[Foundation-l] Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

[Majorly]

On 11/01/2008, John Reaves <johnreaveswp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
> seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
> protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for
> it.  We're
> doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare and
> idiots involved.
>
> --John Reaves
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> > ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> > You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> > lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> > not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> > Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> > around it can be resolved.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Yep. If this had been added just like undo/cascading protection, there'd
have been a lot less complaining and moaning. We'd have just got on with it
like sensible people.

-- 
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly