 | This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we have a poll on the Requests for Rollback policy? -- Carnildo ( talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes
No
- Just hold the damn poll already. Nakon 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- No poll until we are ready to have one without people changing the questions + we need someone to judge the consensus. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 07:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Enigmaman ( talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoety talk 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Voting is evil
We should have a poll first to decide whether to hold this poll about having a poll
- — Ashley Y 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nakon 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:18, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We need a poll to decide if we are ready to have a poll. Let's vote about that.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a poll to decide whether or not to hold a poll on holding a poll to have a poll. You missed one level there.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 09:48, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Ah damn it! I'm much ashamed of my attempt to avoid due process. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't try to circumvent process like that. I support the poll on whether to have a poll on having a poll about the poll.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should probably try to establish consensus as to whether a poll for a poll is necessary via a separate poll.
the_undertow
talk 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's take a poll first to see whether we should do that. —
Ashley Y 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as there is consensus. Which now means we have to take a poll per your idea. I see this going well. the_undertow talk 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's take a poll first to see whether we should do that. —
Ashley Y 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should probably try to establish consensus as to whether a poll for a poll is necessary via a separate poll.
the_undertow
talk 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah damn it! I'm much ashamed of my attempt to avoid due process. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't try to circumvent process like that. I support the poll on whether to have a poll on having a poll about the poll.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a poll to decide whether or not to hold a poll on holding a poll to have a poll. You missed one level there.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 09:48, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Johnleemk | Talk 08:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not funny anymore
- Really, it gets rather lame to propose or even start a poll about a poll after the second or third time, y'know? Been there, done that. Now let's move on, or at least be
more creative about it. --
Conti|
✉ 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The real work is being done on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll now. Can you archive this and reinsert the link on the vote page to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll? EconomicsGuy ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the real work is still being done somewhere over
---->here where vandals continue to proliferate, unsourced fancruft is still being inserted into otherwise worthy articles, and
WP:BLP is being flouted on a daily, if not hourly, basis. All I can say is that the rollback button is very useful to me, but then, perhaps I take it seriously. --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone else have gone back to working on the encyclopedia as well. This pretty much died on Saturday anyway and with the number of people actually being granted rollback now this isn't much of an issue anymore. Just remember that rollback is for obvious vandalism only - everything else needs an edit summary.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that
WP:ROLLBACK states "unworthy edits, usually vandalism"; rather vague, really, and if use of the tool is challenged, there's an instant get-out; "
it was not worthy". --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right but the way I read that is that if a hypothetical complete idiot can't figure out why you reverted then use an edit summary. I may be a bit overly cautious but rather safe than sorry until this calms down completely. I think we are getting there though - the main issue seems to be if Santa should have rollback or not. Apparently we need a 'crat to help figure that out. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that
WP:ROLLBACK states "unworthy edits, usually vandalism"; rather vague, really, and if use of the tool is challenged, there's an instant get-out; "
it was not worthy". --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone else have gone back to working on the encyclopedia as well. This pretty much died on Saturday anyway and with the number of people actually being granted rollback now this isn't much of an issue anymore. Just remember that rollback is for obvious vandalism only - everything else needs an edit summary.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the real work is still being done somewhere over
---->here where vandals continue to proliferate, unsourced fancruft is still being inserted into otherwise worthy articles, and
WP:BLP is being flouted on a daily, if not hourly, basis. All I can say is that the rollback button is very useful to me, but then, perhaps I take it seriously. --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring and archiving the page. It was really quite disturbing to see it being blanked, locked and a picture of a cat in it's place. While I believe the poll was not over, at least it is there for people to see. Bstone ( talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| This Wikipedia page has been superseded by Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
|
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we have a poll on the Requests for Rollback policy? -- Carnildo ( talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes
No
- Just hold the damn poll already. Nakon 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- No poll until we are ready to have one without people changing the questions + we need someone to judge the consensus. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 07:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Enigmaman ( talk) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tiptoety talk 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Voting is evil
We should have a poll first to decide whether to hold this poll about having a poll
- — Ashley Y 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nakon 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Equazcion •✗/ C • 09:18, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We need a poll to decide if we are ready to have a poll. Let's vote about that.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a poll to decide whether or not to hold a poll on holding a poll to have a poll. You missed one level there.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 09:48, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Ah damn it! I'm much ashamed of my attempt to avoid due process. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't try to circumvent process like that. I support the poll on whether to have a poll on having a poll about the poll.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should probably try to establish consensus as to whether a poll for a poll is necessary via a separate poll.
the_undertow
talk 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's take a poll first to see whether we should do that. —
Ashley Y 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- As long as there is consensus. Which now means we have to take a poll per your idea. I see this going well. the_undertow talk 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's take a poll first to see whether we should do that. —
Ashley Y 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- We should probably try to establish consensus as to whether a poll for a poll is necessary via a separate poll.
the_undertow
talk 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah damn it! I'm much ashamed of my attempt to avoid due process. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't try to circumvent process like that. I support the poll on whether to have a poll on having a poll about the poll.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a poll to decide whether or not to hold a poll on holding a poll to have a poll. You missed one level there.
Equazcion
•✗/
C • 09:48, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Johnleemk | Talk 08:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not funny anymore
- Really, it gets rather lame to propose or even start a poll about a poll after the second or third time, y'know? Been there, done that. Now let's move on, or at least be
more creative about it. --
Conti|
✉ 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The real work is being done on Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll now. Can you archive this and reinsert the link on the vote page to the debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll? EconomicsGuy ( talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the real work is still being done somewhere over
---->here where vandals continue to proliferate, unsourced fancruft is still being inserted into otherwise worthy articles, and
WP:BLP is being flouted on a daily, if not hourly, basis. All I can say is that the rollback button is very useful to me, but then, perhaps I take it seriously. --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone else have gone back to working on the encyclopedia as well. This pretty much died on Saturday anyway and with the number of people actually being granted rollback now this isn't much of an issue anymore. Just remember that rollback is for obvious vandalism only - everything else needs an edit summary.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that
WP:ROLLBACK states "unworthy edits, usually vandalism"; rather vague, really, and if use of the tool is challenged, there's an instant get-out; "
it was not worthy". --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right but the way I read that is that if a hypothetical complete idiot can't figure out why you reverted then use an edit summary. I may be a bit overly cautious but rather safe than sorry until this calms down completely. I think we are getting there though - the main issue seems to be if Santa should have rollback or not. Apparently we need a 'crat to help figure that out. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except that
WP:ROLLBACK states "unworthy edits, usually vandalism"; rather vague, really, and if use of the tool is challenged, there's an instant get-out; "
it was not worthy". --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 08:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone else have gone back to working on the encyclopedia as well. This pretty much died on Saturday anyway and with the number of people actually being granted rollback now this isn't much of an issue anymore. Just remember that rollback is for obvious vandalism only - everything else needs an edit summary.
EconomicsGuy (
talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the real work is still being done somewhere over
---->here where vandals continue to proliferate, unsourced fancruft is still being inserted into otherwise worthy articles, and
WP:BLP is being flouted on a daily, if not hourly, basis. All I can say is that the rollback button is very useful to me, but then, perhaps I take it seriously. --
Rodhullandemu (
Talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring and archiving the page. It was really quite disturbing to see it being blanked, locked and a picture of a cat in it's place. While I believe the poll was not over, at least it is there for people to see. Bstone ( talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.