| Revision as of 05:54, 11 January 2008 editLawrence Cohen (talk | contribs)13,393 edits →This vote is hopeless: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:02, 4 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (455 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{superseded|Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback}} | |||
| {{Calm talk}} | |||
| {{archives|small=yes}} | |||
| == Hate me == | |||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| == Vote == | |||
| Let the damn thing run, put it in watchlists, and stop fighting already. You can all hate me after instead of each other. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Should we have a poll on the ] policy? --] (]) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :As I noted on your talk page - "Misplaced Pages is ], not giving people a chance to discuss is bad, you've missed the point of the ArbCom which is to prevent similar issues from happening in future and you can't sum up everyone's feelings about both allowing rollback and/or the process itself into a few neat headings. I can't help but think this is a terrible idea and fundamentally goes against the "wiki" in Misplaced Pages and the idea of consensus.". Misplaced Pages is not about ''binding votes'' and process like this, and this isn't going to do anything but muddy the waters further. -] (]) 03:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, by "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process" do you mean giving it to everyone in the "normal" usergroup automatically? And what if you agree to rollback ''without'' process but not with - will it get "lumped in" to some other policy based on your support for rollback in general? -] (]) 03:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Yes=== | |||
| :Yay! Misplaced Pages is a democracy! :-) (Oh, hang on...) ] (]) 03:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # | |||
| == |
===No=== | ||
| #Just hold the damn poll already. ] 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It seems the options are becoming a bit muddled. What about if we refactor this? Sections something like this... | |||
| #No poll until we are ready to have one without people changing the questions + we need someone to judge the consensus. ] (]) 07:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Non-admin rollback should be implemented | |||
| #] (]) 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Support | |||
| #] <sup>]</sup> 23:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Oppose | |||
| *If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out by community process (human decision) | |||
| :*Support | |||
| :*Oppose | |||
| *If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out automatically (time-based) | |||
| :*Support | |||
| :*Oppose | |||
| Something like that. Allows for a little more leeway, I think. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===Voting is evil=== | |||
| #]] 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===We should have a poll first to decide whether to hold this poll about having a poll=== | |||
| Unfortunately not. Because I oppose it's implementation unless it is automatic. So how do I vote?--]<sup>g</sup> 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # —] 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You could create a new section for that, or oppose all other proposals, I suppose. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # ] 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : A 6-way poll? Surely there must be a better way than *more* complicated up-to-interpretation polling :s -] (]) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''09:18, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| ::If anything, that seems ''less'' ambiguous, to me; it allows us to separate the issues of ''whether'' to turn it on, and ''how'' to turn it on, if we do. Doc's objection in particular seems to apply just as much to the current poll model. – <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # Yes. We need a poll to decide if we are ready to have a poll. Let's vote about that.] (]) 09:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| (EC)Thats why i BOLDly changed the heading, i assumed that people would want an option to have the roll-back tool remain Admin only, which i figured was what the last section was. Perhaps this would be better... | |||
| #: 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. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''09:48, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)''</small> | |||
| *Non-admin rollback should be implemented | |||
| #::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. ] (]) 10:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Support | |||
| #:::We should probably try to establish consensus as to whether a poll for a poll is necessary via a separate poll. ] ] 08:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*Oppose | |||
| #::::Let's take a poll first to see whether we should do that. —] 08:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out by community process (human decision) | |||
| #:::::As long as there is consensus. Which now means we have to take a poll per your idea. I see this going well. ] ] 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Support | |||
| #] | ] 08:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Oppose | |||
| :*If implemented, non-admin rollback should be given out automatically (time-based) | |||
| :::*Support | |||
| :::*Oppose | |||
| *Non-admin rollback should not be implemented | |||
| :*Support | |||
| :*Oppose | |||
| --] (]) 03:33, 11 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 ] about it. --]|] 13:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #: The real work is being done on ] now. Can you archive this and reinsert the link on the vote page to the debate at ]? ] (]) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, the real work is still being done somewhere over ] where vandals continue to proliferate, unsourced fancruft is still being inserted into otherwise worthy articles, and ] 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. --''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Except that ] states "unworthy edits, usually vandalism"; rather vague, really, and if use of the tool is challenged, there's an instant get-out; "]". --''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 10:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Restore & Archive== | |||
