Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Draft poll

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.

---

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

OMG!!

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)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that we can't call this a poll when the page name is Draft poll? Semantics won't solve this as long as this is in the hands of an extremely torn community with a large group of people who just don't care anymore and just wants to add moar rollcat to the involved pages. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Oh my. I never thought I would see the day when this sort of bureaucracy would overtake Wikipedia. This is really shameful. I'll keep awarding rollback, and I'll be around when people decide that the original poll was good enough, that giving people a rollback button that can be removed by any administrator at any time is not a big deal, and we all get back to sanity. Something that works this well and hasn't caused any problems so far, and can be fixed immediately if it does, should not cause this sort of reaction. I didn't even support it the first time around, but it works great. Grandmasterka 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just shocked anybody thinks that we need another poll, we know that around 75-80% of users support editors being given rollback in some form or other and that 67% of the community supports the present implementation, past polls have also gathered around 67% support for other proposed implementations, the result of any future poll is going to be substantially similar to previous polls. We did well with 450 editors voting in the most recent poll, that's about as representative as any recent polls have been. Nick (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple

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)

Closed

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)

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)

Give it up man, the thought police have spoken. No dissent allowed. Hiding T 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The page has been blanked and protected. All past discussion is available in the history. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Anthere

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)

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)

Fixed the links. More information about Anthere is available here. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

• I think Anthere's comments were great, and on the nose, right up until she supporterted the fait accompli. I would have presumed that in the face of further discussion, this should have been reverted to the "status quo", which was that rollback was an admin tool only. I think an apt analogy would be someone bringing a tiger into the camp, claiming that it's tame, and no harm should come from it being let loose. Now after an initial discussion, the tiger is let loose, though there's still discussion about where the tiger should run free, should it be on a leash, or allowed only to run so fast, and who's allowed to supervise the tiger, and how often it should be let out of its cage, and other considerations. Now should the tiger continue to run free while there are concerns? Even if during that time period the tiger causes no trouble, what does letting the tiger free indicate to the rest of the community who were still discussing in good faith? Anyway, just my thoughts. Let's move on to the discussion... - jc37 10:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I dunno, I tend to buy my tigers outright, rather than lease. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)

• lease/leash - Lol @ the typo. Nice catch : ) - jc37 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Proposals

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)

Discussion

• 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)

  That was actually suggested by User:Tim Starling. I went through the various proposals pages to get these. (That, and, as may be noted elsewhere, I like the idea of the non-admin version (however it's implemented) having a 2-click interface - both to provide for an edit summary, and due to "accidental" pushing of the button.) - jc37 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  I still think it kinda defeats the whole purpose of it. Rollback for admins was never intended for anything else that obvious vandalism or self reverts either. For non-trivial reverts I still prefer the manual method - that also forces you to think twice before actually reverting. However, if the developers already have these ideas I guess we need to consider them. I'm a bit confused though - yesterday we were told that the developers wanted rollback for everyone for performance reasons. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  AFAIK, they do. I'm merely referring to: Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators#View by Tim Starling. (Note:The rate limiting is in place, and seems to not be controversial AFAICT.) - jc37 14:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Other than that this is something we can work on. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  Did you notice any other proposals that I may have missed? - jc37 12:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  No, it builds nicely on the work we did yesterday before we got shut down. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  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"

• If the aim is to get a consensus, then this kind of defeats that. People should be listing the options they can live with. Otherwise we end up with situations such as 60% of the group voting for "Option A" as their "first choice" with 40% against, and 90% of the group voting for "option B" as their first or second choice, and Option A "winning" despite massive opposition. As a general comment though, I think the poll as proposed above is way too complex and most people are going to be unwilling to vote if it's something like that. We need to whittle down the proposal to three or four popular combinations. The original vote was mostly ok, except that it needed to be made clear that people could support more than one option, and my view was the options were in a non-intuitive option (partially restricted, followed by mostly unrestricted, followed by completely restricted.) Given the people here largely fall into one of these three camps, it's probably better to get a consensus within each camp as to what precisely those restrictions should be, and then base the poll on that, rather than trying to do the whole thing in one giant, intimidating, poll. --Squiggleslash (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, I was seeing this as more an introduction to an RfC. See #Examples below. - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• With regards to 3e - Twinkle has no granting method - only AWB. Tiddly-Tom 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• I should note, that without some major changes to how autopromoted user rights are handled or the crappy hack I came up with, sections 4 and 5 are incompatible. You can't have rights given automatically and then removed on command. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples

