Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Straw Poll

message: :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)
replies: text: 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.
It's not in fact necessary to vote on this (nor does it help). Instead, someone should speak to the Developers on this (via WP:BUG, their mailing list, or their IRC channel) to get them to change the limit. The key to convincing the Devs is a good argument (as given on this page, methinks), not a popularity vote. >Radiant< 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe this is a vote. I have removed the template.  Navou  banter  12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it is a WP:POLL, so what is your point? Like I said this won't serve any purpose, and as has been pointed out in the previous paragraph it is already based on misinformation. >Radiant< 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't remove the template again, however, I strongly encourage you to do so.  There is no harm in guageing consensus.  The developers don't make the decision to change limits, the community does.  I believe your argument is flawed in this sense.  Navou  banter  13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, the developers make that decision. There are several reasons why this poll won't help, the Bicycle Shed Effect being one of them, Wikipedia not being a democracy for another. Besides, we already have an extensive consensus gauged by the discussion here. Since we had no problems gauging consensus earlier, what purpose is served by counting votes? >Radiant< 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large difference between voting and polling.  This proposal will not be determined by this poll, and I don't think (assumption on my part) anyone expects that it will, however, it is a very useful tool to gauge the condition of the ongoing discussion. From your edits, I think there is a misunderstanding of consensus, discussion, polling, and voting.  I could be wrong about your edits here also, I don't like to assume.  Regards, Navou  banter  13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An even better tool of gauging the condition of the ongoing discussion is reading through that discussion, rather than asking people to pigeonhole or rubberstamp it. >Radiant< 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Radiant! here.  This is not the way to handle it.  Ral315 » 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: #Wikidudeman (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #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)
thread_title: Support, but prefer different limits

message: #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)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #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)
replies: text: 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.</div>
It's not in fact necessary to vote on this (nor does it help). Instead, someone should speak to the Developers on this (via WP:BUG, their mailing list, or their IRC channel) to get them to change the limit. The key to convincing the Devs is a good argument (as given on this page, methinks), not a popularity vote. >Radiant< 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not believe this is a vote. I have removed the template.  Navou  banter  12:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it is a WP:POLL, so what is your point? Like I said this won't serve any purpose, and as has been pointed out in the previous paragraph it is already based on misinformation. >Radiant< 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't remove the template again, however, I strongly encourage you to do so.  There is no harm in guageing consensus.  The developers don't make the decision to change limits, the community does.  I believe your argument is flawed in this sense.  Navou  banter  13:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, the developers make that decision. There are several reasons why this poll won't help, the Bicycle Shed Effect being one of them, Wikipedia not being a democracy for another. Besides, we already have an extensive consensus gauged by the discussion here. Since we had no problems gauging consensus earlier, what purpose is served by counting votes? >Radiant< 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a large difference between voting and polling.  This proposal will not be determined by this poll, and I don't think (assumption on my part) anyone expects that it will, however, it is a very useful tool to gauge the condition of the ongoing discussion. From your edits, I think there is a misunderstanding of consensus, discussion, polling, and voting.  I could be wrong about your edits here also, I don't like to assume.  Regards, Navou  banter  13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An even better tool of gauging the condition of the ongoing discussion is reading through that discussion, rather than asking people to pigeonhole or rubberstamp it. >Radiant< 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Radiant! here.  This is not the way to handle it.  Ral315 » 03:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral