Misplaced Pages talk:Rollback

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Franamax (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 3 September 2008 (→Watchlisting Rollback?: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:47, 3 September 2008 by Franamax (talk | contribs) (→Watchlisting Rollback?: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Duplications and forks

We already have Help:Revert#Rollback. Misplaced Pages:Revert used to redirect there, but this edit changed it to direct here instead. What should be done? At the moment, the pages are duplicating information and may end up contradicting each other.

From Help:Revert#Rollback:

Admins and users who have been granted access to the tool have additional "rollback" links, which:

appear only next to the top edit

revert all top consequent edits made by last editor

work immediately, without intermediate confirmation diff page

add automatic edit summary "Reverted edits by Example (talk) to last version by Example2", marking edit as minor

Rollback links appear on the User contributions pages, History pages and Diff pages. Note that in the last case rollback link can be misleading, since reversion is not necessarily to the old version shown (the diff page may show the combined result of edits including some by other editors, or only part of the edits the rollback button would revert). To see the changes the rollback button would revert, view the corresponding diff page.

Rollback works much quicker than undo, since it

allows reverting without even looking at the list of revisions or a diff

does not require loading an edit page and sending the wikitext back to the server.

does not require a click of the save button.

On the other hand, it is not as versatile as undo, since it does not allow to specify which edits have to be undone (one may want to revert more or less edits than rollback does, or edits which do not include the last edit) and does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary.

Rollback is supposed to be used to revert obvious vandalism.

Rolling back a good-faith edit without explanation may be misinterpreted as "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and reverting it doesn't need an explanation." Some editors are sensitive to such perceived slights; if you use the rollback feature other than for vandalism (for example because undo is impractical due to the large page size), it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted.

If someone else edited or rollled back the page before you clicked "rollback" link, or if there was no previous editor, you will get an error message.

So two questions: (1) How much of this is needed here? (2) What is the best way to handle the two different pages? Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback for dummies

I don't know who gave me rollback, but I suddenly seem to have it. I've read this page, and I still have no idea what it does or where I can test it. What is the difference between rollback and undo? Need a test page; I've never wanted to be an admin because these tools scare me. Old dog, new tricks, scared to death to do something wrong, all that. I appreciate the trust someone bestowed in me, but this page doesn't help me know what the heck this button does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My advice is not to use rollback. It is a form of reverting used primarily against vandalism. See Help:Revert#Rollback (now updated from meta). Unlike manual reverts, or reverting to an old version of a page, or clicking "undo", rollback instantly reverts the edit, and enters an edit summary for you and makes it as a 'minor' edit. You also can't preview the change you are making, unless you look at a diff beforehand (but that negates the point of rollback being fast). The primary use of rollback is for vandal fighters who, once they've identified a particularly industrious vandal, will confidently warn/block them and then use rollback to undo most (or all) the edits made by that vandal (if they were the last edits on the page edited), without looking at the edits. It takes experience to do this. As I'm not a vandal fighter, I don't need and don't use the tool. If you aren't a vandal fighter either, I'd advise you not to use it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth; I get it, and I actually can use it. Tourette syndrome and coprolalia are frequently in the path of industrious vandals, and I often identify those sorts of vandals, and then have to go through and undo each vandal edit. So, you're saying that if TS is hit, I check the editor and find several vandalistic edits in a short time frame, then I would use rollback to get all the other edits made in the same time frame? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Ask someone who actually uses the tool! :-) I think if the vandal had made the last three edits, then rollback would revert back over all of them (as opposed to three separate 'undo' actions). You could (and this is what I do) just find the last unvandalised version and revert to that (click 'edit' for the old version and then save it with a summary of "reverting to last unvandalised version"), and then manually check for good edits that were interspersed among the vandal edits. What rollback won't do is go back past other users. So if the sequence is vandalA-editor-vandalB-vandalA-vandalB - then rollback is pretty useless here. You have to do it manually. So at the end of the day, you still need to carefully check that no vandalism gets missed. I predict that some people will become complacent with rollback, and will start to miss vandalism... Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A new question: lets say I have a vandal who's been making edits all day and a ouple of IPs add some useful info in between some of these edits. Does Rollback only undo a consecutive string of edits, or does it get all of the edits from the vandal appearing in the recent history? I am thinking it only catches the consecutive string, but haven't seen it in action versus large-scale nuttery. - Arcayne () 16:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback will only revert the string of edits performed by the last user to edit an article. If someone else edited between, rollback will stop at that user's last edit. Which means that if there are some good edits made by someone else in the middle of a series of vandal edits by one user, rollback won't be of good use. You must manually revert the article to the last good version, and manually re-insert the good edits lost in the reversion. In other words, a headache. Húsönd 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's rather what I thought. Since I have you here, can you point to instances of abuse or mistaken usages of rollback? I'd prefer to know how something can go sideways - it helps me understand the path of the straight and narrow a lot better. - Arcayne () 16:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback misuse is rare, at least I can't recall the last time I found a rollback ill performed. Basically, there are some common sense situations where rollback should not be used, e.g. to revert the edits of a user with whom you're having a content dispute, or the entire string of edits of a user editing in good faith just because his last edit didn't appear to be very constructive, etc. If you regret having performed a rollback, revert yourself. Húsönd 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

All good advice. Thanks. - Arcayne () 17:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Testing tools

Sandy makes a good point. Is there a place where people can safely try out rollback without doing any damage (I know, they can revert any rollbacks, but still, pointing to a sandpit somewhere would be good practice). Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Found it: Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose we set up a rollback sandbox, with a bot that reverts whatever anybody does 30 seconds after they make an edit including rollbacks by non-admins and admins, so people can get a feel for quick repetitive rollbacking. NoSeptember 15:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

With the intent of discouraging it, right? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox?

