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....