[Foundation-l] Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

[Chad]

I was greeted yesterday by a friendly message saying I'd been granted rollback.
I didn't want it, I never asked for it. I never applied at WP:RFRASIJOAAJCSA
for it. I asked for it to be removed, and it was. However, two issues are
paramount in my mind:

A) When did rollback suddenly become the tool de jour? Why is it suddenly
a must-have for all editors?

B) Why are some people so intent on giving it to out? As if the wiki
would crumble without it?

Chad H.

On Jan 11, 2008 3:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 11:54 AM, Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A summary, for those who are completely lost:
> >
> > Recently developers added the ability for admins on the English Wikipedia to
> > grant rollback rights to non-admin accounts.
> >
> > This followed a large discussion and vote on enwiki in which ~2/3 of
> > participants favored this feature
> [snip]
>
> It's also the case that only one option was offered in that particular
> poll "admins can grant/revoke rollback from others". A lot of the
> critics of the current behavior are pointing out issues with wheel
> warring (which is already happening) and additional bureaucratic
> overhead.  Many of those people would prefer an rollback be granted
> automatically, like page moves.
>
> Considering that rollback is just a faster version of edit, just as
> move is a faster (and less problem causing) version of edit+ copy and
> paste, that makes sense to me.  I was sold when I saw a user since
> 2005 in good standing rejected because he used the wrong template to
> apply for rollback, and the wheel warring. :)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>