Although I have not dealt with making them, I am wondering if one exists that those who have this feature from RfR could place in their userspace? Preferably like the admin userbox with the verify link, if that is possible. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Something like this: {{User wikipedia/rollback}}? No verification link as with {{User wikipedia/Administrator2}}, but would be a nice feature-- Paleorthid (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

YES! Although the verification link would be a useful addition. I just haven't dabbled into that aspect and would be hard-pressed to do so. Perhaps a future upgrade? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

So... what would be the major difference between this and Twinkle? What would this have over Twinkle? (just wondering) The Chronic 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle and other javascript-based revert tools work by going to the history, selecting the version to revert back to, opening its edit page and saving. Rollback just makes one request to the server and everything else is handled server-side, which improves performance and makes reverting slightly faster. Tra (Talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it Popups compatible? If so, I'm soooooooooo interested. Though isn't popups even better because it's a single-click? WLU (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Category?

there is Category:Misplaced Pages administrators. Should there be Category:Misplaced Pages rollers-backers or smth.? `'Míkka >t 20:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We do already have Special:Listusers/rollbacker which is an automatically updated list of users with rollback permission. Tra (Talk) 20:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see it now. The problem is that I could not find it described anywhere. I made it more prominent in text. `'Míkka >t 20:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"How it works" section

This is not how it works. Can someone of admins with good command of English describe it, please? (hint: the "rollback" function is available in at least two places). `'Míkka >t 20:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Listusers/rollbacker.

Now I am confused even more. The wikipedia page says "he rollback feature is available to administrators and users with the rollbacker permission on Misplaced Pages " Now, the question is who are listed in the Special:Listusers/rollbacker. I am an admin, so supposedly this feature is available to me. But I am not listed in the Special page. Therefore I changed the article text to "A complete list of (non-admin) rollbackers can be found in the page Special:Listusers/rollbacker". But now I see that this Special page lists some admins as well. Please, whoever responsible to the feature, clarify. `'Míkka >t 20:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if you have the permission 'sysop', you can delete, protect, block etc and rollback pages. If you have the permission 'rollbacker', you can rollback pages. It is possible to have both the permissions 'sysop' and 'rollbacker' but the functionality available to you is the same as if you were just a sysop. I have altered that paragraph, to try to clarify it. Tra (Talk) 22:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. I am not on this list, but I have rollback powers -- not only that, I have had rollback powers long before 9 January 2008 when, according to this page, this feature was supposedly implemented. All I had to do was install WP:POP, and since then I've been able to roll back edits with a single click. What gives? --M @r ē ino 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Popups is different to rollback. Popups works by using javascript to automatically find the page to revert back to, edit it and save it (basically the same as manual reverting but faster). Rollback is a server side tool where the browser makes one request to the server and the edit is rolled back. The two different tools are basically just two different ways of doing a very similar thing. Tra (Talk) 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So is rollback something that only people who cannot use javascript on their consoles should request? Or is the benefit to the server so significant that I should request rollback? --M @r ē ino 18:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a slight benefit to the server, in that you're making less page requests, although often it doesn't matter if you use rollback or popups. What you could do is request rollback and if you don't find you need it, don't use it. Tra (Talk) 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll buy that logic. I've filed a request. --M @r ē ino 22:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Custom edit summaries

Non-vandalism rollback reverts should use custom edit summaries to help those reviewing such edits at a later date. I've tried to explain this here. I'm not sure, but possibly TWINKLE also does this now? I'm asking the authors of those scripts to comment here and help improve the wording - possibly a section on custom edit summaries is needed? Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the "When not to use rollback" section as follows:

* I've turned it into prose.

* I've removed references to self-reverts. You don't need a custom edit summary to revert your own edits.

* I've changed the wording "consider using" to "use".

* I've changed the wording to say only use a script for large numbers of reverts. Of course we wouldn't be using a script for an individual edit, and using scripts in general for small numbers of edits isn't to be encouraged. --02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacking your own edits can be controversial. Remember Gurch rollbacking his rollbacking? That restored vandalism he had previously removed. It shouldn't be assumed that someone rollbacking their own edits doesn't need spot-checking. AGF should always be taken with a large pinch of salt when it comes to the content of the encyclopedia. I think less stringent checks apply more in places like your own userspace. Someone rollbacking their own edits to their own page is obviously not a problem. Rollbacking your own edits to George W. Bush might need checking. As for "using scripts in general for small numbers of edits isn't to be encouraged" - you do realise that most people have small scripts running in their .js spaces anyway? I think encouraging people to think about edit summaries and when they are and aren't needed is the key thing here, not some abstract "use of scripts" thing. Anyway, we've both had a go at it. Let's see what others say. Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Back when I first got +rollbacker, I wrote a little script to add a link after so I could rollback with a summary. I got a little help with it on VPT. It needs a little cleanup, but it makes a good standalone thing. Could it be adapted to serve the purpose? Tuvok 10:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a list of such scripts could be made somewhere? I'm sure there are others around. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several scripts of this sort, including:

User:Voyagerfan5761/rollbacksummary.js (mentioned above)
User:Gracenotes/rollback.js
User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js

There are likely others. Each has advantages. I personally like the $user replace option for mine, and the non-intrusive addition of the "sum" item. It only works on diff pages at the moment. It would be beneficial to try to merge the scripts, in my opinion. Gracenotes § 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any way to make twinkle utilize the MediaWiki rollback feature instead of doing it the slow (javascript) way? Pump me up 04:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's been some discussion at WT:TWINKLE. I don't recall any comments recently, though. Perhaps it would be good to revive that conversation... Tuvok 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Hello. Thank you for this feature. A thought from new user, would it be helpful to mention communication with the person who is being rolled back? I think on the rollback intro pages Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature and Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback? Or a link to Misplaced Pages:Vandalism would lead to the table of {{WarningsSmall}} templates which are not present in the Welcoming Committee set of greetings. I am taking this slowly and can see some of you are real pros at this. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I won't use this tool very often. It is alarming to get involved with this actually without any guidelines or admin training to support my interactions but I did add the template links to this article in case they help somebody else. Undid will be fine for me most of the time. Something for emergencies is nice though. Thanks. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
After watching what other users do, no talk is expected so I use this. Just mentioning it because didn't want to seem ungrateful (maybe cautious). -Susanlesch (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle

