Wikipedia talk:Rollback/Archive 2

My change

I have changed the words "users" and "editors" to "accounts" because Special:ListUsers/rollbacker only indicates that a specific account has this right. Since Wikipedians are allowed multiple accounts, as long as they follow policy, saying "users" and "editors" would be incorrect (I for one am counted twice). Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 23:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit - not true

Currently the article states:

• "Rollback always signals itself as a "minor edit", hence the bold m at the beginning."

That's true, but it shouldn't be the case. Rollbacks are rarely "minor edits". This needs to change. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the justification is that rollback should only be used for blatant vandalism, and reverting blatant vandalism is a minor thing. –xeno^talk 14:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Offensive username rollback

I've added that you shouldn't use rollback (or use most other automated edit summaries) on users with offensive usernames. It only doubles the work involved in redaction, and after redaction removes any explanation that the reversion was a reversion of vandalism. You should use popups, manual reversion, or other custom edit summaries when reverting such users, leaving out the offensive content. Users should not be using edit summaries of "reverted edits by [real person] is an [insult]". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Does a reviewer automatically have all the tools that a rollbacker has? --Sulmues (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, being a reviewer does not grant you rollback. See Special:ListGroupRights. –xeno^talk 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Am i missing something?

I understand that Rollback rights are granted by administrators to trusted editors, but i don't see the point to that since one could simply use twinkle to rollback edits. Is the rollback right a legacy of old Wikipedia or am i missing something? --Itemirus^{Talk Page} 17:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

well, i found a partial answer to this in the talk page archives but still i am missing the point: either the rollback function is paramount to Wikipedia integrity and needs to be granted by an admin (in fact, rollback abuse can lead to have your admin privileges revoked) and Twinkle, to this extent, is a safety issue OR rollback is a safe feature (since anyone can install twinkle) and thus requesting rollback rights is a waste of administrators' time.--Itemirus^{Talk Page} 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Native rollback is faster, and a dependency for certain tools such as wp:huggle (and wp:igloo, I think). Twinkle doesn't work on IE. –xeno^talk 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That i read in the archives; still i'd like a clarification as to whether the rollback feature should be granted to a limited number of users or be available to everyone --Itemirus^{Talk Page} 18:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's handed out to users who have demonstrated they can recognize vandalism and properly deal with it. Twinkle can be installed by anyone, but it does much more than a simple rollback, and can be removed by admins if it is misused. –xeno^talk 19:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I really don't understand what the rollback privilege is. It seems to be exactly the same as the TW facility available to just about everybody. Actually, I find the TW facility pretty dumb, as it doesn't always roll back to where I want; far better just to manually reinstate a good version (which may be quite a long time ago). John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Fri 19:53, wikitime= 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Xeno: Twinkle works on IE11. @Johnmperry: I usually find the last good version of a page and hit the brown "restore this version" button. Eman235/talk 09:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Revoke rollback privilege for Docboat?

In March 2008 User:Docboat was granted the privilege of using rollback, but perhaps Docboat does not have enough experience here to use it wisely. On August 14, 2010 Docboat used rollback on Anismus and William Frederick James Harvey, in both cases disrupting other editors in the midst of improving those articles. Using rollback in this manner is not constructive. 66.167.43.31 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this issue has been resolved at WP:ANI.--Kotniski (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Rollback and Twinkle" needs better explanation

I just noticed the change in the rollback options while reviewing an article history and came here to find out what "rollback (AGF)" meant, and how that differs from just "rollback" and "rollback (VANDAL)", but came away none the wiser as how those hyperlinks are supposed to be used and how they work. Could someone who is familiar with these features please expand the section in the project page to explain this, or include a wikilink to a better explanation? —Quicksilver^{T @} 03:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This page explains MediaWiki's rollback functionality and its use on Wikipedia. It is not the documentation page for the user script Twinkle; that can be found here, and is already linked from this page. Gurch (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF stands for Wikipedia:Assume good faith. This page is, right now, the top link in google for Wikipedia Rollback AGF search terms. The Twinkle top-level page currently says nothing about what that means. More actually can be found at Wikipedia:TW/DOC. Thanks much, Group29 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Standards

I think that only those who are already reviewers should have the "rollback". But at the very least, lots of experience in dealing with vandalism, and a proven record of working well with others to keep things on an even keel would seem to be good qualifiers. Most issues can be handled with regular revertings, discussions and warnings. Alexandria177 (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the 1,700 people who had rollback before the concept of "reviewing" existed?

Everything can be handled without rollback, just some things much more slowly and less efficiently. That does not change the fact that rollback is useful to anyone doing significant monitoring of recent changes.

By analogy, you can browse the Web by manually typing HTTP requests into a terminal, but that does not make a browser unnecessary. Gurch (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Gurch, some of the people requesting "rollback" seem entirely to good at reverts, deletions and blankings already. And with no warning or reason for the benefit of the new editors. I am thus understandably nervous about the awarding of anything that would make a regular joe better able to delete at whim. I saw one request for "rollback" in which it was denied because the person hadn't done enough reversions and hadn't warned. After much argument from him, the only thing he took from it was that he needed to do more reversions - not that he needed to start warning! Alexandria177 (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then he won't be given it next time he asks either, so what's the problem? Gurch (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I think you misunderstand. There isn't any problem. I spoke of wishing certain standards, you seemed to disagree, I cited one example in support of my original statement. That's all. Alexandria177 (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The description needs a massive overhaul

Ok, so whilst I was offline, some snide actions of an admin were to remove my rollback power without allowing me the opportunity to discuss the matter in detail. I think the description of rollback needs to be massively rewritten. A lot of admins wrongly seem to think that rollback is only for vandalism. The current description does not say that.

