Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on January 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.
Shortcut:
WT:RFR
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] See Also

[edit] Training editors with rollback rights

I just asked for and received rollback rights, and promptly goofed in my first use of rollback (didn't realise there is no chance to review changes before committing). I think there needs to be some information on this page to help a new holder of the rollback right to understand how the feature works. I'm WP:BOLDly adding a sentence to the article. Please feel free to improve it. --Jdlh | Talk 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The New Admin School RollBack Section is the best place. I try to advise editors of its existence when granting rollback. Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that the page could use a little re-wording/addition on how to use to tool since we commonly give it out without knowing if the user knows how to use it. Maybe just expalain exactly how to revert, the fact that it does not add pages to your watchlist, and that it does not warn users. Also, I know that when I first started using rollback, and was going through a users contribs and decided to rollback I would click the "rollback" tab next to there edit thinking it would like me to a diff of their edit, but that is not the case. Maybe there would be a way to explain that you must manually click "diff" before reverting. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can an Admin review this user's Rollback right?

Though it is pretty much late to report it now but still I thought to go on. User:UzEE reverted my edits here using Rollback(during an edit war, whereas my edits were not vandalism. Can an Admin please have a look at it? --SMS Talk 21:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It was 1.5 months ago.... MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right, but still a violation is a violation, whenever it was done. --SMS Talk 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A violation that old will be ignored, however. We will now AGF and assume that UzEE has learned from his/her mistake. —Kurykh 22:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok! --SMS Talk 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Header changes

Resolved. Header changed, Tiptoety talk 18:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Due to a recent revocation of rollback, and some associated discussion on my talk page permanent link I have to say that the recommendation to read Wikipedia:Rollback feature is not overly obvious. I'd quite like to put the following at the top of the page;

Before using Rollback

It is strongly recommended that editors with Rollback read Wikipedia:Rollback feature before using the tool. Misuse of the feature, even if unintentional or in good faith may give cause for it to be removed.

Thoughts or objections welcome. Pedro :  Chat  10:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I was the editor who stood at the wrong end of the gun, and I survived only barely. Rollaback rights apparently are kept under a tight leash, and it would be mighty helpful to declare so. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I would also recommend more explicit instructions/guidelines on the "rollback feature" page. As I have found out, rollback is for explicit vandalism and other edits that resemble explicit vandalism. The idea of keeping the interpretation of "nonproductive edit" somewhat open with a reference to it being "usually vandalism" is hardly enough. I say this particularly because plenty other Wikipedia policies/guidelines imply a more liberal interpretation of "nonproductive edit" that may or may not be related to "vandalism" as such. There is no indication on the rollback page that those interpretations do not necessarily apply to the rollaback feature. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly anyone granted the rollback authority needs to understand what its purpose is and is not. "Nonproductive edit" could be a bit vague. Without redefining what vandalism is, it could be stated that it means things like I had mentioned before: gratuitous comments, vulgarities or obscenities, gibberish or extremely poorly worded and uncited nonsense, "hi mom" kinds of stuff, smart-aleck editorial comments, and other stupid remarks that have nothing to do with the subject. It could be added that these remarks usually come from IP addresses and red-link or single-purpose or vandalism-only accounts, and that the editor should be encouraged to (1) warn the user on its talk page and (2) turn in the user on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard if it persists. It should NOT be used in connection with any kind of content-dispute or edit-war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe some real-life examples of items targeted for rollback would be helpful. I use the criterion of what I call "stupid comments", which is risky because I know exactly what I mean by that, but some would interpret "stupid" to mean "something I don't agree with". Here's an example that you approved as being a good one to roll back: [1] It turned out to be a pretty good case, because I added to the already-existing warnings on the user's talk page, then checked his contributions and saw he had been nothing but a vandal for some months, and turned him in to the vandalism talk page, whereupon he was quickly blocked. That's a little extreme, because often these characters are one-shots who disappear quickly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Here's another example [2] which another editor beat me to the roll-a-back. It's simply someone gratuitously changing something, either as a "test" or just to be stupid. Some editors will post a polite little warning about "your test worked" on their user page. My inclination is to do nothing, and see if they continue to mess around or if they disappear. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • In this case, the guy immediately made another stupid change [3] so it's time for a warning, not a cutesy polite warning but a "stop it" message (as per my usual approach, rightly or wrongly). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • He has now been warned twice [4] and the third today, if it happens, will be the charm. Sorry about all this stream-of-consciousness stuff. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree it is important to make new rollbackers aware of when rollback should and should not be used. Although we could add a header to the top of the rollback requests page linking to Wikipedia:Rollback feature, there is still no clear explanation at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Have a look at the wording in both WP:Requests for rollback and WP:Rollback feature: rollback is meant to be used as a fast method of undoing "nonproductive edits, usually vandalism". However, if you follow the recent discussion at talk page, it is clear that this explanation is vague and confusing and is being misunderstood by well-meaning editors in good standing. The explanation would be less vague if it gave a few clear examples. Baseball Bugs gave some examples above of what qualifies for a rollback. I'd like to add those to Wikipedia:Rollback feature if nobody objects. - Neparis (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree. There is no value in having the above banner if the guide it directs to is inaccurate. Pedro :  Chat  09:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support New users to rollback who have never used the tool before should be pointed to a page that could tell them how to use the tool. In this case, it is Wikipedia:Rollback feature. There also needs to be a warning on the WP:Requests for rollback page about misuse of the rollback tool because rollback in the wrong hands could mean a lot of work. I hope this helps to clarify my views. Cheers, Razorflame 00:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure why we really need to discuss this change, all it is is a summary of what the whole page already says, just in a easier more precises way. Just apply WP:BOLD and add it to the page. Tiptoety talk 19:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally prefer at least some discussion before WP:BOLD edits! However I agree, this is getting nowhere so I've done it. I'll look to change the actuall Wikipedia:Rollback feature page to make it clearer as well. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:BOLD and discussion above, I made some changes to try to make it clearer when the tool is allowed to be used. - Neparis (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This should do. Pretty clear, obvious and unambiguous. Nice work. Thank you all, people. I wish this has been done earlier. It would have saved me some heartburn. Well... better late than never. Cheers. This community never ceases to amaze me. Wikipedia works, and against every impossible odds. Err... looks like I'm getting all sentimental. Cheers anyways. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merely hide details?

From the top of the page:

"User scripts have been written that 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."

What does it mean when it says they "merely hide details from the user". What details, and why "merely"? Ashton1983 (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User scripts like Twinkle operate by using 'undo' to quickly revert edits. It's made so users aren't hassled by having to manually undo edits each time, instead an automated way of doing it is employed making the process quicker and more efficient. It hides the 'undo' details (as in, everything that goes on when you manually press 'undo') and 'merely' because it isn't an actual rollback in the technical sense since rollback is much more efficient because of its using the database directly instead of merely editing the page. -- Mentisock 11:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Ashton1983 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Question

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)

[edit] Why names/decisions removed so quickly?

Resolved.

I was wondering what the rush is on removing rollback requests from the page so quickly? I understand not having a huge log build up, but there are definitely benefits to the transparency of information. I like to review reasons requesters do or don't get rollback and the brief discussion that sometimes happens. Maybe archive once per every 24 hours? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with them being removed so quickly (reduces the potential for over-dramatification exponentially), but there should be a clearer link to the approved/not approved archive on the page. (right now, as far as I can tell, its only in the section called "administrators"...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't even notice that. That would be fine. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that entirely answers my question, I guess a more prominent linking would help. How does one mark this resolved? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
By adding {{resolved}} on top, like I just did :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)