikipedia, which must mean that they've already coded it and just need to turn the option on or not. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The gain consensus to turn it on. Regards, Navou  banter  21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: It's short and simple.  The point is it won't knock off the determined vandals, but it may knock off the lazy ones, who are just hitting Wikipedia because it's quick and easy.  This may give a bit of a breather patrolling for vandalism, giving them more time to deal with the determined vandals.  The negative responses here appear more reactionary to something new, which is common on Wikipedia, than directed to reasons that such a small increase in the autoconfirm wouldn't work.  I ask people to reconsider this as something designed just to give a little breather, and discourage some of the more immediate-gratification-needed vandals, while not doing anything deep to discourage new editors who are here to edit.  KP Botany 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating sleeper accounts and waiting for them to mature doesn't seem lazy. ←BenB4 04:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a lot lazier than having to make 20 contributions on every single one of them. -Amarkov moo! 04:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is, and the proposal is not designed to, nor would it, deter the determined vandal, as I said.  KP Botany 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? People are still going to vandalise. Just perhaps not semi-protected pages. Kamryn · Talk 09:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really what?  Yes, people will still vandalize, the only thing to prevent that is to make this not Wiki.  KP Botany 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. At WP:PP I've seen many pages protected from banned users that have an interest in trying to edit it again, having to make 20 other edits for each sock without getting blocked (they must be constructive) is a pain, not to mention the good edits only help. Also, by not saying "get 20 edits" in the UI, it acts as WP:BEANS, and should deter some basic vandals too. The determined, WP-familiar "penis" vandal and Bonaparte of course will just do things to get past the edit limits. Voice-of-All 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good idea to me. Tim Vickers 01:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I like it 

message: The existing proposal is good but far from perfect.  I think we can do better.
The problem is repeat sockpuppets who create sleeper accounts.
The best solution would be to neuter the sleeper accounts without impacting other users.
If we can identify sleeper accounts and "reset the clock" on them, that should annoy the puppet-masters enough to discourage their use.
Proposal:
For now, adopt the proposed change.  It's not very hard.
In the future, find a way to quickly identify such sockpuppet accounts and either block them outright, reset their clock to "0 days old," or mark them as permanently non-confirmed until the owner emails an administrator and asks for confirmation.
A quick way to identify sock puppet accounts might be to search all accounts that share an IP address or range with blocked vandals, discard those from widely-shared IP addresses, discard those with a sufficiently long edit history, say, a total of 3+ edits in mainspace with at least 1 edit on each of 3 different days, then tag what's left as suspected sockpuppets.  Of course this method, as with any other method, will generate false positives and false negatives.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people who have that power are the checkusers. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I had in mind can be semi-automated or even completely automated.  Complete automation is undesirable due to false positives.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good enough, maybe this is better 

message: This has been rejected as WONTFIX . I've already spent quite a bit on this, so if anyone else wants to take this somewhere be my guest, but I'm officially done with this. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: The devs have decided to ignore the will of the community and have reclosed bug 14191 despite protests. They have requested that we start the whole process over again in order to establish "unequivocal consensus". To that end, here is the new poll. Please express your opinion "unequivocally" there. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll