Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iain99 (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 19 December 2009 (→‎We, the undersigned, demand that Flagged revisions are rolled out without further delay: sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

BLPs smell like sewers. Flagged revisions have been promised for years now. 'Nuff said.

To the Wikimedia Foundation,

We, the undersigned, demand that Flagged revisions are rolled out without further delay

Note: We are asking that this MediaWiki extension be enabled on the English Wikipedia. This is not a request for implementing a new policy here, merely the ability to allow the community to do so, if it so chooses.
  1. --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First not-author. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The encyclopedia anyone can vandalize or reduce quality on" isn't good enough for a world-class high quality reference work. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ...or Wikipedia. Privatemusings (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steve Smith (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should have been a much higher priority than liquid threads for talkpages. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Lara ☁ 15:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  CharlotteWebb  ⚑  15:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A gentle, respectful WTF is taking so long?. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) - also see these edits from March 11 2009 :)[reply]
  10. MZMcBride (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ⬅ ❝Redvers in a one-horse open sleigh❞ 15:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. For what it's worth Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Good luck.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ASAP Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. It will never happen, but it should, immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Definitely Fram (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Do it now. Willking1979 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Secret account 15:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yup. Rodhull andemu 15:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Needs to be done before it receives a vaporware award. --Allen3 talk 16:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Yes please. Quantpole (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Long past time. Bfigura (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  24. NW (Talk) 16:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  25. At the very least for BLPs, and as soon as is technically possible. -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  26. + –Juliancolton | Talk 17:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Just Do It. Jack Merridew 17:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Gawd yes. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ucucha 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  30. MTC (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  31. GTD 17:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. About damn time. Nev1 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  33. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes please. Priyanath talk 17:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Long overdue. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Reso lute 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Calmer Waters 17:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I predicted back in October that the foundation's actions would introduce more delays. Unfortunately, it appears I was correct. Mr. Z-man 17:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Tothwolf (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Since this isn't getting enough attention from the foundation. I'm not sure it'll work though but worth a try. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Not holding my breath... Achromatic (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support in principle. Not sure what kind of hell can be raised, and I note nothing has been stated (therefore there's nothing that would likely become a bluff, as I believe has happened with prior petitions on this subject). --NE2 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  46. +1 Please at least start the trial. (I did ask on wikitech-l for an update.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Over at tech, simulation models indicate flagged revisions may completely destabilize the universe — bring 'em on, forthwith. ^^ Proofreader77 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  48. William Avery (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  49. We're so worried about scaring people off, but flagged revisions might actually attract some quality editors who have been avoiding Wikipedia because of its chaotic nature. A real expert who knows how to write and isn't out to push an agenda is more valuable than 1,000 semi-literate teenagers. Zagalejo^^^ 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Jimbo Wales - my vote should not be construed as criticism of the Foundation staff in any way, but rather as very strong support for making this a top priority --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  51. {ec}Unless the underlying code is defective. As I've said before: show, road.--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  52. It's time for this to come online. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  53. We should at least be able to determine what effect they will have on participation, and slapping it onto all BLPs is definitely a good idea. J.delanoygabsadds 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  GARDEN  19:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  55. How can I disagree with those guys? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  57. What Jimbo said. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Everyking (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Immediately, if not sooner. SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Long past time. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Well of course!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  63. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Tango (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  65. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Start with BLP-- 300,000 articles. Semi-protect all the BLPs in the meantime. You could do that tomorrow. SBHarris 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I supported it once and still support it today, and the sooner we have better protection for BLPs, the better Wikipedia is. -- Atama頭 20:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. alanyst /talk/ 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Yes please. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Unbelievably past due. Let's do this now! - Alison ❤ 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. AlexiusHoratius 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Let's get it over with. MuZemike 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Come on, no way they can be so lazy as to not be able to press a button. Let's just do it. TURN THEM ON! Wizardman 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. JamieS93 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Not sure I demand it, but, ya... ceranthor 21:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Yea please James (T|C) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Why are we still waiting? Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I believe it is time. Basket of Puppies 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. ViridaeTalk 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. I was against FlaggedRevs, but now I realize the true extent of the BLP problem. Aditya Ex Machina 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. This is becoming the Duke Nukem Forever of Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. I am looking forward to use Flagged protection and patrolled revisions as approved by consensus. I know that implementation and testing is ongoing and is progressing, if somewhat slowly. Of course, the interface should be finished before rolling it out here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. This should be a project which the board ensures is delivered (on time would have been good..). John Vandenberg (chat) 23:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Yes, we need this. The Arbiter★★★ 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Without entering into the rumours about what is holding up implementation of flagged revisions, it is regrettable that there has been no progress and we have further BLP problems such as Alexander Chancellor. Allowing implementation of flagged revisions should be a priority. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Yes, turn the tool on. FPPR was approved for trial eight months ago, and it's high time we allowed it to be trialled here. Sceptre (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Soon as in "SUL is coming soon"? I hope not. MER-C 02:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Gently, respectfully, but very firmly demanding that this long-promised and essential feature be working by December 31, 2009, at the latest. If necessary, reassign personnel and other resources from lower-priority development projects—which is to say, all other development projects—and get this implemented now!—Finell 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Yes, please. Get it in gear... On an off-topic note... "BLPs smell like sewers." That isn't anything like Smell-O-Vision is it? The Thing Merry Christmas 02:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  97. My vote should be construed as criticism of the Foundation staff for not making this a top priority. Cool3 (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  98. It is shameful that this has taken so long. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  99. This was our decision to make in the first place, it's been sitting around for weeks, months, years, too long. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100.  IShadowed  ✰  03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  101. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. andyzweb (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Save the wikies![reply]
  103. иιƒкч? 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  104. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Many issues remain, not least the extent of its implementation. But I most certainly want it switched on so we can actually implement what does get agreed. ~ mazca talk 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  107. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. –blurpeace (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. - Netalarmtalk 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Seriously, pull Werdna off LiquidThreads for as long as it takes to get this on the road. FlaggedRevs is the most important item in the technical pipeline, and it's blocking the plug. Happy‑melon 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. This 'demand' is just too lulzy not to support 9000 percent. Only software engineers will get the joke though, I suspect. Poor bastards. MickMacNee (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) And here are some diffs for posterity, to help anyone who found this comment too cryptic by half, or evidently have misunderstood the actual point of the petition. [1][2][3]. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Demand? .. hmmmm ... meh - why not, count me in for support of Mick's 9000 percent. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. I don't like making demands, but I agree, this has been taking too long (partly because brion left, but we should have had the developers force in place for this before that). So as an editor, I sign this. It does not reflect on our developers. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. This needs to be a top priority. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. shoy (reactions) 19:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Agreed -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. If this is the roll out of the trial, then yes, let's run it up the flagpole and see how it flies. –xenotalk 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. upstateNYer 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  122. With reservation against the word "demand" as I know the Wikimedia Foundation does a great job, I do believe it's time. --Shirik (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Sure, and I share Shirik's opinion about the word "demand". Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  124. GreenGourd (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Hell. Yes. Glacier Wolf 02:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. XinJeisan (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Krinkle (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. We need to use them on BLPs. LadyofShalott 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 03:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. — Coren (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. We've been waiting far too long for this. — The Earwig @ 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Please, before we all die of old age - Chaosdruid (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts, feedback and comments on the talk page please

Please discuss on the talk page - think of this petition as a wiki version of a clipboard with room for a signature and maybe a small comment - the talk page is where you can chat to the folk holding the clipboard, and anyone else milling around.

See also
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions_petition&oldid=332643828"