At present, it says that edits that are self-explanatory are rollback-worthy. Now, when edits from IPs etc have, for example, "tag: incorrectly formatted image", I'd say that a rollback of that would be very self-explanatory. However, I don't see what an "undo" would do differently. All it does it cost me one more click, for the same result, meaning that rollback is somewhat trivial and not something that needs watching over with severe punishment.

A lot of editors seem intent to report others upon the slightest of "errors", though these errors are not present in the current description of rollback. I think this is pathetic. Rollback isn't a big deal, yet editors seem to patrol others' use of it, rather than going after the crux of wikipedia's problem; the vandals. Now, what I suggest is that people either decide whether rollback is JUST for vandalism or whether it is what it is now.....for self-explanatory edits, such as removing incorrectly formatted images and suchlike. This needs to be clearly spelled out, as I don't think people have the right impression of what rollback is. In any case, it shouldn't be removed, just because of a difference of opinion such as this. Obviously intentions are innocent, so why be as snide as to remove it whilst someone is offline?

In short, "for example" is not limiting as some people seem to think it is and this needs a clarification. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some snide admin? Ha! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing before I had chance to discuss it is snide in my book. Regardless, discuss the matter, not that. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No discussion is necessary to remove rollback. It can be removed by any admin at any time for misuse. The wording being discussed below used to state that more directly. It's clear that the watering down of the wording has confused this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the description is clear enough: ""Rollback" links should be used only when the reason for reversion is immediately clear". I don't see how rollbacking incorrect formatting can be included in that description. You could as well just fix the formatting yourself, after all. Also, the first sentence reads: "Constructive or well-intentioned changes should not be reverted without an explanatory summary, as it is impolite to the author of those changes." (emphasis mine). So, basically, don't rollback good faith edits, including ones that introduce formatting errors. Fix them yourself or explain why you revert them. --Conti|✉ 14:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

But what is it about a broken image (hyperlink) being removed that isn't self-explanatory? I'm still failing to comprehend that, as well as why the right was removed without even so much as a hint in the right direction before doing so. People are quick to tell me that I didn't help out the IP with what they did wrong....what about here? Instead, I'm minus the rollback without even being told prior, so I could fix the problem. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The more important part is that this was a good faith effort of the IP, not that the revert was self-explanatory. I agree that that wouldn't be an egregious case of rollback misuse, though, and would have gone with a reminder not to use it in such cases myself. Still, there's always the undo feature, and you can re-apply for rollback in the future. --Conti|✉ 14:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It was good faith, I agree. I'm not trying to say that the addition was bad faith by the editor, but the fact is, I considered the matter to be self-explanatory. An image doesn't work...you remove it. I wouldn't have minded if someone had told me I was wrong and told me not to do it again in the future, but it's the fact that rollback has been stripped immediately....whilst I was offline and unable to discuss the matter! I consider this extremely poor form by Harry. I shouldn't have to reapply in the future, I should have the action reversed immediately. I still stick by my opinion, but it's obvious that it won't happen again after this pain. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollback should be self-explanatory and not be used on good faith edits. That's what the guideline says clearly enough, IMHO. Individual cases should be discussed with the admins in question or at the appropriate noticeboards, which you are already doing, as I can see. Generally speaking, Rollback is an "Easy come, easy go" feature. It's only so easy to get because admins are usually quite strict when it comes to taking away the right again. --Conti|✉ 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There's being strict and then there's this. People seem to be alarmed that I revert without explanation, yet are quite happy to see someone have rights removed without explanation. It's a bit daft. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people are as 'happy' as you say, if at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As Jayron32 said on the AN page, it should be given out to every autoconfirmed user, and not treated like a bauble, and as something to threaten editors with. I really can't believe people care so much about how it is used. The exact same edit summary could easily be used in a manual edit. What would happen to the user then? I find it pretty ridiculous - one of the reasons I do not have rollback. I don't want it for someone to threaten to take from me, and you get the exact same effect from other ways. Aiken (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's Jayron, not policy by a longshot. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I started with "[a]s Jayron32 said"... it should be the guideline, not what it currently is. Aiken (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting someone without any comments whatsoever shows a lack of respect. We don't want to encourage that by handing out rollback to everyone. In addition to that, rollback is seen by most as a vandalism reverting tool (which it is), so the use of rollback implies that the rolled back edit is vandalism. --Conti|✉ 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why does it exist at all? We wouldn't want to disrespect anybody. In any case, it's not just for vandalism, as the page clearly describes. What would you do if an editor without rollback used the same edit summaries? Rollback means absolutely nothing to editors unfamiliar with its context in Wikipedia. Aiken (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we don't respect vandals much around here. :) And the other few legitimate uses of rollback are exceptions, like rollbacking yourself, or using mass-rollback when there is consensus to do so. And using the same revert-message when reverting a good-faith effort will probably get you a reminder to explain your reverts. --Conti|✉ 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The same goes for edits by banned users. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass changes by Gurch

