[WikiEN-l] Rollback, and now here comes instruction creep

[James Farrar]

On 10/01/2008, Majorly <axel9891 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/2008, doc <doc.wikipedia at 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_rollback&diff=183450062&oldid=183449865
very clearly implies "we don't want your sort round here". It was not
a helpful contribution.