I currently fight vandalism with 'Twinkle'. Does this basically do the same as rollback? Should i switch to rollback, or just stick with Twinkle? Would i benefit more if i used both? All help appreciated :-) Thanks! TheProf | 2007 16:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The rollback feature allows nonconstructive edits to be reverted more quickly and more efficiently than with other methods (Such as WP:TW. (User scripts have been written which mimic the functionality of rollback, but they merely hide details from the user, and are much less efficient, both in terms of bandwidth and time). Rollback links are displayed on page histories, user contributions pages, and diff pages. I feel that it really depends on how much time you spend doing vandalism reverts, and if you spend a good amount of time doing them then it can not hurt to have the extra button. Tiptoety 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Make this available to everyone

After a suitable testing period, single-article rollback should be made available to anyone without having to request special permissions. An "enable rollback" button in "my preferences" should be all that's needed to turn it on. The mass-rollback capability should require administrator action to turn on. I'm not sure what "a suitable testing period" is, but 6 months after the 1000th rollbacker started rolling back edits should be long enough. That should be in 3-4 months. Logic: Rollback doesn't enable anything that a user can't do already. Limiting the more-costly-if-you-goof-it-up user-mass-rollback will let admins revoke that permission if someone shows they cannot be responsible with the tool. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your logic on that for the most part. One question I have is "does ease of access lead to ease of abuse?" And I guess the follow up would be "If so, does it matter?" I tend to feel that this is a feature that probably wouldn't make Misplaced Pages any more open to abuse than it already is, unlike, perhaps, page deletion or something. And in the end, it is still revertible abuse. I'd like to hear some counter arguments, but I think I agree with you, davidwr.

I'll share a personal experience. I use Twinkle, so I have rollback rights as well, lol. However, the first time I used it, it was accidental and I reverted a good edit instead of the bad edit. Pressed the wrong button. This, I suppose, might be an argument for its protection. I immediately corrected my error, however. It was easy to correct-- no harder of a correction than if I had blanked the page, redirected, or any other number of changes which are openly available. davidwr's argument makes a lot of sense to me, including his obfuscation but not-denial approach. The protection on this feature seems superfluous to me (not that I really care, because I will still use Twinkle). Looking forward to more discussion on this. WDavis1911 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I ran across an editor recently who asked for and received rollback rights only to lose them in less than a day for not aggressively rolling back non-vandalism. He continued aggressive improper reverts even after losing the tool though.

Personally, between the undo button and clicking on the most recent non-vandal edit, I find it isn't hard to make a reversion and it gives me a chance to write an appropriate edit summary. Rollback becomes useful when you have multiple vandalism edits across different articles by a single person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback icon--not a good idea?

I noticed the rollback icon on a user page recently. {{rollback}}. This doesn't seem like such a great idea to me. I find the admin icon very useful--it's the first thing I look for on a user page--but I don't really care if users I'm interacting with have the rollback tool or not. This rollback icon seems to me to foster the idea that rollback is a badge to show off, that it is something more than what it is. Is this icon useful information for other editors, or do other people feel the same way I do? Darkspots (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine how it'd be showing off. It's not as if rollback is that exclusive. All you have to do to get rollback is ask. — scetoaux (T|C) 21:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback and watchlist

Is there a way to not auto-watchlist pages you rollback on? I have my settings that anything I edit gets added to my watchlist, but some pages I'm just reverting vandalism I discovered by looking at a vandals's contribs. Enigma Review 17:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, this has been talked about before. I recommend that you use WP:TW if you are interested in something like that. Tiptoety 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I do use TW to rollback sometimes, but regular rollback is easier. Was there a reason why a way not to watchlist wasn't implemented? Enigma Review 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It just never has been that way, even admins do not get it. Ask one of the developers, I have no idea. Tiptoety 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other WP

As I see, the feature is presently available on English WP only. Anyone knows when it will be possible to grant this feature to users on another language WP? --Tone 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not a contributor at other WPs like you are, I generally get the impression that the English WP has the most rigorous process for becoming an administrator of the bunch. How does that compare with your experiences? It seemed like the rollback feature here was a way to get a useful tool into the hands of more folks here than would want to go through RfA. Darkspots (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's another wiki which you think should have rollbacker rights enabled on it, you would need to get a consensus from that community and make a request on Bugzilla. Tra (Talk) 21:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback auto edit summary

I would like to suggest that the rollback auto edit summary should be changed to reflect that the reversion was done using rollback, noting that the default edit summary for "undo" notes that the undo button was used, as do reverts with Popups, etc. --Philosopher 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

His or her

Hey, I can't believe I'm on the talk page about this either, but an IP editor wants to get rid of the "or her". I disagree; I think the "or her" is harmless. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language advises us to use gender-neutral language when "this can be done with clarity and precision". I think we lose neither with "his or her" in this case. In any event, I'm not going revert him or her again about it without getting consensus here. Darkspots (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the spelling of judgment/judgement is a bigger issue. Is it supposed to be written in American English? Enigma 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary that I have handy says the word is spelled "judgment", with "judgement" as an alternate spelling. Which spelling is British and which is American? Darkspots (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Judgment" is what's used commonly here in the Midwest United States, though both are technically correct. According to Judgment, it's the American spelling and the one with an "e" is the British. As for his/her, I personally prefer the generic "his", but don't have a problem with "or her" either. If it currently says "or her", I say leave it. It's not like it's doing any harm, plus saying "him or her" is grammatically correct. --Philosopher 04:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Checking our article had the answer, of course--I went over to wiktionary after the AHD, and it was pretty opaque about national variations. My mistake. I think the British spelling is fine for this page. I use the generic "his" myself, but in this context the gender-neutral phrase makes more sense to me. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Something curious I noticed

Did you know that the creator of the rollback page is a banned user? Wow. (NicAgent) Enigma 01:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Who's Who says he's "known to act in good faith". Guess Dr. Jekyll wrote this page. Darkspots (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I've never read that page. "Known to act in good faith." I like it. Enigma 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it delete an article ?