Granting

View by Jc37

• Prefer 4d

1. 1st choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate view by Jc37

• Prefer 2b with a process of 3d

1. Second choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate view by Jc37

• Prefer 4b

1. Third choice - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal

View by Jc37

• Prefer 5b

History

View by Jc37

• Prefer 6a

1. 6a is a must regardless of other choices, to reduce confusion, and repetitive forum shopping. - jc37 13:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to this page

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)

Another wrench in the machinery

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)

Could you give an example to clarify what you mean? - jc37 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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: [1]. IMO admin rollback should work this way too - the rollback edit summary is singularly uninformative. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Experimentation

I agree with Anthere's comments... especially that "storm in a tea-cup" bit, and the bit about JeLuF being a thoroughly decent guy. :-) But it's not as if she said to silence discussion for three months!

The inertia in a community this size is incredible. Most of the current behavior of the site is just there by accident, that it didn't occur to anyone to do something different, not because it was deliberately chosen. The reason autoconfirmed users don't get rollback isn't because someone handed it down on a stone tablet; it's because no one thought about it.

Any poll conducted now is going to have a huge flaw: it's unrepresentative, because only the people who really care are going to be bothered to say something. So there were 300 or so on one side, 100 or so on the other. But probably a large number of other people heard about the poll and thought "you know, I don't care which one it is." (And then went to go fight to the death about something more personally interesting. :-)) You don't see or hear from them. But clearly they don't think anything too terrible would happen if the decision went one way or another!

All such polls are going to be like this, especially as the active userbase grows, and so I am skeptical of how valuable they really are; they say how many people have a strong enough opinion on either side to think it worthwhile to vote but probably do not really reflect the views of the whole community.

My own preference is things like this is to choose the most interesting option, the one that will tell us something we didn't know before. So I'd like to see what happens if rollback is given to all autoconfirmed users. (Or even everyone, but a short delay to avoid simple "drive-by" vandalism is essentially "everyone".) If it's a total disaster, we learned something, and then we can pull back to admin-granted only. And if that's a total disaster, well, we learned something there too. (Didn't you ever do science experiments in school that didn't prove what you wanted them to?) I'm disappointed to see the status quo as a bureaucratic admin-granted rollback because it's boring; you don't learn what would happen if everyone got it after a few days, and it imposes a bunch of procedural overhead on admins who could be doing something else.

But we don't have a track record of experimentation, and people are scared of it -- used to seeing a change made and then stuck there, never to be changed again, or at least not without a lot of misery and a long delay. If a change you don't like is made, you lost; that's just How It Is for the foreseeable future. But that's not how it should be. We should be able to have changes with "experimental" status, which get evaluated after enough time has passed to see how it works out. Because it's nearly impossible to get consensus for anything anymore; in a community this size there's going to be opposition for anything that has even the potential to work out badly. The people who favor the status quo have the project history to point to; look, we've gotten this far this way and haven't fallen apart. The people who favor a change have only speculation and theories to point to, no real information -- but they'll never be able to get any real information if the change is never made.

The way things are isn't sacred. (There are few policies that are foundational, but those number in the single digits, maybe even the digits on one hand.) Mostly policy wasn't imposed from on high but written by people who watched what was going on and wrote up what was happening. And a lot of technical features of the site are there because no one suggested a different option, or considered one aspect of it while fixing another. The waiting period for page moves came up because of a page-move vandal; no one was thinking about rollback.

en.wp needs to come up with a better way to handle this or nothing will ever change; already it's near impossible to change anything about the way the site works (without doing it quietly, under the radar) because there will always be some who don't agree, or who mostly agree but are pulling for a different implementation. We don't worry much about bad user edits because they can be easily changed back. Even admin actions are mostly easily reversed. We should be able to have the same sort of calm approach to changing the way the site works... let people try things, because they can be changed back if they're not so good. (It requires a bit of willingness to take deep breaths and tolerate things that start off shaky, and willingness to accept that even when you're right that the status quo is better, other people need to see evidence before they'll ever believe you.)

And I can't believe how much edit-warring and craziness has gone on over this page... OK, I can believe it. But it's a little bit crazy. It's a storm in a tea-cup.

