Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Poll


 * ''See also: previous poll, Special:ListGroupRights

This poll is closed per WP:SNOWBALL.

What is Autoconfirmed?
Autoconfirmed users may move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or upload a new version of an existing file. They are no longer required to answer a CAPTCHA when adding external links, and may mark pages as patrolled in Special:NewPages. Wikipedia accounts are currently autoconfirmed once they are 4 days old and have performed 10 edits.

What happened with the old polls?
In 2008, a long discussion about the need for more stringent requirements for granting Autoconfirmed status led to a poll being conducted to find out which settings had the most support from the community. The results of that poll were:
 * No change (4 days and 0 edits) - 20 support (14%)
 * One hour and ten minutes - 2 support, 1 oppose (1%)
 * 2 days and 5 edits - 3 support (2%)
 * 4 days and 10 edits - 25 support (17%)
 * 7 days and 20 edits - 92 support (62%)
 * 14 days and 40 edits - 6 support, 1 oppose (4%)
 * 30 days and 90 edits - 2 support (1%)

Due to the results being creatively interpreted in the ensuing Bugzilla request, the setting was changed to 4 days and 10 edits rather than 7 days and 20 edits. When a member of the WMF staff was asked how this could be rectified, they replied that the best solution would be to hold a completely new poll. A new poll was held (also in 2008) with only two options. The results of that poll were:
 * No change (4 days and 10 edits) - 58 support (36.8%)
 * 7 days and 20 edits - 95 support (61.3%)

Even though 7 days and 20 edits was again the clear preference, the results were not deemed a "convincing consensus" and thus no change was made. In an effort to finally reach a convincing consensus, this new poll is slightly less ambitious than the previous one. This poll only proposes to change the wait time from 4 days to 1 week. The edit count threshold would remain at 10 edits.

Vote for 1 of 2 choices
Please do not add additional choices.

No change (4 days / 10 edits)

 * 1) No evidence has been given to show any problems with the current autoconfirmed levels, or how further editing restrictions would provide any benefits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The vast majority of vandals and spammers are not autoconfirmed anyway, and since the proposal to limit article creation to autoconfirmed users does not seem to be winning sufficient support, I can't see any real benefit to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No reason to change. If you're here for good, 10 edits and four days is only a drag if the article is semi-protected or it's a file you care about.  If you're here for bad, four days is a long-ass time to wait just for an edit to a protected page (which will get reverted quicker than average, most likely).  I see no advantage to forcing users to wait an entire week. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 21:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) No change. As pointed out increasing it will not stop vandalism in any way, and only further marginalize legitimate new users. Q  T C 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) As zzuuzz said, there's no evidence that this change is A) necessary and B) useful. Mr.Z-man 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Per zzuuzz, I am not aware that the current 4 days/10 edits setting is broken or otherwise not working. Also, I the proposer does not even attempt to show that there is any evidence that increasing the wait time will benefit the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Increased limitations on the "anyone can edit" ideal must be closely scrutinized to determine their necessity. This measure has not shown a reason for deviation therefrom.  —  James Kalmar   23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Our biggest medium-term problem is attracting and retaining new contributors. The case that autoconfirmation is insufficiently restricted has not been made. We need to focus on strenghtening our userbase, not throttling it out of periodic insular obsession with that which does not matter.  Skomorokh   00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) This should be reduced if anything - in my opinion, 4 days is too long a time between registering an account and being able to upload images and edit semi-protected pages. This is particularly true of experts who may find they have a bit of time one day to help, but get frustrated that they can't upload images and don't return. Moving pages, patrolling and to a certain extent CAPTCHA are less important. 7 days is way too long, and IMO is completely unjustified. I would put forward reducing the time, but given previous poll results I guess it would be futile. So, leave it as it is please. Mike Peel (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) No evidence has been given that the current situation is a problem -- just that the poll proposer doesn't like it. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) No data to suggest that a change would be for the better - or worse. Josh Parris 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) I haven't seen any evidence that this would be a beneficial change.  Them  From  Space  04:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Amory and Carnildo. We want to draw new users in quickly so they don't leave, whilst deterring vandalism-only new accounts, and four days seems to me to strike about the right balance. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Give the newbies a chance. I would like that threshold to be 3 days instead, but either way, Strong oppose. ConCompS (Talk to me) 05:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Makes Wikipedia much less open, while not giving much advantage. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Further I'm for reducing the barriers to entry into Wikipedia for new contributors if anything. --Falcorian (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

7 days / 10 edits

 * 1) One week and ten edits should help further deter vandals while not driving away well-meaning contributors. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. --Rschen7754 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support - Person should be well set by that point. Mitch 32(Live from the Bob Barker Studio at CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support --  Th e T hi ng  Ed it or Rev iew 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)