Hi. Out of curiosity, if an article had been edited by only one person, would rollback effectively remove the entire article ? Note - I'm not suggesting this as a method of editing, I'm just curious as to what would happen if this was done. CultureDrone (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The Rollback option will not appear if there is only one revision. Pedro : Chat 12:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you mean one author making several edits, then it will send a "Rollback failed" message. Admiral Norton 23:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Other wikis

Can rollback be granted to non administrators in other-language wikis ? -- C D 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which, if indeed any, other WMF wikis have rollback for users other than +sysop. The original implementation for non-admin rollback was done here and was en.wiki only. Of course if another wiki wanted it they could file a bug report and get it; it would be up the wiki's community on the implementation and process for managing user rights though. Pedro : Chat 12:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As I can see, administrators here can give rollback rights, if a request is made to implement non-admin rollback in a wiki, would admins be able to give those rights by default or only bureaucrats or will that have to be requested too ? -- C D 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's up to the individual wiki. Initially there was thought that rollback could only be granted by 'crats here on en. This was changed to admins being able to manage the right. Other wikis could do whatever they wanted, and on at least one wiki (can't remember which might be es.wikipedia) all admins are bureaucrats anyway. Each wiki just needs to get consenus on 1) wanting the tool for non admins and 2) how they then give it out. Pedro : Chat 15:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks-- C D 17:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rollback icon

I made a template to get the rollback icon in the title bar (below the "my watchlist", "my contributions" etc. links). Just add {{User:Admiral Norton/Rollback}} to a page. Admiral Norton 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Limit?

There's a village pump proposal here to abolish the "rollback limit". (Which surprised me since I wasn't aware of any limit - why isn't it mentioned on this page?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is still active. It's proposed to raise the limit from 10 to 60 uses per minute. Please contribute to see if there is consensus to ask the developers for a change.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Chicken test

After you click on "rollback", is there any way to have a prompt "Are you sure (Y/N)?" before the rollback occurs? When using normal editing I force myself to use the "show preview" before any changes are saved and I am concerned I may have a quick trigger finger with rollback. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. When you click on the link, the edits in question are reverted and you're immediately redirected. Admiral Norton 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This would skirt the whole pith of rollback, which is a quick, one click means of reverting vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollback one's own talk page--placing the new text

So, the content of the new paragraph isn't in dispute. The placement of it, however, is. I prefer to see it in the "when to use rollback" section for two reason:

It's permitted, not prohibited, even if it is discouraged.
The way the rest of the "When not to use rollback" section is written, the paragraph as it is currently worded sticks out as an afterthought. That section read like a unified whole prior to this addition. Adding it after a sidenote about admins not being able to have rollback removed without being desysop'ed seems to lack flow.

Thus, even if it's kept in the "when not to use rollback" section, placing it ahead of the preexisting text in that section really seems better for readability and flow. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather strongly for keeping it in the when not to section, since at most, it's not encouraged at all (even discouraged) and is more or less an artifact of admin-only rollback having been a bit abused but put up with. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Some backstory on this new addition can be found here. As I said at the tail end of that thread, "The reason I put it in the "When not to use" because while it's not presently prohibited, it's still in the realm of "probably shouldn't use it" (WP:CIVIL concerns). –xeno (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)" No doubt we can work it into the section a little better, it was a rush addition, but I still think it belongs firmly in the "when not to use" section. –xeno (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that the use of rollback on non-vandalistic edits on one's talkpage needs to be either prohibited or allowed (without caveat). Less gray, more black-and-white is always good, in my view. I would have absolutely no problem with it being forbidden, nor would I have a problem with it being allowed. I just think we need to develop consensus one way or the other, and place it. S. Dean Jameson 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of allowing a user to define what constitutes vandalism within the context of their own talk page solely for the purpose of using rollback. That is, if I've told someone I don't want it on my talk page, and/or I find it offensive, I should have the right to rollback my talk page--I think that's consistent with other guidelines re: user talk pages. (Mind you, this is 100% hypothetical--I've never used rollback in this manner) Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So, let's step back a bit and look at why we're here. An IP address filed an ANI about S. Dean Jameson using rollback on his own talk page. Would the updated page, as it stands now, 1) better educate any other user in SDJ's shoes that that action would be inappropriate, and/or 2) forestall any other use in the IP address's shoes from filing an ANI for such activity? As I see it, the answers are "maybe" and "no" in the current incarnation. I'm really seeing "permitted but discouraged" as a better placement than "prohibited but tolerated" as a better place, which will, in my mind, end up with "probably, if s/he read it" and "yes" answers to the two questions. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The only worry about banning it altogether is there are several long standing, trusted admins who have been using rollback to tidy up their talk pages for years (though I'm seeing it less and less these days, I must say). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

One possible solution would be to prohibit it for rollbackers only. That would certainly clear up any confusion. It could say something like, "Rollbackers are prohibited from using rollback on non-vandalistic edits to their talkpage" or something similar. S. Dean Jameson 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm afraid it would be WP:CREEP. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then just say it's not prohibited, period. I don't care one way or the other, but it needs to be clarified. I'd prefer not to have my username associated with any ANI threads unnecessarily, and making it explicitly okay to use it in such a manner would proscribe future anon IPs from starting ANI threads about future rollbackers user of the tool in that way. More clarity, less ambiguity, I say. S. Dean Jameson 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Deprecated"?

