Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll2

Dev bashing
Can we word it more neutrally? Seraphim&hearts; Whipp  16:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, feel free to change it. Kaldari (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've done it already. I did find the wording humorous :) but at the same time, the devs will see this page, and to their credit, they're pretty good at implementing stuff we suggest. Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp  18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback/edit graph
User:Gmaxwell suggested this rollbacking-rate graph as a possible metric for the changes in vandalism with time. I'm just posting it here in case anybody's interested. I think the horizontal scale goes back to the start of the year, not sure which side of the Pond his date formats are from. :-) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  07:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The dubiousness of the dates is extremely unhelpful, and the key is not very clear. Please someone clarify. Waltham, The Duke of 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Dates are month/day UTC going back to late January. Whats not clear about the key? There are two lines: one showing the daily ratio of mainspace rollbacks to all mainspace edits, the other a weekly average of the same data (useful because there is a pronounced weekly cycle on WP activity that makes graphs of it hard to read). --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise if my phrasing was too harsh, but I found weekly aggregate rather unclear. The line appears in the graph as an average, but aggregate means "sum". I am not very experienced with statistics, so some explanation might be in order.
 * On another note, the caption would be more helpful by including the date the auto-confirmation arrangements changed. The discussion might have started in April, but the implementation took place in late May... Around the peak in the graph, if I am not mistaken. Although the decline after it is impressive, the great rise preceding it is somewhat perplexing; the fall has only managed to compensate for it so far. Perhaps it was a result of the anticipation before the implementation, or some irrelevant factor, regular or random. No idea here. Waltham, The Duke of 15:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll Time
There are two different closing times given for the poll. The infobox at the top says 1 week, closing on the 23rd, but the bold text in the proposal says 2 weeks, closing on the 30th. I'd fix one, but I don't know which is right and which is wrong.gnfnrf (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah. I screwed up. I thought a date wasn't stated because I didn't bother reading they box. (Since they so often contain useless template messages) and put on a standard date fairly early on. There seems to be lively discussion, I'd suggest that the longer date is preferable. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy changes like this should be given as much time as possible. Therefore the second said date of June 30th is the best choice I believe, so anyone on a wikibreak or that hasn't checked the community portal lately will have his or her vote counted. I think policy changes should be open for even longer (especially ones that restrict the freedom of newcomers, like this one), even if most of the page traffic and vote tallying has dissipated. Kain Nihil (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Something else in the works?
I threw out some ideas on WP:VPT a few days ago about making autoconfirmed more efficient by requiring the 10 edits to be done in the article namespace. To this User:Werdna responded that he was working on "...a far nicer alternative, which targets behaviour, not users.". His comment got a woohoo out of User:Brion VIBBER, and has perked my own interests as well. I'm not sure how far off their idea is (whatever it is), but perhaps we should be considering some of these other technical options as well. -- Ned Scott 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it's good. The last time something like this happened we got cascading protection (vs. protectionbot or whatever it was called). -Royalguard11 (T) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems it was the Abuse filter proposal that they were talking about. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
By the looks of some comments people are mistakenyl assuming the 7/20 proposal has consensus. It doesn't, most vote ≠ consensus. "Consensus" means agreement, so unless there were 5 opposers and about 100 supporters it can't be called consensus. See Polling is not a substitute for discussion-- Serviam  (talk)  23:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been regularly checking on the page, and support has been steadily around 65%. Not a very high percentage, I agree. It would be a mistake, however, to take nothing but the numbers into account. Waltham, The Duke of 23:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's also a mistake to ignore the numbers. You can't just dismiss 81 people's opinion. -Royalguard11 (T) 17:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I am not saying we should dismiss eighty people's opinions. If, however, eighty people actually share, say, fifteen opinions, then we should consider fifteen opinions (this goes both sides, of course). Many of the arguments are repeated over and over. Waltham, The Duke of 20:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * But now you're looking too far into this. If someone says they support 20/7, then they support it. If someone says they support 10/4, then they support it. If you look any more into it then frankly you're just trying to discredit the poll. Either you're for it or you're not, simple question. Nothing more. -Royalguard11 (T) 02:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. So now we don't need to justify why we endorse something. Interesting. Waltham, The Duke of 05:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just saying this is a straight poll. The only question is "Is there consensus to implement 7/20". The background, justification, ect were all discussed last poll. I don't think it really matters anyways because the devs seemed pretty clear that they're just going to refuse to make any further changes anyways (there isn't a cabel, sure..). -Royalguard11 (T) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly there is no consensus to keep it at 4/10. Kain Nihil (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need consensus to make a change not to leave things as they are, there are a lot of strong opinions opposing making this change. Davewild (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)