Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal/Poll2

WP:AUTO POLL 2

Back in April, the Wikipedia community began the process of discussing what autoconfirm settings the English Wikipedia should have (now that it could easily be customized per wiki), i.e. how long should it take for a new account to automatically become an "established user" with all the rights and privileges thereof. A few weeks later a poll was set up to decide which specific options had the most support. 7 options were presented. The 7 day and 20 edit option gained had 95 supports out of the total 150 (61.3%) with 58 (36.8%) supports for other proposals.

The developers decided to implemented the 4/10 option, determining that there was no "unequivocal consensus" for a larger increase. They requested that those wanting to implement the 7/20 option start the process over in order to establish unequivocal consensus. In order to provide the clearest possible reading of community opinion there are only two options in this poll: Keep it at 4/10 or increase the setting to 7/20.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This poll will end two weeks after the first vote at 2008-06-30 17:00:00 UTC.

Leave it how it is (4 days, 10 edits)

Keep as it is - Any longer is a nuisance to good editors, and will not dissuade persistent vandals. D0762 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as it is as I argued for no change on the first poll to not make it too hard for new people to edit semi protected articles. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally supported 7/20, but after seeing how little of an effect it had on preventing sleeper accounts, I don't think raising it more will really make much of a difference. Mr.Z-man 22:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten edits are much easier for a user to make than twenty edits, and the waiting period is longer as well; while 4/10 is quite do-able for many, or even most people, 7/20 is more demanding and beyond the patience threshold of a much greater part of casual vandals than 4/10 would deter (plus, the number of days is the same, so there is no difference in this respect). In any case, the effect of either measure is cumulative; it might be better not to reach conclusions too fast as far as the effectiveness of any editing threshold is concerned. Waltham, The Duke of 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing easy vandal reversions, editing the sandbox, or editing their userpage, the extra 10 edits will take 2-5 minutes at most, then the extra few days is nothing for users who might hold on to an account for months before using it. This might stop a handful more lazy vandals, but I think the majority of those were stopped by having any edit restriction at all. Of course 10 edits is easier than 20, its easier than 11 and 100 too. 100 might make a difference, but that would be too many. Mr.Z-man 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would. Which is why most editors selected the option striking the best balance. Plus, per Happy-Melon's comment near the bottom of this page, a pattern will be often established helping us affirm the "vandalness" of some users. Plus, it has a greater effect on prospective sock-puppeteers, who will be forced to lower their account-creation rate if they want to use them for the advanced vandalism forms restricted to auto-confirmed editors. Plus, it protects good-faith newcomers by restricting their editing in more sensitive areas for a week, a time period which, at least for those interested in learning something about the place, will ensure that they will not be completely ignorant of policy when they do have the right to edit in said sensitive areas. Et cetera, et cetera. Waltham, The Duke of 03:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prevalence of sleeper accounts will not change by moving it to 20 edits. This will just lead to having to clean up after 10 more shitty minor edits when the vandal finally gets around to vandalizing. --- RockMFR 23:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Many vandals prefer to avoid drawing attention and either edit in their userspace or make minor edits in articles and then revert themselves. Some might even correct typos. Waltham, The Duke of 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly, since autoconfirmation is not and was never intended to be a defense against persistent vandalism, the first change has had no beneficial impact. Similarly, further changes will have little or no beneficial impact. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might be getting in to causing more problems by forcing users who have no idea there is a move feature to make Cut and Paste moves. Prodego ^talk 00:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Longer or more will do little to dissuade idiots and bad people who are already willing to meet 4/10. Also, right not autoconfirmed is used to limit upload, and people who upload may have little interest in editing, increasing the standard higher wouldn't be appropriate. I would support almost any reasonable temporary change made in order to gather data about the effects of making the change, but that isn't what is proposed here. I'd prefer to begin such a discussion with an analysis of the effects of the last change.--Gmaxwell (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we leave the autoconfirmed at 4/10, we can see how well the change works, without inconveniencing new, constructive editors, who already had a 4 day waiting period under the old autoconfirm rules. If we find that the change to 4/10 doesn't significantly deter vandals, then I'd certainly support trying 7/20, to see how that works. (With the thought that if 7/20 also doesn't significantly deter vandals, we ought to consider going back to 4/10.) But if jump right into 7/20, we'll never know if 4/10 wouldn't have worked (roughtly) as well. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
