Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Vote

message: Should we have a poll on the Requests for Rollback policy? --Carnildo (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: #Just hold the damn poll already. Nakon 07:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: #ALLSTARecho 07:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting is evil

message: # —Ashley Y 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We should have a poll first to decide whether to hold this poll about having a poll

message: # 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: It's not funny anymore

message: 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)
thread_title: Restore & Archive