| Is it just me or are the number of sections that people are voting in growing by the minute? I thought the purpose of this page was to be a straight forward simple vote, that is basicly yes or no. So I was wondering what the section about wikilove, and the section about supporting all opinions have to do with the current vote, and if they are really nesseccary. --] (]) 05:18, 11 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. ] (]) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Proportional Representation? == | |||
| Just a question: we've already got people putting in first and second choices; how on earth is anyone going to disentangle the will of the community here? --''']''' (]) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Only Misplaced Pages can mess up a simple vote count with strict rules. -] (]) 03:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :That was why i made the suggestion i did above. although it would be better to simplify, i.e. either A) Give the tool, or B) don't give the tool, then do another vote (i know, so much democracy is shocking) over the logistics when/if the tool is given--] (]) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| We seem to be using ]. —] 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. --] (]) 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suppose if it's good enough to elect ArbCom, it should be good enough here. --''']''' (]) 04:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Straight vote, arbs ratify, go write a FA. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Watchlist== | |||
| Please put this on watchlist. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I have added a notice. Please feel free to revert if necessary. ] 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I oppose a notice. We've thousands of editors and many will not have a clue what this is about. If we are going to invite them to comment, in such a visible way, we really need to have more of an explanation/introduction first. Unfortunately, the poll will collapse as we didn't bother to agree wat we were doing before we began.--]<sup>g</sup> 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Surely we should have a few days grace to decide at least what we want to vote on and the method involved to vote on that? ] 04:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stays or goes, and if it goes does everyone just get it, or do we use the process, which is good enough to start. It's fine as is. No more damn beurocracy. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| We need a notice. Everyone grumbled the poll was "secret", so just put it out. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Someone can put up a brief notice header of what it is. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Someone very neutral???? Please.--]<sup>g</sup> 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Huh? I just added a short terse explanation. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not everything needs ten layers of formality and debate. Just get done what needs doing, already. Discussion is great, but drowning in it for the sake of talk is frankly stupid. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :In an ideal world the voters would know exactly what they were voting for, with pros and cons of each proposal - many users are going to come here not having a clue (and that could effect the poll in many different ways). ] 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::What pros and cons? It's a stupid revert button. I already had like 10 from Twinkle. We can hash out how people lose it later if the vote keeps going as it is under process. If the vote turns around and everyone loses it, thats it. At least then we can stop dicking around with backend shit and write articles again, which is why we're here. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am feeling especially un-informed today (sorry). Presently, non-admin editors with no tools simply click on a prior version they like, for "edit," then save that (two clicks). An edit summary for why you did that, is polite, but for vandalism, "RVV" works fine (three strokes). Is this debate about one click?? or have I missed something really important? What nefarious fixit stuff do you admins HAVE? ]]]] 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yep, this whole big thing, boils down to being about one click, in a nutshell. ]] 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::lol, the irony. --] (]) 05:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Perhaps its me (this debate may have resulted in paranoia) but this argument of "it's just a darn button" seems to overwhelmingly come from the same folks that want it to be bureaucratically given. Seems a double standard. If this "boils down to being about one click", may I ask ] why you want to make sure we have an admins approval to use it? Surely a person can do far more damage with the "edit this page" button than "rollback"... and yet, even anonymous IP's have that. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: We sure do. Two clicks and three strokes. Sounds like my first experience with sex ;) Okay, I'll let you guys go back to your important debate. ]]]] 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What have pagemoves got to do with this? == | |||
| In the first section on this page, editor Halo asked much the same question I came to ask. | |||
| I don't see an answer so I will ask it again: | |||
| :By "I support non-admin rollback being implemented, automatically like pagemoves with no process" do you mean giving it to everyone in the "normal" usergroup automatically? | |||
| For someone who has no idea how pagemoves were inmplemented, this wording is very unclear. ] (]) 05:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| PS Is that comma supposed to be in after "implemented"? | |||