It looks like Gurch has made some substantive changes to the guideline unilaterally, removing the entire important section about when not to use rollback. I believe that section needs to be restored. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the section, I merged the "when to use rollback" and "when not to use rollback" into one section. If you look at the page as it was when I last touched it, there is a very clear part about when not to use rollback, complete with bold text and a list of bullet points. That has since been removed. Gurch (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, either way, I think it was an important section to call out and should be restored. The current wording doesn't carry the same meaning. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone could put this list back if they wanted (from Gurch's last version, for example), but personally I don't think it's necessary - it's just a list of specific examples of the general rule, already stated many times, that you don't use rollback where an explanation of your edit is required.--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Edits by banned users

I know we've discussed this before, but is there a current consensus? It seems to be that reversion of a banned user's edit is the sort of thing that does require an explanatory edit summary, and so shouldn't be done using rollback (unless it falls under the exception for mass undoing of widespread edits; or under what might be considered another general exception, namely where the reason for reverting is made clear by preceding edit summaries).--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this exception. Two types of edits are not permitted on Wikipedia - vandalism edits and banned user edits. If it does cause an editor to question why rollback is being used on a contribution that they think was legitimate, AGF and ask the user why it was used - once it's clarified that the editor was treated as a banned user, or fell under a widely spread form of vandalism (eg; changing the birthdates of biographies to "20/08/82" when that's not in fact the birthdate), or a misguided exception, there's no drama. If there's a doubt, editors might not bother reverting at all, or may just find a content reason for reverting which is also permissible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying banned user edits should not be reverted, but if I were doing it, I would include an edit summary explaining why I'm doing it. And since an explanatory edit summary is appropriate (at least, I would have thought it was), it doesn't seem appropriate to use rollback. It's quite different from the case of vandalism, where everyone can see immediately that it's vandalism (we even say in the guideline "obvious vandalism").--Kotniski (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By keeping it in there, it comes with the implicit understanding that if you are not reverting obvious vandalism, or if you're not reverting edits by a banned user, or you're not reverting edits in your own user space, or you're not complying with the other exception, then you have no reason to be using standard rollback. That doesn't mean rollback is the only method of reverting any of these or that it's the best option available, but it is in there so editors (usually wikilawyers) don't call for other good faith editors rollback feature to be revoked when it's been used in any of those ways (including to revert edits by banned users, which like vandal-edits, are in no way welcome on Wikipedia). Ideally, this feature will become out of date at some point when a feature similar to Twinkle is developed for all browsers and becomes a component of MediaWiki software, but I suppose it's a case of "until then...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I suppose that makes sense (though there should perhaps be a warning to be prepared to explain your edits if asked to, since not everyone will know the user is banned).--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

By keeping it in there, it comes with the implicit understanding that if you are not reverting obvious vandalism, or if you're not reverting edits by a banned user, or you're not reverting edits in your own user space, or you're not complying with the other exception, then you have no reason to be using standard rollback

Which is a problem in itself. What about undoing your own edits? Gurch (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that wasn't in there before; it's another thing that's not going to get someone's rollback revoked (so long as it's their own edits). That should be fixed now. I've also added the clause at the top of the page stating "like with any edit made to Wikipedia, editors should be prepared to explain their usage of rollback when asked to." Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Rollback any easier or better than clicking Revert?

I don't understand the benefit of this feature over clicking Revert on the version you want to restore? IainUK talk 18:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback is useful if there are multiple edits from the same user that need restoring; this allows for easy multi-edit vandalism reverting, which does happen quite frequently Barts1a (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

fat-fingered rollbacks!

I was granted Rollbacker rights in August 2009, and have used it to what I feel has been good effect. Except when I'm browsing my watchlist on my iPhone. Probably a half-dozen times now I've been uncareful when browsing my list and accidentally tapped "Rollback". I try to stop the page load, but the reaction time is usually too fast, and I wind up having to rollback my rollback, and feel like an idiot. I know there're web functions to identify browsers upon load; is there any way to strip the "Rollback" from one's watchlist when Wikipedia detects I've loaded the page in mobile Safari? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if you ask at the technical village pump they'll help you out. --NYKevin @254, i.e. 05:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For anybody else who's wondering, they did: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 83#Rollbacking technical assist. — Fourthords | =/\= | 17:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think a better resolution would be to present a confirmation page after clicking "Rollback". I'm not sure if this has been suggested in the past. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Dummy edits

Suppose I revert something which doesn't fall under one of the exceptions listed on this page using standard rollback and I immediately make a dummy edit to clarify why I reverted. Is that okay? --NYKevin @257, i.e. 05:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Even admins have made plenty of mistakes by clicking the rollback button accidentally. It's completely fine, and highly encouraged, to make a dummy edit with an edit summary in those cases to clarify what happens. :) --slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback vs Twinkle

