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
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.
How is it not a compromise? Its a version that most of the supporters
still support and that many of the opposers now support. Compromise
involves both sides making concessions, not repeatedly proposing the
same thing in hopes of a different outcome. So far it has far more
community support than the previous proposed version (which had what?
I'm getting really mad at the people opposing every version of
FlaggedRevs that doesn't provide some ultimate level of protection for
BLPs. If you want something that helps BLPs, PROPOSE SOMETHING! Sitting
around and opposing everything in favor of some non-existent system is
unhelpful and basically saying that articles are worthless unless they
are BLPs. The proposed system can potentially help some articles, while
this un-proposed system that will be a magic bullet for the BLP problem
currently helps nothing, because it doesn't exist.
I agree that patrolled revisions have a high likelihood of failing. Its
too bad we aren't proposing to use it as a trial instead, so if they
don't work, we can come up with a different system. Oh, wait...
If FlaggedProtection results in a manageable system, then we can
consider expanding it to more articles than the current policy would
allow. Enwiki is big and slow; expecting it to do some massive, visible
change over hundreds of thousands of articles all at once is rather
unrealistic. Several months ago, I told Erik on this list that enwiki
would never be able to get consensus for FR, it looks like I'm wrong
about that. Perhaps there's some hope left after all.