One last thing -- I am definitely not speaking for the Foundation or the Board or anyone; I'm speaking as a normal user who has been mostly logged out for the past few months to avoid the craziness. :-) I don't think the Foundation has any business making a decision on this, and for that matter I think it's a real stretch for the ArbCom too. But if we can't develop some processes within the community to try things out, no change will ever be put through. And for a project that's had many successes from being open to change, that would be a sad thing.

(Hm, this turned out far longer than I intended...)

Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better (or equally for that matter). Justin ^chat 07:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that process is what is holding us back. If we didn't have to have a poll everytime we try something new or a complicated set of rules and requirements to trust users with a simple tool that the developers would have enabled sooner or later anyway as a simple necessity to keep the servers alive and well we wouldn't have to even consider the board, Jimbo or ArbCom. These problems occur because of this love of process. Let's just drop this issue and write the darn encyclopedia. If someone wants to enable block or delete for all users then we can have a poll and a big fight. This is, as stated above, a storm in a tea-cup. Which also explains why we cared more about the cat than the poll once the absurdity became obvious to everyone. Oh, and could someone tell Jimbo not to give people ideas such as the poll and involving ArbCom? Thank you!! EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the technological method of issuing was perhaps the best and that in line with the principles which have underpinned Wikipedia. However respondents at Wikipedia:Rollback for non-administrators seem to have seen a different solution, and ultimately, their opinion carried the day. Consensus can't change on this one, seems to be the message from above. Hiding T 20:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The main issue is that we're becoming too large a community for "consensus" to work the way we're used to. As you said, you'll /always/ find someone to disagree. Look at RFAs from years ago, they had half a dozen or maybe a dozen responders, total. And most would say "Support, has been around for a few months. No real reason to distrust." Now we see things like "Must oppose, not enough Portal talk namespace contribs" (or whatever namespace someone bitches about). You won't find the old method of consensus anymore, you simply wont. Trying to force polls like this through will not work any longer for just that reason. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree we're larger than we were, but I don't think we've ever tried to force polls through before either. If you look back at the speedy criteria poll, CSD A7 grew out of discussions after the poll closed, because all of the polled versions of A7 failed as being too specific. We had one that said they had to be under 25, one that said they had to fail WP:MUSIC, and so on and so forth. We've never forced polls through, we usually discuss the outcome and get a consensus that way. But you're right, there will always be someone who disagrees. What we need to do now in determining consensus is work out who isn't looking to achieve consensus. Who isn't looking for the middle ground. We've got to remember that consensus is usually found on the middle ground. With rollback, with the system we've implemented we have to remember that the middle ground is not to recreate RFA. As long as admins just had out the tool on reasonable request I think we'll avoid that. Hiding T 10:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with ^demon: The issue is not that size means that there is always disagreement. When the project was small we could reasonably expect a substantial chunk of its participants to be involved in a discussion with project wide implications, so we'd get a good sample. As things have grown people have become more interested in increasingly specialized areas, and less interested in things like this. So now when we have a poll people with uncompromisable, diametrically opposed, and atypically extreme views end up seriously over-represented, especially in matters which most people regard as unimportant.

This is further exacerbated by the fact that the participation levels of these people adapt based on how much participation the other 'side' has (zomg, inclusionists are attacking the castle! Deletionist charge!), a behavior that strongly favors nearly tied outcomes.

Yesterday more than 16,000 distinct IPs loaded a watchlist on English Wikipedia, 22,000 in the last two days, and the number continues to climb as more days are included. Since this poll was listed on the watchlists and only a few hundred people participated it is probably more reasonable to concluded that the "consensus" is "I don't care too much", rather than any of the views of either of the sides doing battle in the poll.

So why do we see so much disagreement over unimportant things? Because the decision methods we use has multiple forms of bias towards that sort of outcome. Fortunately most unimportant decisions are still made without argument or polling, otherwise nothing would get done at all! How should we make decisions about widely impacting but generally unimportant things? Probably not by asking the few percent with the most intense views to fight to the death.--Gmaxwell (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The unfortunate thing is that it is those percent with the most intense views that will disagree on whether something is unimportant or not. What we need is a way to find out which issues are of the most pressing concern to the whole community, and where the issues are divided, be prepared to do trial runs on a variety of methods. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comments/thoughts