What advantages does Rollback have over Twinkle? Mr. Anon515 04:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is a special power given to administrators and certain users that is able to remove all previous edits by a user with one click. The Twinkle method is actually just doing a bunch of undo's which is not that neat but has the same effect. Sorry that I'm not good at explaining this, I hope someone else will help. Alex³ (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that rollback is faster to do than Twinkle. Is this because of the reasons you said? Mr. Anon515 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is performed entirely server-side, so basically it means that one request is sent (by clicking on a rollback link), and the server does the rest of the work. Twinkle has to obtain revision information, find the right revisions, and then commit the pseudo-rollback edit manually in order to accomplish the same thing—all using separate requests, which take more time each. --slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback is build-in to wikipedia, Twinkie isn't so that may be why it takes longer--Superlightoftruth (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• These answers aren't really describing the advantages though, they're just describing the technical differences. When doing a lot of anti-vandal work via the recent changes or a raw feed, one will often find that you click on undo or Twinkle Rollback and someone else has beat you to it. You waste a lot of time this way and you may not end up feeling like much of a vandal fighter at the end of the day. Editors with the rollback privilege have more likelihood of "getting the kill" because of the speed difference. On the other hand, if you don't do a lot of vandal-fighting it is of absolutely no value in my opinion. I rarely use it because it is so much more difficult to customize edit summaries and Twinkle automatically opens the offending user's talk page and allows one to give a quick templated warning notice or block notice (for admins). When you use rollback privilege you have to right click on the user's talk link first and open another tab then go there after the rollback unless you have a custom script. Twinkle is well worked out and regularly updated. I got rollback when it was first given to non-admins (in early 2008), and then became an admin about a month later, yet I probably used rollback only a few hundred times back then and less than 50 since then, mostly by mistake or because I didn't have time to warn but the vandalism was obvious.
• BTW, if you make a series of mistakes with Twinkle, you might get a nasty post on your talk page, if you make a series of mistakes with Rollback, you will probably lose the privilege summarily and may end up the subject of a nice long dramafest on ANI.  :-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Also, Rollback privilege allows the use of Huggle and IGLOO.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• The rollback button also displays on recent changes and page histories while the Twinkle version of rollback can only show when you click the revision. TheQ Editor (Talk) 20:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem with one specific sentence in When to use rollback

What is the rationale to include the bloody horrid sentence "Similarly, editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war"? It seems that if editors do not use rollback to edit war have, for the most part, demonstrated full understanding of the expectations for usage of the feature. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring, to begin with, is a blockable offense. There is no such thing as "okay" edit warring, except in very specific, very obvious cases (e.g., vandalism, blp violations, child porn, etc). Therefore, edit warring—especially to the point where it results in a block—will cause you to lose all of the special privileges associated with otherwise-trustworthy editors who are able to follow core editing policies. --slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding rollback edits to your watchlist

Is there a way to do this? I used to use a js proposed a few years ago here, but since the recent MediaWiki upgrades, it no longer works. Does anyone have an updated script, or know of some other way to add rollback edits to your watchlist? Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback in user talk

I've come across use of rollback for non-vandal edits in user talk space. I was about to warn when I noticed that rollback is authorized for use in one's own user space. I think this makes sense in true user space but in user talk it is problematic. Why should one ever rollback a non-vandal comment on one's talk page? See example: this edit by Rollbacker Jasper Deng.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have made a parenthetical note to clarify that this is not for use in user talk unless another rule applies, it goes against the intent of the privilege to use this for non-vandal edits in any talk space, including one's own user talk.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've reverted. A user has the right to remove anything from their user talk page that isn't outlined at WP:BLANKING, even if it isn't vandalism. That right exists for a good reason: to make it easier for someone to walk away from an issue. Anything that undermines that principle is a bad thing, even if I agree that the use of rollback on user talk pages shouldn't be encouraged. IMO being considered a faux pas by the community is sufficient. —WFC— 11:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The result though is a net loss of communication, if I don't like your comment so I revert it using rollback, I have implied that your comment was at best not welcome and may be vandalism; on userspace it is inconsiderate to make changes to another user's userspace without a very good reason - talk space however is for talk. If I have rollback, I need to be open to comments, I can remove them with ordinary editing and an edit summary, or I can respond to them (and I often do both as I move discussions frequently for unified discussions) but I don't believe a person with advanced rights should ever use rollback on a non-vandal edit in their own userspace. Anyone who would do that shouldn't have rollback.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • If I have rollback, I need to be open to comments needs to be rephrased. If one wants to edit Wikipedia, one needs to be open to comments. That doesn't mean that every comment needs to be replied to in 2 seconds and there are sometimes comments that one doesn't need to reply to. Yes one has the right to remove comments from ones talk page but doing so is the same as saying "screw you" and doing it with the rollback tool is the same as saying "I consider your good faith concerns vandalism". Compare it to leaving no tip vs leaving a 1 cent tip in a restaurant. Leave no tip and the waiter can consider the possibility that you forgot. Leave a 1 cent tip and he knows you didn't. If you leave a message unresponded to, it might be that you missed it, haven't gotten around to it yet, or maybe no reply is necessary. Simply tossing it off your talk without comment says "yes I saw it but I don't give a rat's ass".--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree with your rephrasing. My point was that editors with extra rights must act like all editors ought to act (the anomaly of admins being for another discussion); you helped me clarify that point in my own head. Even removing a comment with ordinary editing is acceptable in my book with a normal edit summary that tells us why you removed it (e.g. maybe you manually archive, maybe you actually do think it's vandalism). Whacking it with rollback suggests you may not have even seen the content of the message.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
          • I would at this stage ask whether an admin should be desysopped for wilfully ignoring the proposed wording. If not, it's a non-starter. Regardless, when dealing with something which is antagonistic or spam, but not out-and-out vandalism, it always has been and always should remain a user's perogative how to deal with it. —WFC— 15:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
            • As to the admin, it's irrelevant for two reasons: 1) this page doesn't deal with admin rights, and 2) I was stating an ideal, I don't mean to imply that I would revoke the rights from a user for a single violation, only that it should be considered a violation (and yes, I have similar views about admins). As to dealing with things on one's user talk, I manifestly disagree. The user must be civil and communicative. Reverting a good faith comment as if it were vandalism is neither civil nor communicative.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
              • Rollback is an admin right; for as long as you are an admin, you have rollback. It is therefore necessary to be very careful about adding violations (your word) and very specific about the consequences of repeated violations (your word again), so that any consequences can be applied equally.

