Wikipedia:Protecting BLP articles feeler survey/Implement both Semi-Protection and Flagged Revisions for all BLPs

Implement both Semi-Protection and Flagged Revisions for all BLPs

 * Comment. Is this not redundant? As I understand them, Flagged Revs are only placed for IPs, so if it's semi-protected, what's the need for FRs? SDJ 19:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a way to blend flagged revisions and the idea of semiprotection in a harmonious way. Geometry guy 20:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) See my objection to semiprotection. Durova Charge! 19:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Isn't the above a comment, Durova? WHO sees flagged revisions first is an option, it could be set to "everyone" so it is possible to have and need both SP and FR. ... suppor this. ++Lar: t/c 21:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Lar makes a very good point. The two are not mutually exclusive; one is presentation, the other control. Support (which I didn't think I would, even though I added this section header myself!). rootology  ( C )( T ) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider myself progressive on this issue, but doesn't FR make semi-protection redundant (assuming that the flagged version is the reader default)? Cool Hand Luke 21:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean that... BLPs are semi'd--the drive-by vandalism by IPs is a thing of the past. That still leaves sneaky vandals on usernames that are past the semi-limit, but wouldn't have the "Flagger" ability or whatever we'll end up calling it. So, it would be a double layer of protection, like an Oreo, with the BLP as the creamy center. The benefit of this is casual readers (our real userbase, not us) will only ever hopefully see a "good" version, without the chance of any crap snuck in by untrusted users OR anons. If I've butchered the technical aspects of this, someone please correct me. rootology ( C )( T ) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is fairly redundant, unless it's taken to mean "Semi today, Flagged when we work out the details". Wily D 21:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with WilyD here. I support semi as a stop-gap to work out the details of flagging. I suspect that most sneaky vandalism actually comes from savvy throw-away accounts (flaggers would probably be more comfortable approving edits from a blue-link user), such that using both protections is redundant. Cool Hand Luke 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lemme clarify that I'm not exactly endorsing that position, just explaining it. I'm conflicted about semi-prot.  On the one hand, we clearly need to do a lot more than we're doing.  But the barrier to entry is high.  It's a tricky cost-benefit. Flagged is just soo much cleaner.  Semi-protting is worth exploring, but I'm tepid. Wily D  22:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait... why is this an option? The whole point of the flagged revisions extension was as a more open alternative to semi-protection, to make articles editable by anyone without any inappropriate revisions being visible to readers (too bad it didn't work). Semi-protecting the page and using the extension defeats the point of it -- Gurch (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Implement both - I'd support implementing both SP and FR, but at different levels, if it can be done. Have the main version be semi-protected, but allow IPs/new users to edit the versions for review, with any editor who is able to edit SP pages can make review. (My apologies if this how FRs work, but I haven't seen the details. And I'd support this for all articles, possible with greater restrictions for who can edit SPs. Opening reveiws to SP editors would help avoid the backlogs, while keeping the articles free of silly junk that doesn't need to be seen in the first place. - BillCJ (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) This is my preferred option out of all that have been proposed, it is essential to protect all BLP's from anonymous editing due to the sheer backlog created by the requests for semi-protection. Secpndly registered user can also vandalise pages so there must be a system of flagging their edits as well. --Lucy-marie (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. There is no backlog now. You're saying we should semi-protect hundreds of thousands of articles because otherwise there's going to be a huge backlog in requests for protection on BLPs? Why would there be a huge backlog? Mr.Z-man 06:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd like to comment and say that both that flagging and semi-protection both seem like good ideas to me, and I'd support it, for what its worth. Pstanton 07:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This makes the most sense to me to guard against vandalism and defamation. The case studies cited at the top are good evidence of a need for something to be done. I believe that creation of user accounts should be promoted, and in certain cases be necessary. I believe this is one such area. Further flagged revisions have proven successful in its trials, and there's no reason it shouldn't be utilised more on en-wiki, and I think that BLP is a logical starting point. There will always be a few beginning bumps with new features, especially with established editors used to things the "way they are". However those are not valid arguments to avoid change. Nja 247  (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. A small minority of the edits by autoconfirmed users are in bad faith. Such a measure could be useful in cases such as featured articles or content disputes, but using it for all BLP is overkill, and could seriously slow down the development of the encyclopedia. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 14:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per my oppose votes for both proposals above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Redundant and uneccesarily beaureacratic. Any form of proctection is always a last resort because it is actually against our whole point "anyone can edit".  