To quote my favorite comedy (and this is meant "totally" in jest), "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Seriously, though, what's your reasoning behind replacing "discouraged" with "deprecated"? S. Dean Jameson 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. Here's the dicdef. It's the standard IT term for stuff that's allowed but frowned upon. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it certainly is a more technical term, I agree. But will the majority of Wikieditors really understand it, even if it is a more technical term? Plus, I use "deprecated" ways of doing stuff in Linux all the time, because I've been playing with Unix for 20 years and have some old habits. I don't think that term adequately conveys the WP:CIVIL issues that might result from using rollback in that manner. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. <joke> How about holding up a silver cross and hissing then?</joke> Truth be told, I do deprecated stuff on FreeBSD now and then and feel untowards about it, but that's only me :) Deprecated is a strong word, widely known: This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's much stronger (harsher) than "discouraged." Was that your intent? S. Dean Jameson 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) No disagreement that editors should know and understand it, just whether they will. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be meant to stop folks from using rollback for anything other than vandalism, but not toss kittens (too high, anyway) if someone uses it on their own talk page for tidy ups. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I thought that "deprecated" means "overruled by a new version"… Admiral Norton 20:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope though you're not daft, since that's often the context but not the meaning. Same context here, by the bye. Let the longstanding admins keep doing it if they like but ward others off from the habit. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary after reverting

The edit summary after clicking on rollback says m (Reverted edits by ] (talk) to last version by ]). I think that 'version' should actually be 'revision' because 'version' sometimes doesn't make sense after using rollback. So 'revision' should be more correct. SchfiftyThree 22:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's wording

I support Giggy's changes, as they at least clarify the matter. The less gray area, the better, as I said above. S. Dean Jameson 03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just realised a discussion above. Sorry about that. Anyone is welcome to revert (heck, they can even rollback ;-)) my edits if they wish. —Giggy 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, no need for this cmt) ~~I don't support his wording. Rollback is to be used on vandalism only.~~ Gwen Gale (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then replace it with strong wording the other way. Leaving such large grey areas is a bit frustrating for those of us who want to have some clarity on the issue. Getting my name dragged through ~~Arbcom~~ ANI based on the lack of clarity here really sucked. At least Giggy's wording gave some clarity to the situation. S. Dean Jameson 03:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec, to Gwen) Your edit contradicts your edit summary and above comment. "deprecated" (per my reading of the above discussion) basically means it's allowed by (strongly?) discouraged, yet you say it should never be used for non-vandalism. Please clarify. —Giggy 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC) I won't mention the fact that you're also going against common practice (IMO at least).

I also agree with Giggy's wording, which has been found to be perfectly acceptable to the community on several occasions where it has been discussed. In fact, I cannot think of a discussion where it was decided it was not acceptable. Consensus is clearly in favour of the opinion expressed with Giggy's wording. Risker (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, we've been over this many times. The policy says rollback should only be used for vandalism. When editors are given rollback, they're told it should only be used for vandalism. When rollback was an admin-only tool, a few admins used rollback to tidy their own talk pages. After rollback became a tool which could be given to non-admins, those (few) admins who had been using rollback to tidy their talk pages were none too happy about threads popping up on ANI about their "abuse" of rollback, so this has been put up with.

Civility worries come up whenever someone rolls back good faith talk page comments, because the rollback edit summary puts those good faith comments on the same level as vandalism. Hence, rollback should only be used for vandalism.

I suggest that the policy either be left as it was before today and that rollbacks to user talk pages end. If there is some tolerance still for rolling back good faith comments on talk pages, I suggest adding wording that this is allowed but deprecated (owing to the civility worries, which will not go away). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we need to gather consensus for your view of it, and we'll go with it. For now, I've removed the three words that cause the lack of clarity regarding use of rollback on rollbacker's own talkpages. Please don't readd them without consensus to do so. S. Dean Jameson 04:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, not once has the community reprimanded someone for rolling back any edits on their talk page. Not once. It is impossible to say that it is deprecated, because it is not. Given some of the "good faith" edits I have seen some people rollback off their talk pages, the civility issue is often running the other way, not against the rollbacker. It is better to say up front that people can roll back edits off their own talk pages, period. That way we don't get into these silly discussions once a week on AN and ANI about whether or not the edit was good faith, and whether everyone should look in shock and horror. Let's just say it is okay on one's own talk page and get it over with, so there is NO civility issue at all. Risker (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this edit. —Giggy 04:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can only say, please don't use rollback on good faith edits anywhere, it can be taken as uncivil, because the automatic edit summary flags a rolled back, good faith edit as if it had been vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what with rollback being given to every Tom, Dick and Harry at one point ("what? you've been here two days and not messed up yet? here, have this tool!") and it's being used so widely, I'd suggest that people relax a lot more about that edit summary. There are literally hundreds of thousands of good faith edits that have been rolled back now, whether on user pages, by lack of understanding, or by an erroneous belief that the edit actually was vandalism. The community needs to understand that one of the side effects of permitting a wider use of this tool is the fact that different users interpret things differently, and the more users who can use the tool, the more interpretations there will be. If someone rolls me back, I'm not going to consider them rude; ill-informed, perhaps, but not rude or incivil. Besides, I'm sure there's a user or two who would consider any post of mine on their talk page to be "vandalism". ;-) Risker (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Until today this written policy said rollback should only be used for vandalism and that's what new rollbackers are clearly told. I think the policy page should be put back as it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gwen. It is a problem that due to the spread of the tool we have so many different uses of it, but I think the policy page should still state that use of the tool should be strictly confined to vandalism. Enigma 04:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that statement, Enigmaman, is that it's not accurate. What's acknowledged by everyone is that many admins have been using rollback for non-vandalism purposes for years, to maintain their own talk pages, and none have ever been sanctioned for it. While it might be simpler to have black-and-white rules, black-and-white rules that don't match up with community consensus do no one any good. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies are (hopefully) descriptive, not prescriptive. —Giggy 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur completely with Jclemens. As far as I can tell, anyone who has ever rolled back an edit on my talk page (and there have been several other editors who have done it, with my grateful thanks) have always been rolling back trolling, not vandalism. And yes, it has long been the standard that admins could rollback on their own talk page; this simply recognises that any user with rollback is obliged to meet the same standards as admins historically have. Risker (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight trolling is WP:vandalism (or more helpfully put, WP:Disruption so beyond the pale as to be vandalism). I understand what y'all are saying but rolling back a good faith edit is often taken as rudeness, or a hint that a good faith edit was thought of as vandalism by the rollbacker. I do think the policy should simply be put back as it was. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think there ought to be some mention that it is discouraged or at least point out that it may be considered uncivil. –xeno (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(R to Gwen Gale and to xenocidic) since nobody is going to be disciplined for rolling back on their own talk page, and it has been going on for years without anyone being disciplined, and every time the issue is brought up it is made clear that it is acceptable usage in the eyes of the broader community, it is much better to be honest than to imply that one is being rude by rolling back talk page comments. Disruption is not a rollback reason either, according to this page (it isn't a policy), and frankly I've seen people who were clearly (but subtly) trolling other editors on their talk pages go to AN and ANI and whine that they were treated rudely. That is exactly why it is acceptable to use rollback on one's own page. To be honest, historically it has never been discouraged, except in the last few months and only for non-admins. That to me suggests a subtle dig at those who can still have rollback yanked away from them at the whim of any admin; nobody would suggest an admin be desysopped for doing so. Risker (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Then let's at least say rolling back talk page comments is deprecated. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not making myself clear. It is not deprecated. It is commonplace behaviour that has been accepted by the community for several years, without any suggestion that it was rude until a few people complained in the past few months. Every time the issue is raised, it is made clear that this is acceptable use of rollback. Exactly how is that deprecated? Risker (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the policy says. Moreover, all new rollbackers are told rollback is to be used only on vandalism, so rolling back talk page comments is clearly deprecated, many times a day, by many admins. Nor do I support the use of rollback on any good faith edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a policy, Gwen. It is a page documenting certain practices. If it was a policy, it would say "Policy" on it. We've both been here long enough to remember when "undo" was introduced, and some people were shocked and appalled that some editors used it on non-vandalism edits too. Rollback was introduced very much on the spur of the moment with a shaky consensus (it would not have been a large enough consensus for a successful RfA) and there was no discussion as to its rules before it was handed out willy-nilly. To this day, it all depends who's enabling the user right what message the recipient receives; one might assume all new users are told it is for vandalism only, but even the practice documentation page does not say that. There is nothing inherently rude in rolling back an edit on one's talk page. It wasn't considered rude when admins only had the privilege, and every time the issue is raised, it is consistently the consensus that it is not rude (or uncivil or any other word you want to use). Risker (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's ok if we disagree on rollback :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding permission to any 3RR exemption