                And while I agree that casually rollbacking good faith comments is in almost all cases unacceptable (barring special circumstances such as an interaction ban), it is generally of no relevance to the rollback tool. If I rollback something that is not obvious vandalism, and subsequently rollback a request to explain or remedy my actions without further action, that in itself is already just cause to remove rollback. But if I have the right to remove anything not covered by WP:BLANKING, it follows that, subject to exercising my own judgement (which all rollbackers and admins allegedly have), I should have the right to do that in as convenient a way as possible. —WFC— 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

                • I do not have and do not plan to ask for rollback rights; but as to my User talk page, I archive it manually (for the most part chronologically) and do not change a word; to do so would be dishonest. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
                  • In that case, anyone who has ever removed anything is dishonest.

                    The rollbacking of good faith, personalised comments in user space is in my view already covered by "Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed." Antagonistic comments from a user whom you have made clear you are going to have nothing to do with, does not fall into the above category. Unsolicited spam does not fall into the above category. If for some inexplicable reason the consensus here is that the status quo is intolerable, the wording should be explicit that the consequences are the same for admins and non-admins. —WFC— 13:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

                    • It can't, this page doesn't have the competence to decide what the punishment is for Admins, that's decided at ARBCOM, often with a preceding RfC/U and several AN and AN/I threads. Though if it said it was a violation it would be a violation for admins, I agree. I mentioned to two people in the past few hours that they had use[d] it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected and I didn't even consider taking the rights away from either of them. This isn't a strict-liability rule. It's a rule but it's just a rule and as an admin I have to consider what the community would want done under the circumstances, especially when using summary powers like this or at CSDs. In the edit at the top of the page, the only talk page example I have handy, the Rollbacker had made this non-AGF comment on the IP's talk page. The IP was refuting this and asking how to complain about another editor. Editors with extra tools need to be extra polite.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• And that includes admins.

  If what you are suggesting is not an extension to what is already written, it would be nothing but instruction creep.

  If what you are suggesting goes further, but can't result in the tool being taken away for any user, there is no point to it.

  If what you are suggesting goes further, but this page's lack of competence (your word) would result in the creation of a two-tier rule on rollback use, I would submit that this page does not have the competence to make that change. —WFC— 14:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? 1) I don't believe the rule was ever intended to include user talk; 2) the tools could be taken away for violations of the current rules but many factors decide whether they will be, again it's not a strict liability rule; and 3) It would not create a two-tier rule at all; no more than the current rule - ARBCOM will not remove the bit from an admin for using rollback on good faith edits, at least not the first time; THAT would be against consensus.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree to disagree on the first point. The second point is correct in principle. But if someone is using rollback inappropriately, you already have the ability to warn them or in extreme or long-term cases remove it. All this will do is stengthen your (collective term referring to admins) mandate to remove rollback for spurious, personally devised standards that you (see previous brackets) have set for non-admin rollbackers' behavior in their own userspace. If that is the only thing they are doing "wrong", they have no case to answer. The third point is one of the most clear cut cases of self contradiction I have ever seen. —WFC— 15:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, let me just try to clarify my third point then because I'm not communicating it clearly, obviously. I agree that the rules should be the same and that what is here is the rule for rollback for all users. All I mean is that we can't say just because a rollbacker would lose the privilege for something and admin would be de-sysopped for the same thing. That's just not reality. If Admin rights could be completely unbundled so that they could lose just rollback, then it might happen. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the alternative description, and apologies if I was a bit blunt with my previous post. It's fair to say that I was having a bad day. I agree with your pragmatic evaluation of the current situation, but it is because of this that I believe we should err on the side of discretion. Discretion on the part of the rollbacker, and discretion on the part of the admin (or in theory Arbcom) considering whether a user should retain the tool(s). The acid test in just about any situation, never mind rollback, should surely be whether a user's actions are reasonable. It follows that if there are reasonable circumstances under which a rollbacker might not follow the proposed wording, then the wording would not be worthwhile. The more egregious situations that you describe are in my opinion already covered by the current wording, and ANI is an option should there be a more borderline case. —WFC— 18:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, my real concern is that this action can be uncivil and yet the editor can reply, it's specifically allowed on WP:Rollback, leaving one with no option except ANI. What if we added some text to say "(caution should be used in using rollback on good faith edits in talk space at it may be seen as uncivil)"? Thereby removing the possibility that users, like the one I reference above, will see this as a license to rollback any edit in user talk under any circumstances. I'm not saying I think admins should remove rollback from users who rollback edits in user talk but that rollbackers can't say "sorry, this is specifically provided for and I'm going to keep doing this."--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• FWIW, I would have done the same thing as WFC. Also, lately I get the sense that the Community does not want instruction creep in guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Done? All he or she did was revert me.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • He or she has also explained why the bold edit was reverted (though in more depth than I would have). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting this

