Fred Bauder wrote: There is *no* anything to do with percentage at this time. Nothing at all. At the moment, the automated confirmation criteria is based on time since registration. Other criteria such as edit counts can be added (but all of them can be gamed). -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Fred Bauder wrote: Not a lot of work for a persistent vandal. A simple bot can make a thousand "spelling corrections" and "formatting tweaks" easy enough. You're already talking about having the foresight to make sleeper accounts, and you're going to tell me that a few non-suspicious edits first are unthinkable? It *can* be gamed. The question is just whether it will be enough of a speed bump to be worth it without seeming like a barrier to gleefully jump over. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Fred Bauder wrote: No, the code was _never_ intended to protect against determined vandals with technical tools; indeed it's hard to think of _any_ automatic measure which would be completely effective against such vandals; you'd just create a technical arms race, which they'd enjoy for being the subject of so much attention. Rather, it's designed as a low-tech aid to [[soft security]]; a "speed bump", not a barrier. All it does is to make drive-by vandalism a little bit harder. But making it just a little bit harder considerably reduces its prevalence, enabling human editors to spend more time editing and curbing the serious vandals. As such, it's very a Wiki countermeasure. -- Neil

I don't like begging. Fred On Jan 3, 2006, at 8:06 AM, Rob Church wrote:

Fred Bauder: Wouldn't such stockpiling be rendered fairly ineffective by the autoblocker, or does that only affect anonymous users? Erik

The ones we need it for come in on variable ips. For example Gibraltarian who comes in from Gibraltar. It would be nice to have an option other than blocking everyone from Gibraltar. He created Gib1 Gib2 Gib3 Gib4 edited with one but just left the other 3 to age. Fred On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: