Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions

Implementation

Section link  · Implementation subpage

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Implementation.

Restructuring this set of articles

There's a lot of work to be done on this set of articles. Here's what I think needs to happen, and would love some help in actually making it happen:

• The template should purely be for Flagged Protection (or rather, whatever name comes up in the naming discussion
• The navigation template should be: "Trial · Terminology · Reviewing guideline · Testing". Everything else should probably find a new home somewhere (perhaps archived)
• The more complicated proposals for permission schemes should be preserved, but they shouldn't be front and center. The permission proposal at Wikipedia:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions/Trial is the one that should be displayed most prominently at this point.

I'll hopefully get to this next week, but would love it if someone beat me to the punch on this. -- RobLa (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable to modify the trial completely in a way that the community repeatedly rejected and not even informing of it. I am going to open a request for comment immediately. Cenarium (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

First, for the record, I notified the community on May 14. However, the most controversial change has been undone, so I'm hoping we can move on.

Now, since we're one week away from deployment, these pages still aren't very close to being ready. Is there anyone ready to take the lead on paring these down to a sensible subset, and reworking the terminology? I may do it if no one steps in. -- RobLa (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on flagged revisions trial

I have created a request for comment on the flagged revisions trial, motivated by an unexpected, unannounced and publicly undiscussed change of configuration removing the reviewer usergroup. Please weigh in there. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some concerns

I have some concerns about this program, first of all while I am glad to see that something is finally being done on the issue of overprotection, I do worry that Flagged protection will simply replace it. Specificly I'm worried that patrolled revision will simply make the situation worse, preventing several well known editors from immediatly updating a majority of articles. I don't know, to me it seems like a slippery slope and in a lot of situations I feel semiprotection would be favorable over the highest level of security offered by this inituative. Basically, I'm afraid that several pages will be prevented from immediate changes without much of a criteria. Is there any talk of criteria that will be used to evaluate these pages before the highest level of protection is offered? --Deathawk (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The conditions for using the highest level are the same as for using full protection. Cenarium (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be level 2 right? --Deathawk (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and for level 1 it's the same as for semi protection. Cenarium (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) See WP:PROT#Pending changes protection (trial) for the current draft of the criteria.
Regarding your concerns that editors won't be able to make changes that are immediately visible anymore, I can only repeat what I've been saying all day long: The key is to keep the backlog of unreviewed changes very short, in the order of a few minutes. If we can manage that, then any autoconfirmed editor can still continue to edit Level 1 PC protected articles as before. There is no question that you, with only a glimpse at your registration date and edit count, will be immediately made a Reviewer. That means you actually will be able to edit some articles that are currently fully protected due to ongoing autoconfirmed vandalism, if they are switched over to Level 2 PC protection.
Again, if we can keep the backlog of unreviewed changes minimal, then editing privileges will remain largely the same. Freer than before in some respects, very brief delays until publication to logged-out readers in some rare circumstances (registered users will still always immediately see it!). What we get out of it is that we need to worry much less about libelous statements introduced into the many thousand obscure BLPs we have, assuming they are protected with it. It's a slight trade-off, but I am convinced that most content editors will never even notice the difference! If they do, we'll be using it wrong and should adapt.
It's possible that Pending Changes protection will largely replace current protection levels, somewhere down the line. Nobody can say that yet, though, that's one part why we do this trial, on a limited number of articles, for a limited time span: To find out how well these new levels will work here on enWP.
Amalthea 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidance?

A week ago I posted proposed revisions to the first 4 paragraphs in the "critical thinking" article on "talk". Short explanation too of why each is being suggested. No responses yet from any of the administrators or watchers of that article. In contrast to what happened initially, which was that I naively tried to edit the article and my edits were immediatly deleted. Seeing your guidance: How long should I wait for responses/discussion on the talk pages? Is there a way to post the draft revision of the article (without the explanatory interjections)? Thanks. --Pfacione (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)