Leave it as is for now, if there are problems with it we can always fix it later. Hello32020 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --Carnildo (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it is "broken"; the previous poll demonstrated consensus for 7/20, but 4/10 was implemented instead. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prior poll has 7 options, while 7/20 had the most support it was not an amount high enough to be normally called consensus. The selection method was not robust to clones. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine as it is. Ral315 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of users' initial difficulties tend to either get solved (possibly by a block ;-)) when they first show up, or else it seems to take a long time to discuss with them; I'm not sure that there's a sizeable difference between 4-day and 7-day users in most cases. It seems to me that the problem of "sleeper" vandals is going to happen with either length, more Draconian measures would be needed to avoid that (not that I advocate such). Vandalism is just a part of life on any non-closed wiki. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no reason to change. We should be welcoming young users to the community, these changes discourage them. Wikipedia is successful because of the wiki model - this takes us further from that model. Cedars (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I share Prodego's concern, and the concerns expressed above about frustrating new users and coming across to them as hostile and bureaucratic. If someone's dedicated enough to make 10 edits, they can make 20 as well. I think we end up making too many sacrifices to prevent vandalism, when it may not be as bad of a problem as we sometimes make it out to be. delldot talk 18:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism can be reverted easily enough. What we can't revert is a potential contributor who is discouraged from editing. Many of the more popular and widely visited articles are semi-protected for long periods of time. If we raise the autoconfirmed limit even higher, I am concerned that it will make Wikipedia appear less open to editing and will drive away newcomers. Will we notice right away? Probably not; it's easy to see reduced vandalism levels, but a whole lot harder to measure lost potential. Will the benefits of slightly less vandalism outweigh the harms of less new editors? I don't think so. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is. I was leaning towards the other side until I read Pyrospirit's argument. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 18:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue seems to be dissuading persistent vandals vs. dissuading new contributors. Is it possible to get some statistics on this? For every account that hits a 4/10 restriction (e.g., they try to upload a photo and can't because of autoconfirm), is there a way to look at whether they stick around to continue editing? In other words, does the computer keep track of 4/10 rejections? If so, then these 4/10 impacted accounts can further be divided into those accounts that have come up against a 4/10 rule and received vandal warnings (vandals who don't know how to get around the system - the "4/10 vandals") and those accounts that have come up against a 4/10 rule and have not received vandal warnings (the "4/10 contributors"). Until we get such stats, we're just guessing on what to do. Bebestbe (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it how it is. I like the idea of 4/20, but 3 extra days is a nuisance for good editors. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep how it is Changes will disuade new users, not vandals, if they're already getting around the current restrictions, I se no reason why they wouldn't bother getting throguh this. Meanwhile, the good editors will be disuaded. I joined and statred writing really fast.--Serviam (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted for no change the first go-round because I didn't think it would have much effect on vandalism. And since the change I haven't noticed any effect on vandalism. This is still a solution in search of a problem.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Editing Wikipedia is no big deal. — scetoaux (T|C) 18:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced changing the limit would prevent vandalism and it would prevent good faith edits being made. Move vandals who really want to harm Wikipedia would keep on at it and four days already prevents immediate continued abuse of semi-protected articles. Guest9999 (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the 10-edit requirement is not enough to stop vandals, nothing will, save for a block. All they have to do is make 20 trivial edits to their userpage that no one will notice. However, good users will actually make edits that take time; double the edits, double the time, and thus double the number of discouraged potential contributors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On top of all the grassroots reasons above, this is far too obsessive with changing things without any real clue if it makes things better or worse. How hard would it be to ascertain from the logs of big anti-vandal editors like ClueBot how much vandalism comes under each of these proposed thresholds? Circumvention is immaterial; if someone will wait 4 days just to vandalise something, they will wait 7; same applies to edits. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think of the people coming here to upload a picture that they took. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, most new editors are unaware of autoconfirmation (I didn't notice the restrictions on my account, and it took me several months before I realized by observing newer users that these restrictions existed). Being unable to edit and not knowing why or how to change it is very discouraging, for both new vandals and new contributors. I don't believe the number of vandals deterred at the more restrictive level would be worth the new contributors lost. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. We need to assume good faith here—four days is already a long time for someone who registered in order to legitimately edit a semi-protected article to wait. I think upping the waiting period to 7/20 would deter more curious and potentially long-staying editors than it would vandals. —Pie4all88 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. Just what we need is another mechanism to turn away good-faith editors. If an editor has made 10 good-faith edits over a period of four days, it is unlikely that they will go on to vandalize. I have other reason that other people have pointed out. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - I base my argument on three main points: vandalism reversion is extremely easy to do; good faith contributors are driven away from not being able to edit; raising the bar to seven days and twenty edits would not do much anyway. With Huggle, Lupin's antivandal tools, Vandal Proof, and even plain old Special:Recentchanges, vandalism is reverted very easily by the RC patrol. Furthermore, anything that slips through the cracks is swept up by the editors of individual articles, not to mention that with FlaggedRevs coming our way, vandalism will not even show until we say. When put in perspective, vandalism is a fairly routine and easy to deal with chore, and it is not worth driving away good faith editors in order to make an easy job easier. It is precisely this process that corrupts the human mind, e.g. robots replacing human employees. It is pretty much obvious that editors will edit if they can edit something, and they will not if they cannot. By having the most commonly visited article uneditable, the only entrance way for new editors is through uncommon, sometimes almost completely unvisited article. Catching contributors this way is not going to help the encyclopedia in any way. Finally, what would raising the bar do anyway? If vandals are determine enough to destroy such a noble, non-profit project such as Wikipedia in bad faith, only to show the Internet how awesome they are, even though they get very little recognition, then just making them wait a couple more days does nothing. A vandal could just as easily spend seven days making twenty vandal edits to unprotected pages as they could ten edits in four days. In conclusion, the volunteers on Wikipedia do not need to drive away possible contributors who will help them with their job just for the sake of making an easy-to-do chore easier, especially considering the proposed fix would most likely not be valid anyway. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 00:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As at the first poll, this continues to be my first choice, while I could live with the old 4/0 or the 7/20, I just think this is the best compromise. GRBerry 19:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - Looking at the benefits of autoconfirmed vs. not—How many acts of vandalism occur to moves, semi-protected pages, and files? If someone wants to vandalize, a 4 day cooling off period should be enough. If you're still committed enough to vandalize a page after 4 days, 7 isn't going to dissuade you any more. Livitup (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is per Juliancolton ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is: too many restrictions can discourage new editors, which is the worst possible outcome. Benjaminx (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current I fully supported adding an edit requirement, and originally I also supported 7/20. However, I do not believe that changing from 4/10 to 7/20 will make much difference and I think it is no longer worth the bother. GDonato (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naerii 20:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is- Assume good faith, besides increasing autoconfirm will not decrease vandalism. [1]-- penubag (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I opposed any change originally, I oppose any further increase in criteria. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is! I would even go so far as to shorten it, but we're not supposed to be proposing new options here, so I'll just mosey on out. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This method clearly doesn't work. We should restrict pagemoves to rollbackers. —giggy 06:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any convincing evidence - just a lot of verbiage - that this would help any, and it's fairly obvious it would hurt people by making Wikipedia even less the encyclopedia anyone can edit. --Gwern (contribs) 12:12 28 June 2008 (GMT)
Keep as it is, I support increasing the options to attract new editors by making the place as comfortable as possible. WP:AGF, leads us to a path where we look for the best of in people and the project is rewarded for doing so, with the addition of new editors. WP:BITE also tells us to be nice to the new person. Increasing the challenges for a new editor to provide reliable and notable content, is counter to pretty much every core content policy we have. Jeepday (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is if not shorten. It's a wiki. Less open = bad. There are already more closed projects for those who disagree (though they are floundering while we are a top ten website, hmm). Also, I think it's worth noting that it is rather too easy to vote for a more closed project when one is safe in the knowledge that it won't affect one. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is I don't think that changing the autocomfirmed status requirements would decrease vandalism and would only provide to be an annoyance to actual contributors who could benifit from having all the rights of autoconfirmed users.--Mifter (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is – While the addition of a mild edit requirement is useful as a deterrent against the creation of hordes of sleeper accounts, increasing requirements for basic privileges is problematic with respect to the founding principle that anyone be able to edit. As I don't see an increase offering a substantial benefit in terms of the deterrence of recurrent vandals (they can merely wait longer and make more minor edits), and I have experienced multiple people asking about how to move pages they have created, how to edit semi-protected pages, and so forth, it suggests to me that the mere addition of an edit requirement has already caused some collateral damage in terms of preventing trustworthy people from receiving the technical trust they deserve. Raising the bar, as it were, would likely do little to deter persistent vandals, while frustrating newbies who genuinely deserve the autoconfirmed right. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - We should only be protecting against hit and run vandals. If you can wait 4 days to start vandalizing, you can wait 3 more -- and if you have trouble waiting the 4 days to become a reasonably-trusted user, the other 3 might scare you away.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to 7 days and 20 edits

