CC'd this to Foundation-l. There is a poll currently on the English Wikipedia to implement a version of FlaggedRevisions. The poll was introduced left into the vacuum which remained after the first poll failed to result in concrete action. At the close of poll #1, Jimmy indicated that he thought it had passed and should result in an FR implementation. When he received some protest, he announced that he would shortly unveil a new compromise proposal. While I'm sure he had the best of intentions, this proposal hasn't materialized and the result has been limbo. Into the limbo rides another proposal, this one masquerading as the hoped for compromise. Unfortunately, it isn't - at least, not in the sense that it is a middle ground between those who want FR implemented and those who oppose it. What it does do is compromise, as in fundamentally weaken, the concept of FR and the effort to improve our handling of BLPs. The proposed implementation introduces all the bureaucracy and effort of FlaggedRevisions, with few of the benefits. FlaggedProtection, similar to semi-protection, can be placed on any article. In some instances, FlaggedProtection is identical to normal full protection - only, it still allows edit wars on unsighted versions (woohoo). Patrolled revisions are passive - you can patrol them, but doing so won't impact what the general reader will see. It gives us the huge and useless backlog which is exactly what we should not want, and exactly what the opposition has predicted. The only likely result is that inertia will prevent any further FR implementation, and we'll be stuck with a substitute that grants no real benefit. What I would like to see, and what I have been hoping to see, is either implementation of the prior proposal (taking a form similar to that used by de.wp) or actual proposal of a true compromise version. The current poll asks us to just give up.

CC'd this to Foundation-l.