On 7/1/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
There was a thread about this in the list back in
January, but nothing
happened because of it. So I started an on-wiki proposal about this
was adding a certain edit count to the
autoconfirmed threshold) at
. I hope
everyone goes there and at least gives an opinion
(and maybe this email
actually make it to the list this time).
This poorly worded proposal strikes me as just more muddled instruction
creep that serves no useful purpose.
That strikes me as being a bit hasty. Aside from biting someone who
earnestly put forward their idea in good faith, you're worried about a
"poorly worded" proposal? On a wiki? Where anybody can edit -- and, more
importantly, fix -- the wording? The wording is largely irrelevant. I'd be
more concerned about the merit (or lack thereof) of the concept itself.
So, to the point: anybody could tell you that sleeper accounts are
problematic. Semi-protection doesn't do much good, when somebody registered
fifty accounts in the past week, and they're all autoconfirmed. The only
recourses available are massive reversion sprees and full protection, which
locks nearly the entire community out of editing the page until... the
sockmaster gets bored?
Recognizing this problem, and hopefully without putting words in anybody's
mouth, Royalguard11 has proposed adding one extra caveat to the process of
being autoconfirmed: a very small minimum edit count. Small enough that it's
no problem to get it for one account, but large enough that it'd be
prohibitively difficult to get a large number of sleeper accounts
I don't know if it's a great idea, but it hardly seems to hurt anything by