I just came here to express the same concern expressed by Jasper Deng in July 2011. Via my watchlist, I noticed a rollback of a good-faith message left on someone's talk page. This upset its author, who reverted, leading to an edit war that easily could have been avoided if not for the entirely unnecessary provocation of treating a constructive edit as vandalism.

Before leaving a note for the rollbacker, I checked Wikipedia:Rollback and was surprised to see "your own user space" listed as an acceptable context in which to use rollback. Certainly, there are instances in which it is appropriate to roll back edits to a user talk page, but the guideline's current wording seems to imply that it's okay to routinely roll back edits to one's own talk page. This simply isn't so.

I find WFC's arguments perplexing. It's true that "a user has the right to remove anything from their user talk page that isn't outlined at WP:BLANKING, even if it isn't vandalism", but that doesn't mean that he/she necessarily has the right to do so via rollback. Just like edits within the encyclopedia, the fact that reversion is appropriate doesn't automatically mean that rollback is.

WFC also stated that this is a "non-starter" unless "an admin should be desysopped for wilfully ignoring the proposed wording." Huh? Why on Earth must a behavior justify desysopping before we can advise against it? WFC "agree[d] that casually rollbacking good faith comments is in almost all cases unacceptable (barring special circumstances such as an interaction ban)". Why isn't that a sufficient reason to say so?

Better yet, why don't we simply remove "your own user space" from the list? Is there any legitimate circumstance not covered by other items? WFC "agree[d] that the use of rollback on user talk pages shouldn't be encouraged", but that's exactly what we're doing. Why? —David Levy 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

I tried to log into huggle but it said I needed rollback privileges. I checked to see if I had applied for it a while back but my name is not on the user list. However, when I check edit differences, it comes up with rollback (AGF), rollback and rollback (Vandal). Does this mean I am a rollback user or not? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not a rollback user; you will need to apply for rollback privileges if you wish to use Huggle. The reason you have those other rollback options is because of a tool called Twinkle. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - granted--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Desysopping

I don't think we need arbcom every time an admin abuses this feature. Community consensus should be enough.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

accidental clicking

i kinda think it should be made less easy to accidentally click rollback when you're opening a bunch of pages >.> (either that or i should just be more careful haha) Glacialfox (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a method to add to your own Monobook.css or Vector.css page a directive to permanently hide the "rollback" link. If that is what you want, I can dig it out (probably should be in an FAQ at the top of this page). If you are looking for something to protect you from your own carelessness, examine your computer and somewhere you will find a switch labelled "0/1" or "On/Off", set it to "0" or "Off" and your problem will be solved. ;) Seriously, you have to be careful when you have a powerful page in the foreground. Or even the background - I was playing Solitaire once and when I tried to put the black 5 on the red 6 I overshot the window and saw "has been rolled back" show up. After that, I got very careful about minimizing my watchlist screen. The lesson is that if you want easy access to the rollback tool, you must equally accept responsibility for when you do access it. Franamax (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. xD You don't need to find it for me, I'm just gonna see if I get used to it being there (cause I've just had it since this afternoon). Glacialfox (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

New section on accidental use

As there are several threads above about accidental use, I've added a section on the project page explaining what to do. Feel free to update this if you think I've not been clear enough.  An optimist on the run! 16:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some personal CSS to hide rollback in watchlist could be useful here. And please read what "null edit" actually is. — AlexSm 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I I've fixed the "dummy edit". Feel free to add something about css, possibly a separate section.  An optimist on the run! 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)`

Which is better?

Can somebody tell me the difference between Twinkle and Rollback? Which one is better? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. the wub "?!" 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Rollback feature → Wikipedia:Rollback – Rollback feature was the original title of this page in 2006, later Wikipedia:Rollback feature. This page describes the software feature, the user right and the users, and there is no other page to disambiguate. There is no reason not to have this page at the more generic Wikipedia:Rollback. ▫ relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC) JohnnyMrNinja 05:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Mike Cline is right, my reasoning isn't clear. The main reason, it is called "Rollback", not "Rollback feature". No need to keep it at the more awkward title. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Relising comment, other editors need to weigh in on this as there is no apparent clear, compelling rationale for change in the nomination. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose! Entering "Rollback" into the Search box produces the following ...

In political science, rollback is the strategy of forcing change in the major policies of a state, usually by replacing its ruling regime. It contrasts with containment, which means preventing the expansion of that state; and with détente, which means a working relationship with that state.

