Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll

message: zomg polls coming out our ears. Did nobody tell you that Poles polls are evil? – Gurch 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

message: OMG we need a polll on what kind of poll we use to decide what kind of poll we're goeeng to haff!!!!!!!!!!111oneone
(seriously folks, that's where you're going to end up)
Stifle (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion on the form of the poll, not a poll on the form of the poll. When people work together, this sort of thing can work. Carcharoth (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG!! 

message: One question, few choices are better. I favor a 1Q/4A approach similar to the 1Q/3A suggested by Conti (see here: Do you support...? 1)Yes, automatically for qualified users; 2)Yes, for users qualified by an administrator; 3)No. 4)None of the Above. Indicate that policy on the successful outcome will be worked out separately. -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it simple 

message: I've closed this poll as it's unneeded.  Simple discussion on the /Vote talk page will be enough. Nakon 20:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er.. this isn't a poll. It's a discussion on how to do a proper poll (or vote, or something) about the issue. --Conti|✉ 21:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it up man, the thought police have spoken. No dissent allowed. Hiding T  21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been blanked and protected. All past discussion is available in the history. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a mess, it's chaos.  We have too many proposals and not enough substantive !votes.  --Merovingian (T, C) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed 

message: Who the hell is that and where are these comments? Please link to them from the protection notice. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:18, 11 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this for her comment. I tried to add it to the page, but it breaks the template. Anyone knows how to fix that? Anyways, Anthere is the chair of the board of the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia. --Conti|✉ 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the links. More information about Anthere is available here. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Be advised that Anthere told us to sort it out ourselves, so anything done in the name of Anthere is some sort of paradox. Hiding T  23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm. Seems strange to protect the page where we were attempting to solve this ourselves. That is awfully paradoxical now isn't it. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:15, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

text: * I dunno, I tend to buy my tigers outright, rather than lease. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * lease/leash - Lol @ the typo. Nice catch : ) - jc37 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks :) And PS, as you can see from my response to Anthere's comments at ANI, I agree with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:24, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthere 

message: Let's see if we can list the main proposal "ingredients":
*1.) Rollback should not be given to non-admins - the previous "status quo".
*2.) Granted as a user-right to non-admins
:*a.) rollback granted to non-admins as a user-right by admins
:*b.) rollback granted to non-admins as a user-right by bureaucrats
:*c.) rollback granted to non-admins as a user-right by ArbCom
*3.) Process for granting?
:*a.) rollback for non-admins should be granted according to the granter's discretion.
:*b.) rollback for non-admins should have a request page which has a process similar to WP:RfA (Aka RfA-lite)
:*c.) rollback for non-admins should have a request page which has a process similar to WP:RfAr
:*d.) rollback for non-admins should have a request page which has a process similar to WP:CHU
:*e.) rollback for non-admins should have a request page which has a process similar to AWB
*4.) Auto-approved to all registered accounts
:*a.) Auto-approved to all registered accounts - no other new limits to the tool (besides rate, as noted elsewhere)
:*b.) limited by adding a 2-click interface (opens the edit window, rather than directly reverting, giving the opportunity to edit the page and/or provide an edit summary - similar to UNDO)
:*c.) Same as "b", but merge with UNDO.
:*d.) Same as "b", but also retain the 1-click version for admins (called something else, comparable to TWINKLE's "rollback vandal".)
:*e.) Same as "c", but also retain the 1-click version for admins (comparable to TWINKLE's "rollback vandal".)
*5.) Removal
:*a.) rollback removal by stewards
:*b.) rollback removal by bureaucrats
:*c.) rollback removal by admins
*6.) Request for rollback request history
:* a.) Non-admin rollback requests should have a "declined" page listing information for reference.
:* b.) Non-admin rollback requests should not have a "declined" page listing information for reference.
Note that the above should not be a case of picking just one, but each person blending the various ingredients to their preferred choice. (This could be seen as similar to how ArbCom often "votes", listing "first choice; second choice; third choice", or alternatively by creating an RfC, with each person's section being their preferred blending of the ingredients; or some combination of the two.) 
If I missed any, please feel free to add more - jc37 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: * 3b-e) defeats the purpose of rollback. We should have learned by now not to give the developers any ideas. Remember that "rollback" to any given revision still exists in popups - without the user having to do more than make 1 click. I think we should keep this focused on the core issue which is server load. Otherwise it gets complicated and people start to get ideas. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ==== Granting ====
===== View by Jc37 =====
*Prefer 4d
# 1st choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: ===== View by Jc37 =====
*Prefer 4d
# 1st choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Granting 

message: *Prefer 4d
# 1st choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  View by Jc37 

message: *Prefer 2b with a process of 3d
# Second choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate view by Jc37 

message: *Prefer 4b
# Third choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate view by Jc37 

message: ===== View by Jc37 =====
*Prefer 6a
#6a is a must regardless of other choices, to reduce confusion, and repetitive forum shopping. - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: *Prefer 6a
#6a is a must regardless of other choices, to reduce confusion, and repetitive forum shopping. - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  View by Jc37 

message: Can we have a link on the protected page Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote to this? Maybe that would gather more attention. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to this page

message: All of these proposals that continue to be debated and look at all assume that the software isn't fluid. That is, all of the assumptions made are based off of current software. It may be best to think outside the box. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give an example to clarify what you mean? - jc37 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I saw was that the devs would possibly only be interested in extending an existing function rather than writing (testing,validating,etc.) new software. Here is an example to clarify what I want: . IMO admin rollback should work this way too - the rollback edit summary is singularly uninformative.  Franamax (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The default rollback summary can be changed here in the MediaWiki namespace and there are scripts that allow people to customize it for themselves. Mr.Z-man 18:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another wrench in the machinery