I've been thinking: seeing as it's non-controversial and current practice to rollback edits within an editor's own userspace, simple vandalism, and by banned users, why don't we allow edits to be rollbacked if reverting is exempt from the three-revert rule? All it would add is banned users (in the letter), BLP violations, and undisputeable copyvios, which are nearly always rolled back without fuss anyway. Sceptre 17:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Combining policies like this adds some cohesion and consistency. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that Rollback (in the browser) doesn't provide an edit summary. If you revert a BLP violation then you need to say it's a BLP violation because, unlike most vandalism, this might not be apparent from the diff. Undo or the rollback feature in Twinkle are better options for these kind of reverts. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unable to roll back

I've just started getting this message when I'm trying to roll back a page:

There seems to be a problem with your login session;

this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking.

Please hit "back" and reload the page you came from, then try again.

I also can't revert using Huggle. I do have rollback privileges and this problem has only started today. I've logged out and logged back in, cleared my cache, checked my monobook.... Any ideas? ... discospinster _talk 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you somehow disable cookies and forget? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Apparently others are having the same problem, which is being discussed at the Village Pump: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#"Unable to proceed". ... discospinster _talk 00:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Titoxd 01:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback for me

Hi: I have a question: would I have enough experience to use rollback? I was hoping to fight some vandalism with Huggle. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You would likely be declined at WP:RFPERM due to a lack of vandal-fighting history. I'd suggest using Twinkle for a week or so to patrol recent changes for vandalism and then apply. –xeno (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK: I have Twinkle installed. Is there a specific tool? I tried looking at recent changes, and it just looks inefficient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:POPUPS to help you preview the diffs. –xeno (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Once you have more experience and accuracy in reverting vandalism, along with showing you have knowledge about the rollback tool and what vandalism is, you'll probably be approved and granted the rollback feature. If you thin your ready, just ask at WP:RFR. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to change wording of WP:ROLLBACK

How about we simplify the language of the following paragraph of the "When to use Rollback" section?

From: "Rollback must only be used to undo edits that are blatantly nonproductive, such as vandalism. This includes edits that are obscenities, gibberish, extremely poorly worded content, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other useless remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. "

~~To: "Rollback must only be used to revert vandalism and edits made in bad faith in mainspace. Banned users may also be rollbacked on sight as their edits are nonproductive."~~

To: "Rollback must only be used to revert vandalism and edits made in bad faith in mainspace. Edits by banned users may also be rollbacked in accordance with WP:BAN."

Rollback should only be used in the mainspace when the edit was made in bad faith. We shouldn't be reverting good faith edits, especially those of new users. This wording, "extremely poorly worded content" could refer to an edit made in good faith. Wording tweaks very welcome! Seraphim♥Whipp 14:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support this. These are the terms under which it was approved in the first place. No real conversation has happened to widen the scope as it exists now. RxS (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the last sentence be changed to "Edits by banned users may also be rollbacked in accordance with Misplaced Pages:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits." (Someone feel free to make that link look prettier.) I think you are absolutely right about the concern that the "poorly worded content" phrase can be (and has been) misinterpreted. Risker (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I use rollback against user space vandalism, and I guess others probably do as well. So, I'd suggest:

"Rollback must only be used to revert vandalism and other bad faith edits, such as gibberish, or obscenities. Edits by banned users may also be rollbacked in accordance with the Banning policy."

