Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:FRP" redirects here. For the essay on consensus and policy formation, see Wikipedia:Fallacy of the revelation of policy.
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 be rolled out without further delay[edit]

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.delanoy gabs adds 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!--White Shadows you're breaking up 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. Please. Kevin (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  66. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Start with BLP-- 300,000 articles. Semi-protect all the BLPs in the meantime. You could do that tomorrow. S B H arris 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 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]
  69. alanyst /talk/ 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yes please. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Unbelievably past due. Let's do this now! - Alison ❤ 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Alexius Horatius 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Let's get it over with. MuZemike 20:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 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]
  75. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  77. -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. JamieS93 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Not sure I demand it, but, ya... ceranthor 21:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Yea please James (T|C) 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Why are we still waiting? Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I believe it is time. Basket of Puppies 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Viridae Talk 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  85. 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]
  86. This is becoming the Duke Nukem Forever of Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  88. 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]
  89. 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]
  90. Yes, we need this. The Arbiter ★★★ 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  92. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 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]
  94. 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]
  95. Soon as in "SUL is coming soon"? I hope not. MER-C 02:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  96. 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]
  97. 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]
  98. 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]
  99. It is shameful that this has taken so long. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 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]
  101.  IShadowed   ✰  03:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  102. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  103. andyzweb (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Save the wikies![reply]
  104. иιƒкч ? 06:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  105. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  106. 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]
  107. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  109. --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  110. –blurpeace (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  111. - Netalarmtalk 15:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  112. 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]
  113. 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) And another one for posterity. [4]. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Lots of classics here [5] too. MickMacNee (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Anyway, the nonsense continues, but its still worth noting stuff like this [6] MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC) And more [7][8]. MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Demand? .. hmmmm ... meh - why not, count me in for support of Mick's 9000 percent. — Ched :  ?  15:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  115. 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]
  116. Spartaz Humbug! 18:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  118. This needs to be a top priority. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  119. shoy (reactions) 19:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Agreed -- Matthew Glennon (T/C\D) 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  121. 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]
  122. upstate NYer 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  123. 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]
  124. Sure, and I share Shirik's opinion about the word "demand". Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  125. GreenGourd (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Hell. Yes. Glacier Wolf 02:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  127. XinJeisan (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Krinkle (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  129. We need to use them on BLPs. LadyofShalott 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  130. December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 03:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  131. — Coren (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  133. We've been waiting far too long for this. — The Earwig @ 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Please, before we all die of old age - Chaosdruid (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Tiptoety talk 09:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Rd232 talk 11:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  138. YES!!! I am 100% in favour of this. Me and my wife were talking about flagged revisions with our friends Artie and the microphone. Now normally me and Artie fight like two starving pugs in a glass box but on this, there was complete agreement all around the dinner table - the issue with BLPs is far TOO IMPORTANT for there not to be a better way to protect their safety!! Yes! And that is also a yes from my wife and from Artie and from the microphone. Hope you guys are all good - keep fighting the good fight! Your old pal, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Yes. The sooner the better. Robofish (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  140. It seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to want support from the community (via donations and of course countless hours of volunteer work) while holding back important features the community needs. I believe the phrase "biting the hand that feeds you" is rather applicable here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Amalthea 20:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. @harej 21:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Guess I should sign since I'm such a proponent... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. per Jimbo. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  145. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  146. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Yes, we need it available to be properly tested. I have some doubts whether it will be workable or prove to be confusing, but there is no way to tell without trying it on a subset of BLPs, and then seeing if it can be moved to all BLPs. We should not assume it will be on balance effective here, but we do need to find out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  148. It would be great to find FPPR in my holiday stocking. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  149. I'm going to echo WereSpielChequers above and say that LiquidThreads can go take a hike, we need this much more. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  150. It is important for the Wikipedia community to be able to test this extension and develop a policy around its use in order for the encyclopedia to continue to evolve. — æk Talk 05:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Indeed. This is long overdue. Tvoz/talk 06:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Insert witty statement here. • Ling.Nut 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  153. How could I miss an opportunity to tell sysadmins to be quicker? :) vvvt 15:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  154. It's working well on the German Wikipedia, and should be no less successful here. WP:BLP concerns are of paramount importance, and necessitate the implementation of effective measures to stop defamation before it is viewed by the general public. For articles of any type, both our perceived and actual reliability would be improved through the reduction of random graffiti and deliberately incorrect information. Alison22 (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  155. This needed to be done, roughly, yesteryear, if not sooner. Nifboy (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  156. I have to agree with everyone else. I also wonder why I didn't even notice this until now! Schfifty 3 06:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Keegan (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Şļџğģő 07:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  159. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  160. snigbrook (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Yes please. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Just found this. Collect (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  163.  Roger Davies talk 19:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  165. It is the consensus of the community as seen in this poll to implement it in order to test it out for two months. Valley2city‽ 00:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Soap Talk/Contributions 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  167. MurfleMan (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Remember (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  169. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 14:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  170. With a heavy sigh and the hope that none are turned away,  fetchcomms☛ 22:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  171. J. Spencer (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  172. I think they're very possibly a beneficial addition, and the code's already written. Let's flip the switch, at least on a trial basis. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  173. I absolutely support this, especially for BLPs. Zaereth (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Make is so. mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 23:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  175. We've had this on Wikinews for some time. It works a dream over there. Simple and easy to use, with huge benefits. Follow us and get FlaggedRevs! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Sk8er5000 (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Let's try it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  179. It's time already. --Pharos (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  180.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  181. This mustn't end up in a state of indefinite renewed delays. Spellcast (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Long overdue. Camaron · Christopher · talk 13:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Artichoker[talk] 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  184. RP459 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  185. WilyD 02:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Trevor MacInnis contribs 07:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Chutznik (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  188. A333 (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Look at the odd bedfellows this has brought together! I don't like "demands," but ... I do want to support the rapid rollout of Flagged Revisions, which could lead to quite a few other improvements. --Abd (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  191. I've seen it work on German Wikipedia. It's great. --JN466 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Maybe a bit more of the donations should be spent on developers, give em what they want! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Long overdue. Johnfos (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Flagged revisions are going to significantly increase the respectability of Wikipedia in the wider world. J Milburn (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Woody (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Please, for a more reliable Wikipedia. Xenon54 / talk / 03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Please stop jerking us around, we don't deserve it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Flagged revisions are needed on BLP articles for safety and on other controversial artilces (for example ones related to evolution) for accuracy. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  199. I pushed to get Flagged Revisions at the Hebrew Wikisource, and it has been a very positive experience using the function. It makes it easier to combat vandalism. But it also makes it easier for new and inexperienced people to contribute, or for one-time visitors to make minor improvements, because now those edits are less threatening, since they do not appear in the default version until validated. Also, we owe it to our readers to give them texts with zero threat of vandalism. Using Flagged Revisions we can do this while at the same time keeping wiki collaboration. Dovi (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Xp54321 (Hello! • Contributions) 04:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Given the magnitude of the BLP problem, it's overdue.--agr (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Sarah 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  203. seav (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  204. +Angr 07:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Triwbe (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Avenue (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  207. It's been discussed time and again, and now is the time to implement. Colds7ream (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  208.  Cargoking  talk  11:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  209. tetraedycal, tetraedycal 11:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  211. Is needed for BLPs to improve reliability. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 13:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  212. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Omigosh yes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Chhe (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Twri (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Barret (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  217. "If you don´t ask, you don´t get." ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Waldir talk 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  219. If we're going to do it at all, let's get it over with already.--Aervanath (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  220. — Sebastian 22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  221. --Ziko (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Why wait? Do it now for goodness sake. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  223. And I volunteer to help review the revisions log to keep the backlog short. Cla68 (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Zvika (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  225. I support this, since I think all vandalism and unconstructive edits should get noticed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  226. We have debated this for so long, why not just be bold and implement it. It can always be turned off later if it causes problems. -AndrewBuck (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Ottre 12:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  228. APK whisper in my ear 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Oh hell, why not join the crowd. But I only support FlaggedRevs for BLPs! -- Ϫ 10:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Leuko Talk/Contribs 14:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  232. For BLPs. Novickas (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  233. We've had the community consensus for a flagged protection version of flagged revs for quiet some time now, lets get this show on the road ;) Best, 71.243.179.232 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  234. This is the best for the project! --MW talk contribs 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Do it now, please. AGK 11:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  236. The technical Problems should really be resolvable, since flagged revisions are enabled on the german wikipedia since over a year. --Frakturfreund (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  237. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  238. SupportImplement TheGrimReaper 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  239. So very long overdue. I realize that most vandalism is quickly reverted, but it is horrible that someone can go to a page soon after erroneous facts is introduced and then actually believe that fact since they trust Wikipedia. -- KelleyCook (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Ysangkok (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  241. It's about time we gave it a go... -- Marek.69 talk 01:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  242. kollision (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  243. To promulgate throughout the world malicious accusations is without a doubt an abomination. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  244. As an OTRS volunteer, I can testify that this would substantially improve things. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Support, as long as this petition isn't taken as consensus to roll out new policy right away. I think once we have the technical capability, one big final discussion should go ahead, then we take action. --Taelus (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Seriously, what are you people doing? How is it possible that this hasn't been done yet? Wine Guy Talk 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  247. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Airplaneman talk 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Yes please. NJA (t/c) 17:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  250. German WP and WikiNews are both running FlaggedRevisions, and I haven't noticed the Four Horsemen, lambs and lions living together, or the sun rising in the west. I think we should at least give FR a chance--even if it's just to lessen the incentive for things like the BLP-deletion-o-rama of the past 2 days. (Though I don't like that word "demand".) GJC 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Please and thank you. Tim1357 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  252. We need this ASAP!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Meant to sign this quite awhile ago. Not sure how we actually will want to use this, but we need the capability to test it and determine how it can best help us (primarily with the BLP problem). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Hamtechperson 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Read the Flagged Revisions page, agree with the BLP only restriction, and think this: "A gentle, respectful WTF is taking so long?. ++Lar" sums it up well.[reply]
  255. What was the point in creating it, if it isn't at least going to receive a trial run? If it's not trialled, how can anyone know if it will work, or how best if can be used? TheGrappler (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  256. BelovedFreak 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Venustas 12 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Definitely needed for BLPs. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Taku (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Just do it. Avenue (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Anna Lincoln 11:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  262. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  263. I've been on both WikiNews and WikiBooks. For some people, here's analogy in terms of prone to vandalisim: Wikipedia is to Wikibooks as a bed of spikes is to a LaZ-Boy. Get my point? Buggie111 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Come on... WikiTome Talk 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  265.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  266. iNkubusse? 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  267. It would generally improve and help things greatly. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  268. There's no reason that the community shouldn't be able to implement the extension if it reaches consensus to do so. —Animum (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  269. The community says YES! Fridae'§Doom | Talk to me 03:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Please. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Rlendog (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Definitely! Laurinavicius (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  274. So overdue it's not even funny Bped1985 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  275. This is really needed. please Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 18:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  276. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  277. I could swear I signed this before, but I guess not. No time like now to see this change happen! Tiggerjay (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  278. I support the implementation of this extension. Rubywine (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Sounds like a good idea to me. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 09:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Jumping on the bandwagon.Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Not that this poll will do anything, but the more the merrier. SilverserenC 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Quote: "The encyclopedia anyone can vandalize or reduce quality on" FT2 --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  284. I support the implementation of this extension. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 15:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  285. I support this on all BLP edits by nonautoconfirmed users. Ramaksoud2000 (Did I make a mistake?) 22:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support. As this petition for "immediate action" is now more than two years old, it's getting pretty funny. What a comment on WP inertia! SBHarris 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  287. BLP are no longer a problem? I think not. Josh Parris 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  288. I support this! Ian159 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  289. I support this 100%! User:Jay Starz 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  290. No reason not to have this.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 03:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  291. At least implement on a trial basis. Loooong overdue!--JayJasper (talk) 05:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  292. I very much support the implementation of flagged revisions for BLPs on the English Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Dear lord, it's been 14 yrs? CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 17:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts, feedback and comments on the talk page please[edit]

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[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions_petition&oldid=1192357368"