While I understand it may be rather cathartic to continue to discuss discussions about discussions, about polls about polls about polls about polls, which were and are attempts to determine consensus about consensus about consensus, should I take the now current lack of discussion above as Silence as consensus? - jc37 02:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I say get it over with. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing there's currently consensus for with regard to rollback is to not have another poll, draft poll, vote, or anything similar for a couple of months until data can be gathered and evidence presented about the consequences of the recent system change. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and from my understanding that is what Jimbo Wales has recommended happen.Tiptoety ^talk 03:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can consider the silence as consensus that the foundation chair made a very relevant and helpful comment unlike Jimbo's ideas of more polls. I think there is a silent consensus that we should wait and see, especially now that the rush to get rollback is over and we are talking about a limited number of new "promotions". Please, no more polls. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the consensus not to have another poll? Not that I disagree with the notion that a bunch of random polls won't accomplish much, but I haven't seen it. As far as data gathering, what data is being gathered and how? Beyond the already existing examples of wheel wars and bad refusals, I don't know what more information we could gather about the current behavior. --Gmaxwell (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a case where common sense would trump consensus. The rollback debacle was a mess that eventually got both Jimbo and Anthere involved for something entirely silly. We had the original rollback proposals, the rollback vote, the implementation, huge WP:AN posts, an ArbCom case, Jimbo stepping in, plans for a huge community-wide poll that were implemented, and then this page came along to discuss the community-wide poll. And then Anthere was able to step in and calm everyone down. At the moment, +rollback is being given out on request. From my understanding, in a couple of months we'll re-evaluate whether or not giving out +rollback has worked well or not (presumably through how many -rollbacks we've had, complains, WP:AN/I posts, etc.). I blanked and protected this page because we simply do not need any more polls, draft polls, or the like at this moment. We need a cooldown period and some time to let everyone think rationally. This whole situation has angered a lot of people. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually only a request for arbitration so far, not an actual case (and unlikely to become one). One thing I'm surprised at is the uptake of rollback is tailing off. About 20 a day now instead of 30 a day (rough figures). If the number of rollbackers struggles to get a wide uptake (passing the number of admins is a must), then that could suggest that making it autoconfirmed or in the preferences could be tried next. Carcharoth (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We typically have an average of 6 admins a week, so I don't think I'd consider 20 a day to be a small amount. (Or a big amount. I don't think that anything can be surmised from the numbers.)

Also, the RfAr is suggesting that the community figure this out (in the current rejections), Last I checked, an RfC is one of the tools that the community uses to help determine things.

Incidentally, if this has "angered a lot of people", I might wonder why it's still ongoing, having been "pushed through". If having a bear in the room is causing angry people, perhaps the bear should be killed, or at least removed (the issue should be reverted or resolved).

Anyway, I see a lot of concern about "polls". And really nothing specifically about an RfC. (Yes, I might call an RfC a type of "polling", but when in Rome...) - jc37 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I too have been wondering why this has been allowed to continue; however, when I pursued the matter, I seem to have been brushed off. My thread on Jimbo's talk page went unanswered and was archived, my WikBack thread got barely any replies beyond "this is out of our hands", and my post on the mailing list went similarly unanswered. I do not see this as any kind of silence; I see it as people pushing this through and ignoring opposition until the opposition has given up, for the most part. However, this seems to be on the caveat that we would undergo another poll after a certain period of time, unless I'm completely mistaken. My question to this point has been, and continues to be, why is rollback continuing in the meantime? GlassCobra 18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because i think removing it would be just as controversial as it was when we started it, and without another (dare i say it) poll or the community's consensus we can not just stop it all together. I think overall people are tired of talking about it and see it as a lost cause that they would just rather ignore than fight for or against. Tiptoety ^talk 00:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said: fait accompli...

But that aside, I think I'll wait a couple more days for comment, and then create an RfC page in my sandbox, for implementation soon after. - jc37 20:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I can't say that would be the worst idea in the world, though I can say I'd be hard-pressed to find many solutions that would be much worse. We're in the middle of a cool-down period. The last thing we need is a drama-filled RfC that would reignite all of the issues that seem to currently have subsided. Is there any particular reason we can't re-evaluate this situation in a month or two with a simple discussion somewhere? GlassCobra: If Jimbo, the mailing list, and wikback haven't responded, perhaps that's an indication of something. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There really needs to be something other than an RFC or a poll, I'm not sure what we should use, but I can't recall any RFC on a controversial topic that did anything but take up space. So many people providing views of varying degrees of similarity to other views with slightly different wording and people endorsing multiple views always ends up looking like a lack of consensus. A poll, if well executed, is marginally better Mr.Z-man 07:00, 20 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.