Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Formalities of rollback

It seems that some people have been affected too much by a 'strict usage of rollback to revert vandalism'. As I understand it, developers originally worried that rollback might be used in edit wars that could potentially allow hundreds of reverts a minute since rollback is fast, and that is a perfectly logical concern, but what is happening lately? It is illogical to simply use TW because an edit isn't vandalism (but revertible), if you can be more efficient by using rollback, is it not? As long as that user doesn't edit war in the traditional sense with rollback then it's rational to be able to use rollback in any situation that requires a revert... no? -- Mentisock 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that rollback leaves no option to personalise the edit summary. I believe it's possible to use a scipt to change it, but then you'd still have a "stock" comment unless you changed the script each time. The issue, I believe, is that reverting a good faith edit you disagree with via rollback implies that the edit you are undoing is nothing but vandalism. This, of course, only then inflames the editor whose work you are reverting. Pedro :  Chat  11:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, and usually I do leave a note (personally, I prefer to use the user talk page than just an edit summary, if I want to make sure they get the message). So, in my case here, do you think it was an overreaction? -- Mentisock 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally would have used undo and appended a "text doesn't make sense?" or similar comment to the end. The key thing is this. If you're undoing someone elses work it's polite to advise via the edit summary why. If you're undoing something totally unconstructive, where odds on the editor you're reverting wouldn't care (because they're making bad edits) use rollback. If not use something else where you can append some comments. I don't think it was out of line to be given a friendly "heads up" by Milk's favourite Cookie. Having said all that, there's not any real policy dictating what is or isn't an "unconstructive" edit. I'd just err on the side of caution. It's certainly not a clear misuse of the rollback tool on your part, and I'm sure Milk's Favourite Cookie wasn't implying that. Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did leave them a note on their user talk page though. -- Mentisock 12:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't notice that. Then to be honest, no problems. The key thing here is the communication. If you roll something back and immeditely go to the user talk to explain what you've done that seems fine (or better yet, explain before rolling back). Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I always leave them a note before I revert. Then I wait some time to see if they reply before I actually do what I said I'd do. So, as far as I know, it is simply logical to use rollback in these situations. -- Mentisock 10:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I prefer to leave a note and have a real editsummary, I've found I use TWINKLE more than admin rollback. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

Just a sort of in-depth question, but do you think that we could make it a requirement to make all users that request rollback to have a userpage. I know that it might be discriminating to require that users have a userpage before allowing them rollback, but to tell you the truth, a user without a userpage and armed with rollback is much more scary than a user with a userpage and they have rollback. Please also consider that users without a userpage are more likely to vandalize (not making assumptions here, just stating the facts). What do other users think about this? Razorflame 02:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think users without userpages are more likely to vandalize? I know tons of administrators without userpages and they do not vandalize. I mean we are here to create a encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Tiptoety ^talk 04:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the admins making the decision to give rollback permission are looking at more than the color of the userpage link? Kevin (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I'd like to see these so-called facts involving userpaged/non-userpaged editors and vandalism patterns, especially in relation to rollback. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It never bothers me really. Whoever is requesting, the administrator should take care in reviewing contributions indiscriminately. A user with a blue userpage link can be far more troublesome than a user with a red link. If a user doesn't want a user page, why should we worry about it? If their contributions are good, they've made a few hundred edits, and can revert vandalism properly, it's not an issue. Also note that we don't generally grant rollback to people with less than a few hundred edits except in rare circumstances, so if they've proven themselves through their edits then rollback is no big deal. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c add)(On another note), autoconfirmed users can use almighty-powerful twinkle, which not only has the rollback script but can do significantly more damage. Autoconfirmed comes after 4 days and 10 edits, so when looked at in this context, rollback is quite uncontentious and can be removed with two clicks. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've granted Rollback to many without userpages, fancy sigs, and less than 50 edits. It's not a problem as long as they use the tool correctly. Malinaccier P. (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I withdraw this. Cheers, Razorflame 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)