There should be a disambiguation section here. Therefore, I oppose the requested move to shorten article title.

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think cross-namespace disambiguation has ever been a problem for us. See Sockpuppet (Internet), for example. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support, shortening titles for help pages is always a good idea. Furthermore, rollback really isn't much of a "new feature" anymore, so we don't need this additional word in the title. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm in favour of being as concise as possible and there is no compelling reason for the longer title. In response to Gareth, the proposal is to move this page to "Wikipedia:Rollback", rather than simply to "Rollback". —WFC— 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for that WFC. In that case, I withdraw my opposition forthwith. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, that was my fault for an unclear nomination. The page was originally created in article space, but was later moved to project space, and will never go back to article space. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Something of a no-brainer, there being no other use for WP:Rollback. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's almost always called just rollback, and there's no danger of confusion with anything else in Wikipedia context. Jafeluv (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - why not?--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor edit - not true, Part 2

Hey, guys, I'm a new "rollbacker," and I've noticed that the rollback edit summaries all contain the bolded m designator for minor edits. As another editor pointed out in a section above in 2010, this is rarely true. Often, vandalism creates significant BLP problems, and other ill-judged coding or formatting edits make a complete mess of an article; hence, it's usually not "minor." What is the logic to not removing the m designator? It appears to be misleading in many, if not most cases. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Quoth User:Zepppep (from a post on my user talk page), some admins/editors have settings in place to ignore minor edits but reverts or vandalism is something you'd definitely want to make sure was brought to their attention. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback right is unnecessary

Just my humble opinion - I stressed this point a couple of years ago. I regularly use both Twinkle and STiki to rollback vandalism and they work very well. Seems the only thing that the rollback right has going for it is that it works on the server side, while Twinkle and STiki work on the client side; technically it should be faster and cleaner - in practice no one notices the difference. With Twinkle and STiki any autconfirmed user can rollback multiple edits by a vandal with just one click, just like the rollbackers. Anyway before rollbacking, except blatant cases such as page blanking, one must carefully check if it's really vandalism or a good faith edit, so who cares if the rollback right is half a second faster ? Also STiki has an option to automatically post a warning on the vandal's talk page, while a rollbacker must do it manually. The rollback right is, for any practical purpose, redundant. --Itemirus (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely redundant, Because you can use the AFTv5 tool. Just like a Reviewer.--Anderson - What's up? 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

What the feedback tool, used to rate the quality of articles, has to do with the rollback function?? I'm confused.--Itemirus (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:UAL states that rollbackers may use the AFTv5 like reviewers.--Anderson - What's up? 07:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok but the reviewing function adds nothing to the usefulness of the rollback tool itself. It is a secondary tool that can be assigned independently, if necessary; how does the AFTv5 help me perform a better rollback to counter vandalism? This additional function has nothing to do with the fact that one does not need the rollback right to perform a rollback with one click.--Itemirus (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify here... Basically the AFTv5 people are saying, "We need a way to make it so that only trusted users can perform functions like hiding feedback. Rollbackers are supposedly trusted users. Let's give them this right." The right, however, has nothing to do with rolling back edits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's mostly a quicker way to revert vandalism without needing to view a diff of a page.--Anderson - What's up? 07:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Twinkle, I believe that rollback can still be used if you have javasript disabled. —WFC— 07:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

To that end, STiki is a much better tool; you immediately see the page diff and rollback with just a click. I am still supporting my case against the utility of the rollbacker permission ;-) --Itemirus (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, STiki chooses your edits for you. I have little interest in mass anti-vandal work of that nature, but use the other tools we're discussing to revert vandalism where I come across it in my day-to-day editing. —WFC— 07:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are right - STiki selects the pages for possible vandalism. A normal rollbacker would use his own watchlist or the recent changes page. Yet the recent changes page content is not dependent on the rollbacker and changes unpredictably so , in practice, the result is the same as checking random pages from STiki. The javascript issue is a petty one. I see no security issue with Wikipedia that is grounds for browsing with javascript disabled or NoScript blocking the site.--Itemirus (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And rollback is still required for Huggle and Igloo. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• As a global rollbacker who has access to this tool across all public Wikimedia Foundation projects, I have to strongly disagree. Stiki and Twinkle are mainly unique to this wiki, and my global version of Twinkle can only go so far (and can't do edit summaries in the right language if I revert on foreign-language wikis).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because it's a foreign version of Wikipedia.--Anderson - What's up? 03:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a rather ignorant comment. There is no such thing as a "foreign" version of Wikipedia. MediaWiki software supports all languages, and the Wikimedia Foundation supports all language versions of the encyclopedia. There is no such thing as a "native" or "foreign" version of Wikipedia. Franamax (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

