User:Cenarium/Flagged revisions/Proposal

See also User:Cenarium/Flagged revisions/Guideline for a draft of guideline.

This is a proposal to enable sighted revisions on Wikipedia in a progressive, controlled manner. We have to find a balance between the need for pages to be sighted and the time it will take to review edits by non-surveyors. This page intends to allow discussion in order to find a compromise on how to enable sighted revisions.

Purpose
Sighted revisions are a type of flagged revisions used only to deal with vandalism and clear violations of our policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SPAM).
 * Discussion

Where
Sighted revisions may be enabled for:

Template space
On certain templates where full protection is unwarranted, but where semi-protection is insufficient, for example navigational templates related to high risk blps.
 * Discussion

Portal space
On high visibility portals, subject to occasional vandalism despite semi-protection.
 * Discussion

Visible pages
Temporarily or indefinitely: on articles linked from the Main Page, very frequently viewed, related to a current event, and high-visibility pages in other non article spaces (Wikipedia, Help,...)
 * Discussion

Per consensus
An article or a limited series of articles if there's a consensus to do so on the talk page or on a noticeboard.
 * Discussion

Semi protected articles
All semi protected articles
 * Discussion

Featured articles
All FAs
 * Discussion

Biographies of living persons
On a BLP in the event of repeated violations, at the administrator's discretion, as a temporary measure (consensus should support if indefinite).


 * Discussion

Surveyors
Rollbackers by default, assignable to autoconfirmed users, either on request, or possibly, also automatically (see below).
 * Discussion

Automatic assignment
From the recent poll, for example: These requirements are, in no way, necessary for a request, but only used to make it harder to game the automatic assignment system for vandalistic or sockpuppet-istic purposes.
 * an account for 120 days
 * 700 edits
 * 300 edits to articles
 * 40 articles edited
 * 60 days of edits
 * No block
 * a confirmed e-mail account.
 * Discussion

Confirmed revisions
Additionally to sighted revisions, it may be possible to create a 'higher' level of flagging in order to deal with disputes and contentious article more effectively and avoid certain problems caused by sighted revisions. They may be enabled if there is consensus on the talk page or on a noticeboard, but also as an ARBCOM enforcement or part of editing restrictions.
 * Discussion

Mediators
the users able to "confirm" revisions

Administrators by default, assignable to surveyors, after a light consensus-based process.


 * Discussion

Notice

 * Editnotice or built-in notice for template space and portal space
 * Editnotice for articles with SR or CR
 * Discussion

Moves
A possibility would be to delay moves from non-surveyors, pending review, if technically possible. Special:unreviewedmoves would list unreviewed moves.
 * Discussion

A safeguard
The delay between a non-automatically sighted edit and its review could rise inconsiderably if too many pages have sighted revisions enabled. Suppose we decide that this delay should be below 1 minute in average. Then if the actual average delay is well below this point, we'll have the liberty to add more articles, and if it is higher, we'll have to remove some.


 * Discussion

Requests
Requests for sighting/request for confirmation: on the talk pages, like editprotected/editsemiprotected
 * Discussion