PhilKnight (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I confused the wording a little. What I was trying to say is that no good faith edit should ever be rollbacked in the mainspace. Perhaps we could add that to "when not to use rollback". Changing that other particular clause to, "Rollback must only be used to revert vandalism (in mainspace, project space or userspace)", would solve that. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:33, 27 August 2008

This works, though I'd be a little concerned about what constitutes bad faith. But I'd be fine with this. RxS (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed wording change. D.M.N. (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the wording of "Rollback should only be used if reversion would be exempt from the three revert rule: use is restricted to reverting bad faith edits, such as vandalism, edits by banned users, and addition of material that unquestionably violates our biography of living persons and copyrights policies. You may also rollback yourself, or any edits in your userspace, provided that you do not restore any of the aforementioned types of bad-faith edits. If you do revert an edit, consider explaining to the user why their edit was reverted". I strongly oppose any wording that uses the word "must", because it causes needless restriction where the edit should be reverted, but doesn't fall exactly into the rules (such as ignoring hidden notes in articles). Sceptre 15:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

the rewording is actually dangerous when taken out of context - Banned users may also be rollbacked on sight as their edits are nonproductive.", this should NEVER be done 'on sight', you should always take time to see what the edit was about. If the banned editor has removed a clear BLP vio, then the person reverting is actually wrong (and legally becomes responsible for the vio) because our duty to the living figure is a higher duty than our need to enforce a ban on a user. --87.114.17.155 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors who introduce copyrighted material, or unsourced negative material about living persons should probably be reverted with an edit summary, instead of being rolled back. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should encourage users to explain reverts on the user's talk page. You only get 255 characters for a summary, but you get a few thousand times that on a talkpage. Also, a user is more likely to read messages on their talk pages than in the edit history. Sceptre 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I support a more restrictive wording but I'm not enthused about "bad faith" being the criterion, as it requires forming a theory of mind. Anyone who disagrees with me here is obviously editing in bad faith, right? I personally like "blatantly unproductive" and if I have any doubt, I use Undo instead and provide an edit summary even if it's just "rv nonsense" or "rv apparent mistake". Using up that whole extra 10 seconds totally sours my editing experience, but I manage to bounce back. As regards banned users/BLP vios - should there be some wording in there that you take responsibility for content you restore when you use rollback? Or that it is your responsibility to review the substance of the edit you are making, just as if you were doing it yourself? I dunno, just asking... Franamax (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See response to PhilKnight regarding the "bad faith" wording. It was my mistake. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And add one of my favourite edit summaries here, which covers some of the concerns when rollbacking a page blanking that may contain a policy-vio: "rv unexplained removal of text". Franamax (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this is being changed is there any chance of emphasising the point that users should read text they are reverting back after text deletion / blanking? Having found quite a few instances of IP users being warned for removing text that turned out to be factually incorrect / hoaxes / BLP violations, I think that could do with a bit less speed and more care at times. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following the exact wording being discussed any more. I'll propose a version here to replace the entirety of the first section and encourage Seraphim Whipp to also propose her current wording:

"Rollback is only used to undo edits that are blatantly unproductive, such as vandalism. Rollback can also be used in your own user and talk space to remove content when you don't wish to provide an edit summary. Edits by banned users may also be rollbacked in accordance with WP:BAN.

Rollback must always be used with care. If you restore text to a page, you are in effect making that edit yourself, so you should take care to ensure that the text does not violate any Misplaced Pages policies. When in doubt, use Undo with an edit summary to explain your reasoning."

The second paragraph pushes things a bit, but I think it's worth discussing. Franamax (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds much better :). As long as we get back to a version that can't be wiki-lawyered. Rollback is supposed to be used for the benefit of the encyclopedia and no one benefits when good faith edits are reverted and new users are driven away. Seraphim♥Whipp 22:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For every IP that edits, about 99.9% of them don't register accounts. I would still like to see something encouraging people to explain the revert on the user's talk page; most IPs don't read the history of the article, but they will read new messages on their talk page. Sceptre 00:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Realistically though, you should only be using rollback when the edit is so obviously bad that even the editor who made it knew it was bad. "My firend Paul is teh gay" and "asdasdasd" don't need much in the way of explanation when you roll them back. The purpose of the user talk comment in those cases is not so much to explain policy as to clue them in "oops, someone is actually watching me do this bad stuff". The class of edit that needs proper explanation on the user page is a little more complex, so maybe it's beyond the scope of rollback usage? You're actually talking about good editing practice in general. Franamax (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The page should reflect that then; it'll solve messy situations like mine. I'm actually arguing for talkpaging newbies for all reverts. I also think that, if the user is knowledgeable that the edit is bad (i.e. has been warned against it recently, or common vandalism), it'd be fair game to rollback. Sceptre 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, you've hit the nail squarely on the head. If a proposed rollback needs some sort of explanation as to why it was done, it shouldn't be used at all. That's why usage shouldn't stay too far away from pure vandalism.

I'm also uncomfortable with the proposed text "blatantly unproductive, such as vandalism". There's too much slack in what might be blatantly unproductive. For example, say a newbie added this to the New York Mets article:

In 1987 the Mets made a huge mistake by trading for outfielder Danny McSlow.

Now, assuming such a trade did occur, is that blatantly unproductive? Should you roll that back? It's easily fixed after all, and certainly not blatantly unproductive...but that's just the type of edit that gets rolled back on a new user without any real comment at all.

I think we need to make it clear how rollback is to be used:

Rollback should only used to undo edits that are blatantly vandalism. Rollback can also be used in your own user and talk space to remove content when you don't wish to provide an edit summary. Edits by banned users may also be rollbacked in accordance with WP:BAN.

The bottom line is that if it isn't clearly obvious to a newbie why one of his edits was undone, then rollback should not be used. RxS (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all McSlow had a great arm, he just ran into injury problems. :) But no, I would never use rollback on that, I'd either try to improve it or revert it as "POV edit". If that kind of thing typically gets rollbacked, that would confirm my initial opposition to granting rollback to non-admins. Now we get into judgement, and an editor who would judge that as "blatantly unproductive" IMO should not have rollback rights. I hesitate though to label edits as vandalism, to me that's a bad word and calling people vandals doesn't usually help things (especially when it's a rotating IP and the next user gets called a vandal). I personally prefer, when it's persistent, to just drop a human written note on the IP talk page on the lines of "Your edits aren't helpful" - it works almost 100%. I guess I want to leave a little leeway in there for judgement and the occasional lapse thereof. This is going to get more important in about one week, when school starts up again, it's been a nice quiet summer at least on my watchlist! Franamax (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

McSlow was a drunk and a bum. Anyway, my point is that while you might not roll that back, many would (and do). I want to draw the line clearly enough to exclude rolling that kind of edit back. Your point about labeling edits as vandalism is a good one, but one that goes well beyond the rollback tool. That is, it's not specifically a rollback issue and can't be fixed by adjusting how rollback is used.