And JS-based tools cannot take advantage of that support in MediaWiki.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The global rollbacker permission may indeed be useful; I was contesting the usefulness of the English Wikipedia local rollback permission; if rollback is required for Huggle and Igloo I didn't know; since these are not the only tools with which you can perform a rollback, your assertion can be ignored. I am stressing the point that having the rollbacker right is not a necessary condition to perform a rollback on the English WP.--Itemirus (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the significance of the rollback right is certainly grossly overstated - any damage anyone might do with it, they could do almost as easily without it (and if they find the right script or tool, they could do a lot more damage a lot more easily). By making rollback a "right" that has to be granted, rather than just (say) a gadget that can be activated through preferences, we've implanted the idea in our collective mind that it must be some kind of big deal. But really it shouldn't be. Victor Yus (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Rollback indeed is more abusable than Twinkle/StiKi, but not by much. Rollback links exist on the watchlist and history pages, while Twinkle links do not. Thus it's more easily used to engage in edit warring or other misuse of rollback. Remember that no non-autoconfirmed user can use Twinkle; and besides, one reason I requested rollback initially was because Twinkle does not support all browsers, especially old versions of Internet Explorer which I sometimes used on public computers. Twinkle's edit summaries do not necessarily suite some purposes of rollback like reverting a grossly malfunctioning bot en masse (although that can be fixed). Also, I believe StiKi needs the use of rollback. Remember that Javascript tools are always slower and less efficient than rollback, and while it's not 100% noticeable on a single revert, Javascript tools waste time when mass-reverting abuse.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mean one needs to be a rollbacker to use STiki, you are wrong. I do not have rollback permission, but I regularly use STiki to rollback vandalism. It can rollback multiple edits with one click and automatically (can be disabled) posts a warning on the vandal's talk page. I find STiki an extremely efficient stand-alone tool; the only drawback is that it only works on the English WP, as far as I know. --Itemirus (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• There are several use cases where rollback is superior to any of the gadgets or standalone tools available. First, in cases where it is unambiguously clear that a large number of edits to different pages from the same editor need to be undone, and where the circumstances do not require review of the individual edits, rollback is still the most effecient way to deal with the problem for those without access to WP:MASSROLLBACK. There are also instances where a user or gadget attempting to load the content of a page will fail, and where a rollback without loading the page may be necessary. I would not be suprised if there were other edge cases where rollback is clearly superior. These are extremely rare occurrences, but they do happen. I agree though that rollback really doesn't pose a larger risk of abuse then Twinkle, and I wouldn't have a problem if we wanted to bundle rollback with autoconfirmed. BUT the rollback links should not be visible to editors by default. Requesting rollback improves the chances that the requester has read up on the proper uses of it, it would be a good to require affirmative steps by and editor, that would provide at least links to the policy, before it is enabled, even if that occurred on the gadgets preferences page. Monty₈₄₅ 17:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing "regardless of the means used"

Is there a particular reason why the guideline allows for the removal of rollback in events where no rollback rights were abused? I get the idea that someone who edit wars probably shouldn't have rollback (or any extended rights), but this looks like an invitation for drama to me, with no positive purpose whatsoever. If someone edit wars and does not use rollback, then obviously his rollback privileges are not a problem, and taking away rollback tools does not actually solve anything. And if the rollback use is indeed a problem, then that can be dealt with anyhow. So I suggest to remove any "regardless of the means used" wording from the guideline. --Conti|✉ 17:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the cause is a misperception about the potential for abuse the rollback right represents. The reality is that rollback provides the potential edit warrior little advantage over Twinkle, and Twinkle use can only be revoked through a non-technically enforced topic ban. (ie get caught using it and be blocked) The only trust that we should be looking for when considering whether an editor is suitable for receiving or keeping rollback is whether they have actually abused rollback, and whether we trust they will not use it to vandalize. I suggest we convert this into an RFC to formally discuss changing the policy. Monty₈₄₅ 17:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a full blown RfC for such a minor change on a guideline, especially if (as is my suspicion here) there will be no real issue with the suggested change, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let me also ventilate my humble views since I have been the one who is - one might call - the inspiration (sarcasm intended) behind this proposal. I think that's a great idea. Remove "regardless of the means used" from the page, since this allows for the practice of taking away rollback rights/permission for unrelated problems (e.g. edit wars, incivility, etc) and that is

1. utterly needless because one can easily be blocked, banned, warned, criticized, taken to all sorts of noticeboards.
2. lending too much power to admins (and let's be practical).

I hope this helps. If somebody takes offense to my views I apologize in advance. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• When deciding whether or not to grant rollback for the first time, it's reasonable to consider a history of edit warring as a reason to deny the request, because since we can't know for sure how someone will use rollback, it's reasonable to use this as a warning signal or a clue. However, once someone has rollback, we can see how they are using it, we don't need warning signals and clues. If someone already had rollback and is not actively misusing it, I don't think it should be removed for any other related, or un-related, reasons. It doesn't solve the underlying problem, risks focusing on the wrong issue, and stirs up drama. In fewer words, I support Conti's proposal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• If there is a credible risk for misuse of rollback, rollback should be removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• No, it shouldn't. No one can put the cart before the horse like that. It is the equivalent in article content to WP:CRYSTAL. What needs to happen is for Admins not to make spurious claims of abuse of a specific user-right and to compound that genuine mistake by developing a case that the editor concerned should have the facility removed even though there is not one scintilla of evidence that they are other than an entirely trustworthy user of Rollback. Who are you to determine "credible risk"? The tool is easily granted and easily removed - IF and WHEN abuse occurs. Leaky Caldron 10:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)