Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
What I am not proposing: Reply
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 13:31, 19 April 2026 | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
:You do not seem to have given much in the way of substantive data justifying such a strong restriction. If matters are as you say they are, I might be able to see a need for it, but (a) we have other policies in place to remove abusive new editors, and (b) I would first wish to confirm that entrenched editors themselves have been using Wikipedia to push a POV. I'm not making an accusation by saying so, I'm simply saying that we need more information than this before preventing new people from editing. The website is already far, far too forbidding for new editors as it is. [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 20:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
:You do not seem to have given much in the way of substantive data justifying such a strong restriction. If matters are as you say they are, I might be able to see a need for it, but (a) we have other policies in place to remove abusive new editors, and (b) I would first wish to confirm that entrenched editors themselves have been using Wikipedia to push a POV. I'm not making an accusation by saying so, I'm simply saying that we need more information than this before preventing new people from editing. The website is already far, far too forbidding for new editors as it is. [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 20:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC) |
||
::@[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] Fair points, and I appreciate the response. {{tqb|You do not seem to have given much in the way of substantive data justifying such a strong restriction.}} I kept the initial diffs deliberately brief to avoid overwhelming the discussion, but I'm more than happy to provide substantially more. The three accounts I cited are from the last few weeks and months alone, I can document the exact same pattern going back years across dozens of additional accounts and hundreds of affected articles if that would help move things forward. |
::@[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] Fair points, and I appreciate the response. {{tqb|You do not seem to have given much in the way of substantive data justifying such a strong restriction.}} I kept the initial diffs deliberately brief to avoid overwhelming the discussion, but I'm more than happy to provide substantially more. The three accounts I cited are from the last few weeks and months alone, I can document the exact same pattern going back years across dozens of additional accounts and hundreds of affected articles if that would help move things forward. |
||
::@[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] " The website is already far, far too forbidding for new editors as it is". No, it's not. You are wrong IMO. [[User:David10244|David10244]] ([[User talk:David10244|talk]]) 13:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
:2ND UPDATE: I'm back from vacations and will put together more evidence. --[[User:SdHb|SdHb]] ([[User talk:SdHb|talk]]) 17:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC) {{tqb|we have other policies in place to remove abusive new editors}} Yeah, destructive new editors can and do get removed and they have been, but I'm trying to solve the problem at the root. Each removal only deals with one account at a time while the underlying dynamic and destructive behaviour stays the same. One has to play police across hundreds of articles to monitor the problems. New single purpose accounts keep appearing faster than any one editor can reasonably track and report them. {{tqb|I would first wish to confirm that entrenched editors themselves have been using Wikipedia to push a POV.}} Established editors pushing POV wouldn't be stopped by ECR, it'd only raise the bar for new accounts. If established editors are part of the problem too, that's a separate concern worth raising independently, and I wouldn't oppose it by any means. It's just that most of the abusive behaviour comes ''not '' from them. {{tqb|The website is already far, far too forbidding for new editors as it is.}} I get your concern, and trust me, I would have wished these measures wouldn't be necessary. But the threshold here is genuinely modest IMO. The vast majority of good-faith new editors who stick around long enough to make meaningful contributions would clear it without even noticing. It's the hundreds of single-purpose accounts who ruin all the joy. [[User:SdHb|SdHb]] ([[User talk:SdHb|talk]]) 09:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC) |
:2ND UPDATE: I'm back from vacations and will put together more evidence. --[[User:SdHb|SdHb]] ([[User talk:SdHb|talk]]) 17:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC) {{tqb|we have other policies in place to remove abusive new editors}} Yeah, destructive new editors can and do get removed and they have been, but I'm trying to solve the problem at the root. Each removal only deals with one account at a time while the underlying dynamic and destructive behaviour stays the same. One has to play police across hundreds of articles to monitor the problems. New single purpose accounts keep appearing faster than any one editor can reasonably track and report them. {{tqb|I would first wish to confirm that entrenched editors themselves have been using Wikipedia to push a POV.}} Established editors pushing POV wouldn't be stopped by ECR, it'd only raise the bar for new accounts. If established editors are part of the problem too, that's a separate concern worth raising independently, and I wouldn't oppose it by any means. It's just that most of the abusive behaviour comes ''not '' from them. {{tqb|The website is already far, far too forbidding for new editors as it is.}} I get your concern, and trust me, I would have wished these measures wouldn't be necessary. But the threshold here is genuinely modest IMO. The vast majority of good-faith new editors who stick around long enough to make meaningful contributions would clear it without even noticing. It's the hundreds of single-purpose accounts who ruin all the joy. [[User:SdHb|SdHb]] ([[User talk:SdHb|talk]]) 09:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC) |
||
:::I can't agree that extended confirmed protection is "modest." It's pretty darned strong; overkill, I think. [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 16:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC) |
:::I can't agree that extended confirmed protection is "modest." It's pretty darned strong; overkill, I think. [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] ([[User talk:Larry Sanger|talk]]) 16:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC) |
||
