On 10/01/2008, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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,