On 11/01/2008, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I was greeted yesterday by a friendly message saying I'd been granted rollback. I didn't want it, I never asked for it. I never applied at WP:RFRASIJOAAJCSA for it. I asked for it to be removed, and it was. However, two issues are paramount in my mind:
A) When did rollback suddenly become the tool de jour? Why is it suddenly a must-have for all editors?
B) Why are some people so intent on giving it to out? As if the wiki would crumble without it?
Chad H.
On Jan 11, 2008 3:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 11:54 AM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
A summary, for those who are completely lost:
Recently developers added the ability for admins on the English
Wikipedia to
grant rollback rights to non-admin accounts.
This followed a large discussion and vote on enwiki in which ~2/3 of participants favored this feature
[snip]
It's also the case that only one option was offered in that particular poll "admins can grant/revoke rollback from others". A lot of the critics of the current behavior are pointing out issues with wheel warring (which is already happening) and additional bureaucratic overhead. Many of those people would prefer an rollback be granted automatically, like page moves.
Considering that rollback is just a faster version of edit, just as move is a faster (and less problem causing) version of edit+ copy and paste, that makes sense to me. I was sold when I saw a user since 2005 in good standing rejected because he used the wrong template to apply for rollback, and the wheel warring. :)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I dislike the fact users are giving it without even bothering to ask the user in question if they want it. That is pretty rude.