| : User accounts cannot move pages until they have been registered for at least four days. The same goes for editing of semi-protected pages. Rollback would be automatically given out only to accounts more than four days old to avoid abuse in the same way that semi-protection reduces vandalism – ] 05:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == I support options A and B, A and C, or A and B and C == | |||
| What's the point of this? Wouldn't it make more sense to just sign any ones that you agree with? - ] (]) 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree, no offence Random, but its pretty stupid. You make it sound like you're looking or a cabal with that description. I would assume that the arbcom are intelligent to realise that people supporting either variation of having non-admin rollback, are in fact supporting it in general. I think it should be removed--] (]) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Someone vandalised my header. I SPECIFICALLY stated "A and B". —] 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Yea, well people keep changing the headers. I recommend re-voting in the appropriate section and not changing them back, just avoid another discussion, cause next we will be discussing the headings. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, once this is over people will complain, and then it will happen again, and the process will probably be just as flawed as this time. - ] (]) 05:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Did people complain after the main page vote and the 3rr vote were ended? I mean, just looking at it logically, if you have 1000 people involved, and all our voices carry weight, sometimes you need to just cut through all the bureaucratic crap, and the endless discussion where things just need to get done, and ''do'' something. If not, nothing truly major will ever get done unless something or someone comes down from on high to say, "This is this," which goes completely against the wiki-way of everyone getting to chime in with their thoughts. Sometimes you need to tell people to just chime in without a lot of extra crap, to actually move forward. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, but will that ever happen? No. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree too, but here, there has already been too much "crap". - ] (]) 05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Changing titles after voting has begun == | |||
| I've now removed my signature since for some odd reason, people feel the need to change titles, add options, etc. This should have all happened <b>before</b> the voting began, obviously. So much for making things right this time around. - ] (]) 05:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Although the header changed, this was the implied meaning - the status quo being that we continue as we have since it was impemented. ] 05:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That was not the only change.... There have been several, right? Many/most of which have been changed back. - ] (]) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yup, I understand these concerns, not sure what we can do now though (I had nothing to do with the header changes BTW). ] 05:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Agree with Rjd0060, once you vote under one title, it should not be changed, it is almost like having people vote and then change what they are voting for. This should have been all done and decided upon before this process started. Though like you said, not much we can do now but keep the titles the same. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know you had nothing to do with it. I was just expecting a straight forward process here, but I guess I was wrong (again). - ] (]) 05:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::At first, I read the title of the first option (with the comment "the current status quo" as implying that the rollback process we now have was implemented by a community decision (it wasn't, of course). ] (]) 05:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == off topic question == | |||
| I see the rollback link on histories, and user contribution pages now...did someone put me in the approved group with out telling me? I have not tested it, nor do I plan to use it at this time. --] (]) 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :ok, i tested it and appearantly I can rollback. how odd. --] (]) 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == This vote is hopeless == | |||
| Now that I know there are, in fact, people who are "opposed to rollback unless it's given automatically"; the situation is too complex for this kind of vote. We need to discard this and replace it with a system by which everyone can easily record their order of preference for the three possibilities. Maybe the ]? —] 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think we have already that, and that is now why we are here. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :We don't need 18 votes, 25 polls, 37 pages of talk archives, an arbitration case, and someone calling Florida to demand satisfaction from the WMF secretary. We need to end this, let the people we elected call the election, and go write articles. Something like the painfully complex Condorcet system if stupided down so anyone can understand what they need to do on a mega-poll with ten seconds of reading would be good for next time, which hopefully isn't this year. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:02, 4 February 2023
 | This Misplaced Pages page has been superseded by Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
 Archives | |
|
|
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.
Vote
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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll now. Can you archive this and reinsert the link on the vote page to the debate at Misplaced Pages 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)
Restore & Archive
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. Category: