Wikipedia talk:Rollback feature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Duplications and forks

We already have Help:Revert#Rollback. Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Category?

there is Category:Wikipedia administrators. Should there be Category:Wikipedia 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia " 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)

[edit] 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 [revert] link after [rollback] 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[^T@lk/_Improve] 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^T § 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[^T@lk/_Improve] 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Rollback feature and Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback? Or a link to Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 ^talk 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^message 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 ^talk 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 ^message 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 ^talk 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ^{Let us reason together.} 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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". [1] [2] I disagree; I think the "or her" is harmless. Wikipedia: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 ^message 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 ^{Let us reason together.} 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)

[edit] Something curious I noticed

Did you know that the creator of the rollback page is a banned user? Wow. (NicAgent) Enigma ^message 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 ^message 02:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)