On 10/01/2008, Majorly <axel9891(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I said that giving admins the right to grant rollback would inevitably
> lead to process and instruction creep. Well, I didn't believe it would
> start this early.
>
> I was determined that if we were going to have this, it would not turn
> into another RfA, so I started granting requests made on the new
> "Rollback requests" page, using a very low threshhold: "unless you
are
> evidently trouble, you get it - we can remove it, if you turn out to
be"
>
> I am now being called a troll because I didn't make the request with
> {{done}}, which is apparently what I "need to do" so that a bot can
> archive the requests. Which is necessary for some unspecified reason.
> (Yes, I've asked "why?") So now we are going to have an archive and
very
> precise rules as how to grant rollback (down
to the last tick). It is
> already being said that we should not grant it through "backchannels"
> like e-mail. Unless people say "NO", we are soon going to have another
> RfA.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback#Archive
Where were you called a troll then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollb…
very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not
a helpful contribution.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that if he doesn't like the idea of
rollback, instead of unproductively complaining on the talk page about each
and every minor problem, he (and we all) should perhaps go and do something
else for a little while. I'm going to go and work on an article. Thanks,
--
Alex (Majorly)