Far from being rushed through in a six-day debate as Doc appears to believe, the discussion on this practical and sensible extension of software functionality has dragged on needlessly for years, as perfect an example of instruction creep as it would be possible to ask for.
Doc says I say again, rollback is NOT the problem. And dismissing rollback for the
trivia it is, is beside the point.
The problem is saddling us with the silly distraction of making every
admin into a mini-bureaucrat empowered to make rollbacker and unmake rollbacker. That's already leading to instruction creep, little cabals, and people getting uppity. >>Rollback is too trivial for the type infrastructure and debate that admin-grants necessarily creates.
Ending the instruction creep is simple - switch it on for all
auto-confirmed users. Or, alternatively, allow all users a >>preference to switch it on or off for themselves.
That's been the hallmark of this whole debate since it's appearance....people object to another bureaucratic rathole that will certainly (and already is) being created and supporters say "it's just a roll back tool, what's the big deal". At least a couple folks on the talk page are honest enough to say they don't mind a little more bureaucracy...
The way this was implemented and is now being carried out has some serious implications about how policy in general is treated on Wikipedia. But it's just a rollback tool....
On 13/01/2008, Brian Haws brian@bhaws.com wrote:
The way this was implemented and is now being carried out has some serious implications about how policy in general is treated on Wikipedia. But it's just a rollback tool....
I agree that we have some serious problems with bureaucracy. The rollback issues are a symptom of this. This particular problem would go away if it were to be granted to autoconfirmed users.
Bureaucratic caucuses don't like their little bits of red tape taken away, so there would be a lot of howling, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Brian Haws wrote:
The way this was implemented and is now being carried out has some serious implications about how policy in general is treated on Wikipedia. But it's just a rollback tool....
When supporters of a policy presume that a policy is so obviously good that no one could possibly object, is a wrong time to short circuit the process. Doing so only shows a lack of patience. If the policy is that good it will still be as good after 14 days as after 6 days. If someone asks for an extension of the voting period because of the holidays, what harm does it do to quietly agree on that basis? One benefit would be a definite reduction in the drama.
Ec