The thing is, we can say that an editor who thinks that edit is blatantly unproductive shouldn't have the rollback tool (or should have it revoked) but wouldn't it be easier and less work to prevent rolling that type of edit back by tightening the defintion of rollback usage in the first place? RxS (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good new wording. Suitable number verbs. bishzilla _ROARR!! 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC).

Removal

We shouldn't advocate removal of the tool for simple "misuse" - for all the support to assume good faith to the newbies, there is none towards the experienced editor. The assumption of good faith does not decrease if an editor's experienced. Thus, I propose we only remove the tool for actual abuse; i.e. systematically reverting all/a select user's contributions, or consistently poor judgement with usage of the tool (that is, if a random selection of a hundred reverts was sampled, ten should not've been undone ). A key reason AGF exists is because it is human to make mistakes, but this page doesn't allow people to do so. Our practices should never be in opposition to AGF. Allow people more leeway; without it, it does more harm, because people who have had it removed for one or two mistakes per hundred reverts (such as myself) get chilled off from reverting edits that should be reverted for fear of unnecessary re-removal and admonishment. Sceptre 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting "non vandalism" edits that "should be reverted" can always be reverted the "old fashioned way" or with undo, Twinkle, or another script that allows an edit summary. Nobody says you have to use the rollback tool for these even if you have it. However, I would support cutting some slack to those who used rollback on non vandalism edits that were otherwise revertable. That is, give them a warning about it and tell them to use conventional reverts with edit summaries in the future. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Why though? To me, you got two warnings when you were granted rollback - your first and your last. You were judged to be capable of understanding the policy and its conservative application. That's at least true now that we've tightened up the wording. Rollback was never intended to be a convenient way to revert things you don't like seeing, it was posited with a specific purpose. And by your own words, there are easy alternatives - so why put in place an infrastructure to track warnings (were they warned first?) when we can just keep it simple - abuse it, lose it? It's easy enough to get back, just convince someone that you're a responsible editor. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of two borderline cases right off hand. One was when I was reviewing the edits of an RFA candidate, I found one case where he was using the rollback tool on edits where the editor was removing text from an article without an edit summary. Something that is viewed as vandalism by some but not by others but usually revertable. I left a note on his talk page about it advising him to use the "other methods" in the future. (still voted "Support" though) Another was my bad. While using Huggle I noticed someone adding a bunch of profanity to an article and promptly hit the big red button. It turned out to be the lyrics to the song the article was about, revertable but not technically vandalism. I apologized to the editor but said it was probably best that the lyrics stay out. (article later deleted so no diff) There are other possible scenarios involving edits that may or may not be vandalism depending on whose reviewing them. I wouldn't want to see someone loosing the broom because of a borderline case and a zero tolerance policy. IMHO rollback should only be removed without warning if it's being used on obvious good faith edits. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sceptre, but I disagree. Removal of this permission (and it is a permission, not just a tool) does not affect any editor's ability to contribute to the development and maintenance of the encyclopedia in any way. Its removal is as benign as the granting of the permission. Misuse is sufficient for its removal in my mind. It has nothing to do with AGF and everything to do with responsibility. Risker (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidental misuse should never be a criterion for removal, nor should good faith usage. Wilful abuse can be a reason, but making mistakes is a key part of humanity, and it's better to reform than to punish. We should not expect constant perfection, because that notion is doomed from the start. Sceptre 02:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The timing of this discussion probably doesn't work well for you Sceptre, and not to pick at a sore, but weren't you claiming that you didn't misuse rollback at all? That then calls into question your judgement and leads to you being asked (forced) to take the extra steps of hitting Undo and providing an edit summary. The purpose is to give you that extra opportunity to think about what you're doing. (I'm making no judgement on the details, imagine someone else's name in there and make a neutral assessment) In any case, we all managed to survive using just Undo until last February, so it truly is no big deal not to have the capability, it's just a pain in the butt sometimes. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Strike while the iron's hot. I'm saying I didn't misuse the tool this time to the level which would warrant removal. Removal #1 was abuse. Removal #2 was misuse due to a misinterpretation of the vandalism policy which transferred itself to RBK. Removal #3 is just a more lenient, but still allowed, usage of rollback which has been admonished for predisposition against me, for some because I have a history, and for some because they're trolls in editors' clothing. Sceptre 02:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably come as no surprise that I disagree. Rollback was always suppose to be an easy come easy go tool. Editors need to meet a very minimum threshold to be granted the tool, and it is revoked with a low threshold of misuse. The process is low impact, low maintenance. What we don't want is an endless stream of AN/I threads debating about whether someone has misused the tool. An experienced editor is expected know the limits of how rollback is to be used, there's no good or bad faith involved. And in my experience no one has had it revoked over one mistake. If a change needs to be made it's tightening up the language used to describe how it's to be used. RxS (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I should say, rollback is also very easy to give back once someone has learned how to stay within bounds wielding it. I see no need to make much fuss over granting someone rollback, taking it away or giving it back to them. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Too much rollback

Is there a special page where you can report users who get too carried away with their rollback rights? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond asking nicely on the user's own talk page? I don't think so, but the normal DR process should allow for that. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you mean using rollback inappropriately, it can be (and often is) taken away from the offending user without much fuss. This page would work fine (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) if you want to bring someone's usage to a wider audience. RxS (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- Gurch (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or you can just talk to any admin. Any admin can grant/remove rollback. --Philosopher 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Access to Special:UnwatchedPages for rollbackers

Is Special:UnwatchedPages page accessible for Rollbackers? Vjdchauhan (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

No. Admiral Norton 14:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisting Rollback?

I didn't see an option in the "My Preferences" section to automatically watch pages you rollback on. Does anyone know if there's an option/tool somewhere that will do that? Thanks in advance. --Philosopher 00:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I cross-posted this question to the village pump as I'm very interested in the answer too. Franamax (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)