Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator -Halo (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for rollback

This nomination is based around the idea that

• MFD isn't the place for this, Speedy Keep Secret ^account 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the place for it? There are at least 3 places to discuss this thus far, the aim of this is to centralise it. -Halo (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: You don't think it's a little late now, what with several admins (yes, including myself) actively granting rollback status? --Merovingian (T, C) 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I'm sure that can be reverted -Halo (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but good luck on convincing the devs to undo their recent hard work. Speedy keep as per above, below, but always, around. --Merovingian (T, C) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The last time
  someone tried to do that, a lot of discussion happened, but in the end the MFD was closed as defective. —Random832 03:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep per above. Try working it out on the talk page or village pump. The two pages you referenced were not built into the MediaWiki software. Nakon 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. This is cute and all, but really not a discussion for MfD. We aren't deleting the userrights category/group/whatever, and admins could still grant rollback. - auburnpilot talk 03:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The horse is gone, and it's running for the border. It's not going to go back into the barn; just take the L and keep it moving. east.718 at 03:13, January 10, 2008
• Speedy Keep (ECx3) - I think that the process should be given a chance before taking any corrective action. Keilana^talk_(recall) 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• At very least this should be marked as "proposed" - it contains various guidelines that are posing as agreed policy. They are not. Whatever the devs do, we don't do policy on 65% on an 8 day snap poll over Christmas holidays. But speedy delete would be better - yes, delete this pseudo-policy and take the matter to a discussion page until we have an agreed one.--
  Doc^g 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep. Agree with Secret that this is out of process. There are already at least 4 different places where people are going on about the relative merits or this change, we don't need yet another venue. ➪HiDrNick! 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not fond of the way the anti-RfR folks are causing such a firestorm over this. Calm the heck down and go to the talk page. Slowly, calmly, deep breaths... -- tariqabjotu 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above--
  Rose 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nomination withdrawn - obviously the idea of having a centralised discussion in MFD isnt a popular one -Halo (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep—The first
  WP:MFD says This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. —johndburger 03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'd argue it wasn't policy. Still, withdrawn and closed. -Halo (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow 6 minutes, that has to be one of the fastest ever :-)
  
  Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.