Unequivocal support. Especially since vandalism problems have only gotten worse since the first poll was held. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that possibly imply that the prior change of imposing a an edit count limit was not effective and that further movement in that direction would also be ineffective? --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, where have you been? Did you go on vacation? :) Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. 4 days and 10 edits doesn't dissuade vandals enough. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me why someone willing to make 10 trivial edits (perhaps userspace) in order to meet autoconfirm wouldn't be just as willing to make 20? --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll need a pointy ruler here... :-D Waltham, The Duke of 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... are you going to question everyone who wants to give their support to this change? It's more about days that it is number of edits, though I think both combined will have a better effect. Seraphim♥Whipp 14:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a good way to spark constructive discussion. I dislike drive-by comments; I guess many others do as well. Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly a drive-by commentator... If you want discussion, make a discussion section. It's not good to question everyone on why they want the change. Seraphim♥Whipp 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking generally... And I have often encountered comments in such discussions which make little sense; clarifications are, of course, in order, but the originator of said comments is nowhere to be found, which is regrettable. Furthermore, if an argument is refutable, then it is any one's right to challenge it. What we are conducting here remains a discussion; the poll format and appellation do not render "votes" un-debatable. Waltham, The Duke of 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the question I was asked was applicable to any of the people that voted in this section. It doesn't make sense to question people individually. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right here. But, again, I was speaking generally. Have I just managed to create a thread out of nothing again? I should have this checked... :-D Waltham, The Duke of 03:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's a matter of judgement, but this seems about right.--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did before. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's ridiculous the developers didn't implement this the first time around. Hut 8.5 17:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
shoy 17:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Michael White^T·C 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zvika (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fullstop (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per the previous poll. This won't hinder serious contributors, but it will discourage the vandals. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The vandals we are talking about here are serious contributors, just destructive ones. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, nice one. As a joke, that is; I hope you are not trying to base your point on semantics. Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see much less Gwarp-ing in our future. Paragon12321 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hmm, sounds like a good idea. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, eases some of the vandalism problems with virtually no downsides. whatintheworldisthat (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would really help vandalism. RedThunder 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Even though I maintain that due process should be followed and the prior consensus applied, the seven-day, twenty-edit option has merits of its own. With every additional edit in the requirements, the numbers of dissuaded users increase, because fewer and fewer will find having some fun at the expense of Wikipedia worth the trouble; it has already been argued that 7/20 strikes an acceptable balance between this need and the comfort of newcomers. And, although not necessarily the case with simple vandals, who only have an account or two, there is an especially prominent exponential benefit against one of the intended targets of the measure that is rarely mentioned in this debate: sock-puppeteers. The increase will significantly diminish the ability to create numerous auto-confirmed accounts, making life for these users much more difficult. Waltham, The Duke of 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no grawp but it only took me couple of minutes to make 20 inconsequential edits to this page while working on other things, I certainly didn't feel very dissuaded and I think that the ability to leave you this comment is less of a reward for me than the ability to vandalize is for the vandals. Furthermore, in the time it took me to manually make those 20 edits I could have written code to do it automatically ... and then been able to auto-confirm as many accounts as I want. Perhaps a future poll should consider keeping the 10 edit limit but requiring a captcha for each of those edits. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the editors able to write 'bots a very small minority of Wikipedia's editors and vandals; I don't think the number that will write code to make themselves auto-confirmed fall into the category "casual vandals", and I doubt that they will change the statistics much; still, even for them things will become a little more difficult, which is satisfying to know.

In addition, only vandals with fast Internet connections have the ability to make twenty edits in a couple of minutes. For others, it will be more time-consuming. Besides, it is easy enough to game the system for one who is already familiar with Wikipedia (I repeat: this is not about experienced vandals who are well-versed in Wikipedia's structures); casual vandals, especially newcomers, will be less willing to expend time for some ill-defined fun, and many of them will probably even be unaware of auto-confirmation. These editors will not be able to edit highly visible semi-protected articles or move pages even if they take the time to register, things they would probably discover randomly. Waltham, The Duke of 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could make 20 edits in about 1-2 minutes using cellphone internet simple by opening separate articles in 20 tabs, hitting the edit button in each, hitting enter (to add whitespace in each) then hitting alt-s to submit in each. In my example I made the edits to a single page, but it would be much faster to perform it in parallel... It really is easy. We're already only talking about vandals who are willing to wait four days, can we really expect them to be so clueless as to not figure that out? I'd argue that 'casual vandals' are all eliminated after one days wait. Unfortunately so are some new contributors (i.e. people who just want to upload an image). --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all they are interested in is posting images, they could go to Commons, where there is no such restriction on uploading. In any case, many prospective editors (and vandals) are clueless, or we wouldn't need all this highly detailed documentation to begin with. And "waiting" does not equal "studying Wikipedia without making any edits"; if they are to spend their time on Wikipedia, they might as well make some edits (even if only to vandalise or simply to auto-confirm themselves without having to make all the edits in one go). It is more plausible that at least vandals who know what they are doing either are experienced to begin with and simply make a few edits and return after the number of days passes (the pattern normally followed by sock-puppeteers), or they behave more... Well, normally. Even by vandals' standards. Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This proposal is always better than the 4 days and 10 edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still support this, although it's not going to make a difference. The devs aren't going to budge no matter how hard we push them. So I guess this is a moral support then. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess. Does not go far enough, however. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is an excellent idea and that we need to implement it. It would stop socks in a lot of circumstances, granted not all, but discouragement is still at least a step in the right direction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would say something like 7 days and 50 edits, but this is fine. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this is a salutary change (4/10 --> 7/20). I do not expect it to deter persistent vandals, I do expect it to slightly decrease the number of edits made in ignorance while not imposing large hurdles to the development of good editors. I think that a week and 20 edits gives a new editor time to be recognized in the area he/she edits, and to have experienced editors provide suggestions, offers of assistance, etc. Overall, I think that it promotes a more cooperative environment. --Bejnar (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't really have anything to do with how autoconfirm is used, its almost solely a technical restriction. There's no visual cue that an editor is autoconfirmed besides counting edits and days, its not even listed on Special:Listusers, the social aspect of the autoconfirm restriction is minimal, if anything. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as before. Or longer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons stated by me in the last poll. It occurs to me that the "Permission error" page that pops up whenever an not yet autoconfirmed user attempts to upload a file should explicitly state words to the effect: "While you cannot upload an image here until autoconfirmed, if the image you wished to add was a free image, such as an image you took yourself that you are willing to release under a free license or into the public domain, please go to the Wikimedia Commons and upload it there where all free media should go anyway. The Commons has no similar threshold of edits before uploads can be done, and once uploaded there, the image can be immediately used here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd gladly vote higher, but this is the strongest thing on the ballot. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I did the first time. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hopefully this will be done democratically this second time around. This does not seem to suggest a tyranny of the new-blood majority is at hand with this sensible rule change. I would be against any further increase though, for an open and accessible wikpedia is what made us what we are (even if the openness is painful at times, it's worth it). Kain Nihil (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the length of time less than the number of edits. Conceptually speaking, four days means you register an account, relax over the weekend, and then come back to vandalize when you feel like it. A week, on the other hand, means you have to properly ask yourself how badly you want to commit vandalism. Seems like that'd have a dissuading effect to me.... --jonny-m t 13:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly think it should be a month and a 100 edits. ElectricalExperiment 14:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think the 7 days is more important than the 20 edits, but I don't object to that. You'll never stop all pagemove vandals, but having to wait a week will discourage more of them - you have to reach a compromise between anti-vandal and pro-new-editor, and I think 7d/20e is a good place for that. ~ mazca ^talk 14:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will help things out. If it doesn't, I would advocate moving back to 3/10. Malinaccier (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - to be honest, I wouldn't mind pushing this to around 100 edits. New users do not need to move pages, or edit semi-protected pages --T-rex 15:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Perhaps there can be a 4/10 for uploading photos and a 7/20 (or higher) for moving pages and editing semi-protected pages. Bebestbe (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that splitting thing again... Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A user who really wants to contribute to Wikipedia won't mind waiting to edit semi-protected pages, but a vandal won't bother waiting around for a week to be able to vandalize something. Mr. Absurd (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er...no, it's the other way around. Persistent vandals will wait it out, just so they can move a page to something else, but new contributers will just abandon thier account and go back to ip editing.--Serviam (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense; if they make their edits while logged in, they won't have to wait more than a week to be auto-confirmed. If they don't, there'll be little difference (but still, auto-confirmed accounts enjoy some benefits IP editing does not). Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is more about the time than the edit count; but our anti-vandal bots could much more reliably identify users attempting to dodge the autoconfirmed barrier maliciously if they need make 20 consecutive trivial edits than to make ten. Happy‑melon 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Perhaps a 4/20 might be a good compromise, particularly since positive contributors are likely to be unaffected by requiring ten extra edits whereas the speed bump for vandals would be set a little higher. Bebestbe (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point... Happy-Melon stole it from me before I even made it. :-D I've been too slow, it seems. Waltham, The Duke of 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going to have bots flagging new users making productive edits as potential vandals? I don't see that ending well. I can see if they just make 20 pointless edits to their userpage it would be pretty likely, but if they just do some vandal reversions or typo fixing, there's no way to distinguish them from a good faith new user. Mr.Z-man 05:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about bots, but when seeing an account with twenty space additions and removals and one article vandalism, I might deliver a level-2 instead of a level-1 warning. Waltham, The Duke of 06:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually much harder to program a bot to do constructive edits than you'd expect. It's a hell of a lot easier to get it to do things like this or this: repetitive, reversing edits to one single page. If I ran an anti-vandal bot, behavior like this would leap straight to the top of my threat list. If the first edit after the autoconfirmed limit was reached was vandalism, I'd shoot first and ask questions later: Misza13's anti-Grawp script slams in a block an average of 3 seconds after noticing behaviour like this, and hasn't hit (AFAIK) had a false-positive yet (apart from blocking SQL when he was deliberately imitating this behavior!). Strings of 20 edits like this would be even less likely to be false positives. Happy‑melon 17:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Icewedge (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; mainly for the time increase. Raising this limit will always dissuade those looking to maliciously circumvent the autoconfirm requirements; new users will still be able to create and edit unprotected articles, of which there are plenty. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - mostly because of recent vandalism problems. Agree that 4 days and 20 edits would be a reasonable compromise. PhilKnight (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—10 is below the nuisance threshold. 20 is a bare minimum. Tony (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as a relatively new user to WP I don't remember finding the initial phase a problem, in fact I think it could help stop well-intentioned users getting themselves into trouble too. -Hunting dog (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Most newbies won't even notice the temporary restrictions, and schoolboy vandals will be caught with their first 20 bad edits before they can create more of a mess. The 20 edits of experienced vandals may be a net gain before they disrupt wikipedia with higher-level tools. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even at this low level the associated restrictions present a minimal impediment to new users getting a feel for the place. Any downside is more than compensated for by the reduction in disruption. Debate 木 13:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reso lute 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for good reasons given by Sgeureka. 20 edits is going to be a big timewaster for serial vandals. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any measure to reduce page-move-vandalism is good, and serious editors won't be bothered by this restriction. BradV 22:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A week seems like a good amount of time, and I'm fine with 20 edits. hmwith τ 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it should be 7/20, not only because it will take longer for vandals to become established users, but also because there is a slight chance the vandal to change his/her mind about vandalizing wikipedia.--Wesselbindt (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mostly for the 7 days. Is there any way that only article space edits could count towards the 20? TwoMightyGods^Persuasion_Necessity 21:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The 7 day criteria is right but number of edits may be raised to 25 edits with nomore than 10 edits in a day ie. an user will have to edit atleast three days to reach the citeria. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. More for the time than the number of edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like is to try it out and collect data. If we don't see any significant improvements, then we should definitely jump back down to 4/10, to be as accessible as possible. I'm also mindful of other possible changes to autoconfirm other than the raw settings, which the devs have hinted at. -- Ned Scott 05:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying things out is good, but what about trying out and reporting on the first change, the one to 4/10 ? --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to find some way on getting statistics on that as well. My technical abilities aren't so good in this area, and I didn't get much of a response when I asked about it on WP:AN (here), but maybe the attention here will help with this effort. -- Ned Scott 07:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I posted this as a discussion piece. People didn't like it being displayed on the poll though. As far as I can tell the effect of the prior change was, at best, not especially large. I don't think we'd be able to know what effect it was having without switching it on and off many times, because there is so much noise and regular churn in the data. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. An intuitive time frame most new users will accept, while raising the hassle quotient for sleeper-sock puppeteers. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that we bump it up much further. Two months or so, and a few hundred edits. Putting it up to seven days and twenty edits is better than nothing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I supported this version before. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 7/20, would help with vandalism quite a bit.--Finalnight (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this seems just about the right level. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if newbies want to upload new images, they should be advised to go to Wikimedia Commons. This propose also increase the reliability of anti-vandal bots identifying accounts with 15–20 trivial edits and probably a increase in RC patrol would occur. I also think that very few banned users have knowledge to use or write bots making 20 trivial edits. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 4 days doesn't do much good. Someone with an axe to grind is going to wait longer than 4 days. People seem to make the argument that a lot of vandals are just bored and move on by 4 days anyway, and that is true for many, but they are IP vandals in most cases and it doesn't really apply to this. Anyone making an account to vandalize is being diliberate in their actions and easily ignores such a minor impedence. This would also increase the likelihood of identifying likely vandals because there are more trivial edits to pick up.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sandstein 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 7 days and 20 edits seems rather reasonable for "autoconfirmed" status into what is fast becoming, if not already is, the most-frequently referred to online encyclopedia in everyday conversation of the informed. N2e (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as before, and as a plurality did before. As Durova suggests, there's something intuitive about a week's timeframe. This is hardly a speed bump for either intentional vandals or committed editors. I daresay most won't even notice it. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seven days is an acceptable time period, but I wouldn't want it to be a day longer. Mahanga^Talk 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suport. Neıl 龱 07:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Leithp 07:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - tholly ^--Turnip-- 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is reasonable and that was the spirit of the first poll, IMHO. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For the same reasons as I did in the previous poll. Requiring 20 edits and 7 days is just that little bit more that would help fight vandalism without having a big affect on constructive users. Camaron2 | Chris (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darrenhusted (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Heck, with only ten edits, a vandal could make 40% of his "ten edits" vandalism and still not be blocked. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 13:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems to be a good change to prevent problems and cause little, if any, harm. Captain panda 13:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a trivial change. I doubt it really will discourage persistent vandals, though I also think it won't discourage new editors. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After this, the next step is to make it 20 unreverted article edits Make vandals make positive edits as the entry price. Some may even decide it is a more fun game than vandalising. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Again. -- Donald Albury 16:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. — Athaenara ✉ 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Always thought it was a little too lenient. Though, I would oppose any further tightening.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Can only make things better.. results in less vandalism and such = better wikipedia. Yzmo ^talk 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on my experience with vandalism. Spencer^T♦^C 21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I cannot see any negative effects coming from this minor change, and so I give it my full support. If it only works to dissuade one or two vandals, then at least that's one or two vandals less to worry about. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This might be useful, and should not deter proper users from editing. Why not. --06:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I think the criteria should be even more stringent. A step in the right direction. Royal broil 12:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chris 73 | Talk 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a week and 20 isn't long/much, and is a reasonable requirement. PamD (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'd much rather see a (lightweight) means of confirmation that wasn't "auto-" at all. Alai (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Roy Boy 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds good to me. Maybe not tough enough still. --JaGa (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jeandré, 2008-06-30t20:26z

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.