Flagging allows us to put on a great face to the public (where our critics come from) without a wholesale ban of IPs (which is the opposite of the ideal Wikipedia goal that "anyone can edit.").  But regardless, two procedures for the same purpose is redundant and will be more exclutionary than anything. I am sure that there may be articles that for reasons yet unknown might be flagged and semi-protected, but this should not be standard practice.  Mostly because, at even given moment there is a backlog of literally millions of tasks, and I'm afraid that tasks related to preventing IPs from editing (not our goal) will get on the list as we add more and more steps.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong oppose. Ugh. This is even worse than the other one. Flagged revisions for all BLPs is OK, sprotecting all of them is not. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Wait, what? (Opposition out of absurdity) Ngorongoro (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Strongly Oppose I'm going to mix my metaphors: this is trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer; Tighten the trouser-straps a little bit should take care of the problem, but when the trousers are tight enough on the seat, having both belt and braces is utterly unnecessary! Ohconfucius (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Oppose Semi-protection pretty much removes need for flagged reviews, but all the objections to semi-protection above should be reason to reject this. Flagged reviews would remove the need for semi-protection, but flagged reviews create huge backlogs.Corvus coronoides talk  21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Action is needed to protect LPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
 * 11) oppose. Please stop obsessing over BLPs everyone. The Siegenthaler incident didn't kill Wikipedia. Semiprotect troublespots, BLP and non-BPL alike. Maybe our practice can be to be quicker to sprotect BLPs and more reluctant in unprotecting them, but that's as far as it should go. --dab (𒁳) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. In that I have opposed both ideas, I think I'll have to oppose combining both ideas as being doubly opposable. Even if I had supported both of the proposals, I think this combo would be an overkill. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - as per my last few edits here. Kingturtle (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Flagged revisions will undoubtedly be more effective than Semi-protection making SP a weak redundancy or sorts. Grika Ⓣ 15:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Its a bad idea  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong oppose. This is total idiocy. It would be like accidentally driving over a cat and then drowning it in a nearby lake to ensure it's dead. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Alright, now it's just getting retarded. -Jéské Couriano (v^_^v) 21:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 18) Strong oppose. This would combine the separate drawbacks of both approaches, without any significant benefit over using either of them alone. Flagged revisions alone would continue to allow anonymous edits, but requiring an account would eliminate that benefit.  Similarly, semi-protection alone would prevent anonymous vandalism and discourage malicious registrations without disenfranchising new registered users, but implementing flagged revisions atop that would eliminate those benefits.  If you must choose one of those two, please pick semi-protection alone. BecauseWhy? (talk)
 * 19) Extreme Oppose - This would simply kill the Wikipedia. Period. End of sentence. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 16:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 20) Vehemently Oppose - 'Nuff said. 82.230.24.185 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per my objections to the other Flagged Revision proposals above. -- noosph e re 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - If the need arises for some control over a BLP, then it should be both protected and yet still able to be edited. I would support this option if the FP part was in very small amounts and the FR slightly used, however I would prefer to see both unnecessary - that however is down to the editors as it is they that make changes needing control (even if that is only rollback, undo or revert) and to keep Wiki free to edit without risk of appearing useless as a source of information. I believe we need the support of the public, the only way to achieve that is if Wiki can be a trusted informative source and not perceived as a collection of opinions. -- Chaosdruid (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 23) This would provide the efficiency of the DoleOffice combined with the warmth of the ATO.  Remain unconvinced that there actually is a BLP crisis as opposed to a percieved crisis. -  brenneman  06:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 24) Strong Oppose - This flies in the face of the concept of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Flagged revisions are an abomination that flies in the face of the very principles of Wikipedia.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong Oppose Why not just shut down Wikipedia completely? That would solve the problem, and have about the same effect as this proposal. Backlogs and edit conflicts would drive editors away--GOOD editors. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose - Can't see the need. Anaxial (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 27) Opose - unworkable overkill. JonStrines (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Editors are not the enemy. Orderinchaos 00:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Overdone. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose: WP:RBI, WP:RAP (why assume guilt/restrict rules), WP:NOT (bureaucracy), WP:BITE, etc etc etc. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)