James Farrar wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/01/2008, doc doc.wikipedia@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_rollba... very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not a helpful contribution.
I probably got annoyed by that, and by an IRC badgering for not toeing the line. Then there was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_glasgow#Wikipedia:Requests_for_ro...
Sorry, I may have slightly overreacted. No-one called me a troll, exactly. But there are certainly WP:OWN issues here, and it matters because if this isn't resisted NOW, then it will settle in as a set of rules, and you will be told (as I already have) that you must conform or show consensus to do otherwise.
Again sorry for implying a personal attack where there was none. But I do feel that there is badgering to toe the line.